Carasz

I've always assumed that only Lucius knows, and uses this to control McMourning. "I'll keep your secret if you do my dirty work when I need you to". One bad guy using another.

Candy with (0) Run away home! acted like a goalie during my last game. I played against pandora with Colettes themed crew. It was mainly because of our schemes she was so great. The second turn candy survived with 1 wound thanks to it. During turn 3-6 she was placed close enough to my models in her deployment zone to either paralyze them if they want to do something early or kill them if they didn't. Our schemes needed scheme markers in the corners and something I can't remember. Even though I had advanced on two flanks, it didn't help at all. She moved between those without problems. Those were the points that tipped the game in my opponents favor.

As per Justins comment, line of sight must cross terrain and the model must in within 1" of the terrain, not where the line is crossing. But bigger pieces of terrain, or terrain with curves and other shapes, can be divided into pieces and counted as separate pieces of terrain, as to not abuse this rule.

Oh, you meant in one attack action with a base attack action with no other buffs. I somehow thought you meant a whole activation. But I'd still like to count the built in buffs that many masters have, which would change this completely. Not all masters have their bonus damage built in their triggers, they've got it through other buffs or upgrades.

Sorry, I don't really understand. Could you define "pure damage"? I'm missing the connection between the master and the number. How do you get the numbers?

I'll use the Viks as comparison, because that's who I know. I count them both for this, since they come in a two-pack. There's never just one. With a buff from one of the sister upgrades and the damage track of 5/6/8 and 5 attacks, you're looking at the same amount of damage or more (25-40, excluding red joker). And built in on most flips. And a ml of 7 or 8. And that's excluding the eventual bystander who gets killed by accident. So it's a few more flips, but better chances on the flips. So I wouldn't say Lynch is the winner, but he is certainly a contender, depending a little on his crew for maximum damage. (activations, brilliance)

I've made molds, but mainly for my own creations out of greenstuff. There is nothing wrong with mold making, but copying big existing pieces, especially sprues, feels wrong. Wyrd does a lot of good stuff, don't pirate. I can see the problem with translucent material for non-translucent models, so that's kind of a grey zone to me.

I agree with Omenbringer.

The Viks have 6 AP between them (more if you include the SoC since it fits well enough without actually activating) and if you use one of the AP to buff the damage, they have 5 as minimum damage and 5 AP left and even a little maneuverability with their 2AP-actions. That's not including the whirlwinds for multiple opponents. This is massive. Of course, you have to succeed in positioning them without getting them killed first. Easier said that done.

My line of thinking is that you check line of sight and cover when targeting models, which means before the flips. When that is determined, you decide which modifiers for cover the target will get and you don't "recheck" it during later stages. The witchling trigger comes in such a later stage. I agree that it's not well defined in the rulebook. I couldn't find a statement where it said during which step cover is decided upon.

You might be thinking of the expansions from the old version of PW. There are still some in circulation. You could buy them if you want, but they include older pewter models, just like the old base set. If you want newer models with updated rules, there's the expansion coming that's already been mentioned in this thread.

I've been thinking of using DE wracks as Abominations in a leveticus crew. So I'm guessing Urien could work as Leveticus himself.

I have to agree with the sentiment that Self harm doesn't take the action, it only copies its damage track. It might still be FAQ-worthy, because it seems its easy enough to misread, no matter the intended rules. This thread is evidence to that.

I have to agree with the sentiment that Self harm doesn't take the action, it only copies its damage track. It might still be FAQ-worthy, because it seems its easy enough to misread, no matter the intended rules. This thread is evidence to that.

I've had both good and bad results using Hans as a ranged support. SoC can give him a third shot, making fire lines forces enemies to group up behind cover (and the Viks like their whirlwind). I've been thinking of getting a convict gunslinger, friekorps librarian and Vanessa for my next addition. Heard they could be good in the crew.

I've had both good and bad results using Hans as a ranged support. SoC can give him a third shot, making fire lines forces enemies to group up behind cover (and the Viks like their whirlwind). I've been thinking of getting a convict gunslinger, friekorps librarian and Vanessa for my next addition. Heard they could be good in the crew.

