Hatchethead

I hate to admit, but it does make sense. If I have a model with a 1" diameter base (for simplicity sake) and a 1" wide strip of severe terrain: If I start in b2b with the terrain and move 1" to enter it, that costs me 2". If I then move an additional inch forward, resulting in being b2b on the opposite side, that also costs me 2". It costs 2" to enter and 2" to leave. This 2" move through severe terrain has cost me 4", as per the RAW. Some tiny, simian part of my brain still screams that this is somehow being "charged twice", but I can appreciate the ruling. Why should it be easier to leave than to enter? If it costs me 2" to slog to the middle of hard terrain, why should the slog from the middle to the opposite edge be any easier? :facepalm

Indeed, but the Issue Command specifically states that "a friendly model immediately makes a melee or ranged Strike or takes the Walk Action." This says to me that Lucius' involvement ends once the spell is cast. It simply creates a limited, out of sequence activation for the model in question. It's a limited form of Obey, really.

I believe the term is, "Frienemies".

It is still the Guardsman making the attack, so I assume he would have to pass the Harmless duel. I don't think Lucius' ability to ignore it is transferred via his command.

Exactly this. Condemned Whispers generates two separate duels. The initial Strike duel (obviously an attack) and, assuming the target is damaged by the strike, a second simple Wp duel. The second duel does NOT count as an attack as per page 18, meaning Immune to Influence, Stubborn and such do not apply. Is it intuitive? Not really, at least not until you realize how important page 18 is, the distinction between an attack and non-attack. Once you absorb the information and appreciate the significance, you'll be looking for non-attacks everywhere, at which point you'll also come to realize a) how rare they are and they do in fact make sense on base, logical level. Heck, even the fluff often supports the mechanic. For instance: The Condemned Whisper itself is an attack that potentially causes damage, the truth plunged into your brain like a psychic spike, at which point The Hanged has completed it's interaction with the target model. 1 Dg, maybe 2. Minor nose bleed, no problem. THEN, the target model must reckon with the secret it has been told, represented by the separate Wp duel. The Hanged has nothing to do with this secondary duel, it has already drifted off and is causing mischief elsewhere; but it becomes a struggle for the target model to hold his or her ground, struggling to comprehend the horrible, unassailable truth ...

Exactly. Both interpretations ultimately result in nonsense at some point. It's merely a matter of picking your poison and choosing which specific nonsense defines your reality.

"Paying twice" was quickly discounted. I identified and admitted to the error when I posted the rejigged diagram.

Meh. Neither is perfect. So long as I know which method the devs intended, I'm happy. At least it's a relatively easy fix. Measure from model base front to b2b with terrain for entering severe, measure from model base back to b2b when leaving. It's not complicated. It's almost elegant and somewhat intuitive, actually. As usual, I should've trusted my first instinct: Interpretation 2.

And there you have it. Thanks Kel! Seems so very odd to me. 8" (approx) to cover and remove oneself from 3" of severe terrain. I predict many sad faces at the LGS this weekend ...

... but in order to get to that point, nestled so neatly within the terrain, you would've have had to move into and through, paying double the entire way (unless you were air dropped or deep strike'd into that position). A large model would be able to move over and through terrain quickly, not spend more time mired in it (but even then you need to draw a distinction between an obscuring forest, which a larger model might find more difficult, and a patch of jagged rock, which a larger model with longer strides would blow over). Don't get me wrong, I see your point. There are ways to use and abuse both approaches. I'm honestly not 100% sure of my interpretation, but it's how we've always done it.

I'm aware of that. You'll notice I dismembered my own example in the paragraph immediately following. I wasn't posing this to prove my position, it was a means of illustrating how interpretation 2 is flawed from a reverse, logical perspective. It has me paying 2" to enter a forest (good) and 2" to enter open ground (bad). Sorry for the confusion. I agree. As soon as my base's point of reference enters severe terrain, the penalty is applied. What I disagree with is my base continuing to incur penalties even when my point of reference has left the severe terrain. Switching point of reference mid terrain is flawed, in my opinion.

I don't want to start an "I've been wargaming for X years" $$$$$$$$ing contest, so I won't. Every group I've gamed with has determined movement penalties based on the total amount of terrain present, not the time spent within it. 3" of severe/rough/difficult/whatever terrain = 6" of movement invested, beyond that is open ground and therefore 1:1 movement. It's how I was raised! If you have a model in the middle of a patch of severe terrain, measure from the front of the model base to the edge of the terrain base, double that total, from there on you are moving 1:1. You pay double to get to that point, beyond that you're moving into open ground and you're back to normal. It's how I've always done it, that's how my current group does it. If we're wrong ... I'm always happy to be the bearer of bad news and proper procedure.

