solkan

If you're only going to buy one box, and nothing else, buy the two player starter box. That's eight models, four for each player, designed to be a decent start. If you buy a master box, you're going to need to buy at least one more box for the box to work decently, and what you should buy is going to usually be complicated and involve "Which of this master's play styles do you want to use?" Otherwise, there are a LOT of masters who aren't particularly playable with just their box set. Master boxes aren't designed to be well balanced starter sets, instead what they are (in almost all of the cases) The master The master's totem(s) A "side kick" which fits the theme Some lackeys which fit the theme and it ends up being models selected by thematic value, not point cost. The master boxes where those choices work out to be a good starting selection are indistinguishable from random chance. See also this thread: Any master who summons is less likely to be playable with just the box set, except maybe Ramos, because the master's core ability is to let them summon some of those models in their box instead of hiring them. And even Ramos being playable at just the box involves magnetizing bases and not being able to fully use his upgrades (not having the Electrical Creation model).

It doesn't stack because it's a non-numeric Condition. If you performed the (0) Sword and Board twice somehow, you could have both To the Death and Not Today on the same model, but it's not possible to have multiple instances of the same non-numeric Condition on a model due to the Stacking rules. (If a model has Not Today on it, and you attempt to apply a second instance, you hit this part of the Conditions rules: So, no, it's not possible to get a Shield Bearer fro Df 4 to Df 8 by trying to perform Sword and Board multiple times to stack Not Today.

I hoard my leftover spruces. Hold on a few minutes... I now have four sprues sitting in about two inches of undiluted Simple Green in a jar. Plastic sprues that should even be from different production years. One of the sprues has those obnoxious wires from Hoffman's mechanical leopards left on because I'm still sane. Ask me how it's going in a week or two. For science and waking up in the middle of the night.

From the Rules Manual, page 37: Note the FAQ, though: So if Malifaux Child copies the action or takes it itself, then both Malifaux Child and Molly can each take the same "once per turn" action (each model performs the action once). But Molly can't take the "once per turn" action once during her activation and then be caused to take the action a second time later.

From a certain perspective, the words "tournament" mean "Everyone's going to play three games today, and we've published the details ahead of time." And that's all it means. From that perspective, why shouldn't a new player show up with cardstock standees? This was, after all, from the question of "How do you make tournaments more accessible?" which I assume is part of the "How do we get more players to play?" or "How do I get more players to attend this tournament?" In other words, what do you mean a tournament can't be (or isn't) just as casual as the weekday gaming night?

In the first tournament that I went to I only had a painted Mei Feng crew, probably around 60SS of models she could use, a green plastic Lilith Pandora crew, and just barely 50SS of Neverborn. It was a fixed faction tournament, so my choice was basically one or other. Limiting the other players in that tournament to a single master or two masters (to limit their choices to what I had ready) would not have made the game more accessible to me. (I'd be willing to get in to an argument with someone as they try to explain how limiting the choices of the other people in that tournament would have made it more accessible to me. But that's probably a topic for a different thread, and a digression in this one.) There isn't a tournament format which does that because it's not an imbalance that the tournament format can fix. Unless you want to declare "We're going to bring all of you in for questioning and interrogation to determine which masters you have experience using. After we're done, you're going to be prohibited from using any of those. And if we discover you've been researching anything beyond the scope of what a new player would be able to do, we're going to break your fingers." Because that is the significant difference between the players. If you want to make a format accessible to a new player you need to be honest with everyone about how the game works. There's can be an advantage to owning more models, because that's how the game was designed. However, it's also possible to own every model in the game and have no idea how to use those models effectively. So if you're just starting out, it's okay to just have one or two masters, but at the same time it's important to know that some masters are more general purpose than others. If the idea is to minimize the capital expenditure that a new player requires in order to start playing, you'd be better off making models available for loan during a game. Or instituting a "There's no shame in proxying" policy, so that the new players can try new models before they buy in. So two parts: * Drumming it in to people's heads that wealth is an advantage, but all of the wealth in the world is useless to a fool. * Remove the stigma associated with proxying/bases with the picture of the model printed on/cardboard standies showing the model. with the optional third part that smaller games (20-25SS Henchman led games, instead of 50SS Master led games) require less effort to get in to.

