scarlett fever

High River Monks are basically dog water in any other situation than with McCabe. I did used to like them with Shenlong but have since seen the error of my ways. HRM with a Timeworn Blade and/or Faded Mirror depending on match-up are insane. With McCabe 1 with Masked Agent you can yeet them into combat 14" away, fast and unactivated for 4+ precise attacks handing out burning and cycling cards before they get ganked. They're generally preferable over Kabuki unless you're facing certain melee crews or specific tech. Do you want the 4 min2 with burning, free focus, chi and triggers or 3 min3 with plus flips to damage and combat finesse. All TT McCabes OOK minion picks are glass and you have to play hella cagey with them. If the enemy kills them before you deliver them it's all over, but when they get in they cause massive damage. Haven't tried Joro for some time but should prob give them another go. Size 3, 50mm base, df 5 with no other defences makes them even trickier to play than Kabuki. But I can see how they might prevail in the right map/match-up.

I can only speak with any degree of confidence on TT, even if I have opinions on other Masters. In a vacuum most TT Titles are better than OG but not all. I think Titles are in a weird place where Ideally picking title after Master reveal should have an impact, but in TT it's generally a moot point. Let's say the scheme and strat pool is X and you've chosen Misaki (who is one of the best candidates for the Title having a different role to fufill to the OG). You already know the pool before the Title pick so you should be leaning into one version of Misaki over the other. This means the only real impact is what Master your opponent has chosen and there's not so much counter tech difference between Master versions in TT that this really makes a difference. You're probably always better to do your counter tech in your crew build. If the Pool favours Misaki 2 over Misaki 1 you are either a Misaki stan or you probably chose the 'wrong' Master in the first place. That out the way this is my take on TT; Asami - OG is better than Shintaku hands down Lynch - Dark Debt is better than OG McCabe - Tomb Delver is better than Relic Hunter. But Relic Hunter has such a different play style to Tomb Delver that I def play him a lot, they like different pools and match-ups. But I'm a McCabe stan and I suspect maybe this might be 'incorrect' in a pure theory space. Mei Feng - Foreman is better than OG. Dropping OG beater Mei has it's place though Misaki - I thoroughly enjoy the playstyle of Fractured Misaki but OG Misaki is just better Shenlong - OG is better than Teacher. Teacher is put together poorly, his own abilities contradict themselves. There is a narrow pool where you might pick Teacher over OG but again i suspect this is not the correct play Yan Lo - Yan 2 suffers from being a new bogeyman, I do wonder if both options may have viability? Before the Titles there was a sense from some top players that OG Yan was perhaps the best Master in TT, which was weird when he plays better and has more flexibility in Ressers. Yan 2 has been terrorising scenes since his release and he's crazy strong so has completely eclipsed the OG which is a bit more clunky and wordy to play, but still really strong. My caveat to this is that my experience in burns has been a lot of alpha strike and massive mobility, which as a slow burn Master the OG is not fond of. So perhaps the Title is still just better. Youko - Unseen is better than OG. There may be a narrow pool where OG is better but you prob picked the wrong Master. So probably 3 out of 8 of the OG are just better in TT. I think there's a place for fielding both Titles and OGs if you have a small stable of Masters you're comfortable fielding, but in a purely competitive space I'm not certain this holds up.

Kitty is map dependent and scheme and strat dependant. TT don't have a lot of Incorporeal and on some maps/match-ups being able to move through terrain and ignore hazardous is fantastic. We also don't have any auto includes for Leylines lodestone carriers. No big resilient models that are fast and ignore terrain without relying on places. I've been caught out by turn 1 alphas that remove key lodestone holders and leave me scrambling for strat points. Kitty is fast, incorporeal and a hench. She's also great for dropping scheme markers without AP tax. Turn one she wants to move through a bunch of models to give them all brilliance and set herself up for future pushes on her bonus action. Some better players than me lean on Kunoichi a lot more, but that maybe due to leaning into Lynch, which I seldom play. After the nerf to Tanuki, Kunoichi are our only non-Master locked access to easy focus, plus Tools for the Job is amazing for card cycling. I use one when I really want to have focus on models T1, to either strike or counterstrike. You want to activate one, discard a mask for mask triggers on their gun and then ping a nearby model or two to give out focus within 3" of them and move up the board. Best to be shooting an incorporeal model, but if you have healing or even better self healing this is fine as well. Side note, I almost always take Kabuki or High River OOK with McCabe (sometimes both), but that's very specific.

Bill number one, just an all round monster. Next is Desper/Huckster if the pool warrents it. Then sometimes Low River if I want to survive. Though recently I've been subbing him out for Terracotta as I'm finding in my meta it's more that I need my key squishy models to survive the T1, T2 alpha than general attrition over the game. Occasional picks are Kitty and Kunoichi, but they're for specific situations.

Thanks! How did I miss this

What happens when you can't place the last marker in Break the Line due to terrain and previous marker placement? For some reason I thought you reset until you can but I can't see anything in the rules/FAQ that would agree with that. Does the last marker just not drop?