Okay. Got ahead of myself again. You are NOT being double charged mid-forest (as gnam has point out above in true ninja fashion), but my point still stands regarding entering and leaving the forest. I've jiggered the diagram to illustrate my point: I used the model in the middle of the forest as my reference point. I look at it like this. Imagine the entire table is a grid made up of 1"x1" squares. Each 1" square costs a certain amount of movement to enter and occupy dependent on the terrain therein. If it's open, it's a 1". If it's severe, it's a 2" cost. Once you've "paid" to enter and occupy a square, you are free to choose a square beyond and enter that, paying the appropriate cost. I realize this is a massive oversimplification, but I believe it stands up even when you start dealing with fractions of movements. Once the front of your base is out of the forest, you're back to 1:1 movement (assuming I've been using that as the reference point the entire way through). I finish my move with the front portion of my base 1/4 inch in open ground, it doesn't matter that the ass end of your base is still 3/4 of an inch in the forest. The front base reference point already paid double-movement to occupy that space and has since moved on. Interpretation 1 lines up with my belief. Interpretation 2 suddenly forces me to spend double to enter and occupy a square of open terrain (leaving the forest). Boo to that.

Having taken a few moments to consider, I'm flip flopping. Interpretation 2 has me paying double twice for the same inch of movement (mid-forest). Interpretation 1 suddenly makes more sense to me. The logic of interpretation 2 also leads me to wonder: You move 1", coming into base contact with the forest. The next potion of the move starts in open ground, would this not result in "normal" movement until the entire base is in the terrain feature, carrying the model 1" into the forest before double move kicks in? If I pay double to leave the forest and enter open ground (having started the move with my base in the forest), why should I pay double to leave open ground (starting in the open) and enter the forest? ... because paying double to enter the forest makes sense. Paying double to leave the forest does not, just as paying double twice to cover the same 1" of mid-forest makes no sense. When leaving the forest (the front of my base is in b2b with the edge of the forest base), the inch of ground I'm paying to cover is open ground, meaning it requires an investment of 1". I've already invested my 2" to move into and occupy the inch of forest I'm standing on. 3" of severe terrain requires the expenditure of 6" of potential movement (3" of actual movement), as per interpretation 1. Interpretation 2 has us spending 8" of potential, 4" of actual. That doesn't sit right with me. I'm either being double double charged while moving within the forest OR I'm being charged double to bother enter AND leave, creating a strange movement-based double standard. Neither option makes sense to me.

If it takes 2" to get from one edge to the middle, it should take another 2" to get from the middle to the other edge. Interpretation 2. I've never thought of it this way, but I like this approach. It's elegant and more precise. Measuring from the back of the model base to the edge of the terrain base x 2 = total move until you return to normal, open ground. I'm just so used to measuring from the front of the model's base, it never occurred to me otherwise. EDIT: Wait. Hmm. I may be changing my mind. In my mind, 3" of severe terrain has always equaled 6" of potential movement. 1" toward (normal, in open ground), 2" in (double, equal to 4"), 1" in (double, equal to 2"), 1" out (normal, moving into open ground). Now I'm not so sure.

KILL IT WITH FIRE! Now! NOW!

The only balancing factor is the complexity of the interactions necessary to pull it off ... but given enough time with the wiki, anyone can get the order of operations down.

I believe Ratty spent some time on the dark side of the moon. His skill was earned in blood.

Ratatatatatatatat! eeeEEEEEE-BOOM!

The main problem is the hiring. Unless you include said model everytime your opponent announces Neverborn, there's no way to guarantee you will have it when it comes time to reveal crews. Creating new models to deal with balance issues is not a viable approach. Since you don't know the master prior to hiring, you cannot reasonably expect to offset strengths and weaknesses with specific models.

Suggestion: Maybe change "Deepest Fears" to "Tear-Away Face"? A little nod to Nightmare Before Christmas, not the first one to creep into Malifaux. "I am the $$$$$$$$$$ with the tear-away face ...!"

Dirtbikes & donuts?

You likely won't see model count creep in Malifaux, simply because the game cannot reasonably support more than 8-10 models without becoming a serious time sink due to the potential complexity of interactions. Just look at Hamelin and his fifty billion rats. *shudder* If you like shenanigans and a low model count, you're in the right place!

Oh! Are we talkin' Dragonlance??ARGUGH!!(junior high comes flooding back)

*Bows to the Queen of Off Topic-ness* I'm not worthy. 13th place. Pathetic!