Allandrel

Yes, any ability with a +X value in its name is stackable. (Digital Rulebook, Page 24, under "Abilities.")

Apart from that, the + serves the simple purpose of having one ability that can have different values, rather than having to create a separate named ability for Demise (Explosive +1) Demise (Explosive +2), and so on.

This is, I expect, why Vengeance has a +1 value rather than doing a flat one damage - it is future-proofing for later models that may have higher levels of Vengeance, or effects that give a model Vengeance.

(Of course, it is also possible that this is an artifact of the beta, where Kirai had Vengeance +2 for a while, and when they lowered her vengeance they never considered that now every model with Vengeance had it a +1. Kind of like how Mindless says that no player discards tokens from the model being summoned, when summoning does not make anyone discard tokens... but it did in the beta, and they evidently just never revised Mindless when that rule was removed.)

Constriction is poorly phrased, because technically the Disengage Action does not generate any duels - it generates another Action, and that action generates duels.

With that in mind, I think that the intent is that it effects both attack duels by by enemy models when one of your models Disengages, and resist duels made by enemy models that are Disengaging. Otherwise, it would say the specific duel affected, such as "resist duels made during a disengage action."

I am very firmly in the camp of "models packed together should share the exact same set of keywords." This is doubly true if one of them can be hired out of faction, but the other cannot.

Having to but a model in your faction, but out of your master's keyword, in order to get a model that is in your master's keyword is frustrating - but at least you can hire it out-of-keyword.

Having to buy a model that you cannot hire AT ALL in order to get a model that is in your master's keyword is unacceptable.

Absolutely correct! The engaged model also cannot be Obeyed to declare a Projectile action for the same reason.

It's future-proofing so that a model could be made with Vengeance +2 (Kirai actually had that for a while in the beta). A good comparison would be Demise (Flaming +X), which is found with different values on different models. For example, Witchling Stalkers have Demise (Flaming +1), while Witchling Thralls have Demise (Flaming +2).

Big fan of the strategy and scheme alterations, I expect to start using them in casual games as well.

23 hours ago, le_wahou said:

The beginning of protected is :After this model is targeted by an ennemy attack action

Ulix will not be able to use protected on the wild boar's attack

Thanks, I somehow missed that!

The Protected (Whatever) Ability states to "change the target to a friendly (Whatever) model within 2" of this model (ignoring range, LOS, and targeting restrictions)."

So the question is, does the core rule that "A model may not target itself with an Attack Action" count as a "targeting restriction?"

For example, I have a Wild Board next to Ulix. My opponent's Zoraida uses Obey to have my Wild Boar target Ulix with Tusks. Can Ulix use Protected (Pig) to change the target to the attacking Wild Boar, since it is still a friendly Pig and Protected causes the attack to ignore targeting restrictions?

Or does "A model may not target itself with Attack Actions" not count as a targeting restriction, even though it is literally restricting what can be targeted?

6 hours ago, Lunatic_Machine said:

I have another question regarding Chaos Theory.

How does Armor or other sources of damage reduction interact with Chaos Theory?
If a model flips two cards with the chosen suit do you add the damage and then subtract Armor (e.g. 2+2-1) or do you subtract Armor first and add the damage afterwards (2-1+2-1)?

The latter.  "For each discarded card that matched the named suit, the enemy model suffers 2 damage" means that a model that discards two cards of the named suit suffers two damage twice, with damage reduction applying separately to each.

If it was one instance of damage, it would be written "the enemy model suffers damage equal to twice the number of discarded cards that match the named suit."

18 hours ago, Zebo said:

If you don't apply the law on yourself, you are not Lawful. If you bend the law in your benefit, you are not Lawful.

That's a subject of much debate, and has been for ages. I'm in the camp that the term "lawful" is a poor word choice, and that Order would be a better name. It's not about "the law" as in literal statutes, but as in a worldview that things should be structured and orderly with everything in a proper place.

In DC comics, Darkseid is basically the embodiment of Lawful Evil, but he doesn't follow any laws, because in his view, his will IS law.

4 hours ago, Myyrä said:

I would like to point out that there is nothing in the rules saying that the pulse is not resolved. The pulse just doesn't do anything because there is nothing in range from the model that has been removed from the game.

