Todd

Oops, I posted several questions at once, and put the eligible bit in there by mistake. Thanks!

Only if they also happen to have a corpse counter on them. Yes, the spawn mother gives silurids the added versatility of having to kill something in order to get a free 4" Wk in a very specific direction. She's a powerhouse alright. Hey, I just realized you get a free Gupps model with her. That's something.

No problem.

Collodi (0) Doll Friends: One friendly Doll within 6" of Collodi activates after this models activation ends. Effigy Aetheric Connection: One friendly modle with the Aetheric Connection Ability within 6" of this model may activate after this model's activation ends. Can an Effigy activated by Doll Friends make use of Aetheric Connection to activate another Effigy, and so on.

Marcus (0) Pack Leader: Target friendly Beast within 6” of this model activates after this models activation ends. Silurid Ability Silurid Pack: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Silurid within 6” that have not already activated this turn. Can the Silurids in Pack range of a Silurid activated by Marcus's Pack Leader all activate simultaneously (after Marcus)?

Rat's and Malifaux Raptors Flock: When activating this model, simultaneously activate all friendly Malifaux Raptors/Rats within 4" that have not already activated this turn. Does this type of simultaneous activation "chain out" as models affected by it activate themselves? That is, will the rats/raptors within 4" of the rats/raptors within 4" of the originally activated model also be eligible to simultaneously activate?

That's what I said, "obstructed". LOS can be obstructed by blocking terrain (not all line drawn across it=partial LOS under determining LOS).

Yeah, that would work fine. I was more concerned with slow models getting stuck hanging in mid-air, right out in the open. Could create some interesting new idioms though. "Like shooting Ramos' hanging from a ladder!" I thought a larger platform playing area l(evel with the airship or multiple airships) would even things a bit. Also it would add richness to the character of the Strategy. You could create a whole airstation/tower high up in the clouds. There'd be opportunities for models falling to their death! You could even leave some of the board as open air, giving the opponent a chance to shoot down the dirigible as it slowly makes its escape toward the board edge. I mean, its already homebrew, you might as well go all out and make it a story encounter. As a general strategy/scheme that would allow you to use the model, Stake a Claim effectively achieves what you're trying to without making up any new rules. The dirigible platform is the terrain piece on you opponent's half of the table. Insignificant models don't count. If you have at least one model in b2b with the tower at the end of the encounter you score 1VP (they get extracted, pilot the airship to safety, etc). Announced: +1 VP.

That's a good question, I can't comment on the rules intent, but... -From the Earth says, "when you would activate...", nowhere does it say instead of activating, or that you can't activate something. -The rules manual says, If you have models to activate, you must do so. -From the Earth doesn't say you have to activate Bad Juju. RAW: Summon BJ, Activate something (if you choose BJ, remember he is slow due to summoning). You should probably wait for a Rules Marshal though.

Strange. Blocked and Obstructed have an interesting relation to Blocking and Obscuring. LOS can be obstructed by blocking terrain, and LOS can be blocked by obscuring terrain, but the type of cover always remains dependent on the trait (blockinq or obscuring). @ Q'iq'el Where does it say that obscuring is reserved for area terrain? It seems like obscuring would be a perfect trait for something like a wooden linear obstacle (like a door or solid fence). You couldn't see completely across it, and it wouldn't confer armor +1 when you shoot past/around it. Also, I think you're right about page 59. It completely contradicts the other sections of rules.

Ok, I'm a dumbass. I see the relevant example in the diagram. Also, I believe I found a passage in the blocking rules that clears that question up. "If the intervening base has the blocking trait and its Ht is less than the model's or target's Ht, then the model has partial LOS to the target." I think I must have read that as "model's and target's". So, when targeting a model of equal size or smaller than the intervening terrain feature, the target's size is irrelevant? A Ht 3 model can see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 2 wall 30" away. Weird, and I thought the elevation rules led to some interesting situations.

Would models have to climb the ladder of the mooring tower to get in it? How tall is that anyway?

The entry is Gupps (plural?). They might be multiple small models on a larger base (like the SPAs, or Hoarcats). Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense for a baby silurid to be bigger than an adult silurid. Still not very impressive though. I'm hoping for a future Special Forces: Silurids!

There are airships of sorts in Twisting Fates (but I seem to recall them being more like a dirigible crossed with a gondola). I think its within the scope of Malifaux's technology level/theme. After having a look at the model you'll be using, I would suggest making the majority of the board representative of an airship terminal/station. Otherwise, maybe base the tower/tether on a 50mm+, and require B2B interact by certain models/certain number of models. Forget realism. Keep the requirement the same for everyone regardless of base size, for consistencies sake (maybe prohibit 50mm passengers). Balance-wise, there may be a reason why Wyrd didn't create any schemes that requires you to leave play. For one, you're outright denying your opponent the ability to complete any strategies/schemes that require them to kill/sacrifice your models. But for fun, I say go for it.

The rules manual seems somewhat ambiguous concerning small linear obstacles like fences or low walls (but maybe I'm just missing something). Two things seem to stand out; how do they affect line of sight, and how do they affect movement? How do varying Ht models/terrain work when determining LOS over a linear obstacle? Our group has usually defaulted to the los/elevation rules. However these seem specifically written for models on varied elevations. Should linear objects be treated as having shadows? Can a Ht 2 model see a Ht1 model hiding behind a Ht1 wall? How should a small linear obstacle (Ht1, 1/2" thick wall) impede movement? Should it at all? Treating it as severe seems to much of a penalty, as does using the climbing rules.

