benjoewoo

Before I respond--what do you mean by traceability being implied as a rule? Also for that example--effects encompassing everything under the sun--could you refer to an example where it's wonky, to highlight where the word "effects" can be ambiguous?

At least for premise 1, I think that's one of the main issues of Question 2. That being said, I think they have to--otherwise evasive would not work to stop damage from blasts that caused simple duels that could result in damage. As for the charge specific ruling, while I think that could use clarification, I don't think it's an "on point" example for showing why tracing to source is important--it's more of a "are traits cumulative" question. For premise 3, could you please cite an example? I think you acknowledge it's what the rules should be attempting to achieve--I think that's enough to say the premise is true in how it should be applied, otherwise it's not a goal worth pursuing. For premise 5, same thoughts as for premise 3 above. I do think Malifaux can sometimes be inconsistent, but at least in M3E I haven't seen any glaring examples. If you could cite one I'd love to look. And yes, I'm laying out concepts for "perfect" rules interpretations in an environment created by people--mistakes are likely if not guaranteed to exist. That being said you have to still pursue the ideal because otherwise the enterprise is a failure from the start and Malifaux is always a kitchen gamer rule set game. No worries on sounding terse--you're addressing my points which is very appreciated and I want to have more of a discussion.

@Myyrä I could have just written something that wove all the premises in. Fewer premises would be preferable, to be sure, but more does not by itself indicate truthfulness or falseness--that would make discussing anything complex almost impossible. Also the citation on player control I don't think hits the discussion for Q1 on point--there's no doubt the player is controlling all 3 actions, but which model has to take the damage is the question. @Maniacal_cackle Right I don't think there's a question bad juju could be buried. To your citation regarding breaking the game, I think you break the game more if the game doesn't operate to have bad juju perma-buried until a model friendly to bad juju unburies him. I'm unsure if you read everything I posted because while you say you want a persuasive argument you didn't address any particular point I made--but I go over why essentially the rule book maintains that if an enemy effect buried bad juju and provides for how bad juju would unbury, the unbury effect will fail initially and then the rulebook's supplemental method of placing the model in the owner's deployment zone doesn't change that characteristic, necessitating the conclusion bad juju stays buried until it is unburied by a non-enemy effect, i.e. a friendly effect. Both of you have basically said it's a high bar--I don't think that's a concept in the type of rules interpretation called for in this game because otherwise there are non-rules factors going into the decision. While GG Season 0 definitely preserves the TO golden rule to override any given rule, I think it would be a weak argument to make that "this fails because no TO will agree." It may just be the reality, but artificial and detracting from game consistency/stability.

2 Questions: 1. Assume the strategy is Corrupted Idols as stated in the Gaining Grounds Season 0 document. Zoraida obeys an opposing bandido to use the At Gunpoint action on a qualifying model in Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker. The model in Zoraida's crew is then forced to take the interact action to move the idol marker. Who takes the damage? A search did not yield any relevant results--unsurprising given how new the GG Season 0 document is. 2. Assume a death marshal buries Bad Juju. When Bad Juju unburies, does he get placed in the owner's deployment zone or is he kept buried because Planted Roots says he cannot be moved by an enemy effect? A search on this forums showed one thread discussing this but the answer was an after thought on this issue with no further discussion. For reference, I originally was going to have the questions ordered in reverse, but my thoughts for question 2's answer as I understand it are very long, and I think the relatively easier question 1 answer will guide discussion and finding (hopefully) a solid ruling for question 2. It may seem backwards because I posted the questions in reverse order originally, so Question 1 now refers to tracing without a detailed discussion of why I assume it is there, but that shouldn't be too difficult to search down into Question 2's thoughts. Question 1 thoughts I think the answer is Zoraida. Corrupted Idols now checks, via tracing, what model is controlling the model that takes the interact action to place a strategy marker within X". The model that controls the action has to take the damage, so for example Zoraida using obey on an opposing death marshal to move an idol marker would result in Zoraida taking the damage. This interaction is only possible if the game "traces" control of the model. I'll preemptively refer to the thoughts that models override rules and