There is: digital rulebook page 23, under Step 5: Apply Results:
 

Quote

The model performs the Action's effects, as stated on the card, in the order they are listed. If any of an Action's effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored.

So if an effect would draw a range from a model that is no longer in play, that effect cannot be resolved and is ignored.

First question: I believe so, yes. The rules for Focused read:
 

Quote

Before performing an Opposed duel, this model may lower the value of this condition by 1 to receive a to the duel (and any resulting damage flip this model makes).

Now it does say "resulting damage flip" rather than "resulting damage flips," but I think it still works if an opposed duel results in multiple damage flips. Otherwise, you run into the question of "WHICH damage flip does the use of Focused apply to?"

Further more,  Triggers are part of the action that the model used Focus on. The rules for Action Triggers (digital rulebook, page 12) read:
 

Quote

Action Triggers are tied to specific Actions and can only be used with that Action. They are found below an Action effect and are subject to all game effects that affect that Action (such as Incorporeal or flips to damage).

So if the Focused bonus would apply to any damage flips from the Triggers resulting from the opposed duel that the model used Focused on (as would the accuracy modifier, etc.).

On that note, I'm not sure how this works if a Trigger makes a damage flip against a different model than the target that might impose different modifiers, but that is a different question.

As for Resistance Triggers, I believe that Focused would also apply to those. The rules for Focused say that it applies to the duel, and the resistance trigger is part of the duel, so any damage flips included in its effects are resulting from that duel.

Second question: No, Focused does not apply to Demise effects. The demise is not resulting from the opposed duel as a resistance trigger is, but is a separate ability that has nothing to do with any duels that might have been made.





So

My take on effects resolved during the damage process is that it refers to specific effects that ONLY resolve in these situations, not to any other effects. Malifaux is built on explicit language meaning specific things.

Short version: "After a model is damaged" effects refers specifically to, and only to, effect that contain language to that timing, such as Black Blood. Same with "after a model is killed" effects. Only effects that specifically say they happen at such points happen at such points.

Long version:

STEP 5

Step 5 is effects that happen "after a model is damaged" or "after a model is reduced to a specific Health." Meaning exactly those effects - those that contain language such that this is when they happen, e.g. an Ability that reads "After this model damages another model" or "after this model suffers damage."

It does NOT include sequential effects that happen to resolve subsequent to a damage effect. Those are separate, unrelated effects.

Black Blood is an "after damaging" effect.

The pulse from Unhinge is not. It is the second effect from an action. The nature of the first effect has no influence on what kind of effect the second is.

Look at it this way. There are two actions:

Action 1 has the effects: "Target gains the Stunned condition. Target must discard a card."

Action 2 has the effects: "Target suffers 2/4/5 damage. Target must discard a card."

Is "Target must discard a card" an "after damaging effect" in Action 2, but not Action 1, even though it is the exact same effect? Of course not. It is not an "after damaging effect" in either case, because in both cases whether it resolves has nothing to do with whether the target suffers damage. So whether the target suffers damage also does not affect when the effect resolves.

STEP 6-A

Likewise, Step 6-A refers to effects that specifically heal models or replace them when killed, such as Demise (Eternal) or Grim Recruitment. It does NOT refer to other heal or replace effects that haven't been generated.

So for an example, Coppelius targets a Young Nephilim (Health 2) with Unhinge. The YN is 2" away from Coppelius, and 1" away from Serena Bowman (Health 1).

(skipping over steps that are not relevant)

...
Unhinge damage Step 4: The Young Nephilim's Health is reduced from 2 to 0.
Unhinge damage Step 5: Effects that happen after the Young Nephilim is damaged resolve. Just effects that specifically happen after a model is damaged. In this case, the only applicable effect is Black Blood. The second effect of Unhinged does not apply, because as outlined above, it is NOT an "after a model suffers damage" effect.

The Young Nephilim resolves Black Blood, FULLY. This will interrupt the damage sequence, because the rules say to resolve effects such as this now.

