Ludvig

It's just the convention of wording wyrd has chosen.

Where did the target as verb cone from? "Target brillianced model" or "target model with the brilliance condition" aren't distinguishable from each other. Both of those phrases describe atttibutes of the noun "target" who is the "passive subject" (don't know if this is the english term) of the phrase. The phrase "Target brillianced model suffers x dmg" Would also allow me to choose any model but just do dmg against models with brilliance if I want it to. It's just not

Also: since we already know that attack actions with gun symbols by default require targets it seems really unnecessary for it to say "target model with ..." when it could just as easily say "If the target has the brilliance...". Why even mention target again? This coming from a company constantly struggling to keep wordig short since they run out of card space. That's how I see it at least.

Target (non master model) and/or (model with whatever condition) simply must be a targeting restriction. Trying to read it in any other way seems fishy to me. For example! Dashel: (1) On year feet: Target friendly minion gains reactivate. Sacrifice the target at the end of the turn. Woo, so I can automatically sacrifice enemies, neat! I can even use it on your master...

You might want to consider survivability and attack options against models who ignore Manipulative and Horror and have a high WP stat with on defense against your attacks. Also, as Patzer stated above, what do you do if every Ca action you make is at or even from a bunch of Sonnias Witch Hunters? (There are a few other similar abilities in the game if I am not mistaken). It might be a good idea to maybe sacrifice some of the stuff doing the same thing to add a few more classicly tanky models with nasty non-Ca attacks targeting Df like Illuminated (beating dead horse, I know) or Waldgeists (if you like denial you will love them!) or maybe Teddy (why am I doing this?!). Kade for instance is evil as hell but will go down to one focused attack from a lot of the heavy hitters in this game. Depending on your regular opponents you could of course face people who have basically no defence against Ca and Wp but it's always dangerous to rely on that. Hope you get at chance to try a couple of lists in quick succession, I have made a lot of lists that looked good on paper but failed horribly on the table. Please note that the last part is not any judgement on your list or you! Playing with the same master and scheme-pool two games in a row but letting both players tweak their lists a little can be a very good way of learning what works against what. That also lets you see what your enemy will bring if they know you will be playing Pandora. You could even let them know you will be using Pandora next game again but let them choose another master.

Looks solid to me, though I don't have a lot of experience with the Ortegas. Austringers are nice for you but people might just ragequit and refuse to play against a list with two of them ever again. There's something about the whole "I ignore all that pesky rulebook stuff about shooting" that really gets on peoples nerves. Use them against more experienced players but try to spare other players who are newer to the game would be my advice The one thing I do know about the Ortegas: Francisco really really really(!) wants "Wade In". Without it you can probably count on losing him turn 1 or 2. Hard to kill and a (0) heal is just to good to be ignored. If models are not an issue you could try substituting an Austringer for a Witchling or Latigo at 5ss and adding Wade In. Best of luck!

Page 44. If you wish to leave engagement you must declare so. When you declare the intent to leave angagement "...the enemy models that are engaged with the moving model may chose to make a free attack action targeting...". Under the heading "Disengaging and movement special abilities" it is further clarified that since the action happens before the model is moving in response to the action being declared it ignores incorporeal and flight. Doesn't leave much room for doubt, all the strikes happen before you begin moving. Disengaging is also a keyword in the Index at the back.

From how your example is worded you might be interested in this: You CAN move through engagement with a walk action without the enemy getting a disengaging strike as long as you started outside engagement range. It is only if you are engaged when you start the walk that they can try to do a disengaging strike.

Not sure about the page but it's always any part within in malifaux. Any point of the base counts for all schemes, strats, effects etc.

"Unrelenting Terror: Enemy models in 4 which did not Charge this model during the current Activation lose all Immunities to Horror Duels, including Immunity gained by passing a Horror Duel." Frozen heart has two parts. You could take away immunity to paralyze without taking away immunity to horror and vice versa. So you could target the hanged, you are no longer immune to horror but still immune to paralyze. "Frozen Heart: This model is immune to Horror Duels and Paralyzed." 1 - I am immune to Paralyzed and Horror from Frozen Heart 2 - I take away the part that makes you immune to Horror 3 - Ok, i failed the duel, I am however ALSO immune to the Paralyzed condition so I continue normally However I am not as sure as you when it comes to Ruthless. "Ruthless: This model is immune to Wp duels during its Activation" 1 - I want to shoot at Philip (Manipulative 13). Ruthless makes me immune to all Wp duels 2 - You "lose all immunities to Horror Duels" since you are within 4 of my Hanged. In your case the "immune to Wp" stipulation of Ruthless is your "Immunity", you lose it. 3 - Crap, I fail manipulative Now I realize that there are severeal interpretations but how do I convince a resser playing with a Hanged that your way is the right one and not the one I just listed?

The timing structure of taking actions on p 37 says: 1 Declare Action an spend AP. It is also during this step you take duels for targeting (Terryfying is mentioned specifically) but this is mentioned lat in the paragraph 2 Perform duels 3 Resolve Results So Ryle will already have declared a charge against the hanged when he is asked to take the duel (the duel is part of the actual action, not before it). He doesn't lose his horror immunity since he did charge the hanged this activation.

Yes, I realize I have been doing that wrong, I am all aboard the Unrelenting Horror trumping Ruthless. What I was getting at was that all the other immunities granted by Ruthless would also be stripped since the "Immunity to Wp" has been taken away entirely by the hanged?

