Barnaberible

So the question is what is a fair price to pay for an event?

Surely the answer is a price that covers the cost of the event.

If the question is 'what is an acceptable price to pay for an event?' then we can get into the rights and wrong of making profit, covering costs of accommodation / travel (perfectly fair, why not?), covering the cost of your lunch, etc, etc.

Look at it this way. If you volunteer for an organisation as a volunteer that organisation has the right to reimburse you reasonable costs (travel, lunch, child care, etc) if it so wishes. So you are volunteering your time to help (in this case a game) why should you not be afforded the same (is you so want it) without being made to feel as though you are taking the mick and exploiting the community in some way? Or should you only be able to run events if you can cope with a bit of a loss at the end of it?

So I suppose as a TO you really need to make a decision of what your boundaries are and ultimately if you can afford to be out of pocket due to unexpected costs, if not why not try to make a surplus and put this to the next event?

I can honestly say I've never been to an event where I have thought the TO is taking the mick in any way, shape or form with the price / value. If I did end up going to one I would either think fair play, you've put your time into it and deserve a little bit of reward or, if the price way way off, wow you're taking the mick I'm never going to one of your events again (in which case their profit making event organising career would be short lived IMO)

And the answer to the original question is.....around £10 (more if food is provided)

So did this ever get resolved? I've always played it as they don't count becuase they aren't in play but it seems the consensus is the other way round.

Just seen this, add me to the list please Lee

Can you add me to the reserve list please

 

I would take it if Assassinate was in the pool,

 

 

Or to take prisoner on an objective runner, or to remove a power ritual marker, or to get out of combat and unbury a fully healed Bette in a safe place for bodyguard, or to avoid spring the trap (or is it plant explosives, I forget), or to outnumber a plant evidence marker, or to free up and walk 3 times to stop someone trying to get outflank, or to move closer to one of your distracted models and bury them so they don't score for the turn, or to stop someone who has lined up to deliver a message, or to, well you get the point, I think it's quite useful in many circumstances for 1ss.

I have a feeling there is (or at least was) a group in Guildford but I'm not 100% sure. I am however pretty sure there is a group of Faux players at Dark Sphere games in London which isn't a million miles away.

 

Think the guy who organises most of the Malifaux there goes by the forum name of 'The Shepard'

I have never taken DOW with Tara as either a resser or outcast. I dont rely on the Death Marshal burying with her but find EJ extremely useful for most games, being able to get Tara out of the way, to remove scheme markers or simply just to annoy your opponent is awesome.

can you add me to the interested list please, should know for sure by next week

Trouble with the upgrade is, like you said, its very situational.

 

In one game I had over 20ss worth of models from her and in others absolutely nothing!

 

The main problem I find is that if I draw the cards needed I often have to use them for something else and without the summon she is somewhat limited in her use. You also have to factor in the unburying of the summons, which is OK if Tara isnt dead. Rusty alice can help with this if you summon constructs then burn them out.

 

However all said and done I still include her in alot of my lists as if she does get the summoning going she is extremely good value for the 5 stones

Again, in order for this to make sense you have to change core rules (either the timing of Hazardous or the definition of Enter) and nothing in any of the relevant rules entries indicates that you should do so.

 

I cant seem to find a firm definition of entering something or timing of hazardous terrain in the rule book, if I am missing something then please let me know

 

So by this logic the question becomes; if a model enters the terrain with flight (ignoring the terrain) then at the end of its move action (flight only ignores terrain while moving, not after movement is completed) is it considered to have entered the terrain?

 

The hazardous terrain rule does not state ‘as soon as it crosses the perimeter of the terrain’ only ‘enters the terrain’

 

I’m having trouble arguing that something which has started an activation outside a terrain feature and finished its activation within a terrain feature has not entered it

To me the while moving is the key bit in the flight rule. When it stops moving it ceases to ignore the terrain and therefore enters it. 

 

For example a bird flies into a room with a 2D square marked on the floor, while the bird is flying it has not entered the square, if the bird lands in the square it has entered it. It didn’t enter it when it flew over the perimeter of the square but it’s defiantly in there when it touches down.

 

As soon as the model ceases moving the flight rule is no longer in effect and it no longer ignores the terrain and has therefore entered it at that point.

I personally disagree on this.

It has not moving = entering which seems counter intuative.

This same arguement could be used for summonign hazadous terrian about the model and it therefore "entering" hazadous terrain.

Apart from making sense (ie landing in lava would hurt) I think if you want to argue semantics the key here is moved into and not moves into

If a model ends its activation in hazardous terrain after flight it has moved into it, it dosent happen immediately when it moves into it but never the less it has moved into it.