Avatars were introduced in the third book, both rules and fluff wise. Fluff wise, there was an "event", which during it all masters went into their avatar form at the same time. When the event ended, they all reverted. It had lasting effects on them though. I've not read all fluff available (but most of it) and I can't recall another time where it is mentioned that any master goes into avatar. It was only during the event. But I'm guessing the event unlocked the potential to go into avatar form. The fourth book was mainly about Ten Thunders and the M2E book didn't really have that much fluff, so it might just be that they haven't found space for more stories about avatar forms. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a while since I read the books.

Avatars were introduced in the third book, both rules and fluff wise. Fluff wise, there was an "event", which during it all masters went into their avatar form at the same time. When the event ended, they all reverted. It had lasting effects on them though. I've not read all fluff available (but most of it) and I can't recall another time where it is mentioned that any master goes into avatar. It was only during the event. But I'm guessing the event unlocked the potential to go into avatar form. The fourth book was mainly about Ten Thunders and the M2E book didn't really have that much fluff, so it might just be that they haven't found space for more stories about avatar forms. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a while since I read the books.

I think you are interpreting me wrong. I'm sorry I come off so strong. I'm not trying to provoke you. It's not about having the rulebook close by. Maybe I've learnt my grammar wrong, but it seems to me the mistake you make is such a basic one, due to language rather than rules. But English is my second language, and I've learnt that I'd rather be told I'm wrong so I can correct myself than live in ignorance. I don't agree that they needed the bolded clause to make it work. I feel the language is clear without it, but it is added to foolproof the rule. And it seems it was good they did, because obviously people interpret it differently from each other, you and me being the prime examples. Just to clarify, you interpret "once per activation" as "once each activation unless the model already activated once this turn and used it during the last activation"? The italicized part is the clause that I feel you are adding to the rules. Why I ask is because you've never refuted my argument that "every activation is a separate activation" with something other than saying its not correct. Edit: You even said in a post "model has been through its cleanup step" (paraphrasing). By your own logic, doesn't that mean that the "once per turn" limit should have been cleaned up? I will say it clearly. Why is a second activation during the same turn not a completely new activation? Why does the "once per activation" limits carry over from one activation to another just because they're during the same turn? Just answer me these two questions from your perspective and I will be happy. To me, the language is clear. New activation, new "once per activation". Regardless of a clause in reactivate. I just can't see how you can draw your conclusions from that. I just feel your arguments are full of holes. Please enlighten me. I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes, touch screen and autocorrect makes it difficult sometimes. As a side note, nice catch on (0) actions, Thaarup! That makes once per activation pretty commonplace.

I think you are interpreting me wrong. I'm sorry I come off so strong. I'm not trying to provoke you. It's not about having the rulebook close by. Maybe I've learnt my grammar wrong, but it seems to me the mistake you make is such a basic one, due to language rather than rules. But English is my second language, and I've learnt that I'd rather be told I'm wrong so I can correct myself than live in ignorance. I don't agree that they needed the bolded clause to make it work. I feel the language is clear without it, but it is added to foolproof the rule. And it seems it was good they did, because obviously people interpret it differently from each other, you and me being the prime examples. Just to clarify, you interpret "once per activation" as "once each activation unless the model already activated once this turn and used it during the last activation"? The italicized part is the clause that I feel you are adding to the rules. Why I ask is because you've never refuted my argument that "every activation is a separate activation" with something other than saying its not correct. Edit: You even said in a post "model has been through its cleanup step" (paraphrasing). By your own logic, doesn't that mean that the "once per turn" limit should have been cleaned up? I will say it clearly. Why is a second activation during the same turn not a completely new activation? Why does the "once per activation" limits carry over from one activation to another just because they're during the same turn? Just answer me these two questions from your perspective and I will be happy. To me, the language is clear. New activation, new "once per activation". Regardless of a clause in reactivate. I just can't see how you can draw your conclusions from that. I just feel your arguments are full of holes. Please enlighten me. I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes, touch screen and autocorrect makes it difficult sometimes. As a side note, nice catch on (0) actions, Thaarup! That makes once per activation pretty commonplace.

