MadmanMSU

I'm exicted to try her out this weekend.  Here's the build I'm running:

Neverborn Crew - 50 - Scrap

Zoraida -- 5 Pool
 +Crystal Ball [2]
 +Hexed Among You [1]

Alp [3]
Bad Juju [8]
 +Eternal Fiend [2]
 +Fears Given Form [1]
Iggy [5]
Vasilisa [9]
Waldgeist [6]
Waldgeist [6]
Waldgeist [6]
 

Trees are basically blocking lineman, deploy up front.  Anyone who gets by my blockers gets a Bad Juju in the face.  If they continue to persist past the Bad Juju, then I burn them to death with Iggy.  Summon a doll, Hem on an enemy.  Stack burning 4 on the doll with Iggy.  Vasilisa twists the doll to hem another target, then obey Iggy to stack burning 4 again.  Zoraida uses obey to stack even more burning.  End of the turn, the first model takes burning 4, the second model takes burning 4 and an additional 8 damage when the voodoo takes burning damage.  Brutal.

To add to what I posted before, the nice part about that list is that you don't always need to run the combo.  For example, I was playing against a Tara crew last week, and my opponent was playing very aggressively.  He won Init, and moved Tara out front.  I did Step 1, then double lured Tara in with my Beckoner.  3 Activations later Tara was dead.  He had to play the next 4 turns without his master, which basically made the game a forgone conclusion.

You can really punish your opponent for playing aggressively with that list.  Hold off on running the combo for a few activations and let him move some juicy models forward, than Lure them in and punt HD up the field for the kill.

The real irony of it is that I often use the Illuminated for dropping scheme markers because Lynch/HD/Graves are doing all the heavy lifting.  Go figure.

That is a really convincing point for the Doppelganger, also doesn't that thing cost the same as a Beckoner? 7ss. I will definitely have to look into that. Also I am thinking about dropping one Beckoner for two Depleted's, just to try it out. 

 

Also that Tannen is awesome! 

Try this list for giggles and profits.

50ss

Lynch - 5ss

-Eternal Hunger

-Woke Up With a Hand

-Addict

Hungering Darkness

-Fears Given Form

Illuminated

Illuminated

Beckoner

Mr. Graves

Doppleganger

Terror Tot

Setup

HD on the line.  Mr. Graves base to base with HD.  Doppleganger 4 inches behind HD (this is important to avoid the Fears test).

Strategy

Step 1: Doppleganger mimics Graves "show ya the door" (SYTD).  Doppleganger moves up to HD.  Doppleganger SYTD on HD, move both forward 6 inches.

Step 2: Graves walks forward.  Graves SYTD on HD.  Both move forward 6 inches.

Step 3: Charge with HD.  Deployment + 2x SYTD + Charge stat + MI range = 27 inch range, assuming standard deployment.  Graves charges in on Turn 2 as backup.

Now you've got a 3 AP HD in the middle of his crew after 3 activations on the first turn, that causes a DF14 test on anyone who activates inside HD's 8 inch bubble, and a terrifying all stat for anyone who attacks him.  Use all your soulstones to keep him alive. 

Rest of the crew plays as normal Neverborn/Lynch crew.  Doppleganger can be used either to mimic a Beckoner's Lure, or mimic Graves/HD for attack actions.

So far I'm nearly undefeated with this list.  A good Nicodem player can be problematic.

The Hungering Darkness

 

Characteristics and Abilities

 

So looking at the Hungering Darkness the first thing to note is that he does not intrinsically have brilliance. He is Darkened however and as such he will benefit from the addict upgrade. He is also a spirit which is near as dammit as good as having his wounds doubled up to an impressive 14. Pretty useful given his paltry defence.

 

Terrifying (Living) 12 is useful, although I personally have forgotten about enforcing terrifying tests since the game first game out. He is also incorporeal.

Just wanted to point out:  the Hungering Darkness does not benefit from Addict.  Addict only affects minion models.  He is a henchman.

You picked a good time to start D3.  The latest patch really made the game better.

I joined the Gamers With Jobs community (GWJ), for obvious reasons.  Everyone in there is incredibly nice.  And not a screaming 12 year old. 

Good place to find people to play with.