rules apply consistently to create a default situation until otherwise changed, typically by a model(s). If a Zoraida obeys a Bandido to take the "at gunpoint" action on a qualifying model that Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker, causing the model from Zoraida's crew to interact to move the idol marker, who takes the damage? I believe the answer is Zoraida, because the game initially traces the model controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to the bandido, and the game traces control of that model to Zoraida. I think ruling this way may seem to contradict the text on the bandido that it controls the action taken by the model that is being controlled by the "at gunpoint" action, but it shouldn't because that action is controlled by Zoraida, and control is necessarily traced to Zoraida from the interacting model. I think ruling the other way also essentially negates in some situations--because obey like effects s are not particularly rare in the context of malifaux--what the change to corrupted idols was trying to prevent. Additionally, ruling the other way seems to arbitrarily cut the traced chain of control without a good reason why. If it's a strong argument to say the bandido is controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to move the idol marker, it's just as strong to say Zoraida is in control because both Zoraida and the bandido's actions that cause a model to take an action include the text that the action is controlled by "this model." The games rules provide only that the controlling model takes the damage, so there is no rule book source of change in control--this interaction must be governed by the models barring an FAQ/errata. Question 2 thoughts This one will be a doozy. I'm writing this in a different format because it'll probably be easier to discuss and refer to subsequently this way. Premise 1. The rulebook and various models "trace" effects to their source. The rulebook's discussion of conditions that cause damage shows this explicitly because the damage "source" is typically the condition, not the ability/action that placed poison on the model. This is important for discussions on whether VP is scored when a model dies from poison. Premise 2. Models "trace" effects to their source. Using models with "Evasive" (the ability to ignore damage froim shockwaves, blasts, and pulses) as examples, they trace the source of the damage--I believe people here/on the Wyrd forums have ruled/indicated their ruling that if a pulse causes a TN 14 WP duel that does damage (e.g. Nothing Beast's Accelerate time which causes 2 damage and grants Fast), even if an Evasive model fails the duel, they will not suffer the damage because the damage from the failed duel was caused by a pulse. Premise 3. If tracing is present, it must be present consistently. This premise is more from logic rather than example, because to say tracing can be present inconsistently detracts from the informative and guiding nature of rules/model action or ability applications. Premise 4. Models override the rules when in conflict. This is an explicit rule in the rule book. Premise 5. Where models have publicly available (for review) different wordings on comparable abilities, different applications must be applied to give effect to the distinct wordings barring typographical errors. This is a tenet of reading comprehension so that reading rules, actions, abilities, etc. have consistency as opposed to whatever the moment dictates is the better resolution. It also helps prevent resorting to TO discretion on rulings, a positive thing for game reliability and playability. Premise 6. Where at least one model's ability conflicts with another model(s)' ability(s), the restrictive ability supercedes the permissive one. This has been a tenet of ability/action application in Malifaux for some time. It was explicit in M2E, but the M3E rule book does not make mention of this particular rule now. That being said, it logically should still apply because otherwise situations in which these interactions arise (basically every interaction for such restrictive abilities) could never resolve or would require TO ruling intervention, bringing instability to the game. Premise 7. Where other publicly available (for review) intentional design elements or interactions provide circumstantial support for the way a discussed interaction would go,the discussed interaction should attempt to resolve so as to reinforce those design elements or interactions. Another reading comprehension tenet for stability and consistency in the game. Conclusion. Planted Roots, which reads in relevant part: ""This model cannot be moved by enemy effects..." provides that if the effect moving the model with that ability is sourced from an enemy model, then the model may not be moved at all, no exceptions. This compares to abilities like Laugh Off, which are similarly worded but are permissive in allowing the model with the ability to achieve a similar effect. In application, should you unbury a model with Laugh Off, the model may allow the unbury according to the unbury's effect, which would allow for first placement in the default area, and if non-legal according to the rules, then