If a model can't use its "once per activation" during his next activation the same turn, why does he get to do it the next turn? They're exactly the same thing. The last activation ended, he started a new one. There is no step during the end phase or startup phase next turn where they refresh once per activation. I'm sorry, but I have to question your reading comprehension. Do you know what the word "per" means? Once per activation means once each activation. Regardless of which turn it is. You are confusing the terms "turn" and "activation" by linking them together closely. It's even in the rulebook. Page 53 (big book) "a model with the reactivate condition is available to be activated one additional time during this turn, as if it had not already taken its activation." Emphasis mine. It's in the definition of reactivate. You get a second activation, but play it just the same as if it was a first activation. Because there is no difference. They're separate entities. Nowhere does it say "once per activation carries on until the end of turn". They even spelled it out to avoid confusion. Also, you really think its necessary to create a rule that's almost the same as once per turn but with a loophole to allow obeying? M2E har streamlined the rules, this is the opposite.

If a model can't use its "once per activation" during his next activation the same turn, why does he get to do it the next turn? They're exactly the same thing. The last activation ended, he started a new one. There is no step during the end phase or startup phase next turn where they refresh once per activation. I'm sorry, but I have to question your reading comprehension. Do you know what the word "per" means? Once per activation means once each activation. Regardless of which turn it is. You are confusing the terms "turn" and "activation" by linking them together closely. It's even in the rulebook. Page 53 (big book) "a model with the reactivate condition is available to be activated one additional time during this turn, as if it had not already taken its activation." Emphasis mine. It's in the definition of reactivate. You get a second activation, but play it just the same as if it was a first activation. Because there is no difference. They're separate entities. Nowhere does it say "once per activation carries on until the end of turn". They even spelled it out to avoid confusion. Also, you really think its necessary to create a rule that's almost the same as once per turn but with a loophole to allow obeying? M2E har streamlined the rules, this is the opposite.

Emphasis mine. I think this is where the problem lies. Two activations, even during the same turn, are two completely different activations. it's plural. Not one activation. Each new activation, regardless if it's the same turn or not, is its own activation. As soon as one activation ends, the limit of "once per activation" ends. It does not carry on until the end of turn. Every new activation refreshes the "once per activation". Reactivate is a new activation, not a continuation of the last activation. Edit: Sssk, I think there's an addendum to what you said. If I understood correctly, godlyness is saying that only model A may not use the OPA during a later activation if used already, but other models may obey even though model A used it. According to him, their activations are separate but the reactivate doesn't give a separate activation.

Emphasis mine. I think this is where the problem lies. Two activations, even during the same turn, are two completely different activations. it's plural. Not one activation. Each new activation, regardless if it's the same turn or not, is its own activation. As soon as one activation ends, the limit of "once per activation" ends. It does not carry on until the end of turn. Every new activation refreshes the "once per activation". Reactivate is a new activation, not a continuation of the last activation. Edit: Sssk, I think there's an addendum to what you said. If I understood correctly, godlyness is saying that only model A may not use the OPA during a later activation if used already, but other models may obey even though model A used it. According to him, their activations are separate but the reactivate doesn't give a separate activation.

I usually play Viks and sometimes I'll go up against Rasputina. It has yet to happen, because of maneuvering, but I've been thinking about a specific scenario that's bound to happen. If either of the Viks use the ability that lets all sisters attack one model (Dragon's Bite/Flight of Dragons), and one of the the sisters who attacks out of her activation gets the effects of the trigger Sub Zero, what happens? Sub Zero says "After this models suffers damage from a Ml attack, immediately end the attacker's activation". From the rulebook and other models, like Perdita, it is understood that "attacker" refers to the attacking model (not the attacking player). Since the attacking model in my scenario is the one who is not activating, there is no activation to end. Only the activating model has an activation to end. Theoretically, in a scenario with all the sisters attacking the same model with Sub Zero trigger, if I just save the activating sister for last they should all get to attack regardless of how many times the trigger is triggered. The exceptions is of course the activating sister, if she has any AP left after using Dragon's Bite/Flight of Dragons. Is this covered by a FAQ or a thread I've missed? Does my reasoning seem correct?