IamMoi

Also, were you going to list the War Rooster seperately, or just use War Pig?

Hate to be super picky, but you missed an 'n' in Sonnia Criid's name

Funny, that's what my boyfriend said too. Also seeing Cinderella as a Hamelin

Thank you Ratty! ...although I'm still not on the Henchman list

Totally seeing Pocahontas as a feminized Marcus

Thanks Ratty

Ah, thank you. I knew I had to be missing something.

Hello, Today I was playing against a Collodicrew with my Marcus Crew and we came across a question about his marionettes: Poison counters do one damage at the end turn upkeep portion. The marionettes have an ability that states that they reduce damage done via condition by 1. Most things with similar abilities stipiulate "to a minimum of 1", but this one does not. Is this correct? Because that pretty much makes it immune to Poison. Thanks in advance for the input!

Ok. I only just got henchman-ized last week.

I do not yet have Henchmen pages back

Flatulous_Khan, it took about a week for me to hear back after submitting the application. Do we know when we're going to regain access to Henchman forums?

Greetings all, ShieldBreaker Games, in Denver Colorado is having a Malifaux Demo Day on Thursday, February 20th, from 4-8pm. The address is 724 Peoria Street, Aurora, CO, 80011 Feel free to try out the rules for any of the 2nd Edition Masters, or test out some potential additions to your existing crews

That's a great way of checking percentage of board covered, Bruglyother. I might have to start doing that.

Ok, I can live with that. Pretty sure it was a case of "oh, disengaging happens when you leave engagement?" leading to us attaching it to said circumstances

Yes, I get what you're saying. I guess what I'm asking is this: Model A wants to take a Walk action, which will take him through the melee range of Model B, but would end with him outside of said melee range. Now, if they had been engaged at the beginning of Model A's activation, Model B would get a disengaging strike against Model A after they declare their intention to Walk away. If Model A loses the duel, he will be Paralyzed, remaining engaged with Model B and losing all action points. As I understand your take on this, if Model A does not start his activation engaged with Model B, but his declared Walk action would take him in and out of engagement with Model B, before Model A takes his movement, Model B get his disengaging strike against him. If Model A loses that duel, he stays where he is and loses his remaining action points. The part that doesn't quite sit right for me is that in that situation Model A would not have ever come into contact with Model B, where normally they would have started out close enough for Model B to do something about Model A leaving. I think in a case like this, where Model A would be prevented from disengaging with Model B, they should perform the Walk action until they enter engagement and then put the Paralyze into play.

It just seems strange to me to have a disengaging strike end with the model not in someone's melee range

Ok Tuttleboy, so if they are then paralyzed by that disengaging strike, do they not move at all or stop by the model that struck them?

I don't actually disagree with your stance, I was just throwing that out there because that was a point brought up at the shop I hang at and I wanted to see how you addressed it. I wasn't sure how I would phrase an answer to that.

Well, in theory, you would know whether your walk path would take you into a model's melee range, so you could still make the flip before moving

Actually, as far as using a Charge Action to get out of Engagement is concerned, it specifically states in the rules (pages 39 and 48 in the pocket book) that a model may not Charge while Engaged. As far one continuous Walk Action, it never specifies that a Model has Disengaging Strikes against it only if it ended within a Melee range and then tried to Walk away. This would lead me to believe that anytime you enter the Melee range (or yours for that matter, since models are considered Engaged when within at least one of theirs Melee range), no matter whether you intended to stay there.

Yeah, so far I've been sticking to the 1/3 of table guideline, largely because we have a lot of new players (including me) that are still figuring out the rules, both the general ones and how their crews work and I just feel like not having too much terrain to confuse them further...at least not yet

Thanks for the input. Currently we have primarily GW scale terrain, but I have found that a lot of the ruins and graveyard items work well for Malifaux buildings. We also have a person who makes buildings for Infinity, which also scale well for Malifaux. I'm getting ready for my first organized tournament today and I just wanted to make sure that I as not under-utilizing the terrain aspect of the game.

So I noticed that in the rule book it suggests having a 3'x3' table about 1/3 covered by terrain. Just about every time I go to set-up a table for a game, someone comes up and says there's not enough terrain. And when I tell them the suggestion is about 1/3 covered they are surprised. So what I want to know is this: how much terrain do people put on their tables and what kinds do you tend to use (forests, buildings, rivers, etc). Also, for those who organize tournaments and other events, do you still use the same amount for set tables or do you increase/decrease the density of the terrain? Thanks!

Another update: We are going to be locking players into using a single faction, but they may use a different list each round. Any list used must be prepared by the time the rounds start.

Just to let everyone know, the community we have in this neck of the wood is a fledgling community, so we will be welcoming all experience levels of players.