There are only a few very basic examples on page 60 of the rules manual. I haven't participated in a Malifaux tournament yet. From my experience with Warmachine and 40k, I'd guess its either up to the tournament organizer to define the terrain, or the players to agree upon before starting a round. In Warmachine, I've played different rounds on the same table using different rules (based on what my current opponent was used to using). No big deal, just don't let someone intimidate you into using rules that favor them too much. If the rules an opponent wants to use seem to give them an unfair advantage, or are just a poor/inappropriate representation of the terrain feature, get the TO to define the terrain for you. Talking about and defining terrain features is something you should really do before every game (even casual ones between friends). Every once in awhile, our group will stumble upon questionable situations, even on our usual terrain, and between players who're quite used to playing each other.

Hmm. Would you play a Ht 2 model poking half way around the corner of a Ht 3 stone wall as hard cover, but a Ht 2 model behind a Ht 1 stone wall as soft? Doesn't seem much different to me. Either way you're harder to hit. The big difference is the Armor +1 bonus. I prefer the hard objects=blocking/soft objects=obscuring method.

When my group started looking at Malifaux, I was attracted to Colette because I wanted to paint something "pretty" for a change. Not just a showpiece or one off model that would sit on my shelf, but an entire force that I could use in games. I felt like it would be a pleasant change of pace from all the square jaws, power armor, steam armor, monsters, and machines that I've collected over the years. And then I saw her rules...:clap: Marcus has been on my "to buy" list for awhile. I've proxied him a few times and had fun playing him. Not so much for what he does, but what he let's me hire. I couldn't understand the Marcus hate when I first started coming here, and never really understood the Tier Marcus running gag. I just didn't see it. He has so many useful options available to him. Until English Ivan gets rules, or Ramos gets revamped (I want to like him, he just sucks so hard), that'll be all the arcanists for me. I'm going to put my future time/resources into Outcasts.

Its an abstract representation, it doesn't really matter that the object represented matches the rules you use for it. What matters is that you and your opponent understand and agree on what rules you're using to represent the object. In my group, another player and I have been treating solitary individual trees as blocking by accident. The rulebook example treats them as obscuring. It doesn't really matter, as they could just have easily been stone pillars instead of trees. Personally, I would go with blocking, even if its a low wall or corner.

Then fine tune it man, FINE TUNE IT!!! How about the interaction with abilities like pacify/incite? I'm at work, and I don't have my rulebooks with me. Would it still work right?

What if we changed Companion to this… Companion (model name/characteristic): When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly referenced model(s) and/or model(s) with a corresponding characteristic within 6" of this model that have not already activated this turn. When a friendly referenced model(s) and/or model(s) with a corresponding characteristic activates within 6" of this model, you may activate this model simultaneously. While activating models simultaneously in this way, the controlling player may nominate the order in which these models activate. How about that for a possible solution? Errata is only to the main rule. Does away with the pre-activation chain (excludes paralyzed models). Utilises a starting model for clarity, no more ambiguous magically appearing chains. Companioned models within range would activate and create companion “hubs”, functioning just like they are meant to. Would “that have not already activated this turn” even be necessary? It clutters the rule, and seems un-necessary since models must have reactivate to do this anyway. Anyway, I’m just brainstorming. Seems like we can spend several pages/threads clarifying how companion should work, but by then all we’ll have really done is illustrate how unclear it is. Even if we all "get it" at the end of the day we're still participating in collective make believe. Anyone new to the game is going to look at the rule in the manual and go through all of this. We have a lot of smart people trying to understand a mechanic that just doesn't give enough of the necessary information. Seems like it would be more productive to just fix the origin of the problem. Should I start a new thread in the general forum?

Looking back at LCB/Dreamer and Daydreams, I made a mistake: Daydreams would have the ability, not the masters. Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate a friendly Dreamer or Lord Chompy Bits within 6" that has not already activated this turn. Alternatively, when a friendly Dreamer or Lord Chompy Bits activates within 6" of this model, you may activate this model simultaneously. While activating models simultaneously in this way, the controlling player may nominate the order in which models activate.

Found a problem with my proposed solution. Two different models with the equivalent of Companion:Master should be able to activate simultaneously with a master. Some additional text would need to be added to cover this. For example: Guild Guard Captain Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Masters within 6" that have not already activated this turn. Alternatively, when a friendly Master activates within 6" of this model, you may activate this model simultaneously. While activating models simultaneously in this way, the controlling player may nominate the order in which models activate. Drill sergeant Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Masters within 6" that have not already activated this turn. Alternatively, when a friendly Master activates within 6" of this model, you may activate this model simultaneously. While activating models simultaneously in this way, the controlling player may nominate the order in which models activate. Now they could both activate with say Lucius, but not just each other.

Also, my solution would prevent the inclusion of paralyzed models shenanigans (made legal thanks to forum rulings relating to how companion works). I think I fixed it guys.

LCB/Dreamer Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Daydreams within 6" that have not already activated this turn. Guild Hounds Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Masters and/or Guild Hounds within 6" that have not already activated this turn. Ortegas (just don't give it to the Latigo guys) Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Family within 6" that have not already activated this turn. Lost Love Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate a friendly Kirai within 6" that has not already activated this turn. I'm not seeing any problems. It seems to work like companion is actually supposed to. Anyone else see any problems with this solution?