the owner of the model placing the model within the deployment zone. With Planted Roots and similar mandatory abilities, however, there is no such permission, the effect is mandatory at all times. Initially you attempt to place the model according to the unbury effect, but Planted Roots overrides it as it is the restrictive ability vs. the ability attempting to change the game state. You then attempt to place the model in the deployment zone per the rule book, but the model with the ability (and the rulebook) trace the source of the unbury to the model that generated the unbury effect. That model is still an enemy (per section on friendly or enemy, this can never change), and the source of the unbury is still connected because the rules have not overridden this fact, only changed who controls the place. Thus, Planted Roots should apply to prevent the unbury in the deployment zone for source of the unbury effect, which is what the explicit text of that ability cares about--not who controls the unbury placement OR owns the model. Planted Roots additionally overrides the rule book in this case because the rule book only changes the place for a contextual placement--I have not brought up the rules are looking at just physical placing, but placing at all--they were pretty clearly written with the idea there was no legal physical placement, but are worded for where model interactions come into play as well. The rule book only explicitly provides that in such a case the initial placement is not legal, then you resort to the deployment zone, switching control of the place to the owner of the model. (1) This did not change the source of the unbury effect, as mentioned, so Planted Roots should still apply. And (2) the design element to change the controller of the unbury effect was very likely to prevent the (relatively) automatic decision by the original controller of the unbury effect simply placing the model in the farthest reaching corner/area of the deployment zone to effectively achieve a relative insta-kill. For example, see how long it takes for your average Mv 5 model to get back to the center and be effective after being placed in the furthest corner of corner deployment on turn 2. Barring built in movement actions/abilities, e.g. Leap or Incorporeal, or help from other models, e.g. Lure, it'll take about 2 turns (4 walk actions for 20" of movement, putting you at 8" outside of your deployment zone assuming you can straight light walk for maximum distance). The game at turn 2 is now top of Turn 5 and your model can finally be relevant again at the end of the game. This example can get more extreme in other deployment types, so it was logical the design element swapped the control so as to keep bury/unbury mechanics from being too powerful given their relative rarity. This matters because there may have been a distinction in who controlled where the model unburied--if the player who owned the model with Planted Roots generated the unbury effect, then the placement would be legal in the first instance before referring to the deployment zone. But, if the unbury effect was sourced from the enemy model that initially buried the Planted Roots model, Planted Roots has application. Additionally, this ruling is in line with the design element for Planted Roots vs. Laugh Off. Planted Roots is on a 6 SS cost minion model. Laugh Off is typically on higher priced models that are usually higher in station, e.g. Fuhatsu, a 9 SS henchmen model. Laugh Off is currently (though this could in theory change) strictly better than Planted Roots because you can choose to take the same interaction path as Planted Roots or you can allow the qualifying move effect to resolve so that you can achieve better position, e.g. shooting range or as this discussion implies, avoiding effective (and ultimate) death by being buried. Malifaux as a game is an inherent game of risk (heavy elements of chance via 54 card fate deck, many mechanics to stack odds, etc.), so this makes sense in line with how the game is designed--you bring a model that has a silver bullet type defensive ability, it can backfire if I counter that ability with another relatively esoteric interaction. Concluding thoughts I think the questions are important because at least for how corrupted idols scores, zoraida can circumvent the intent of the strategy text change if the ruling goes the other way a little more easily than intended, or really any obey vs. obey type interactions. Question 2 is particularly interesting to me because it'll be informative on whether the rule book and any other official documentation in M3E will be interpreted by the TO community, now that we know the TO golden rule is back in at least GG season 0. Specifically, whether the rules will be interpreted more readily with implied rulings than not. Any rules reference input appreciated. I think this discussion is informative because answering one provides insight to answering the other.

Updated to remove Fuhatsu from core list, make notes on hiring 2nd master--primarily that I'm going to start testing McCabe, and added section on hopes and dreams for tuning up Youko based on the current environment as I know it and the rulebook strats and schemes.