...
Black Blood Damage Step 4: Serena Bowman's Health is reduced from 1 to 0.
...
Black Blood Damage Step 6: Serena Bowman is Killed.
Black Blood Damage Step 6-A: Effects that would heal or replace the killed model resolve. Serena Bowman's Demise (Eternal) resolves FULLY (again interrupting a damage sequence, as outlined above with Black Blood). The second effect of Unhinged does not resolve at this point. While it would heal Serena, and she is the killed model, it is not an effect that heals "the killed model."
Since Serena is no longer killed, no further steps in the damage sequence for Black Blood resolve. We go back to the damage sequence for Unhinge.

Unhinge damage Step 6: The Young Nephilim is killed.
...
Unhinge damage Step 6-D: The Young Nephilim is removed from the game. The damage sequence has finished, so now the first effect of Unhinge has fully resolved.

We move on to resolve the next effect of Unhinged. This effect cannot occur, because there is no longer a target to measure the pulse from, so the effect does not resolve. (Digital rules, page 23 under Resolving Actions).

The argument seems to change. Right now a number of people are arguing that if Effect A is damage, and Effect B is resolved after Effect A, Effect B is an "after damaging" effect and would resolve during Step 5 of the damage sequence.

This... does not seem sound to me. "After damaging effects" clearly refers to effects that resolve BECAUSE a model was damaged, not just any effect that is listed after a damage effect.

Quote

 

However, there is an ambiguity on measurement timing.

1. Do you determine what all the effects are (including measuring them) before resolving them and applying results?

2. Or do you measure them as you resolve and/or apply them?

 

I think it is clearly 2. Measuring for an effect is part of resolving that effect, and you do not resolve an effect until you have FULLY resolved previously generated effects.

i.e., if an action's effects are "Push the target 3" away from this model. Models within (Pulse)1 of the target suffer 1 damage," you do not resolve the pulse effect until you have fully resolved the push effect. Saying "I resolve this part of Effect B, then go back and resolve effect A, then go forward again and finish resolving effect B" makes no sense and conflicts with the rules for sequential effects.

Got a question that another player and I are on an impasse on.

The rules for resolving an action's effects read:
 

Quote

The model performs the Action’s effects, as stated on the card in the order they are listed. If any of an Action’s effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored.

So if an action's effects are "Do A. Do B." You resolve A completely, then resolve B.

As I understand it, this means that if resolving A results in a situation where B cannot be resolved, B is ignored.

For example, A is "target suffers 2 damage" and B is "all models with (Pulse)3 of the target gain the Stunned Condition." If the damage from A kills the target, it is removed from the game as part of resolving the damage. So when you move on to resolving B, the target is no longer in the game, thus no pulse can be measured, thus B does not resolve.

The other player is arguing that if resolving A would make in impossible to resolve B, you interrupt resolving A in order to resolve B, before finishing resolving A, because the rules for sequential effects read:
 

Quote

In these cases fully resolve the initial effect before moving on to any additional effect§. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated after, any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

So, he argues, in the example, while resolving effect A, effect B is "in the queue" and you would  resolve B in the middle of the damage sequence, because the model being killed an removed is a "additional effect" of A, and thus comes after resolving effects that have already been generated such as B.

This seems absurd to me, as the entire damage sequence IS effect A. You cannot resolve B before the damage sequence has finished, because if you have not finished the damage sequence, you have not finished resolving A yet.

Thoughts?

The Ortegas are my favorite crew, the first Malifaux models that I bought back in 1E and the crew that I have played the most since then, including many games through the closed and open betas. And as many have noted in 3E, they just aren't working the way other crews are.

As I see it, this is fundamentally because they do not effectively generate or use resources to emphasize their themes. Pretty much every crew generates and uses one or more “resources” that they then either gain bonuses from, or “spend” to enhance to take actions.

Resources mostly consist of:

• Basic game elements such as cards, soulstones, pass tokens, markers, and even wounds

• Unique tokens such as Power, Chi, and Glowy

• Conditions

• Other models

For example, the Witch Hunters use the Burning Condition. All eight Witch Hunter models can give enemy models Burning, and half of them have actions or abilities that key off of enemy models having Burning.

The Family, as I'll note below, doesn't do this. They generate several resources (Focus and Pass Tokens), but then they don't do anything with them other than their basic game effects. They use a resource (cards), that they are terrible at generating.

This makes the Family less-than-effective at implementing their themes. The Family, in my experience, has three primary themes:

• Teamwork: The Ortegas are not just some mercenary band, they're a Family, and they support each other, getting each other out of trouble and enhancing each other's actions.