I personally took a bit of a break in my free time from D3 to play the latest Shadowrun expansion, but will probably return once I finish that.

I would love to hear how you all have been finding Lynch as a true Neverborn citizen!

While I have not played every master released in the first wave, I would definitely say that Lynch is one of the strongest masters in the game.  So far I've lost exactly 1 game with him.  I play him exclusively as Neverborn, but looking at the new general upgrades that the 10T are getting in the beta, I would definitely try him out as 10T once those are released.

Now that the second wave is official, I look forward to seeing if he can continue to be dominant. 

He doesn't ignore models when taking actions:

 

Incorporeal:  This model ignores, and is ignored by, other models and terrain during any movement or push.

 

He only ignores it during movement and pushes.  The charge cannot be declared while engaged unless you can be moving or being pushed while also declaring doing another action which is currently impossible and therefore not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Hmmm....  That makes sense.

A charge action is illegal while engaged though, it cannot be declared in the first place.

Also true.  Which brings us full circle back to the original question regarding the Hungering Darkness.  Since he has incorporeal, he ignores other models when taking move actions.  Such as charge.

Also, there's a part in the rules that says things like Flight and Incorporeal are only in effect while moving, but not while you declare an Action. It's specifically geared to address being engaged.

That's true, but you can only take disengaging strikes against Walk actions.  Charge is not a walk.

Easy mistake.  Incorporeal tells you to ignore other models when taking move actions.  Charge is a move action.  Ergo, you ignore other models when you charge.

Just to clarify to walk out of an engagement you must declare a walk action and spend ap to do so. If the model that is attempting to walk away has the terrifying ability, the model wishing to stop the active model must take a terror test. (if applicable)

If a model has terrifying and a model attempts to get away and is stopped, the stopped model ended a walk action in the terrifying models engagement range and must take a test (if applicable).

The OP was referring to the first one.  I was mistaken, I thought he was referring to the second one.  There is definitely a horror test.

But for the sake of argument, in the second case (where the model without horror is leaving the engagement range of the model with horror) there would be no test.  If you succeed in a disengaging strike, the walk never happens, per the rules.  You can't do a horror test if there is no walk action.

You have it right. If one of you is engaged your both engaged so no charge. But since you are not in their engagement range you can freely walk away.

Just think that the "seductive" belle is distracting chompy and he is holding out his hand to stay her, so she can't get away but then he drops his hand and frollicks away to torment someone else. When all the bell wanted was company.

That's....odd. 

To further complicate the issue, suppose you replace the Lord with the Hungering Darkness, who has Incorporeal.  Incorporeal allows you to ignore other models when taking move actions.  Can the Darkness charge?  I think it depends on whether or not a charge is considered a "move".  Technically its listed under Tactical Actions in the book, but then so is walking, and both are called a "move" in their rules.

Terrifying (Living) 13: Enemy Living models must pass a TN 13 Horror Duel if they end a Walk Action within this model’s engagement range or target this model with an Action

Last line. If your are trying to make them stop you have to target them which then makes you take a terror test. If you are the terrifying model and you stop them from moving they will also have to take atest since they ended a walk action in your engagement range.

1) The walking model is not targeting the model with terrifying.  Just because the terrifying model is taking a disengaging strike does not mean it was targeted, it is simply an effect that happens as a result of the walk being declared.

2) And if the disengaging strike succeeds, the rules state that you may not take the walk action, so terrifying does not go off at all because there is no walk action.

Edit:  Ah, there is some confusion.  I thought it was Model A walking away from Model B, but in the OP its the other way around.

My bad.  There's definitely a horror test.

But the horror duel specifically says only if you end your walk in engagement range.  If you're ending your walk outside the range, as would happen if you are declaring it for the disengaging strike, the horror duel would not apply, right?

It seems like you would have to resolve the disengaging strike first, then apply the horror duel if it succeeded (because the walk ended in engagement range).  That seems more intuitive to me.

Edit:  Or perhaps the Horror duel never happens at all.  If the disengaging strike succeeds, you don't get to perform the walk, so no horror duel.

Some confusion on my part, was hoping someone could help me clear this up.

