solkan

So there’s book confirmation (Q1 2023) and at the demo table for Titan Smash they had the painted war elephant, and another titan I didn’t recognize.  

There was a book proxie for Malifaux, too, but my picture didn’t get saved.  

1 hour ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

If No Shelter Here was treated as an aura from the target and not the attacker (and thus be a friendly Aura), it would affect Pandora's own crew with hazardous. 

No, that’s not how friendly/enemy work.  “Every Ability, Action, and Trigger on a model’s Stat Card and Attached Upgrades treats the use of “friendly” and “enemy” from its point of view.”
 

As second edition put it, friendly/enemy is effectively relative to the model’s card, not relative to whatever it gets applied to.  

On 7/21/2022 at 7:36 AM, Corn said:

Now, is 3 Death Marshals too many?  Absolutely.

If you think three Death Marshals are too many, what are us poor players who've got a dozen supposed to do?  🥶  I mean, it's not like we can just say "I'm not going to buy any more Death Marshals" and mean it.  

Quote

Hi all!  So I was a 1E player who took about a decade off.  Found my collection the other day and started looking into getting started again.  Turns out everything has changed!  And nothing works quite the same. Kinda lost!   So I was hoping folks might be able to help me put some decent learning crews together.  I’ve arranged what I’ve got by the themes I knew back in the day, but I think some might work a little differently.  I think I’m screwed on the Von Schill crew (Hannah, Steam Trunk, and Arik just weren’t things in 1e and are too expensive to put together now) but I think the FK might work in other crews?  Anyway, suggestions welcome.  Thanks!

Reorganizing your list according to the new keywords...

Quote

Outcasts:

Viks x2, Vanessa, Student of Conflict, Ronin x3, Desperate Mercenary, Taylor, Bishop

The Outcasts Mercenary keyword.  And I'm pretty sure Viks x2, Vanessa, Ronin x3 is the new Vicks box, so there's that.  

Quote

Von Schill, FK Trapper, FK Specialist, Librarian, Freikorpsman x2

The Outcasts Friekcorps keyword.  If I were in your situation, I wouldn't feel above just bashing together a walking treasure chest or something sized to fit on a 30mm base.    

Quote

Leveticus, Hollow Waif x2, Ashes and Dust, SP Abom. x4, Des. Engine, Rusty Alyce

The Outcasts Almagam keyword.  You're missing the Scavengers from Leveticus's new box, but you could probably kit bash or proxy some suitable minions for them.

Quote

Hans, MF Child, Johan

These are all Versatile.  They're going to be at least options in the three keywords you've got.

Quote

Convict Gunslinger 

Bandit.  Proxy for a Scavenger?  

You're right about Killjoy being Neverborn now, and I don't think there's any way you're going to be able use that model with your other current models.

I don't want to make claims as far as what's going to be good or bad, but you've at least got the start (probably enough for full games) of three crews.  

1 hour ago, Brilliance Laced Whiskey said:

Also, am I also correct in assuming "Dazed and Confused" goes off automatically when the Jakob meets the casting requirement?  Or does the model have to fail the willpower duel to get the stunned?

In order to get the effect of an After Succeeding trigger, you need both the suit and you need to win the duel.  “This Round is On Me!” isn’t an opposed duel, so it’s applied if Lynch gets his target number.

You resolve the body of the action (everyone takes their willpower tests and gains Brilliance as specified), and then in the “After you have resolved an action” step the trigger effect is applied.  The trigger effect is completely independent at that point with whatever happened in the body of the action—if you have 3 Brilliance you gain stunned whether you had that much Brilliance before the action or not.

On 7/27/2022 at 4:17 PM, Avatar of Butter said:

Now, we can argue all day about what the demographics of Malifaux SHOULD look like. The Breach is, ostensibly, in North America, although  we've never been given a precise geographic location.

When The Other Side was released, the background material stated that the breach is in/at Santa Fe, because that's where the ritual was performed and they wiped out the town.

