Corn

I think she would also go really well in a Lucius Crew with White Eyes- White Eyes certainly can make use of the added shielding that Bura and her Vanguard models bring to the table.

But if you wanted to proxy her as a DMH Nicodem... I don't think anyone would bat an eye.

There isn't really a clear answer to this. I have a suspicion that Wyrd will errata this and when they do issue that guidance I would gamble they will clarify it to just summon 1 Eyes and Ears. Anyway, the rules in question. So "Once Per Turn" is a per model limitation. So each Nexus Kid can declare it once per turn. You could argue that this is unclear, because the rules specifically spell out that multiple models can use the same once per activation ability on their turns, but similar language is not present in once per turn abilities. However there is nothing in the rules that would support denying multiple nexus kids from declaring the trigger, and there is nothing stopping them from declaring the trigger on the same enemy model. And a comparable question answered by the FAQ Challenge is comparable because it is an effect that is placed on a model, that is not a status ailment- such as fast, slow, etc. The general rules shown by challenge is that as long as different models are applying an effect they stack. Now, this is a comparable and its not really binding, as the FAQ specifically only addresses Challenge and not other statuses. But the rules don't really lay out a solid ground rule on whether or not conditions like this stack, and whenever this has cropped up before, it has been ruled in favor of staking. So, as far as I can tell, the effects would stack, on the same model, and if you killed that model, you could get up to three Eyes and Ears (one for each Nex Kid who hit the trigger). THAT SAID, if you value friendships and opponents willing to play against you, I would highly recommend self policing here. Nexus2 is already by and large considered one of the most powerful Masters in the game- up with Yan Lo2, Hoff2, and Justice2, and Nex Kids are still insanely powerful even if you limit yourself to a single Eyes and Ears Summon off their triggers. So unless you are in a cut throat environment, like a tourney, I would highly recommend playing it as not stacking, and its not a bad idea to get used to it not staking, as I think an errata of Nex Kids will take that away as its a low effort fix.

So there are a few ways to look at it. If your husband is looking to get into the game properly, than he should pick the keyword that excites him the most. I wouldn't worry too much about faction or match up, you've still got to collect the models, build the models, and paint the models, and learn the models... and that is a lot to do when you are excited about the crew. The best thing he can do is look through the factions, and look through the masters, and go with the one that he vibes with the most. If you are looking to recreate classic Malifaux encounters, I would consider opposing the Marshal crew to a Resser crew, like Seamus (Red Chappel) or Doc. McMourning (Experimental), or any of the others honestly. If you are feeling extra spicy you could even opt for Dead Man's Hand for Nicodem, and recreate his last stand against Lady Justice. Death Marshal's vs Ressurectionists is a classic Malifaux matchup.

It does if before you reach step one... you are required to determine whether you are able to make a melee attack targeting the model. You have to resolve the sentence in Bring It before even reaching step 1 for the melee attack, and that language requires us to check to make sure a model is able to make the melee attack targeting the Bring It model, and if it is so able, then it must make that attack. So when we are resolving Bring It, we have to determine whether the target is able to make a melee attack targeting this model. Once we determine if the model is able (as we must do when resolving Bring It), then we proceed with step 1 for the melee attack. Basically, what you are trying to do for whatever reason, is ignore the language of Bring It, and you can't do that.

We are at Step 5 applying results for Bring It, and when resolving that language it requires us to check if "a model is able to make a melee attack targeting this model" To put it another way, your interpretation is a direct violation of Bring It's language. Because if the Marshal could chose the box and purposefully be out of range... than the Model could have made an attack targeting Bernadette... but didn't. Which is in direct violation of the MUST part of Bring It. You have to check, otherwise you violate the Rules as Written for Bring It. Its not a normal attack action, its one specifically compelled by a different action, so you have to play by Bring It's rules. Bring It simply says if you are able then you must. So you have to determine if you are able. You don't get to lock yourself out of something you are able to do. You either are able to do it or not.

I did, because we aren't moving backwards in sequence. We are at Step 5 applying results for Bring It, and when resolving that language it requires us to check if "a model is able to make a melee attack targeting this model" You can't just ignore the language of Bring It, and you can't just pretend that Bring It says something else... so we have to determine whether the model is so able, and so we have to check in order to properly resolve Bring It.

