Thaarup

Well, it really depends what you two decided before the game. It is usually a good idea to go through all the different types of terrain you two uses and find common ground on what stats/ability that particular terrain have, is is it Dense or not and so on. Some abilities require LoS to the corpse marker and it will usely be spelled out or use the term Target . Target means you need LoS to the object/marker/model/...

Well, Zoraida and Lucius both benifit from your current batch of models, but I would rather go with what you like...

Warden is also a Guardsman and bring some paralyze options as well as "tankyness". Pathfinders are also a good option as they bring blast markers and traps.

well, one positive thing is that the finale cards having been produced yet, so if it is just a bit of different "wording" that is needed, then it is possible that Justin changes that. On the question about what it actually mean then there are three different ways to look at it. 1. It is the same as "after damage" as a lot of the current triggers/abilities and what not have written. The biggest issue here is then why was it not written like that? 2. It is the same as "if moderate/severe is flipped". There are a few of those cases around too, so why was it not written like that if it was, what was meant? 3. The odd wording was somehow a way to combine those two options in a reduced sentence? AsI don´t recall seeing any other ability, weapon or trigger written in that way it is a bit hard to conclude what ever was meant precisely and we are left with a bit of reading between the lines. As "Entropolous" stated a few comments above there is at least one other written use of "damage dealt" and that is in the case of the red joker. If this is meant to be a game term like "after damage" or more of a general use of the english language I have no idea. A case for both could easily by made. The expression moderate/severe damage is dealt is also a bit ..odd as you deal a number in damage not a degree and the degree is used when finding out how much the damage potential is (,ei the damage flip). Otherwise you could argue that when your target suffer 2 damage that is the same as weak/moderate or severe damage. So what all this end up with is that the language used to describe the Objection Action is written differently than others and could need a re-wording.

yea, but the post mentioned 3 from Commanding Presence alone?

The upgrade description mention that it is on receiving the Condition....so option A.

How did you get around the horror test requirement? Normally a model becomes immune to the horrortest for the rest of the turn (after succeding) and a model can only get the free Action if it succedes on a Horrortest...so normally only one extra Action per turn, per model.

I don´t think so. page 46 is the only place I have read anything about the whole Killed state. In my local meta we have always been playing with a minimum of 0 wounds, (and I think that is the logical thing)...but I can actually not find anywhere in the book where it is spelled out.

No only if the "killed" model somehow avoid being killed the first time. I don´t think there is any argument for a model that is already declared Killed to be Killed again. There are no Killed +1 so to speak.

I am not so sure about that. The killed charistic only kicks in when the models wound is reduced to 0 or below. in the example of a model getting first reduced to -2 wounds it is affected and would be considered killed . But if the model then loses the killed "stat" it would have to be further damaged before getting a new killed "stat". So the model could in theory move around with negative wounds. Rulebook page 46.

I am taking a guess that a model was never meant to run around with a negative number in wounds, but strictly rulewise I guess the rules currently support this. However there are a few technicalities(word?). - A model is only killed when its wounds are reduced (to zero or below) so unless the model suffers additional wounds after "losing" the killing charistica it will not gain Killed again until it loses wounds again. (Rulebook, page 46). - If a model that is Buried is Killed, it can not benefit from any abilities that happen on the models death. (Rulebook, page 47). - A model that is Buried are never considered to be in LoS or within range of effects. These models do not count as "in play" for the purposes of other rules that reference whether or not a model is in play. (rulebook, page 47). I would think that the last "rule" applies when a model is buried so the same model does not gain any benefit from The Blackened Scepter, as does the second rule.

no... EDIT: Otherwise what would be the purpose of having Sabotage markers.

From the rulebook, page 50, topic "Blast". I would think that in the case the Attacker choses to resolve Seamus damage first (or before the Copycat Killer), you would be allowed to pick up the hat as it is a "happen immediately Ability".

In the case of the Witchling Stalkers ability Searing Mark, it is done when you damage something. Meaning It is added at the same time as the damage. It is not an "after damage" ability.

River Styx ...

The Paralyze condition carries over until next activation.

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/98019-crew-creator-error/

If you plan on bringing in some extra Witchlings I would recommend getting the "Disrupt Magic" upgrade (either drop Lead Coat or some SS). It really enhances all of the Witch Hunters in general and causes a lot of disruption among enemy models when a Witchling is summoned right next to them.

Good argument. But if you read the rules for Reactivate (page 53 - Rulebook, first line): EDIT: seems I was a bit to slow.

I guess I could have explained it better. I were thinking of commen sense of Malifaux rules. Normally if something work a specific way it is spelled out (like conditions with a +). If it is not mentioned then it doesn´t apply. If what you suggest then we will have to add every type of cover, the amount and maybe even how "big" the different terrain types of cover are...Malifaux normally don´t work like that. It is either no cover, light cover or hard cover. Every type of cover gets a bit better for each degree or "level". If we go the way of understanding the rules to add different kinds of cover types, then we should also add the same kind of cover if there are more of it (two walls better than one and so on). Which again leads to the size of the terrain area (4" of wood should offer more cover than 2" and so on).

I think it is more of a common sense question? If a model is behind two pieces of terrain and both are hard cover nobody would think that they should get 2x hard cover. If one of the terrain types should be soft cover, then suddenly the model would be much harder to hit? I Know the rulebook doesn´t explicit state that cover doesn´t stack, but it doesn´t say that it does either...so I would go with common sense and say no, cover doesn´t stack - otherwise multiple soft or hard cover should stack.

Pretty sure you don´t get both cover "types". Hard cover is already an "upgraded" version of Soft cover. It is essentially soft cover with a bonus. You simple take the best type of cover.

The immunity actually last for the rest of the Turn and it also doesn´t matter if it was during that models activation you took the test (page 48 - Large Rulebook).

I don´t know much about selling miniatures, but have you thought about CoolminiOrNot? http://www.coolminiornot.com/ It seems to be more miniature minded, so it could be a bit more ..consistent? in terms of prices? lol, not sure that sentence makes any sense, but what I meant was the price level might be a bit higher and at a more fixed level

Mike I am sorry and I apologies if I offended you. I do understand the question and why it was brought up..but when I look at the discussion and see that the arguments have turned from a question about base visibility of percentage (1%, 5%, 10%) and has turned into a question about 0% visibility but with a possible "LoS-line" that tangets the base, then I think we have entered the realm of Rule lawyering (IMO). Taking an example from my old warhammer days, It is very close to being the arguments about one can see the end of a fingernail on a model behind a wall so one can legally shoot at the model.