jonahmaul

Yes, yes and yes! Exactly as you state. So if you were two inches away from the ice block you would pay 2" to move horizontally and 2" to move vertically (remember to make sure you pay the movement for the back of the back to get on said object!). But if you move over it you ignore it altogether.

Another +1 to choosing models for strats/schemes. If I'm playing against Arcanists I'll usually try to have some sort of ignoring armour and against Neverborn I try to include high Wp models or ways or ignoring Wp duels (or just a lot of my own stuff that forces Wp duels) but as has been stated, second guessing what your opponent will bring and deciding on your crew based on that means that you might not be optimizing it for the strats/schemes which is much more important.

It's hard to offer specific advise without more details information but the crews you've mentioned do tend to have a lot of models that are pretty easy to take down (Rats, Puppets, Stitched/Alps (though there is some frustrating HtK in there)). I've recently started playing Guild and found myself being out-activated pretty much every game (which is unusual coming from Ressers who have so many cheap and decent minions) and I tend to deliberately focus on some of my opponents weaker minions/peons to even the activation control out (having a lot of range in Guild helps with this). But I will only do this if it's effective to the overall game. You only have a finite (and generally reducing) amount of AP to get your strats and schemes done so the first question should always be 'how can my AP help me achieve VPs'. Having said that if you also want to deny your opponent VPs then you need to thin out their models so they have less AP to accomplish their strats/schemes whilst crews with lots of models tend to take a lot of Interact based schemes so killing them reduces how effectively they can do those.

Michael Rees, Neil Harrison, Jon McCarthy, Solomon Hill, Jay Walter, Dominic Westerland.

I've started a new thread about it here but I think killing your own models off is totally in the spirit of Malifaux so it opens some interesting strategies with the scheme.

The six of us will probably arrive early afternoon as it's about a three hour drive.

Life is distracting me! I need to get the leftovers from my Month 1 done and do Month 2 stuff (and paint my entry to the AWP monthly challenge, and then get back to painting Ressers for a tournament ...).

It is weird that you can potentially never score from it if the first attack is not against the chosen model but seems like the chance to get three VPs is very easy.

Hadn't thought about HtK! That does indeed make it very easy. I think the intention is that you probably need to fulfil all three requirements but the rulebook doesn't support that.

OK, so this just came up in another thread and I (we) have a question about Vendetta. I've always thought that the only way to get the full 3VPs from Vendetta is if your noted models first attack was against the noted enemy model and your noted model killed the noted enemy model. However, having checked the wording for Vendetta it states 'If the noted enemy model is killed by the noted friendly model, score 3 VP (whether or not the scheme was revealed' (Big Rulebook, page 70, my emphasis). Now, as the scheme specifically states it may not be revealed at the start of the game and the only way to reveal the scheme is if you noted models first attack is against the noted enemy model does this mean that it's possible to score the full 3VPs for Vendetta if your noted model only lands the killing blow to the noted enemy model? I had always thought that this was not the case before but having read Vendetta again it seems like you could and whilst risky makes scoring 3VPs from Vendetta a lot easier.

But the only way to 'score 3VP whether revealed or not' is by landing the killing shot without it having been your first shot. As you're supposed to reveal it if your first attack action is against the noted model (which is the only way to reveal it). However, if your first attack action is against something else but you do kill them then you satisfy the not revealed part of it? As I say, I've always played it the same way as you but by reading it then it definitely seems like you can just get 3VPs from landing the kill shot (though this seems easy even if risky).

Nope - 'if the noted enemy model is killed my the noted friendly model, score 3VP (whether the scheme was revealed or not)' (Big Rulebook, page 70). I have to confess I always thought that you had to have their first attack on the target so you reveal the scheme too. But this opens up lots of new sneakiness! Although I'm not sure whether I'd risk it.

As Aaron's post says though, if it's not in the FAQ then it doesn't count which means people will still argue for/against it even after a game designer has given a ruling in a forum because Wyrd themselves have said that they are not official rulings (which is mad, but a different issue.).

I'm pretty easy either way. I voted Chinese but as Carvery's tend to be in pubs that might be easier for the drinks options.

I love the Pathfinder and was thinking he'd easily be able to get a first turn shot on the big lump. Plus his ignore armour trigger meant he was more likely to deliver the killing shot to the Whiskey Golem too. But he didn't. Because he died! First time I've tried running two Austringers. I liked the flexibility of it though especially with so many interacts being needed (Headhunter + Distract). Still new though so trying lots of things out.

Ratty just put up some links to the full boxes and the Collodi one is here. Three Wicked Dolls.

If we are lucky Nathan or Eric might comment here but until it's in the FAQ is doesn't count as official.

As others have said - it definitely depends on the strats and what other schemes are available. I'm definitely more of a fan of Cursed Object but I do like Distract as well. I tend to choose a combination of killing and interact schemes if I can but it really does depend on a lot of things (my favourite schemes are generally Plant Evidence (or explosives, scheme marker against terrain - can't remember which one is is!), Vendetta, Distract, Cursed, Breakthrough and Entourage (though the latter two depend on my own crew a lot - I love them with my Ressers generally but haven't got much out of them with Guild).

Looking forward to seeing renders too, spoil them soon please Wyrd

If I could hijack slightly as I'm a recent Guild recruit what M&SU constructs do people run with Hoffman? Are Ramos' box, metal Gamin and Rail Golem all necessary (I think that's all the M&SU right?). Which generally make people's list? Having played against Joss and H. Langston they are both great so I know I want them. How many Gamin do people run? Just one for the Power Loop?

Yay for Molly! Very happy to see her in the release list and there's a few other bits I'll be getting too (glad it's my birthday in May!)

Agree. The wording is not good (though I draw attention to Self-Harm over Self-Loathing again) but based on other abilities etc. in the game then it would be consistent that the Blasts don't get placed. Unfortunately it's just going to be a circular argument until Wyrd give an official ruling on it. My group will continue to play it without Blasts until then.

Effects are a defined game term in Malifaux. You have written how damage is an effect of an action (page 38) and I have quoted page 50 which also states that Blasts are an effect. These are two clear parts of the rulebook where effects are defined. Pandora's Self-Loating states that you apply the printed damage effects (i.e. the numbers that are on the cards which are the damage spread ('a damage flip is indicated by three numbers separated by slashes with the amount of damage dealt depending on the value of the card flipped' page 46)) and 'no other effects or triggers from the chosen action are applied' (the Blast which is defined on page 50 as being an effect of (usually) damage). This is a clear interpretation of the rulebook. It's even more obvious when you read Self-Harm (which you've neglected to draw attention to) which doesn't even contain the word 'printed' as I've stated so is a much more clear case. Now I agree there's an issue with the consistency of the wording on her card but the rules make a clear case for Blasts being an 'other' effect.

I've read it. And qute frankly it's a ridiculous interpretation and smacks of gamesmanship. The page number I've quoted clearly states that Blasts are an effect and so wouldn't be applied. The real issue is that Self-Loathing contains the word 'printed' when Self-Harm just says apply the damage. Claiming that because it says printed means Blasts gets added because damage is also an effect is just trying to twist the rules. Blast is an 'other' effect.

Page 50 of the (big) rulebook has already been quoted but the first bit of the wording under Blasts is 'Some effects (usually damage) contain a blast symbol' (my emphasis). Therefore it's clear that Blasts are an effect and since Pandora can not use effects they are not added.