cyenobite

Rats! Ok, thanks!

So, if an enemy places a scheme marker, I'm allowed to spend on AP and remove that marker (as long as I'm base-to-base, not engaged, and am not a peon/insignificant). My question is, does that apply to all enemy markers? If Ramos were to place/generate a scrap marker, can I spend one AP to remove that marker? If a model dies and drops a corpse marker, can I remove it before a Rez is able to summon something? I played a Dreamer crew last night and one model (I forget the name) was putting down "web markers" that lowered my WP... Am I not allowed to remove those? Thanks.

Almost 9 hours of Malifaux on Saturday! Played one game against Jacob Lynch, for our Slow Grow league. Then we had 8 people gathered around a 3x3 table to play an Enforcer Brawl! It was fun, but took a long time in between each player moving. Then I played a third game against Kaeriss as part of the slow grow league. It was a long day, but a fun day of Malifaux.

@tharrup - I believe that quote from the rules regarding blast damage, is in order to determine the order of which models take the blast damage only ie: Model A is main target, and Models B and C each take blast damage, so the attacker gets to choose if B or C takes the damage first or second. But this leads to the question then... does the Blast Damage happen simultaneously with the original attack? I had assumed it was, but now I'm not so sure. (I don't have my rulebook handy to look this up). Interesting twist... @loboracing, tell your friend to hold off on that celebrating!

Clever... but I tend to think it could not happen... Haberdasher says "After this model suffers damage...", which would mean that the initial damage AND the Blast Damage would happen first and simultaneously. Therefore at the time of the blast damage, CCK would not be able to claim the Haberdasher in time.

testing So how does one actually put the code into the post? Ah - it worked. So just a "colon" in front of the word. Thanks for the extra work Ratty!

It sounds like you did what works best for you and your friend, which is great. I hate to say it, but I think it really depends on the person(s) as to how they would like to learn the game. I'm like you, I would prefer to start simple, and gradually increase as you go along. But I've played 2 demo games with beginners to Malifaux, but they were both long time Warhammer and Warmachine players - so they picked up on the rules quickly. We just dove right in and by the end of turn 3 or so, they pretty much had all the basic concepts down. If I were to demo another game for a beginner, I would just ask, how would they like to proceed, in small examples, or just dive in.

Also, you can check out: http://www.miniwargaming.com/ They have a ton of painting tutorials (a lot are focused on Warhammer, but still apply in regards to painting). There are free tutorials and a paid "vault membership" that gives you access to a ton more. Start with the free stuff obviously. Good luck! Here's a link to take you directly to the painting tutorials, and then you can choose a filter at the top for "free" content: http://www.miniwargaming.com/category/painting_tutorial/0/0/1/recent%7CDESC/2/alltime//

Agreed, while the name "toss" implies a throw up into the air, in the description of the action is says it's a "Push" which means it follows the normal definition of a "push". ie: walls would stop the Ht1 model, as well as other Ht1 (or more) models. It should probably be renamed to "shove"

Do you have to declare what you are attempting to summon ahead of time, so then if it fails you wouldn't get to do the Action? ie: You declare you're going to summon 3 Spiders, but your flip isn't high enough for the 19, but you get a 17 instead... can you then summon the 2 Spiders instead? (assuming you can't cheat higher).

For what it's worth Tollboothmusic, I had trouble wrapping my head around this basic question also. I had come from a Warmachine background and my first few games I was building my lists wrong, so your post may help other beginners as well.

ty Kadeton and Dgraz for the help.

ugh - apologies for opening this can of worms. It sounds the the issue is the Action Points being spent = a walk vs actual movement = a walk. I tend to side with the later, but can see that both sides have a good argument.

Oh - Good point Dracomax, and having the (D) Model do a Terror Check if they fail to disengage. Thanks for that clarification.

If a model is engaged with another model that has the Terrifying ability, would they still have to pass a Horror Duel before attempting to disengage? They're trying to walk away (Walk Action), which does not "target" the Terrifying model, yet the disengage is treated like a melee attack, which does target a model. Thanks! <Edit: I think I just answered my own question... So it seems as though the model attempting to walk away is doing the Walk Action, and it's the OTHER model that then target's the model trying to walk away. So Terrifying would not be an issue when trying to disengage.> Would still appreciate a confirmation on this, that I'm reading it correctly.