Let's assume you have a Lord Chompy Bits (3 inch range) model that is three inches away from a Rotten Belle (1 inch range).  According to pages 43 and 44, the Lord could walk away from the Rotten Belle, because it is not within the Belle's engagement range.  But could the Lord charge a different model?  It says that engagement goes both ways, if an enemy model is within a model's engagement range, both the enemy and the model are engaged with each other.  And, obviously, you can't charge if you are engaged.

Based on that reading, I'm tempted to say the Lord can walk away, but not charge?  Which is intuitively silly to me.  Is that right?

Sadly it looks like the performer has a Wp of 5 now, boo that combo sounded really cool...Still, nurse pumping the voodoo doll with conditions to mess up the model he's sewn to would be sick!

 

Montresor would be pretty cool to bring from outcasts if you're playing doubles with Pandora on your team.

Performer is still a mercenary, so you can still just pay the 1 SS tax.  In any case, while I like the combo, I think needing 3 models to pull off one 8 damage shot is just too much.

I'm a fan of Iggy.  It's simple, does a nice hit of damage, and doesn't require too much to accomplish.  Even if they put the fire out, they're still burning actions (heh heh) to do it.

I was also considering Vasilisa.  A fragile model, but the combination of her status effects, having a second Obey, and a zero action Twist to cast Sewn Fate more than once a turn...you could really stack some serious conditions every turn.  For example:  Puppet casts Sewn Fate on something, then Vasilisa does a Needle and Thread for a condition, then Twists to do a Sewn Fate on something else, then Needle and Thread again....pretty dirty.

Yeah, I would think it's 4 damage?  From two separate sources.  First, the enemy model gains the burning +2 condition because the doll did.  Then at the end of the turn, the doll takes two damage from burning, so the enemy model takes 2 damage.  Then the enemy model takes a further two damage from its own burning condition.

I think we're skipping over the real question, where exactly did you get that image *from*? I can't find the wave 1 files anywhere, so I can't see if that is the final version of them that had that phrasing, prior to the book release. If it was written like that during the beta testing then the question itself isn't valid because it wasn't a rule, but a test rule. So where did that image come from to begin with?

I got it from Scribd.  I don't have my rulebook on me, so it was the only place I could think of to find a copy of the rule.

Clearly, what I found was incorrect.  Flay should be as you wrote it:

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

You can only cheat if there is a negative damage flip. 

Since there was a double negative flip in my example, you can cheat.  Which makes the rules contradictory.

I understand the argument others are making.  I disagree with it, but I understand it.  To me, the rule explicitly says you can cheat, given the condition.  I hold no false hopes about changing minds, and I agree with Halcyonseraph that arguing in circles is pointless.  Again, I'll just point out that if its agreed that Nicodem's rule trumps Flay for balance reasons, I'll buy that, but I still think the two rules are direct contradictions.

At this point we are arguing in circles.

Fair enough.

For what its worth, we played it that Nicodem's rule was the correct one.  I simply wanted to hash it out here and see what the general consensus was.  Clearly, Impossible to Wound wins

You are assigning meaning to the sentence that is not present, because it fits what you want the power to do. You can tell because you're saying the sentence "implies" that you can do something. The rules do not work that way. Rules do not imply. 

 

Flay does what it says it does, and what it says it does is circumvent the rule disallowing cheating in the case of negative flips. The part about "other conditions such as a negative flip" is purely your addition. 

 

If I am driving a car and there's a general law in my state that you may not make left turns on red lights, but I have special dispensation to do so because I am the Pope, it does not mean I can make left turns at an intersection that simply says NO LEFT TURNS, regardless of what color the light is. 

You have that exactly backwards.  I was replacing words to try to fit them into your use of the vernacular.  The wording of the rule explicitly states "may be cheated". 

I'm totally willing to accept two things:  1)  That for some reason my copy has the wrong wording in it and the actual wording is "may be cheated if it suffers one or more -", in which case it would only apply if there is a negative flip.  This doesn't change anything, however, because in the example I gave there was a negative flip. so you would still be able to cheat.  Which leads us to  2) That the rules are totally contradictory, and for balance reasons Nicodem's rules supersede the Flay rules.  That makes sense, I'll buy that.

But to say that you can't cheat doesn't make sense, when the rule explicitly says that you can.

I'm not sure which "Flay" you're reading, but I'm on page 191 looking at the Obsidian Talons upgrade...