• Ranged Damage: When people talk about the Guild as “the faction that shoots you,” they are talking about the Family. While some of them are good in melee or even focus on it, the Family are The Crew That Shoots You (with Critical Strikes).

• Mobility: Of course, a crew that just stands there and shoots is boring to play with and against, so the Family have lots of tricks to get into range and get out of engagement.

I'm going to take a close look at how the Family implements each of these themes, and how their “resource problem” prevents them from doing so effectively.

Teamwork: This is the big one that distinguishes the Family. In 1E, 2E, and the early 3E open beta, it was primarily represented with Companion allowing chain activations, but now it primarily takes the form of A Por El allowing extra actions from nearby Family models.

On its face, A Por El is a solid ability. The problem is resources – it costs a card, and the Family is TERRIBLE at drawing cards. Out of nine models, ONE of them can draw cards with Perdita's Hero's Gamble, and it is very, very bad a drawing cards. Because the Family's favored playstyle is eliminating enemy models, playing to the crew's strengths actually makes Hero's Gamble worse at what it does – if you're playing the Family even moderately well, it will never draw you any cards.

As currently implemented, the defining ability of the Family actually gets used once, maybe twice per turn at most, primarily because of the card cost. To make A Por El work, it needs to cost a resource that the crew can actually generate. So either the Family needs decent card draw, or A Por El needs to cost a resource that the Family actually generates (such as “may discard a Pass Token or lower the value of its Focus Condition by 1 to take an Action”).

Otherwise, the Family's teamwork abilities vary.

Perdita has Expert Shot, Analyze Weakness, and Finger On the Trigger that can protect or enhance her family to different degrees.

Francisco has Heroic Intervention which actually combines all three Family themes by placing friendly models in more advantageous positions to deal ranged damage in addition to what is effectively a restricted Charge.

Santiago is all about teamwork with Expert Shot, Sober Up, and I've Got Your Back.

Nino lacks any teamwork effects, which is a problem. Something like a less-powerful version of his Spotter ability from 2E (reduced to, say, “must discard a card to take an Interact Action”) would go a long way to both integrating him into the Family themes and making him as good as similar models.

Papa Loco is also problematic on this front, as the only teamwork ability he has is Use This, which I have never, ever used in nine games with Papa Loco. The ability needs to be heavily reworked or replaced.

Monster Hunters have Creep Along, combining the teamwork and mobility themes.

Abuela is another big team player with Nice Shot Dear, the Grudge Trigger, and Listen Up, Young'un. Nice Shot, Dear in particular is good at it enhances A Por El, allowing her to synergize with every Family member except Perdita.

Pistoleros De Latigo have the Grudge Trigger.

The Enslaved Nephilim is the only Family model with no teamwork abilities (though it can take an action from any Family member with A Por El), which makes sense for an enslaved enemy.

Overall on the teamwork front, A Por El needs its resource issue fixed, and Nino and Papa Loco ought to have some sort of (useful) teamwork ability like Nino used to have and Papa tries to have.

Ranged Damage: On this front, the Family is in decent shape, with ready access to Focus thanks to Bravado (which also keys into their mobility theme). The big problem here is the recent limitation to the Coincentrate action, which weakened the Family with no corresponding buff. Given how reliant the Family is at stacking Focused, I would like to see Bravado include an immunity to having Focused removed by enemy models.

Mobility: The Family have lots of effects here, primarily Bravado. While it is now limited to once per turn, it still gives the Family good action effeciency, and prevents them from being a crew of “turrets” that stand in place Concentrating and shooting.

Nino having Bravado is kind of pointless, though. If it contained a clause granting immunity to having Focused removed by enemy models (as I suggsted above), its presence on Nino would be a lot more valuable.

So what are my main suggestions?

First and foremost, fix the cost on A Por El. Either give the Family card draw, or preferably make it cost Focused and/or Pass Tokens.

While we're at it, either go big or go home on Pass Tokens. Right now Tactical Planning is a leftover from earlier versions of the Family that serves no real role in the crew. Either replace it with card draw, or give to more models (particularly Perdita) and make it built-in for at least one model (like the Pistolero, which feels pretty pointless right now).

