Therril_83

I know Ratty replied already, but just wanted to point out that this is pretty clear from the FAQ on Malifaux.com So you Mimic the weapon Honeyed Words, and that weapon uses Wp to attack, rather than Cb. Now, break out your Oiran's, Sue, Beckoner, Zoraida and Doppleganger. Throw up the buffs and then Mimic Honeyed Words and Zoraida's Wp and go to town with Wp 13 (footnote: also works well with Stiched instead of Beckoner, but Oiran won't buff the stiched)

ye, I can't see why not. It's an effect and it doesn't kick in until the Start Closing Phase, giving plenty of time to dispel it.

I would think Snowstorm or Mechanical rider would be the two models to chose from normally. You could take Rail Golem or a Soulstone Miner if you like those, but they are special forces meaning you are locking yourself out from using the Freikorps, and I'm not sure even the rail golem is actually better than Von Schill..

Another way to get a buttload of Obeys in, is to use Sorrows. You could link them to Zoraida, or to the totem and use magical extension via Siphon Magic (that would work, right? ME doesn't state a name, only "connected master", not even "this model's connected master"), or you could hire a doppleganger to mimic obey for one more cast, and then link sorrows to her for more casts, and she can even heal so the wounds won't matter either.

I've always wondered why they took this very cheap (from a development standpoint) option and made two schemes, that are basically the same but one is extremely difficult, and the other one is perfectly reasonable. And I can't see any time I would take Round Up, ever. If I think I have a chance of tabling my opponent, it's probably a less experienced player I'm facing, and how much fun are they going to have if I go all out offensive and annihilate his or her team? If I'm facing someone with a moderate or higher skill lever, I'm not going to stand much of a chance of tabling them. I can't think of a scheme I dislike more tbh. Resser schemes suck, sure, but they can be employed when you want to challenge yourself against someone weaker. Round Up is even less usefull then, if you want both players to have fun.

I'm guessing you're referring to the Love spell of the Cherub. I'm a big fan of that spell, I just wish he was able to use soulstones to fuel it.. In the Simulacrum case, it's ahead with 2 points (if it uses it's Cb to resist) over the Cherub's Ca of 5, so you can never be completely certain that he can't resist. Against things with Wp 5 or less, you can really shut them down completely with that little totem. .. hmm.. you could potentially attach a Sorrow the the Cherub, and then use the Sorrow's Siphon Magic, beacuse then you can use a soulstone to power it... Gotta try that sometime

Really awesome models! I especially like the touch of the burned footprints, that's a superb detail which I might shamelessly steal if I ever paint my depleted up. Though they are far down the line since I don't tend to take them because I think they suck, but that's a totally different topic If I may also comment on the topic of a swedish tournament or something, me and a handful of friends are regular visitors (although not so much participants) of Lincon so if anyone organized anything there, we would definetly be coming. That's actually where we picked up Malifaux from, in 2011.

I've only tried using a sorrow with Jakob once so far, but I found it usefull and I like the idea. What I did was link it to Pacman to get it up the field, with Pacman healing the wound back in the closing phase without trouble. I used Doldrums a couple of times to great effect, paralyzing a Convict Gunslinger once and drawing out alot higher cards from my opponent's hand than I put in. With the options of using Pacman's other spells aswell if needed, I think it's a great investment for 3ss. I wouldn't even consider linking it to Jakob even if Dead Man's Hand had another wording, as I find it an incredibly bad spell, except for some very specific circumstances.

This may almost be considered threadomancy, but I don't feel this is cleared up. It came up in my game last night, and although I chose not to cheat in the suit to reflect it simply to avoid the argument, it would be nice to continue the discussion. So, my thoughts on the matter is basically what marshimartian wrote: Immolate does state that it can only be cast at models with burning counters, ie targeted at. It does not state that it would not affect them. There are a few examples of spells saying "does only affect models with .." and those would ofcoure not be able to be reflected unless the caster fills that requirement, but a spell saying "target enemy model" would be, since it is targeted against an enemy in the first place.