I don't think I said the engine starts earlier than turn 3. If you say that because of my thoughts on the turn 4/5 cycle, it's because turn 3 seems to still be one of the most important turns in Malifaux, both at the casual and competitive level. The earliest a scheme can be revealed in the current game environment is end of turn 2, and you need that explosive turn on turn 3 where you really get a lot of mileage out of your engine. My point is just that if you ever truly feel card cycle is going to save your bacon turns 4 & 5, things aren't going hot, and I would think it's due at least in part (probably large part given how much pass tokens do for Youko) to the leverage engine failing, either for not generating enough pass tokens and/or the control models not controlling enough of the game state. I'm not initially not partial to putting trained ninja on Youko. I didn't write it last night (hopefully I finish it today--day off today) because of the late hour, but Youko turns 1-2 is unlikely to see too much action barring the opponent attempts an alpha strike. Provided enough terrain is on the board, you'll generally want to keep Youko out of LoS of the enemy crew until the later activations turns 1-2, with her being a more active participant turns 2/3+, depending on how early your main forces engaged. In maps with too little terrain, trained ninja is probably a more critical consideration on Youko, but locally I haven't found a great need for it. I do like the tanuki model, but don't want to field it yet because I feel that piece will cover the smaller weaknesses and make up for misplays that I need to ID and make, respectively, in order to better understand Youko. I also don't think Tanuki is auto-include or else the crew has too few stones to play with unless I drop one of the current core crew lineup, i.e. one of the henchmen. I don't like the idea of having the core geisha actually engaged. One of the benefits of having an anti-charge ability is that melee models have to walk in to hit her. Projectile actions get hit for friendly fire, and if that's a much larger concern than the melee model(s) in my junk, then I'll engage. I would have to wonder though what cost I paid to get a geisha that close without her dying, as she's a 4 Wd model without any real defense excluding leverage. I've read the threads linked in one of the posts before and those few are pretty much the only threads that go into youko. But, one of them isn't really about youko but a hinamatsu led crew and the other two don't have too much--I think there's a post that's similar to what I've written here in concept (another person's thoughts), but it doesn't amount to too much literature for getting into youko. The ones that aren't focusing on a hinamatsu led crew with lure spam are great starting points--I made my initial model purchases based on them and initial play. I'm just trying to develop my thoughts through reps and writing down my thoughts to see if they make sense on later review. As for some of the other model recommendations, e.g. Tannen, samurai, etc., I'll probably test with them in crew at some point, just not yet as (1) I don't have them; (2) I have other models I want to test first; and (3) when I read some of the cards, I'm not convinced they're long term good choices for x, y, and/or z reasons. Reps and review will (hopefully) show me some errors and hone my crew building. I'm fairly sure that for Youko at least Silent Protector might be a trap. She prefers elite crews IMO, and when she does run more minions, they are less likely (in how I currently see she wants to be played) to be within 2" of her to take the hit. Challenge is already on Bill, who no one really wants to target I think (turn 3 he's likely going to heal), and HTK on a minion is going to get about as much mileage as 1-2 stones on a hench use. Haven't played with katanaka yet, but I included him in the initial write up because snipers seem particularly good in the current environment.

These are my notes on Youko Hamasaki as I play her. This is not a competitive guide--I'm playing in M3E as a casual player, so while some notes will talk about time, it's a not a note of encouragement for the kind of play where you plan on not finishing, but pointing out something relatively obvious (for the context) that is a reality of playing in Malifaux's competitive setting. I post here so I can access my own notes from any particular device and to provide a below average player's perspective on playing the master and trying to utilize her. It may be a nice starting point as there's very little literature on the master and may provide an evolving view as I continue to play M3E as long as I do. There will likely from time to time be better content to get ideas on how to play Youko as a master, e.g. Third Floor Wars when they eventually do a deep dive. Assuming TFW doesn't update it's deep dives, however, then this may provide additional insight as the model pool grows. Comments are welcome, to which I'll try to respond and/or account for in updating my thoughts in this main post. As a note, if you're reading this, you probably already know about her in keyword primary mechanic, and since these are my notes that I'll (try to) regularly update, I won't go into what Leverage is., what her front of card abilities do, etc. That also goes for some concepts of her crew as they'll (probably) be implied by what I write here as I update. Additionally, I did not play during the beta for