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

There is no use of "even if" in that at all. And "even if" there was, it would still have no effect on Impossible to wound, which states it may never be cheated.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I looked at THe Illuminated and they are worded the same was as Obsidian Talons.

Here's in image of the rule.

To be fair, it may be different?

Either way, I'll assume yours is correct, and the actual reading is "The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."  I would totally agree, that is an implicit restriction and you would only be able to cheat if there is a negative damage flip.

However, given that the example I used had a double negative damage flip. you would still be able to cheat.  And thus the rules contradiction.

Yes, "even if" means that that is the rule you are superseding. It does not supersede any other rules except "you cannot cheat when at negative flips". Impossible to Wound has nothing to do with that, it simply says you can never cheat damage against that model. Flay does not address that at all. 

 

Flay does exactly one thing: Allows you to cheat despite negative flips. It does not always let you cheat no matter what factors are disallowing it. Because that's not what it says. 

Again, incorrect.  A simple, perhaps more clear, way of reading this is to replace the words "even if" with another set of words that mean the same thing.

In your example, you are replacing "even if" with something that means either "only if" or "only in the case of".  So another way to write the sentence would be "may be cheated in the case that there is a negative flip", or perhaps "may be cheated when the condition of a negative flip exists" or even "may be cheated only under the restricted condition of a negative flip".

That would be an incorrect way of reading it however, simple because that's not what "even if" means.  Even if simply applies an example condition, not a specific restriction.  So the sentence could instead read "may be cheated for example if a negative flip exists" or "may be cheated even when other conditions such as a negative flip exist".

The point being, it gives the model the implicit ability to cheat the damage flip.

Again, I'm still not saying that Flay takes priority, only that these two rules are direct contradictions of each other.

From my understanding, the Flay trigger just bypasses the rule that you can't cheat damage if you have a negative fate modifier.

 

Now, if you can never cheat like with Impossible to wound it doesn't matter if you have a negative (or any) fate modifier, you just can't cheat.

 

Flay doesn't say "you can cheat", it specifically mentions under which (normally forbidding it) condition you may cheat (as an exception). So, from my perspective, this is pretty obvious: No, Flay does not allow you to cheat damage against Impossible to wound models.

Neither "takes precedence", because the two rules do not actually conflict.

 

Flay allows you to ignore the rule that says you cannot cheat if you have net negative flips. That is all it does, it does not ignore any other reason for not being able to cheat.

 

Impossible to Wound is a separate reason to not be able to cheat. Flay does not bypass it because Flay ONLY bypasses the "no cheating on negative flips" rule.

Firstly, I appreciate the feedback. 

Secondly, while I still am unconvinced which one takes priority, I do want to point out that both of you are wrong.  Flay absolutely lets you cheat.  The exact wording on flay, and I quote, "After succeeding, the damage flip resulting from this attack may be cheated even if it suffers a -".

It does not say "may be cheated WHEN it suffers a -".

It does not say "may be cheated ONLY IF it suffers a -".

It does say "may be cheated EVEN IF it suffers a -".

Again, I'm not saying which one applies over the other, only that this one particular reason, that it only applies to negative damage flips, is incorrect.  To my mind, these are still directly opposing rules conditions with no clear resolution.

Which takes precedence, Flay or Impossible to wound?

Example:

An Illuminated is attacking Nicodem, who has the Brilliance condition applied to him.  After the attack flip is finished, the result is a double negative damage flip.  However, the Illuminated has enough suits to trigger Flay which states that "the damage flip may be cheated, even if there is a negative flip".  However, Nicodem has Impossible to Wound, which states that "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated".

This seems directly contradictory to me.  Which one applies?

I agree with Mister Shine.  The key to Fated is twofold.  For "The Fate of us All", Strum the Threads has to come from a friendly effigy.  Since neither Collodi or Vasilisa have Effigy on their card, this doesn't apply.  For "Follow My Lead", the condition has to come from one of Collodi's own actions, and Strum the Thread is not an action.

So either way, you can't use Fated to apply Fast to the whole crew.  The only way for the whole crew to gain Fast is if they each take 2 damage and are within 6 inches.

EDIT: Although, you could give Collodi either Defensive or Focused and pass that out to the whole crew.  That could be interesting.