The new Oiran could also be fun with Pandora, though she only buffs +1Wp and only to living models, so won't be affecting Stiched, Lilitu or Insidious Madness, but some models would be granted +3Wp with both auras active. You could have Pandora at Wp10, or Beckoners attacking with their Wp9 as Cb, ignoring cover. Doppleganger and Sorrows would also be affected by both, and all the shenanigans they can pull with copying spells and abilities.. Or imagine Zoraida, doppleganger, those two buffers and a stiched. You could have the doppleganger delivering Gamle Your Life on Wp13.. alot of models in that combo though, but just food for thought

Again, this is a slight problem with Wyrd not being totally coherent with their wordings. But Vanessa states Now, this only adds a time to expire. It doesn't state the end point. It should have said something like I think there is a very very clear difference between these wordings, and I really hope that wyrd didn't mean the latter but wrote the former, because then I don't think we can rely on the "Rules as Written"-concept at all when it comes to this game.

I'm also with Egoon on this one. It doesn't state "lasts until" it just adds another timing to expire.

The FAQ says and if you check the Clarification and Erratas-section, under damage resolution, section 5b states: This leads me to believe that the model continues to live as normal until he is hit by anything again, in which instance even if the damage inflicted is 0, he will pass through step 5 and check for death and die (unless it's the Black Joker on damage or a soulstone is used to prevent, because in both cases the resolution explicitly states you skip over to step 6 and you don't check for death). what do you guys think, is this correct? "or am I out riding a bicycle", as the swedish saying goes.. edit: as for reckless, isn't there some rule in the book that says a model cannot reduce itself to 0 wounds voluntarily? Rather than saying it can't kill itself, I mean.. I'll have to have a look at home tonight I think.

It really has nothing to do with who's side he's friendly to. If you obey him, he himself is using the action that moves him. And don't stare yourself blind on the word "spell" either, because Brace is not that specific. It's both Talents and Spells.

I think when triggers can be triggered is pretty clear, the problem is knowing which ones are supposed to trigger at what step in the resolution because of vague and confusing formulations. I suppose it's a question that needs to have it's own topic for each model that is unclear, but what I was fishing for with this topic is two things: 1) I wanted to hear other player's opinion on it and possibly wyrds aswell, but I suspect they are already aware of the issue and don't have time to answer all of these posts. 2) I want to know what the default meaning of "damaging" is. Does it actually refer to causing harm to the target model, or is normally referring to the Damage Resolution Process? Because knowing this, I can try the wording against the other statements, and if I can't deem it clear they mean any of the others, I can default back to the Step6-trigger. I think it was stated by marshals before the FAQ-documents that the default meaning was the process, but I'm not sure it still is.

Here we go again. I thought I was sure how this all worked, but I recently re-read the Errata-section and realized that I am no longer sure what triggers happen in what step. To be able to make what I mean clear, I've shortened down the process a bit, you guys all know where you can find the whole thing: All nice and clear. Now to what's bothering me. There are soooooooo many different wordings on triggers. My friend and I just quickly went through the rising powers book and came up with quite a handfull of triggers. And there is no real definition on some of these concerning when the triggers mean "after going through the damage resolution process" or when they actually mean "after inflicting damage". I thought I knew of such a definition, but again, those rulings were before the creations of these documents and are no longer valid. 1 - On Hit "...when hit by this weapon." (Cb, Watcher) "After resolving this spell and the defender fails to resist it..." (Ca, Colette) "After defender fails to resist this spell..." (Ca, Cassandra) "After hitting defender with this weapon..." (Cb, Cassandra) No question here, these happen after the attack hits, and takes no regard for damage. 2 - After resolving Damage "After resolving a damage flip..." (Cb, Malifaux Raptor) "After resolving damage..." (Cb, Collodi) This also seems quite clear, they resolve after the process, in step6 above. 3 - After damaging "After defender suffers wounds..." (Ca, Hamelin) "Defender suffering damage..." (Cb, Freikorps Specialist) "After wounding defender..." (Ca, Jack Daw) "Target damaged by this weapon is..." (Cb, Hoffman) "After damaging defender..." (Cb, Guild Hound) "After inflicting damage..." (Cb, Ryle) "When damaging defender..." (Cb, Lord Chompy Bits) "If target suffers damage from this Strike..." (Cb, Night Terror) Now this is where it gets interesting.. Some are rather clear, like Hamelin, it's in step5. But Hoffman and Guild Hound seem more ambiguous. Many of these could be considered either in step5 or step6. And one could think it makes no difference, but it makes huge difference for several reasons. One being the Black Joker for damage. If they are step5-triggers, black joker stops them from happening but not if they are in step6. Also, what happens if the model you attack is killed. If it's a step5-trigger, on-death-events happen after the trigger, if it's a step6-trigger they happen before (for example a knockback trigger being called on a model that explodes. Does the knockback happen before or after the explotion). Again, these are examples of different wordings meaning nearly the same thing. Some are clear they are in step5 or step6, others could be either. And some have had an errata (LCB atleast). I just wanted to point out the problem. 4 - The Exception "After successfully striking defender..." (Cb, Lucius) Uhm, what!? When the heck does this resolve, and what affects it? Does it resolve if you flip the black joker on damage? To my knowledge, this is a unique and very odd wording.. I think I would play this as a step6-trigger. Another good example I think is Taelor. I always assumed that if you triggered Knockback and flipped a black joker, it didn't happen. But if it's a step6-trigger, it still does. And I also assumed that if she triggered Knockback and killed a Wichling Stalker, he blew up before you got to push him. If it's a step5-trigger, you do get to push him first. In my view, this is a huge problem with Malifaux. Wyrd does need to go back and streamline wordings to remove these issues some time in the future, perhaps one year they should not produce another book to expand the system, but rather re-write all the existing rules to remove ambiguity like this. Anyway, that's a long process in itself which won't happen overnight. For now, what I would be happy with is for someone to tell me (backed with reasoning ofcourse) what is the default meaning of "after damaging". If I have solid ground on that atleast, I can continue reasoning with "well, it's not on hit and it's not inflicting damage/wounds ergo it must be after resolving damage" or something to that effect. Is the default meaning after resolving the process completely, ie Step6, as I would like to believe?