I don't think you can take a rules forum discussion that got locked like that as a reasonable discussion on the topic. Because here's the problem: See page 19 of the Rules Manual: The definition of Cover: McTavish's ability: So what does that do? It changes the cover from "any Attack Actions" to "all non Attack Actions".

Buy all of the puppets, some Teddys, and Widow Weaver. Then think about other models.

The first, most important point about scale: If someone uses the word "heroic" in conjunction with a scale, it means the modelers started somewhere near that scale and then made the models bigger. In other words, 32mm heroic scale is not 32mm. Here's a useful article written by some people that make scenery: http://www.antenocitisworkshop.com/news/what-is-scenery-scale-and-how-big-should-my-doors-be/ They have some important diagrams in the article pointing out the significant impact the base of the model has on what looks good for scenery. Ht2 terrain, according to the rulebook guidelines, is anywhere from two inches to just under three inches tall. So a Ht2 model (which most models are) standing next to a Ht2 wall, there's plenty of room to place a 40-45mm doorway in that wall. And, frankly, a two story building should probably be about five or five and a half inches tall. Because each floor is going to be about two or two and half inches tall, both to qualify as Ht2 according to the guidelines and to make it practical to place the the various 40mm (and taller) figures on the terrain. So ask yourself an important question: Do I want the models to physically move through this doorway, or do I want this doorway look nice? How you answer that question determines how big you make the door.

The problem is that it doesn't really level the playing field much, if at all. Because a new player is still going to be more likely to have to buy a new master and the support for that master, while the old player is more likely to already have the master and the support pieces. Likewise, the older player is more likely to know what the proper choices are. And there's still the problem of the new player choosing one of the weaker masters, and then having three bad games in a row demonstrating them the error of their ways. I swear these sorts of tournaments are written up with the assumption that new players are masochists and enjoy suffering, or something.

The average Malifaux model isn't 32mm tall. The average Malifaux model is around 40mm from the top of their head to the bottom of their base, if they're not wearing a hat. So, no, doorways that are 32mm tall are going to be too short, usually cutting people off at their shoulders. If you want a model be able to physically stand under the doorway, you need to make them with about 45 to 50mm internal clearance.

I'm not sure where you got that figure, but you should probably look at the models and compare actual measurements first. For example, on the Witchling Handler next to me, the figure is 40mm from the bottom of the base to the top of the model's head, or about 37mm from the top of the figure's head to the bottom of its foot. Likewise for the size of the Performer model next to it.

Some people want first hand, experimental evidence for the question "What's the difference between an interesting thought exercise, and a good tournament idea?" The other problem, as I see it, with this tournament idea is that the players that choose poorly get stuck with their choices for the entire tournament. So you get threads like this, where the "strongest choice" is essentially the safest choice to take, decreasing the likely spread of choices.

Does this mean that a model can remove Paralyzed from itself, even though that Condition is normally removed at the end of its Activation? Yes. And in the Generate AP step of the Activation, it won't be stuck generating 0 AP. The fact that Paralyzed would have removed itself at the end of the Activation doesn't prevent other effects removing that Condition earlier.

This account appears to have been posted in a few different areas, including the A Wyrd Place Facebook group. On Facebook, the individual claimed that they threw away the models without taking pictures. That account appears to be being moderated (or is otherwise missing) at the moment. To give the full benefit of the doubt... I've thrown a pile of plastic and pewter models in a jar and left them, and come back to a ball of separated parts and paint that I needed to pick apart carefully and clean up. Simple Green weakens super glue bonds, and if you leave models in a solution long enough they'll essentially fall apart when disturbed. That can be a really useful thing if you're restoring or salvaging old figures, but could cause someone to freak out if they're not expecting it. The type of paint and primer used, and how thick the paint was, it can also take multiple passes through a process of "soak, rinse, clean, repeat" to get all of the paint off of plastic. If the paint is thick or well bonded, the solution will not get all of the paint off in one pass. Since Wyrd does famously use a lot of small parts for its models, particularly Gremlins, I can easily imagine someone assembling their models with super glue, getting into an unsatisfactory painting situation, putting the models into the solution, and coming back to a terrifying mix of parts and paint. I sure wouldn't want to go fishing through a bucket trying to sort out detached Gremlin arms, but that's a more likely outcome than the cleaning solution randomly breaking parts. So as far as I can tell, the most likely thing that happened is that the individual in question would have over reacted, not taken pictures of the disaster, and thrown out a collection of parts that were probably just needed to be sorted through, have some of the lose paint picked away, and put carefully in the bucket (or a collection of jars for easier sorting) for another week to get more of the paint off. In other words, if this account is true then this is a story of someone over reacting and throwing out what was probably a serviceable mess of disassembled parts mixed in partially dissolved paint.