1 hour ago, Patzer said:

Maybe this is a dumb question, but here goes. Winter's Strike states that the target suffers +1 if any blasts are touching an Ice Pillar marker. I think the intention is that models damaged by this Action's blasts markers suffers+1 damage if the blast marker is touching an Ice Pillar marker. However as it is worded now it seems like the original target suffers +1 damage if a blast touches a ice pillar. How should it be played? 

The attack only has one blast, and that blast has to be touching the target because of the blast rules.  And you only get the bonus to the target of the attack.  (Blasts don’t create secondary targets, that’s what “models damaged by this attack” is for….)

Edit:  There’s also paragraph four of Blasts:  “The damage a model suffers from a  [Blast] is unaffected by effects that increase the damage the original target suffered from the attack.”  There’s another reason for the +1 to not carry over.

5 hours ago, Diceman87 said:

@solkandoes this mean that Black Blood/ Vengeance still damage attackers, even if the model with the ability dies to the attack?

Black Blood happens at Damage step 5, so yes.  Note that this didn’t change.  What changed is that the damage put out by Black Blood hangs in the air until after step 6.  (Before the errata it was possible for Black Bood to kill the other model before the original model was killed, and -somebody- had a healing effect that got triggered by that.)

3 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Black Blood does since it is generated during the Damage Timing structure. Vengeance is after the Action resolves, so I think the model wouldn’t be on the table to generate the Vengeance effect.

Agreed, Vengeance is too late.  

7 hours ago, Haxxar said:

The Guilty kills the Golem, with its attack, which in turn kills the Guilty with its demise ability (mutual death all around), does the Guilty's death interrupt the Golems death putting its curse upgrade on the Golem -> the Golem then dies and a new Guilty is summoned or does the Golem die -> kills the Guilty -> the Guilty's demise ability can't find any model to attach to and just fizzles out of existence?

It's important to know that the Damage Sequence rules were errata'd to (in case you look at a rulebook for confirmation):

Quote

When a model suffers damage, it follows the timing structure below. If any model suffers damage as a result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated.

So the Guilty kills the Golem with its attack, and the Golem's demise ability generates damage.  That damage just sits there pending while you go through the rest of the Golem's sequence and remove it from the table.  Then the Guilty suffers that damage (it doesn't matter to the damage rules that what it caused the damage no longer exists, you still still resolve it), and when the Guilty gets killed there's nothing to attach the upgrade to.

44 minutes ago, Alex Chesterfield said:

Torn Into the Void trigger (Thirty-Three) - Is the damage flip from Thirty-Three's Torn Into the Void trigger a straight flip or is the flip status determined by the difference in the opposed duels as if the damage track was printed in the attack.

The damage flip is subject to the accuracy fate modifier of the attack action (because it’s resolved as part of the attack action.). 

39 minutes ago, Alex Chesterfield said:

Ride the Rails - when determining movement for the 12" place, is the 12" measured from the activating model or the scrap marker that it's within 1" of?

The activating model.  There would need to be more words for the place to be within 12 of the scrap marker.

I think that card is good to make Mr. Caroland yell if presented in person at GenCon.    

1 hour ago, Snackelwolf said:

Greetings everyone. Question, as I'm out of the loop -- is the Wolf / Red Riding Hood Twisted Alternatives sold out already? Are there certain release dates they go live each month? I must have that box.  Thanks.

Historically, Wyrd's releases have come out at the end of the month.  A few months ago, I though they made an announcement that they were changing to a rolling release schedule (a.k.a. 'We'll release it as it arrives') because of the global shipping meltdown, but I can't seem to locate the announcement.

In any event, according to the store I usually order from, that box is still on pre-order

49 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Oh I meant Wyrd should fix typos and then give them to the developer.

It'd be extremely weird for the developer to fix it, as sometimes it involves rules knowledge xD

I think it’s two parts:

1.  To fix the typo, they probably have to errata the card and regenerate it’s image.

2.  Having the app inconsistent with the PDF cards, or the print on demand cards, even (or possibly especially) if it’s better, would  be bad.  
 

20 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I wish they would change this so they can change cards for clarity without altering functionality.

Cleaning up typos seems like a reasonable thing to just use the electronic cards for.

