snord

Thanks! I guess I owe an appology to gnam then!

Quick question I could not find an answer for:

When declaring a target for a ranged attack, do you measure the distance to the target, or do you measure the distance up to the range oF the weapon?

For instance, imagine Von schill with his weapon of range 12" declares an attack against an enemy model and that model is 14" away, but you don't know that. What is the correct procedure?

1. Measure the distance from VS to the target, finds out that it is 14" and so the attack fails.

or

2. Measure 12" from VS, find that it is not enough to reach the target and so the attack fails.

In other words, can you use ranged attacks to measure the distance between models, even if they are out of range?

Its bad of them, very very bad of them to have so much ready for Gen con I was planing to save up a couple of hundred £ for it and buy the random little bits and limited edition models, and now i find i have to save up lots more to buy the entire book I cant afford that on such short notice:( Sad times And Evil Wyrd And more masters, i don't need that i have like 22 already far to much And now i want more Although the puppet wars thing sounded great i keep wanting to gtet that but just to expensive, now its more and cheaper shouldn't be a problem to get it now

I try to be positive and think about it from the bright side... after hearing the podcast this morning I figured I have until early September (~3 months) to prepare the paperwork to file for bankruptcy, after the buying spree in august. And after filing, I will have a lot of time to play with the new models!

Was playing the other day with a friend and he was playing Pandora. One of my models failed a Terrifying check and was falling back, meaning it had (-) on his flips. It also was suffering from Dementia and was within Padora's 12" damage bubble.

(1) Dementia (CC: 12M/Rst: Wp /Rg: 12) Target model must succeed in a Wp -> 13 Duel before taking any Action, or the Action automatically fails.

As I had little chance of succeeding in such Wp->13 duel, I said I was passing. He then argued that even a "pass" is a "pass action", and so I would have to make the Wp->13 duel for each of my "pass actions", taking damage from Pandora for each time I "failed to pass".

So is pass an action, and as so does it require the Wp -> 13 duel from Dementia?

Thanks!

To be honest, I never take Nino with Lucius... Lucius likes his guardsman, because he can issue order for them to shoot with +2Cb (if he is not reinforcing), and the Drill Sergent can use his aura to give them + flips on attacks. IMO, Austringers shooting with Cb 9 at 12" (2 shots) or 18" (1 shot) with plus on attacks and ignoring line of sight are better and cheaper than Nino shooting at 16". Of course, that does not count Nino's trigger happy trigger that when it goes off is awesome as well.

If you want elite lists, I don't think you can find much better elites than austringers... hehe

Hi. Your question was answered by nix. The effect ends when one of the two is true. 1 he model touches jakuuna or 2 the Walk is reduced to 1.

It is a "strange" effect IMO, as I have a hard time imagining someone getting "so slow" that he can barely move just to regain full speed again , but I agree that as written, it is probably the best "interpretation".

Thank you both

Not sure about 1 and 2, but on 3:

Even if Jakuna leaves play, the reduction would stop once the target reached a Wk of 1.

Hi Bill, thanks. The reduction would stop at Wk 1: but would it remain 1 for the rest of the game or would it immediately go up back to the printed Wk/Cg ending the effect?

Not sure if this was answered before, as the search returns nothing. A few questions about Jaakuna Ubume's action A Child's Cry:

(0) A Child's Cry: This model and a target model within 6" perform a WP->WP duel. If the target loses the duel, it receives a cumulative -1/-1 Wk/Cg at the start of each of its activations until it is in base contact with this model or its Wk is reduced to 1.

Assuming the target lost the WP duel, and so it is taking the cumulative -1/-1 Wk/Cg every activation:

1. If the target moves into base contact with Jaakuna, does it immediately cancel all the penalties and it gets its Wk/Cg back? For instance, if he moves into base contact with its first AP on his activation, can he try to disengage and move away at full walk speed with the second AP?

2. Is the effect applied to the target or to Jaakuna? In other words, if I want to Dispel Magic the effect, do I dispel it on the target or on Jaakuna?

3. What happens if Jaakuna leaves the game (killed, sacrificed, buried forever) while a model is affected by the ability? Since the model will never be in base contact with Jaakuna anymore, will it have its walk reduced for the rest of the game? Or does the effect ends as soon as Jaakuna leaves play?

Thanks

I would guess Silurids and Gups are the closest official models you get to frogs... and they can play on a Marcus crew... I would start with their stats and modify if you want to...

Canada / Quebec / Montreal / snord / Gamer's Vault - http://www.gamersvault.ca/

Also please set the same store for CannonFodder as we play together.

I've been playing with it and for me, it works best when I dilute it with a drop of water. I use an old drybrush to take a bit of liquid greenstuff, put on my palette, dilute it a little bit with water (half the water I would use to dilute the same amount of paint), and then apply it to the cracks I want to fill. Before it dries, I use the wet brush to remove it from places I don't want it to be. After drying I usually just use a file to smooth any part that is still rough.

Before drying, you can easily use water to clean up the brush, palette, etc. No problems there.

(1) Massive dose: Target friendly living or undead model receives one of the following effects.

...

Speed: Target gains Reactivate. Sacrifice target at the start of the Closing Phase.

...

Question: can a Witchling Stalker dispel the Reactivate, without dispelling Speed? I.e., deny the reactivate to the model, but still letting the model be sacrified at the start of the closing phase?

Tom, I found this:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?25721-Dispel-Magic-Question&p=323175&viewfull=1#post323175

Now I don't know the reasoning Ratty used there, as the RM (page 19) says that an effect "is anything that changes a model's state". So I don't understand why having negative flips due to falling back is not an effect. But given he is the rules marshal, I think the issue is solved.