"it has been ruled in the past" is an invalid argument since the introduction of the erratas and FAQs on malifaux.com. You can (and probably should) stretch it to include Rattys stickied thread aswell, but I do hope they don't take too long between each sweep of clearing that thread and putting that info into the documents. Feels to me like that should be a ruitine duty the first/last of every month, but I ofc don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Bottom line: If it's not in the documents (or Rattys thread), it's not a valid ruling.

I also love Kade based on the model and the general idea of that kid. And I find in the game he has a few good things going. One is that people tend to underestimate him, which means he can usually go unnoticed until he starts to be annoying. His other major thing for me is his Cb and Df of 7. I've often had him tie up several of my opponents models by just engaging them and then popping defensive stance in the following turns. They will have a hard time bringing him down (until I flip the black joker...) aswell as to disengage. I do find he's rather cost effective at 6 stones, only problem I have when running him with Lilith is that he sometimes gets left behind due to not having scout or flight. He's just not very fast for neverborn standards.

I'd say nothing wrong with Menacing your own models, as you say there is an aditional 1" per casting to get out of it so pretty useful, unless you want your guard to move further via Issue Orders or something similar. as for 2), I'd say Lure works, since it's not an action taken by the Guard, and Menace doesn't prevent him from being moved, only from taking move actions. But Obey and similar type spells would be innefective as they force him to take an action he is not allowed to take.

What a fun idea. Question: how large are chips? Larger than 30mm I'd guess... would make pretty decent bases/inserts otherwise

I loved this spell when I read it and thought it would be great fun. But playing through a handfull of games I can not agree with you more. Perhaps if one focuses more on building a crew around discard mechanics, but I don't think Jakob's crew does this. Sure, Tannen can force some discards, as can Graves and Jakob via triggers, so maybe it can be done with all of them together. But otherwise I can't really see the point if it. I'm going to start using him as a cautious gunslinger more than anything..

I took some pics for my friends to compare the size, I'll share them if that's the kind of thing you're after. They're rather blurry, just quickly snapped with my phone to show the sizes of a few of the models from Jakob Lynch and his gang.

Got my order two days ago, finished building the models last night and tonight I'm going to get my first game with him in vs The Victorias. This work day cannot end fast enough Edit: a great game with the new models. Managed to grab a win because although I forgot to deliver a message before I killed sword-vic, I got to do it a turn later when he messed up and summoned another sword-vic in melee with a depleted. Did absolutely not have any great luck with Dead Man's Hand though. On four casts (that's 12 flips) I flipped 5 aces or eights, and only 2 of the remaining were odd numbers, so I replenished his hands as much as I did mine.

Does anyone have a picture of the sprue? would be interesting to see what parts it comes with and so forth..

She can have alot of forest on the table even if you start without any at all. Her Illusionary Forest doesn't end when she manifests, and in her manifestation she places 3x 3" woods (real ones, not illusionary this time) and she can even expand onto those woods with a (1)-action after she is manifested, though I suppose you want to use all of her actions to beat up people rather than gardening.