Disclaimer: The acronym RAW sends me into a seething rage, because of an unhealthy amount of people who try to use it to take things out of the context or form it was written in. So I'm going to try to be helpful, but... Two of the more relevant previous discussion threads:

For reference, the definition of Action: Thus, when the FAQ states: the words "Other Actions" includes both Tactical Actions (such as Flurry, Rapid Fire, etc.) and Attack Attack Actions. The FAQ doesn't say "Other Tactical Actions which generate Attack Actions ...", it says "Other Actions".

Which model's abilities or rules specify that it's deployed on the "enemy half" of the board? The wording is going to make a difference. A text search of the PDFs for the first three books only shows results for scheme scoring based on things being positioned either "in the Enemy Half of the table" or "within the Enemy Half of the table", which has one answer but deployment generally has a different answer because of the phrasing: So if the model is treating the "Enemy Half of the table" as its deployment zone, it would have to be completely within that half of the table.

If you could eliminate the use of the corpse markers by standing on them, then that would definitely restrict the use of her abilities and would have to make her less powerful. So that's not really a point in question. Was Reva not overpowered during the two months or so after release when you maybe/probably could block line of sight to the 30mm corpse markers by standing a 30mm base on top of them? (It's too bad we can't legally determine which interpretation the play testers used during development. )

Please present your argument for treating the body of an Action's text different than the text of a Trigger is treated. Otherwise, here's how it goes: According to Focus, you can use Focus during the Charge action. All of the generated Attack Actions occur during the Charge Action, so Focus should apply to all of them. Because of Actions Causing Actions, which doesn't distinguish between the different ways an Action can cause other Actions to occur. The rules don't distinguish between Actions generated by a Trigger and Actions generated by the body of the Actions text. Because the rules don't distinguish between the body of an Action's text and the text in the Triggers.

From the FAQ: Compare the definition of Focus: If it doesn't work to carry over from a Charge Action to the generated Actions, it's not going to work to carry over from an Attack Action to a generated Attack Action. Because there's no distinction made by the Focus condition. (This is part of the third sentence of the answer "Other Actions which generate Attack Actions (such as Flurry, Rapid Fire, etc) function in the same way in regards to Focus.")

Remember when Ramos and Hoffman were arguing and Ryle intervened? Remember when Ramos told Hoffman "Even I heard your call?" concerning the event? Both of those events call into question Lovelace's understanding of the situation. Lovelace has a Ressurectionist's view of what constructs and flesh can be.

Without spoilers for book four, I don't think Ramos lied to Hoffman concerning Ryle. Either either the state change was gradual and no one noticed, or Ryle's rival just sort of pushed him over the threshold. In other words, I don't think any of Hoffman's judgement concerning his brother's condition (the whole time) was really trustworthy. It was pretty much entirely denial over the situation, which is probably how some people have to deal with a comatose relative.

The upgrades that are in Twisting Fates are in the second generalist deck (the smaller one, Generalist Upgrade Deck 2 with the puppets on the cover, not the first one). Those individual cards aren't in the print-on-demand service yet. I'm not sure how long the book and upgrade deck have to be on store shelves before it's fair to start pestering Wyrd about that.

From the rules manual, page 32, for an opposed duel sequence: Declare Soulstone Use Flip Fate Card and Add Stat Choose to Cheat Fate Declare one Trigger Determine Success and the note on the sequence of who cheats first: So cheating isn't performed at the same time, and it's usually performed with knowledge of the cards being used. (There are abilities which explicitly allows cheating a face down card is being used, for example: Expert Cheater: Any friendly model within this model’s LoS may Cheat Fate with the card face down. The card is revealed before declaring Triggers, but after the opponent has cheated (or chosen not to cheat).