Von Schill wins you games by himself. I use him a lot in my guild crews (and I have basically all guild models to date).

Desperate Mercs are great, but I only use one.

Convict Gunslinger is a good model, but I don't use him all the time.

Jack Daw is great for strategies/schemes were you have to kill masters/henchmans or big models (just never take him against Leveticus or Collette).

Hamelin is fun to play, but situational.

I still don't think Sue justifies it's cost in a Guild crew, unless you know you are playing Pandora/Zoraida, but I have to play him more.

I am having a ton of fun with McTavish. It grew on me a lot.

I will second MagicPockets in saying that what annoys me the most is the negative play experience he provides to both the player that is playing him and the opponent.

The endless cycles of rats activating, being killed, respawing, activating again, looooooooop that... is painful. The master itself is a very powerful model, but the interactions with the crew are the things that make me not want to play him or against him.

I know this, but some do specify, which would solve the issue.

I copied the quote from the book, but I think it is the same as printed on the card. I can check tomorrow, when I get home.

Actually, I think there is precedent. In the case of fast vs slow, if you have one and gain the other then they both cancel each other out and both effects are removed (as per RM page 34 under Action Modifiers). So you could look at it like this

~ Watcher hits Daw and uses his trigger to take away Daw's current terrifying 14

~ aSeamus checks to see if Daw has terrifying and finds that he doesn't

~ aSeamus gives Daw terrifying 12

The key here is that both Daw's original Terrifying and Light Target are removed until the start closing phase, and since the Light Target isn't there then it could not prevent aSeamus from handing out free terrifying.

At least...that's how I see it.

Edited to reference rules manual.

@Mydnight: your explanation is plausible, but what would happen if the watcher hits Daw again with the Trigger? It would lose Terrifying->12, I think that is clear, but would it immediately gain it again or not?

My bad... just looked over the cards and Hjelmen is right... any spells... not sure why I always assumed it was Flame Burst...

Anyway, in this case I would argue that yes, flame wall damage must count as it is a spell... and contrary to Rasputina's Ice Pillars, Flame Wall is hazardous, but does not say it is terrain.

(removed to avoid confusion)

I can also see the 2 arguments and during the game I accepted my opponents argument and played as (, but it is a tricky question. Please note that although the wording on the Light Target induces people to think that it is a one shot point in time effect, it is actually an ongoing effect. Reasoning is modes like Jack Daw have a "continuous Terrifying -> X" talent, and Light Target will remain on Jack Daw cancelling Terrifying until the end of the turn. A subsequent Dispel Magic on Light Target would bring Terrifying back.

So we have 2 continuous effects canceling each other (terrifying and light target). Would the addition of another continuous Terrifying (from Mark of Dread in this case) restore the Terrifying->12 to the model?

Another way of thinking: the fact that the model has Terrifying printed on the card qualifies the model for the +1 Terrifying. When Light Target cancels the Terrifying until the end of the turn, will this immediately "re-qualify" the model for the second effect of Mark of Dread giving back Terrifying->12?

As I mentioned, I can see both sides of the argument and I am fine with whatever one. Just would like to play it correctly...

Thank you for the opinions. We played as 2 separate instances of the effect, so Dispel removed one at a time, but I was no sure.

Avatar Seamus has:

Mark of Dread: While this model is in play, other friendly models with Terrifying Ability increase their Terrifying by +1, while friendly models without the Terrifying Ability gain Terrifying -> 12.

Watcher has:

Cb(:rams) Light Target: Defender loses Terrifying when hit by this Weapon.

Imagine Avatar Seamus has a model in his crew with terrifying, for instance, Jack Daw is Terrifying -> 13. So, because of Mark of Dread, it is effectively Terrifying -> 14.

What happens if the Watcher hits Jack Daw with the Light Target trigger?

a) Jack Daw loses Terrifying until the end close phase.

Jack Daw loses Terrifying->14 until the end close phase, but because of Mark of Dread, it immediately regains Terrifying->12.

Avatar Seamus has:

(0) Succumb to Darkness: This model receives -2 WP and increases its Terrifying Ability by +2. This action is cumulative and lasts until the end of the Encounter. This model cannot perform this action if it would reduce its WP below 1.

Was playing a game today where aSeamus used this twice (over 2 turns, obviously) and so was effectively -4 WP and Terrifying +4.

Then a Witchling Stalker succeeded a cast of:

(1) Dispel Magic: Discard 1 Counter or end 1 effect on target model. Wounds on the model orCounters carried by the model cannot be discarded.

Question: will the dispel magic remove Succumb to Darkness as a whole, cancelling the -4 Wp +4 Terrifying, or will it cancel one "cast" of it making aSeamus -2WP +2 Terrifying?

RM Pg28:

As I read that, and in the case mentioned, the Hooded Rider is the "Model killing this model", and as such he generates the WP->WP duel. This would make the hooded rider the attacker and the Proxy the target. (even though its the proxy's ability). As such, I2I would not trigger, but the Hooded Rider would win a tie.

Not sure how the official ruling will go, but that's how I read it.

The rule I use that allows me to reach the same conclusion as Nix is that in an opposed duel, when in doubt, the "active" model (as in the opposite of "passive", not as in "activated") is always the attacker. In this case, because the Rider is the "active" model attacking the GP, the Rider is the attacker. Same with obey, etc... the obeyed model is the active model...

When i saw how slow he was, my first thought was to pine box him and move him out with a marshall

I don't have its card in front of me, but if I remember correctly he can't be buried or sacrificed like the other death marshals as well.