What I mean by brick is if you were to attach a 4th upgrade you literally can't swap upgrades anymore. If you were to discard an upgrade at this point the only upgrade free to attach would be the one you just discarded. Therefore all 4 upgrades would be locked in.

Question on upgrades. I've always assumed with upgrades that I've played that you hand out (McCabe, Jackdaw, Hodgepodge) that once the Plentiful/Unique limit is met you can't hand them out anymore. You can't just hand out an upgrade which is already on model B to model A and model B discards the upgrade. However if I play new Shenlong like this it seems a little weird. Shifting Form: During the Start Phase of Turn, Attach a Style Upgrade to this model. When any friendly Monk Activates, it may discard a Style Upgrade to Attach any other Style Upgrade to itself. Trigger on bonus action: Choose a friendly Monk within range without a Style Upgrade. Attach a Style Upgrade to the chosen model. ... So either the 'attach any other Style Upgrade' allows you to discard an Upgrade from another Monk. Or this was always the case once you reach the Plentiful/Unique limit. Or you have to make sure any Style Upgrade you want a Monk to have has been discarded/hasn't been attached and once you take the Great Teacher action the 3rd time in a game (turn 3) you Brick.

Sure it doesn't exactly quote the rules but it appears to be one of the two interpretations. This interpretation is close to my original interpretation and some others that when the rules state "models with one or more unresolved effects" they are talking about effects on the models card (effects generated by the model) rather than the second possible interpretation that the rules are talking about effects that are affecting the model. Which is the implication if it is stated that Terrifying should be resolved in step 1 during the Active model step, which I have definitely heard in podcasts and seen written on forums. Those seem like the 2 most likely interpretations that I can tell and both lead to different outcomes.

So someone answered on AWP that the ruling is to resolve effects generated by the active players models first and then effects generated by the non-active player. This resolves this ruling for me and makes it much simpler but does mean that Terrifying is resolved in step 2 and its order controlled by the non-active player as its an effect generated by the non-active players model. Which I don't think is of great importance just a difference in how I've heard it interpreted before.

Yes me too, hence my first post. I try to play as close to RAW as I can. If the rules are as you say then I think Wrath should be split into active and non-Active players, otherwise you can't assign Simultaneous Effects that effect multiple models and players to Active or non-Active. In M2e you could box in as you say.

So Scatter order is controlled by the opposing player (read affected models are all opposing players, as per other effects) or Fuhatsu (affects multiple models so Fuhatsu gets lucky)?

Section 2 does make sense of your interpretation, true, having used the term affected. But Winds Wrath becomes wonky, there's nothing about a single effect affecting multiple models being treated differently, particularly if heal and bury are distinct but multiple affected models are not. If it only effects opponents models then they choose the order of the effects on each model? If both players models affected active player chooses?

Hi there, So I've always read the ruling for Simultaneous Effects as being the model with the effect/s is the model which has the effect written on their card. Due to the use of the language effect in the rules for Simultaneous Effects and also because of the reference "When an effect resolves, the entire effect resolves (even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player)." However responses to rules here seem to imply the reading of Simultaneous Effects pertains to the affected model, rather than the model with an effect to resolve. Is this the consensus? It seems to make the last sentence in section 1 redundant? So Terrifying is resolved by the affected model, as is Scatter, Shove Aside, Regeneration, Entropy etc. This seems to make Actions like Yasunori's the Wind's Wrath or similar unnecessarily complicated if they effect models of both players, but perhaps I'm wrong. Rules text for clarity: Simultaneous Effects Occasionally, an effect will generate multiple effects that occur at the same time. If this happens, they are resolved in the following order: 1. The Active player (or the player with Initiative, if there is no Active player) chooses one of their models with one or more unresolved effects and resolves those effects in whatever order they wish. Then, that player chooses another of their models with unresolved effects and resolves those effects in the same way, continuing in this manner until the player no longer has models with unresolved effects. When an effect resolves, the entire effect resolves (even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player). 2. The non-Active player resolves any unresolved effects affecting their models, as described above. 3. Any remaining unresolved effects are resolved in an order determined by the Active player (or the player with Initiative, if there is no Active player).

Great thanks, we'll all be in touch soon no doubt.