It’d be nice, but I think it’s a matter that the app is displaying card images that Wyrd supplies to the developer.  (On the bright side, that avoids the usual god-awful text layout hassles, but it means the developer CAN’T fix typos.)

On 7/2/2022 at 5:12 PM, Dancing said:

I always wanted to create an unauthorized fan expansion, but I don't know if big Nathaniel would come in and smack it down.

I literally would create a bestiary, armory, and pantry. As well as some DM tools similar to Stars without Number/Worlds without Number...

But then again, like I said I don't know what the rules are on fan related content with this IP.

I don't know how large scale your plans are, but I think the answer is split between two parts:

• Wyrd's IP policy:  https://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/151604-using-wyrd-ips/ 
• The fact that a "Player Creations" subforum exists https://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/forum/261-player-creations/

So, if you wanted to write up something like "The Lost Dimension of Atlantis" (a thrilling third dimension for the players to explore) as an adventure setting, with new career paths, encounters, etc., the IP concerns are largely about things like "Are you planning on trying to sell this thing for money?"  If you're just doing it for fame and/or the exercise...

The problem with Runic Siphon is that it says:

Quote

If this Action has any in its duel, it may replace a with a +to its final duel total.

and Step B's wording is:

Quote

Any models involved in the duel perform a flip. This flip may be affected by Fate Modifiers, as described below.

If either player was affected by one or more  or  Fate Modifiers, those apply now. Any player with a  Modifier may choose which card they wish to use (the Active player chooses first).

In other words, unless you have an effect that has been FAQ'd otherwise, and you reference the fate modifiers for an action, you're dealing with Step B.

Luck Thief has a FAQ saying it works in Step A, so it does.  

Ungentlemanly Affairs doesn't have any timing of its own, it's changing what the effects of Concealment, Distracted and Friendly Fire are (at no point do those effects produce a for the model, instead they produce a .  There's no conversion from one to the other.) 

For reference, the Luck Thief FAQ:

Quote

Gwyneth Maddox – Does the Luck Thief Ability apply before or after  and  modifiers cancel each other out?
a) Before. Modifiers to a duel (such as from Focused, Concealment, etc.) are generated during Step A of performing duels

(pg. 10). Luck Thief immediately applies to any  modifier generated changing it to a  modifier. Then, the duel proceeds to Step B, at which point  and  modifiers would normally cancel each other out.

12 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

To that end do people usually play the ignore “enemy” and gain “friendly” the same (simplicity) or different due to gaining “friendly” specifically calling out restrictions (specific game term)?

Doing so would be an error.  Do keep in mind that there's rule in the game stating that a model has to be either "enemy" or "friendly".  A model could simply be neither.

The first sentence says:

Quote

Enemy models do not treat this model as an enemy model for their Actions, Abilities, and Triggers.

That means that if an enemy model has an Action, Ability or Trigger which contains the word "Enemy" in it (it doesn't matter whether it's in plain or italic text), the model with Infiltrator doesn't qualify.  For instance, for Sandeep's Mantra (Fury), an Infiltrator on the other player's crew it's a valid choice for the phrase "it may choose an enemy model within 2" to suffer 1 damage".  No one has a choice in the matter, it's not allowed.

For the second sentence,

Quote

This model may choose to be affected by Actions, Abilities and Triggers of enemy models that are restricted to "friendly" models and/or models of a specific keyword.

I think a lot of the applications of this sentence are going to be area effect actions and auras.  For instance, loot a Kudra's "From One, All" action which states 'Friendly Elemental models within Range Heal 1."  If a Kudra model takes that action, Infiltrators in another crew get to choose to be affected by the action.  Likewise, an Infiltrator within 6 of Kudra can take the Concontrate Action, choose to be affected by Kudra's Mantra (Protection) so that it can be affected by "it may gain Shielded +1".

If a Shastar Vidya Guard was trying to deal with a Infiltrator on another crew, if it declared Follow My Path (hoping that the Infiltrator would qualify as "other friendly model"), that won't happen unless the Infiltrator's controller wants it to happen.  Practically speaking, outside of one player bribing the player to do something, the only time it is going to apply is for things like Obey's to use a "target friendly X" action on the Infiltrator.