Well... remember we are already at a slight deviation from the normal sequencing already, because the action we are talking about is nested in resolving effects section of another action, and its heavily modified by the resolving effects section of that other action. Its a bit of a different scenario than if the model declared the attack normally during its own activation. So the step in Bring it's Resolution (Step 5) reads as follows. The targeting rules read as follows: So lets say Bernadette uses Bring It on a Death Marshal. We've got 1 inch melee Blade, and 0 inch melee Box. Bring It says the model must do something if it is able to (take a melee action... targeting this model). So we are obligated to determine whether the Marshal is able to "(make a melee attack... targeting this model)" and there is nothing in Bring It's language that would prevent us from checking both of its attacks. So lets say as we resolve Bring It, the Marshal shows up within 1 inch of Bernadette, but not in B2B. We check box and find that it cannot satisfy the targeting language because the target is not within the Action's range. According to Bring It, this means that the Death Marshal is not able to "make a melee attack targeting this model" with Pine Box. So we check the blade and find that it can satisfy the targeting language because the target is within the Action's range and line of sight. According to Bring It, this means that the Death Marshal is able to "make a melee attack targeting this model" with Peacebringer Blade. So when we are resolving Bring It, we determine that the Marshal is able to make a melee attack targeting this model (with the Peacebringer Blade) and so it must. If the Marshal had ended up in B2B, both Box and Blade would satisfy the Bring It resolution language, and the Marshal would be able to pick which one it used. Then we resolve the attack. Bring It specifically requires us to determine whether a model is able to (make a melee attack targeting this model), and if it is able than it is compelled to do so. To argue that a model that is able to make the melee attack, would be able to choose not to because it has another attack on the card blatantly disregards the language of Bring It. So to comply with Step 5 when we are resolving Bring It... we have to check any melee attacks a model is able to make to see if any of them satisfy the requirements. Its not like this breaks the game either. Most models only have 1 attack, and a player always knows what is and is not a legal target anyway because Malifaux allows pre measuring.

To me, the main draws of the Warden are as follows. 1) It is reasonably cheap and reasonably durable. At 5 soul stones, it is the second cheapest augmented model, and if you are playing a strategy where you need significant bodies, such as controlling markers in Guard the Stash... Wardens are a good hire to boost your numbers without giving up durability. 2) As already mentioned, they have ruthless, so are a good counter pick if you know you will be going up against a lot of terrifying or manipulative. 3) They are reasonably efficient, pursue kicks 'em up to stat 6, auto slow on their rocket fist launcher is a good debuff, solid triggers on Hurricane Punch (such as using knock aside to shove an enemy into a non-scoring position, such as in Covert Operation). Its just a good cost effective all around model, which is nice to have in a crew that can get as elite as Hoff. On the whole, I feel like the Warden is going to be a safe pick, a good generalist to help you keep your numbers up, but may not be as effective depending on niche circumstances. Watcher is a cheaper and a lot faster, may be preferable if you need a quick scheme runner for the flanks, but may not be preferable if you need a significant model to stick in a contested area (like Guard the Stash or Covert Operation above). Riot Breaker is going to be better if you expect your opponent to rely heavily on destructible terrain (Justice2) or out of activation actions... but if you don't expect those things, its probably not worth it over a Warden. Hunters are expensive at 8 ss. Sometimes you may want more numbers than they can offer you. You get the idea.

Your response to the Action chain in applying bring it was the gramatical challenge. You didn't raise any other points in my breakdown of how the rules apply to gunfighter. You say that you think it adds a "targeting requirement during step 3 only" but you have no language to support your assertion... so it is not RAW.

Of course not, I covered the applicable rules and analysis here in great detail with the correct conclusion.

You can dismiss grammar as pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day it governs the construction of language, and the words as written are governed by language. It is disingenuous to dismiss grammar as pedantic when we are discussing RAW and how the sentences that make up the rules are written has everything to do with arriving at the correct answer. The rule as written is that "(The model must make a melee attack targeting this model), if able." So to determine the interaction with gunfighter we ask the simple question; Can the model make a melee attack targeting this model? It can, so it must. Nothing more to it. The reason I "latched onto" this point, is because it was literally the only point you made which could rebut this straightforward reading of the rules. It appears to be the hill that you have to die on, because otherwise you can't avoid answering yes to the question of "can the model make a melee attack against this model?". Everything else you've said is largely superfluous to this point as it requires us to essentially agree to read the rule contrary to the way it is written. (I also didn't really address the point about models with multiple engagement ranges because I can go either way on that one, and its not what the original question was, and it was already confusing enough with two logic chains going on simultaneously, so I was reigning back to the original question regarding gunfighter). If you don't agree with the RAW, your group is absolutely free to house rule it however you please. If Wyrd feels that this is not the RAI, they are free to errata or FAQ it. But you have to address the way Wyrd chose to write the sentence if you are going to argue that the rules as written aren't as I say.

So... your counter argument about why the clause should be arbitrarily broken up basically boils down to... "I don't care about grammar". The sentence is constructed in English, just because you can't be bothered to care about how it is constructed doesn't mean you can interpret it any way you feel like it when we are talking about what the "rules as written" are. How the language is constructed is integral to RAW. What I am saying is that there is no indication whatsoever in the sentence that would instruct us to read the sentence in the way you are splitting it up. Whether or not you care about commas and clauses in the English language doesn't make them any less important when determining the rules as written when they are written in English. EDIT: As I said, I'm a bit shakey on the Models with multiple engagement ranges, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the main question regarding gunfighter.