I've only had 2 tournament games of M3e that didn't go the full 5 rounds, and they were easy to unpack with my opponent how they would end. I've also had many m2e games that only went to round 3. Note that in our meta our tournament games are generally 2.5 hour games. But my casual games are routinely slow, playing new crews, long set-up times, banter etc. I've played tournaments in other game systems with less excuse for slow play and if there aren't chess clocks you will get games that don't go the distance. We could reduce to 3-4 rounds but new players, people who don't know their armies and those vulnerable to analysis paralysis will still be turn up and want a game. Which is fair enough, they deserve to play too. I don't think this is necessarily about changing the game system to accommodate slower play, though that could help, I think this should be a discussion about how serious you want to take your tournaments. Mentioning chess clocks is a sure way to blow up the Malifaux conversation, but I believe it's the only way to be certain games won't time out. This is from someone who used to be disparaging about their use in Malifaux. They do add another layer to your gameplay and you will forget to switch back to your opponent on occasion but over all it will even out and adds that level of pressure to stay on time. I've tried using them and they're usable. If you want a proper competitive format they shouldn't be compulsory but they should be an option if you're expecting a slow game or you start to see your game grinding. This is obviously a difficult ask for those who just turn up to have fun and mess around or those who want to unpack every decision but I don't believe cutting down rounds will make timeouts go away. Reasonable players who know their crews cards to a reasonable level can absolutely get games done in time. They may have to short cut some of the deep decisions but it's achievable. The knowledge that someone can ask for a clock will keep the pressure on. But this won't be fun for the casuals and people who want the deep thinking in game, so could alienate some players. But in a gentleman's format, which Malifaux has been pretty good for so far as far as I can tell, strong players won't need to slam newbs with chess clocks, because they'll know how to win the game even if it drags. As they rise in their Strength of Schedule over the course of a tourney, if they strike someone of their own calibre who is dragging the chain and they really want the win, threaten a clock on them. If both players are top table level they should be mature enough to use a clock if asked. Though I agree that kill everything crews are quicker to play than other crews I don't think summoning crews are significantly slower than all other crews. Often what you summon in has a pretty specific role to play and there are lots of crews out there that don't summon but are just so dense with synergy that you have endless decision trees with them. If you're turning tournament with one of these crews and want to play top table then know your cards and know which of your 500 synergies is most comfortable for you in most situations. So I guess my summary is, how serious do you want your tournaments to be? If you don't want to time out know your crews and don't get stuck on decision making. If your meta is not meeting the requirements you want then you may need to threaten clocks. I don't believe reducing rounds will completely remove timeouts and it will change the game so much that it's likely the whole game would need re-balancing.

I don't think our haka would intimidate anyone. Brendan is pretty good at Ballroom dancing though.

Team Insomnia (New Zealand, name tbc) Hayden Prujean Outcasts Brendan Shipman Ten Thunders Stephen Morris Ressers

Can Levi and friends kill themselves with Necrotic Decay?

If you Obey an enemy model with Focus on it to take an action can you use its Focus for that action?

Deployment : Corner Strategy : Plant Explosives Schemes : Breakthrough Search the Ruins (Power Ritual) (Outflank) Assassinate Opponent's declared leader : Zipp First Mate, Earl Burns, Merris, 2xGators, Mancha Roja, Gracie My Leader & crew : Asami Amanjaku, Ama No Zako, Yasanori, Fuhatsu, 2 xTanuki, Akaname Score / MVP / Thoughts 7-4 to Asami I built my crew to hold both corners, kind of obvious play but decided to go all in. The idea was Yas and Ama hold a flank each with Tanuki and schemes for support and Fuhatsu hold the centre as distraction and denial. Asami was to hang back gobbling up scheme markers with her bonus action and throw out 2 scheme runners a turn if possible, mainly Tengu for Dark Bargain on my big three who were holding the explosives markers. After hearing Zipp declared I was surprised to see the 3 big beaters accross from me and as always had to adapt. Yas and Ama dealt with the Bayou Gaytors on the flanks but ended up being isolated as overpriced schemerunners themselves. All the pressure came down the centre of the board which meant the high cards in my hand that were meant for summons all went on deleting his models with explosive markers on them before they could run havoc in my back lines. Fuhatsu was the MVP, though I dumped a huge amount of hand resources and Tanuki AP into him over the course of the game. Being in the centre he had to hold up the game for me. Great game and very tense.

Hey all, Desper LaRaux's Expert Getaway says "this model may ignore terrain and models whilst moving". I assume this means he would ignore the dis-engaging strikes of models also? Walk - "... The move cannot be used to leave an enemy model's engagement range."

Ah of course summoning is also a place. However Shockwave markers are Dropped so are effected by vertical range. If your Sz 2 model attempted to drop a Shockwave on the Height 4 terrain he could as long as the marker was horizontally within range -2 and within 1" of the edge of the terrain (for LoS purposes).

On reading the new M3e rules I was under the impression that pretty much all ranges now include vertical distance; "Measurement is almost always done horizontally from the closest point on the base of a the object in question. If a player is measuring to an object, they measure to the closest point on the base of the target. If there is a vertical element, that distance is added to the distance, minus the lower objects height (to a minimum of 0)." The only thing I can see in the Rulebook that specifically breaks this is the Place ability, which specifically states you ignore vertical distance. So if Sandeep stands on a Height 4" terrain piece he can only cast through Banasuva on the ground if (ground being Height 0") if he's within 5" of him Horizontally (Range 6" - 4 (terrain Height) + 3(Banasuva Sz)? What about Summoning? The Range of the Summon doesn't take account of the Sz of the model Summoned? So in the instance above Sandeep can only Summon within 2" horizontally if he Summons on the ground from the Height 4 terrain? Is this all correct? Are there any other instances that ignore vertical distance other than Place?

Cheers, thanks. Just getting into M3e and was trying to figure out if the targeting rules still applied. But this would only work for models with bases 40-50mm in size?