Hello all, In reading Rasputina's card, it says, "Frozen Heart: This model is immune to Horror Duels and Paralyzed." On pg 48 of large rulebook: "If a model is immune to the Paralyze Condition, (usually as a result of an Ability), it must still perform the Horror Duel, it will simply be immune to the Paralyze Condition that it might receive." So I'm curious, because of the wording of Frozen Heart... Would Rasputina still need to Flip for the Horror Duel? The fact that it says "horror duel" AND "Paralyzed" is confusing to me. The book makes it sound as though she would still have to perform the duel, it's just that she is immune from any effects - or is she actually immune to performing the duel? Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks everyone - the additional explanations helped. I think I got it now.

interesting. Thanks for responses. Still slightly confused on your answers to #2... I think your answer to question 2 and 2b contradict one another? I think you're answering to the "proximity" part, and not to my examples?... I'll try to reword my questions: 1) Does proximity to a wall have any effect on LOS issues 2) A HT2 model can see over a height 1" wall and see a HT1 model on the other side of the wall. 2a) IF YES, then is it reasonable to assume the reverse then too... that a HT1 model can see over a 1" wall to see a HT2 i Model? Thanks again.

Hello everyone! I have some questions regarding Line of Sight (LOS) and Height... For now, I'm eliminating any talk regarding elevated terrain. This is all based on a flat gaming table. I have a model who is height 1" (Model A) I have a terrain piece (say a cobblestone wall), that is also 1" high. I have a model B, that is also 1" height. 1) If the wall is in between Model A and B, so that a LOS from their bases can not be drawn, then neither model can see one another - regardless of how close or far away from the wall they are? Next... same scenario as above, but now the second model C, is a HT 2" model. 2) Can a Ht 2" model see OVER a Ht 1" terrain piece, so that they can still see a HT 1" model? 2a) Does proximity to the 1" high wall matter at all? ie: only if the Ht 1 model is within 1" of the wall, then LOS can NOT be drawn... but if he's farther away from the wall, then he CAN be seen by a taller model? 2b) Does proximity to the wall matter at all for the Attacker? ie: if the HT 2" model is right up against the wall, can he still see a Ht 1" directly on the other side of the wall? Next... Now, we have two models that are each HT 2" and yet still a 1" wall between them. 3) Each model can draw LOS (in spite of the bases being blocked) so each model has LOS to one another... BUT in order to claim (Hard or Soft) Cover... the target would have to be within 1" of the wall? I may have more follow-up questions depending on the answers Thanks!

Turned out great! I can see that in *some* cases they might cause an issue with not being flat, but I'm all for making the board look better. Perhaps, if you have any blank 30m MDF you could simply stack it underneath your marker, then if it gets in the way, you can remove the top one, and keep the flat marker. Little extra work, but for the effort you put into these, it might be worth it. Good job.

Ha - awesome explanation Fetid! Thx!

Maybe this is too general of a question, but... So the belle's come in the started box with a set of 3. the Nurses a set of 2, and the punk zombies a set of 3. Do you all find that bringing these models as a group help at all? Or do you find mixing a matching the best combos (ie: 1 canine, one punk zombie, and one nurse - vs - 3 punk zombies). I'm guessing it will always come down to "it depends on what your Strat/schemes are".

ha - I was afraid of the Nurse... her card has SO many options/triggers it's hard for my beginner brain to wrap around how best to use this model. I guess I should just keep reading their card and just jump in to learn them. I remember the first time I used one, I attacked an enemy model and ended up healing him completely! Doh! Z - if you have advice on how best to play the nurse, I'd appreciate it. (ie: I usually use "x", and hardly ever focus on "y").

Hey everyone! Our LGS is about to start our second month of a slow-grow league where we move from 35ss up to 50ss. I have bought several models already, and would like to get some opinions on what might work the best. Currently own: Seamus (3ss) CCK - 3 Sybelle - 8 3x belles - 5each 2x nurses - 5each (i think) 2x canine remains - 3each (I think) 3x punk zombies - 7each Izamu - 10 Here's what I'm thinking: core redchapel set: Seamus (3ss) CCK - 3 Sybelle - 8 3x belles - 15 plus Izamu - 10 subtotal = 36 At this point, I'm not too sure on additional models, vs upgrades vs ss pool. Appreciate any advice. For what it's worth... I'm still fairly new at this point, and find simple is better. Thanks!

Thanks @dracomax for the further explanation.