M3E, and because I didn't buy the TT book when everyone else was on first release, I don't have it nor extensive access to known, unreleased models. So I don't have a full grasp of all options, and thus models that may be very popular may not be mentioned much because I just haven't had a chance to really review them--my primary method of reviewing models for consideration is through the publicly available card .pdf files, which don't include models like kabuki warrior. Basic View of how Malifaux M3E works: Because Malifaux largely relies on a 54 card deck with shuffling to determine most results in player interactions, it is inherently a game of chance. Thus, mechanics and play styles to maximize favorable probabilities should often yield more success, by extension more wins, provided overall strategy and situational play is roughly the same strength as the opponent's strategy and play. The primary source of variation in this game comes from the fate deck. The fate deck mechanic is largely, IMO, categorized into 3 major components, in no particular order: (1) the control hand; (2) the flipped cards; and (3) deck manipulation, e.g. simple knowledge or actually changing cards. Any mechanic (currently) related to the fate deck modifies the game by changing one or more of those three mechanics, usually just one. Which one is "more" influential in any given game will vary primarily based on crew composition, then on play that is executed to at least partially address one of those three categories. Every crew in this game more or less needs cards to be higher than the average 6-7 at some point. If we all had our way you'd have all the cards stacked from highest to lowest value order with your hand containing 13s, the red joker, and a 12 of your choice. But, since that isn't very likely, you want to play in a way that maximizes your ability to use the cards that come from your fate deck in any of the three ways they do, because the fate deck is critical to your crew succeeding in accomplishing your in game objective and/or denying your opponent achieving the same to secure a win. This leads to the bookend thought that fielding a crew that can majorly influence at least one of the three categories very consistently will do better. Youko's primary mechanic to address the fate deck is to flip multiple cards during duels with the luxury of more often choosing the better suited card. She additionally has minor deck manipulation for herself and/or the opponent via Youko's aura, and she manipulates the control hand with a world wide hand size limitation. She can address all three categories meaningfully in some way, with an emphasis on flipping more, hopefully better cards. So, she should try to play to that as her strength and build crews and play accordingly. The above is not to say that manipulating the fate deck is the ONLY way to win. There is something to be said for activation control and just having raw model count and/or tricks to effectively achieve activation control, greater than normal levels of action efficiency, etc. Doing these things can also win, and some of these are things Youko utilizes or tries to mitigate against opposing crews. If you can generate hyper activation efficiency, you can often win just by getting points, even if you're mostly tabled by the end of the game. I focus on the fate deck discussion because outside of basic activation control via pass token generation, IMO Youko tends to really focus on making duels better via fate deck manipulation. Just note that non-fate deck related mechanics are in fact important to winning Malifaux and can be a large, sometimes primary factor for winning, but I don't think there is a currently a crew that can sustain > .500 win rate without winning any duels, opposed or simple ones. If you're sustaining > .500 win rate while losing all your duels against competent players, congratulations you're playing the objectively best crew of the game and are about to set the meta. Crew box: Youko Hamasaki: Seems flexible in that you can activate her early and use your high cards to cripple your opponent's control hand early and/or mitigate early activation damage. You can also activate later in the turn to close the door so to speak on any random shenanigans the opponent may have with their last cards, e.g. forcing cheats because not doing so loses a duel, results in the "worse" choice for a pain choices (e.g. blackmail), etc. Wants to be within 6" of a low wp model for bonus action and blackmail with discard aura, other 2 ap being for positioning, focus, etc. Getting 2-3 other low wp models in the area would be amazing, but given she just has serene countenance for defense, seems unlikely. More likely the 1-2 ap will be to catch up to any model that is attempting to outrun her, barring you get off a lure. Very fragile master I feel as her primary defense won't mean much against the high damage output models who get resources anyway to get straight or positive flips, and largely won't mean anything against indirect damage models. It essentially seems to stop trash attacks as most of these types of attacks will largely be within her threat range, either right away for her actions or within 1 AP walk to cover with bubble. Feels stone hungry right now but reps will hone my sense on this. Not particularly rules reliant. Chiyo Hamasaki: Scheme runner and pass token generator. Probably takes 2-3 turns to catch up to barring you have particularly efficient movement tricks or extreme