That is just horrible! I thought hanged were bad enough already. Isn't it even worse? Unrelenting Terror says "... lose all Immunities to Horror Duels..." and doesn't mention it's only for that action or anything. You could argue that the Ruthless condition turns into: "Ruthless: This model is NOT immune to Wp duels anymore cause I'm within 4 of a hanged." Unrelenting Terror doesn't say I need to take the duels regardless of Immunity, it says I "lose" all Immunities while affected by the aura?

Ruthless: I would argue that Ruthless does not give you horror duel immunity and is not removed by Unrelenting Horror. It makes you ignore horror duels by extension but it's not a direct immunity to horror. Given precedents for models changing what stats you use for tests (Bishops attacks comes to mind) it is possible to imagine a future model having an ability saying "horror duels taken within 3 of this model uses the Wk stat instead of Wp" or something similar. This would highlight the fact that Ruthless makes you ignore Wp-checks, but not horror duels specifically. Hope this argument makes sense, although I'm sure not everyone will agree. @Fetid The horror duel is taken as part of the action after it is declared, you do not declare the target before but as part of the action so Ryle becomes immune first (same conclusion but wanted to clarify the order).

I have mostly played him in guild so take my ideas with a grain of salt. First off, get a lawyer. Have tried playing without one and it was horrible. I haven't tried it yet but I am looking forward to playing him with a swampfiend crew using a few waldgeists with from the shadows and juju. Not sure for which strat that would be best but seems generally annoying. The waldgeist would be less exposed than usual since lucius brings the rest of your crew up nice and quick on turn 1 to support them. You can even have Juju a lot further up before his activation by luring with a beckoner or trading places with lucius. He also seems to work good with nephilim to me. Walk a young neph twice and focus it to get within range to do a focused "(2) Feast" which has a ridiculous damage track and heals them but is hard to get to use to full effect normally. Beckoners can lure enemies close to your tots for pounce if you are trying to grow. Also consider that lucius can get the neph that really need a kill to make two extra attacks (possibly with + to hit). Tots get even more insane as scheme runners when you can give them an extra sprint with a free interact at the end.

Not only that, the scheme marker must be within 10" from your Executioner at the start of his activation which is the major thing since no-one wants to be near a scheme marker that is within 12" of the executioner considering his normal (0). I would take sleuth a lot more if it allowed a push towards any scheme marker and not just the close enemy ones. I guess you could see the discard-ability as worth it since it's nice to be able to be aggressive with your executioner knowing you have at least skewered the odds a little in your favour. I hadn't considered the ability to get through terrain, that is a lovely trick!

Adran, your comment about posion seems to imply you are also in camp 1. I didn't think to check the wording on posion, good call! Dirial, I fully agree about it being very murky. I'm not sure we will be able to find a holy quote making everyone agree to either interpretation but I thought it would be interesting to take it up nonetheless. I am also leaning towards option 1 but I cn see how a lot of people would think that "gamey" if I used it with Sonnia.

Hey everyone. Would love some opinions on how to figure the following out: During the upkeep phase of the end step (p35) most conditions end. It states that if the order of conditions ending is important the first player that turn chooses the order. Can a model only resolve conditions only once per end pahse or can it happen multiple times in the same turn? Neither of these options are directly spelled out in the rules as far as I can see. The situation that prompted my question: Stalker is close to enemy model and both are burning. The stalker will die from its burning condition. So can I (1) choose to first have the enemy resolve its burning (and other stuff) and after that have the witchling explode to put more burning on it. As the other model has already removed burning this turn it stays on to make Sonnia see them for the entire next turn? Or (2) The enemy model removes burning, the witchling explodes putting more burning on my enemy, the enemy now removes burning a second time, repeating until no-one has any conditions left? Your thoughts?

Someone playing with mostly puppets? They get decent attacks close to collodi and are easy to replace after sacrificing.

@Hagisman: Do you find it competes with his base (0) action? The edge I can see sleuth having is that you could potentially push first to get a charge which his own action can't do. I haven't tried sleuth yet since a lot of times the enemy just doesn't drop markers anywhere near him since he is already super scary close to markers.

If you're light on swampfiends (or want to live dangerously ) you can use him with Fears given form and Mimic's blessing instead of Eternal fiend. Use obey/lure/Graves to get him closer to bunched up enemies without activating and then run up and tie them down and (0) Avalanche late in turn 1. He's decent at holding people down and causing AoE-dmg this way without even attacking. Worst case you drain the enemy hand with the checks and have an easier time getting attacks through. Considering his damage spread I would say that focusing one strike is often a lot better than using two attacks in a turn. As a general rule you need to at least focus to have any hope of getting anything other than weak damage.

I like the latest ruling on Sonnia, I think it's a good step towards clarifying timing. I am also shocked that the intent was for Samael to use burn them out from Sonnias placed firewall. Me and everyone I know playing Sonnia has just assumed that the specific mention of 1" from other stuff was to specifically disallow that interaction.

Thanks for a very good breakdown of Zoraida! Just need to add that (un?)fortunately Mimics Blessing is "non-master".

Don't have the book but I'm pretty sure they're insignificant peons so they can never interact. The austringer doesn't say you ignore those rules so you can push anything but only interact if normally allowed. Same with being engaged after the push from an austringer. Or am I the only one playing it like this?

I find it nice sometimes to drop a marker and then have 2-4 hounds walk+charge for 1 ap from 15/16" away and/or behind a house. Situational but can be nice. Can also be nice if you want to shoot a bunch of enemies without randomizing and have a performer to do her from the marker.