Add a clause to Bravado that prevents enemy models from removing Focused. This will make up for the restriction to Concentrate and allow the Family to stack Focused without fear.

Give Nino some sort of teamwork ability, such as “Spotter: Enemy models within LOS of this model and 6” of a friendly Family model must discard a card to take the Interact Action.”

Fix Papa Loco's Use This into something... well, useful.

Give Pistoleros De Latigo some sort of role. Right now, they're written as a damage-dealer that isn't any good at dealing damage. A Por El and A Fistful of Scrip are both virtually useless abilities on them.

I love the Family, and they have the potentially to be a fun, effective crew if they can just fix the resource issue.

I've played about eight games with Papa Loco since the start of the closed beta, and have never used "Use This!" I agree that it is a non-ability and should be replaced with something more applicable.

42 minutes ago, Kevinsmith101 said:

My guess would be with the gun symbol it became far harder to hit targets in cover and therefore harder to unbury the summons?

Twist Reality can target Wp, ignoring the Df increase from cover.

2 hours ago, trikk said:

The issue with this, is you're enforcing low model count on the side of Dita.

I agree. I've played about eight games with the Family in the closed/open beta so far, and my crews have always ended up strictly average in size at 7-9 models.

Plus, the Family's main focus is killing enemy models, so even if they did start the game outnumbered they will soon outnumber the enemy when played well. Abilities that get worse because you played to your crew's strengths are not fun.

I'm very unhappy to see Twist Reality lose the Projectile rule. It did not have the rule for a long time during the closed beta, and the result was that models like The Dreamer and Lord Chompy Bits NEVER used their melee attacks, because Twist Reality was always the superior option. This meant far fewer tactical choices for both players.

It worked much better as a projectile that ignored Friendly Fire. Why the backtrack?

Not a fan of Tough As Nails going to pass tokens. I've played six games with Ortega crews in the closed beta, and they were always within 1 model of the opposing crew in number. Furthermore, doing what they do well - killing enemy models - means they won't get any pass tokens from being outnumbered.

As for Tactical Planning, out of six games with the Ortegas I have gotten two Pass Tokens from Tactical Planning. Total. It's just not a reliable way of generating them.

The previous version of Tough As Nails was not cost-effective. The new version isn't even usable.

I think that Shotgun Wedding would be perfectly viable if limited to Guild Enforcers and Henchmen. That way all it does is save you 1 SS and allow a little bit of synergy with the Family keyword (Listen Up, Young'un and Adversary), but would not require that every Living Enforcer and Henchman be balanced as hireable by Guild. It would certainly see a lot more use than Meemaw's Disapproval, which looks just too difficult to pull off.

Edit: And I see that the subject was ninja's while I was writing this post up.

Pursue (multiple models): "their" is mistyped "thier."

Abuela Ortega: Listen Up, Young'un says that the action gains "+M" rather than "+."

Dashel Barker: Call In Reinforcements lists the TN as "10r" rather than "10."

Pale Rider: Revel In Conflict has a trigger named "Hatred Unleashed" that has no suits or effect listed.

Phiona Gage: Modified Pickaxe states that the target ignores any "+" to its Resist flip rather than any "."

There is a HUGE difference between rotating cards out of a CCG format and rotating models out of a miniatures game - namely, player investment.

A player might spend more on a magic deck than on a Malifaux crew, but were any of those cards what drew them into the game in the first place? "Magic looked mildly interesting until I saw Necropotence, now I HAVE to play it."

Does a specific card play a central role in every game someone play with a given deck? Only if they play Commander, which is a non-standard format. Otherwise, someone can easily go a whole game without ever drawing a particular card.

Do CCG players spend hours painting the art for each of the cards themselves, making it their own?

The fact that people accept rotation as part of CCGs but are upset about a handful of models not being tournament legal or part of their faction should show that there is a world of difference in player investment between the two hobbies. There are people who still refuse to buy any GW products because of Age of Sigmar retiring several factions from Warhammer - is that really a model that anyone thinks Wyrd should follow?

I'm upset because the two factions I play are losing five Master between them, and they aren't even my favorite Masters. If Wyrd was to put, say Perdita and Sonnia "out of rotation" I would quit the game just like a Warhammer player with a Bretonnian army.