Browsing around at random, the Abomination has an action with the restriction

Quote

This Action may only be taken in at least two other friendly Abominations are within range.

Infiltrator models do not and CAN NOT satisfy this requirement.  Infiltrators could choose to be affected by the next sentence's effect (if one player was paying the other player money, because the Replace step four side effects are hilarious...)

Quote

Replace this model and two other friendly Abominations within range with a Desolation Engine.

but it's still the sort of things that you wouldn't see happen outside of using Obey on an enemy model and then saying "Why, yes, my Infiltrator is going to choose to be subject to that because I have a fiendish plan".

1 hour ago, DeadManTalking said:

• Load up a mindless zombie with poison 3
• Kill the zombie
• It drops a marker for horrendous corpse
• It drops a marker for dying
• Recyle Reduce Reuse lets you slap the model back on the table (check with your TO that your meta plays it this way).

For the record, if you're not sure why MM's account has the words "check with your TO that your meta plays this way"...

The next four steps in the sequence (or whatever other variation of madness people would like to claim happens) are the answer to "Why do people claim that applying Recycle/Reduce/Reuse to a killed Mindless Zombie is an obvious play testing oversight, and not allow it?"  

1 hour ago, DeadManTalking said:

• Mindless zombie is at 0 health so dies again.
• Drops a marker for horrendous corpse
• Drops a marker for dying.
• RRR draws a card.

See also the arguments which had to be resolved by FAQ concerning using the word "Drop" in reference to existing markers (see "Four Winds Punch v. Enemy Markers"), for the arguments concerning friendly/enemy at the end of the ability.  

Because it would be equally plausible for someone to claim that the sequence actually goes like this:

• Load up a mindless zombie with poison 3
• Kill the zombie
• It drops a marker for horrendous corpse
• It drops a marker for dying
• Recyle Reduce Reuse DROPS a newly created Mindless Zombie on the table.

since the FAQ for "Four Winds Punch v. Enemy Markers" only actually applies to Four Winds Punch.  👻

I'm sure everyone can imagine the lovely situation that would have otherwise occurred if a model had Protected (to let it change the target of a Charge attack) and a nearby Disguised model to try to foist the attack onto.  It doesn't do anyone any good if either the attack just vanishes (that's too good for the defender) or you're not allowed to pass the attack off (that's too good for the attacker).

So that's probably part of the reasoning for the FAQ.

I don't know.  I'll admit that the last time someone asked me what the developers should do if they players can't finish a game on time, my response what "Nothing.  Not being able to finish the game on time should be a disqualifying offense, and let the players present their evidence to the local judge if they want to plead for leniency or a lighter sentence."  (Let the players keep playing to finish their game, and then keep playing in the time left, but if they can only finish 2 games in X hours when everyone else finishes three, they weren't going to score well anyway.)  Because whatever you do for scoring a partially played game is going to warp how things work.

51 minutes ago, Moinetbeard said:

I think the issue seems to be that people are taking the term "simultaneous effects" literally, when in the rules it isn't literal at all - you resolve them fully, one at a time. You don't generate an action on a rat, leave it unresolved and then jump to another rat to resolve another effect there.

You most certainly do generate an action, leave it unresolved, and continue because of the way the action resolution sequence was restricted.  Or are you saying that you’ve been trying to resolve that pulse as

• push rat
• immediately resolve action
• push rat
• immediately resolve action

All of the rats subject to that pulse end the resolution of Unclean Influences with queued action (and remember that declaring what they’re going to do is part of resolving an action, so they aren’t even committed to any particular action yet).

43 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't like death clock ( assuming that's lose the game if time ends), because it doesn't feel like it fits in malifaux scoring.

I think Deathclock worked in Warmachine/Hordes because there is/was always the “Your leader is dead, you lose”  condition for everything.

To be practical for Malifaux, I think it would have to be done as “If your clock runs out, your opens gets max strategy points, and you don’t get any more reveals on your schemes.”