How are you coming to this conclusion? There is a comma there and it tells us how to read it and split the clauses. (the model must make a melee action targeting this model) is then modified by (if able). The clauses are determined by the placement of the comma. Basically, you are implying that we should violate very basic grammar rules to limit the "if able" to only apply to a portion of the clause (in this case targeting). The rules are written in English and as such rules of English grammar apply to their interpretation. This sentence is not ambiguous... and I've seen some ambiguous sentences in miniature wargaming. If a model is able to (make a melee action targeting this model), it must. What basis are you using to divide up the first clause? That is the confusion i have, because Bring It specifies what the target must be. The target must be the Bring It model. So if you can't declare against an illegal target, than you must choose the attack that can hit that model. If you can declare against an illegal target, you can declare the shorter attack, causing it to fail at step three. In my opinion it would make more sense if selecting a target was part of step 1, and you needed a legal target to declare an action. But the rules aren't written like that, which is why its confusing.

I think its worth quoting the Action Rules here, which state in relevant part on page 23 the order of operations that we need to follows. Applying these rules to an example of Ironsides using Bring It on a Gunsmith, we come to the following. 1.1 Ironsides declares Bring It. 1.2 Bring It does not have any costs. 1.3 Ironsides declares the Gunsmith as the target. Checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 1.4 Duels are performed, The Gunsmith elects to relent (pg 10) and Ironsides flips. Ironsides needs to flip or cheat a 6 to hit the target number, assuming this is the case, she declares any triggers, and we move on. 1.5 We apply the results, in the order they are listed. So first the Gunsmith moves move +2 towards ironsides. Then we come to the sentence in question. "Then, the target must make a melee action targeting this model, if able. [neg damage flip, no triggers]. This is the step we are at. The language we are resolving in bring it specifically says that "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able." So we look at the gunsmith's card. Is the gunsmith "able" to make a melee action? The answer is yes. Because Gunfighter states that the Gunsmith "may treat its ranged action as a melee action with range 1." So the gunsmith is able, and thus must make the melee action targeting Ironsides. Any other interpretation explicitly ignores the words as written on the Bring It Ability. 2.1 The Gunsmith declares Custom Fire Arm 1 inch melee, because it must make the attack that it is able to make. 2.2 Custom Firearm does not have any costs. 2.3 The Gunsmith declares Ironsides as a target, and checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 2.4 Duels are performed. In this case, you likely do not want to relent, so that you can cheat the attack to miss. No triggers are declared on this attack pursuant to Bring It. 2.5 If the attack hits, we resolve the results and an additional neg modifier is added pursuant to Bring It. 2.6 There are no after resolving effects. 1.6 Bring it has no after resolving effects. So this is how the rules as written apply to bring it when we run it through the Action Rules on page 23. Going through this in more detail, I want to revisit and revise a few of my prior interpretations. Welding Torch cannot be compelled to spend power tokens. Because costs are declared prior to determining targeting, those can be paid or not paid prior to declaring a target. Bring it cannot compel Welding Torch to spend power tokens and it will fail on targeting. Cold Snap can be compelled to make the strike if the target is within 1 inch of an ice pillar but outside of 1 inch of Raspy. This is because Cold Snap does not have any costs to declare it. This is because when determining range an line of sight, Raspy may draw them from the Ice Piller, so Ironsides is within range and line of sight of Raspy's cold snap whenever she is within 1 inch of an ice pillar, so it passes the range and line of sight check and proceeds to duels. A Challenged model can be compelled to discard a card. This is because Challenge adds a cost that "references the actions target" so it is paid during the declaring a target step. So Challenge will reach step 3, and must discard the card as part of declaring the Bring It Model as the target. Finally, for a Model with multiple engagement ranges. I'm on the fence here, mostly due to the targeting language being unclear. Here is what I mean. This is poorly worded because it raises the question of "can a model target something that is beyond range and line of sight?". We know that "if there is no legal target it fails" which is somewhat odd in a game with premeasuring where you presumably always know when something is a legal target or not. We know that the target "must" be within the Action's range and LoS. So the question then becomes can you declare an action against an illegal target? a) If you can't, because the target is illegal, then you have to choose the melee attack that can target Ironsides. b) If you can than you can target an illegal target, you essentially could "discover" that Tony is an "illegal" target at step 3, and cause the melee attack to fail. I tend to agree more with option a, as b in this case is typically more applicable to games that lack premeasuring (such as bolt action), where the intent of the rules is to catch players out by failing to guess distance appropriately.