If hazardous terrain is summoned the model has not moved into it, the model hasn't moved at all so surely can't have moved into it

The wording is 'deals damage to models that activate while within it, or enters it' - I would argue that when the movement ends and flight is no longer in effect the model would enter the terrain.

I think Fetid's summary of prompt is bang on.

One of the reasons I was in a position where Martin could use Howard to decapitate 3 of my models was that on the only other time I played against Colette I remember prompt involving a 6 and a 10 and I foolishly thought it was a 10 to cast with a 6" range and not vica-verca!

The only other thing I have struggled against in wave 2 is mech rider and his scheme dropping ability, not faced the full force of that in conjunction with Colette yet but I imagine it's not fun.

As for the melee issue, I would presume not engaged = no option for melee attack even with obey / prompt

Well, if he was paralyzed, he had no melee range, and thus cannot attack. Colette could have prompted him to interact or move, but not to attack.

 

Good call, I will demand recompense from my opponent! 

In a game I had Colette prompted Howard Langston to decapitate 34ss worth of my models in one activation. I wouldn't have minded so much but he was paralysed at the time! And what did Colette do, she stood 10" away laughing, lets see Vic of Blood do THAT!!

ich habe meine hausaufgaben nicht gemacht weil meine hund hat es gegessen - is about the only thing I remember from my German lessons

 

and as for Americans, don't even go there with the pronunciation of Worcestershire sauce

 

we thought it read out as all suits (mine and his) in final duel total.

We have played it that way on crit damage for rams....using all rams in final duel (mine and his to add to damage)

 

Ouch, bet that hurt!

Great reports, thanks Phil

 

 

 

Game 2:  I was quite surprised that you scored so few Turf War points with that crew, especially considering the close deployment.  Black Joker on the horror duel with your master is really bad luck; do you think that was the difference between winning and losing a close game?

 

 

 

Thing is with a low model count, sybelle with not too banged up, close deployment, 2 belles and Tara's ability to make them fast means I could essentially get 6 lures per turn at +2 walk (if I needed to) and with only 5 targets to pick from it was easy to get them out of the turf area and keep them there

 

I made a massive mistake with Tara in forgetting that assassinate was in the pool (otherwise I would have just hid her away for the rest of the game) and I massively over extended Yin but putting the pressure on the strategy gave me a bit of breathing room

 

Was a great game though

Well run as always, thanks Dave and 4 great games, nice to play new opponents

Your resser friend might do well to take a look at the valedictorian (from the iron zombies box) who can strip DF triggers (well, all triggers actually) yin who can put people on negatives for ca and WP duels and night terrors who are a general pain in the backside.

Also try to avoid models with low DF (hard for ressers) as they are quite easy to bounce blasts off

Things that hand out slow are useful as its a 2 action to place a claim marker

The only Norfolk players I know of are around the Norwich / South Norfolk area. Not sure of any as far West as Kings Lynn

suppose you'd better add me in to team massive (only if you want to win anything, of course)

If it isn't about punishing innocent mistakes, it's about punishing cheating. And if a player is cheating, they are banned from the tournament.

 

 

For me I think its about putting in a system to try and identify when innocent mistakes become cheating. In my earlier example if I consistently used pull the void as Tara's last action it is an illegal move. I might not know this because I didn't read the card properly. If its not pointed out to me I might continue to do it without realising. If it is pointed out to me then sure I might forget on other occasions and it would be pointed out to me again. 

 

so, the question is, at what stage do I stop getting the benefit of the doubt and start being punished for it, 3rd time? 5th time? Never?

The only outcome I can see from this is a drop off from newer players intimidated by penalty rules.

 

Personally I disagree with this. Once again I think we need to emphasise this is not about punishing someone who makes mistakes, particularly new players. Everyone makes mistakes, it's a complicated game. This is about trying to identify if people are consistently making the same mistake and implementing a system to flag those mistakes and sanction them if they continue to do so.

Now imagine the situation where a first time tournament player is facing a 'top player' and suspects that player of not playing fairly (not declaring a bodyguard target for example) would he have the nerve to challenge that player, particularly as the community is that well regarded. If I played in my first tournament against an experienced player who did this I would probably think 'sod that, if that's how people get good at this game I don't think I'll bother'

At the minute IF this is happening there is no deterrent for it, what kind of impression does that give?

I understand that deduction of ranking points may not be the answer as a lot of people are saying but if it isn't then what is?

And for the benefit of Aus I will once again state, this is not about punishing innocent mistakes made in games.