activation control. Back of card seems mostly bad since the crew likely doesn't typically have an abundance of scheme runners, meaning this guy/girl needs to fulfill that role. If you're playing death bubble and Chiyo is part of it, maybe, but then you have to really lock down a couple low Wp models for Chiyo and assumedly Youko to get any real mileage--that seems too rube goldberg to be worth it compared to just running schemes, generating pass tokens, and having a quick activation. Bill Algren: Beater who will double as a scheme runner/runner hunter. Only source of healing, rescue, and scheme marker manipulation in keyword. Probably auto-include for a while. Great for deterring early scheme reveals which can factor into decision making if round time becomes an issue. His ability to dole out damage isn't amazing, but it's probably above average once the pass token engine gets going. Largely doesn't seem stone hungry given what I read and the available triggers. He's not a front line fighter--armor +1 is not enough and depending on how your meta plays, he's either being healed early (and not tanking to make the heal effective) or healed too late (he's been forced to retreat/out of position and +3 Wds isn't enough). Geisha (3x): Sacrificial lamb pieces for the most part. One of the in keyword lures and has one of the few in keyword movement tricks you can play with when using trained ninja. Pretty much a distraction piece for Youko as it provides a 2" aura forcing negative flips on Wp duels, enabling Youko heavily and other Wp duels. Currently I feel you have to run at least 1 to escort Youko, and I will start experimenting with 2x, though I'm unsure as to how to work the math for 2x just yet. 2x also seems a little costly for two models that won't effectively scheme run (without trained ninja) and largely serve as cannon fodder and/or Wp auras that the opponent cannot afford to ignore too long. Crew building: At this point there aren't many in keyword models, and most of my core crew currently comes from the box. A nice thing about that though is getting reps in will yield a great deal of knowledge on what she needs for the core as I refine it and what her pain points are in each strategy and scheme (S&S) set. I have seen people describe her as a control master with a crew that will largely not kill much and mostly run schemes while preventing the opponent from scoring their own points. I'm unsure I agree with this, given my impression of how TT worked in M2E and my understandings/impressions of the models available to Youko. She basically gets beaters in melee when in keyword, excellent beaters at range when looking out of keyword (OOK), and support for those beaters otherwise. That's not to say she doesn't have access to scheme runners--they're just currently not good. In keyword, she currently has effectively two choices in keyword: bunraku and kunoichi. The former is much more straight forward, but lacks oomph to contest other runners/runner hunters and their defensive capabilities are lackluster considering the bonus action is to ping 1 for a 3" push, which sometimes won't get you far enough to drop another scheme marker in the same turn and hurts for ~18% of the health pool with no realistic ways to heal mid game barring unusual circumstances. The latter seems better suited to playing around the outskirts of the main engagement area while asserting and/or maintaining advantage, but doubles as a scheme runner with less idea defensive abilities than a bunraku. But, as a runner hunter she offers more consistent oomph and the ability to counter scheme marker schemes with a 3" re-position trigger in an environment where engagement ranges max out at 2" for the most part. Bunraku will likely be the primary scheme runner choices in the cost slot as is in addition to the free Chiyo, providing what seems to be the average "2-3" models that run the more schemy schemes instead of the killy ones. With my understanding of general numbers and some of the crews I've faced/read (mostly read, so take this with a huge grain of salt) at this point, I would probably re-purpose a henchman/enforcer into a runner hunter who runs schemes for the solo point, sometimes second point. This would likely only be an effective strategy in situations where time was particularly important, but may be worthwhile if my thoughts on what Youko's score range is are correct. I also add that a second master with high mobility like McCabe may do the trick, but it's an expensive trade-off. I think Youko is actually a mild control master who largely employs a larger than average front line of beaters with several largely independent control pieces to score 4-6 points while denying the opponent points. The literature I've read on these forums favor Hinamatsu and Fuhatsu, and I largely agree both are great as they play into Youko's primary mechanical advantage: playing favorable probabilities and pressuring the opponent's control hand. Youko's keyword, however, leaves scheme running a thing to be desired currently, and my take on her "core" crew currently is fairly expensive without a ton of room to play around. There is a caveat to that statement, but based mostly on my understanding, she doesn't favor running interaction heavy,schemes, e.g. most scheme marker related schemes. she prefers schemes you can get mostly passively while eliminating high impact models so that she can re-purpose her models into VP denial in the mid-late game. Her beaters are great at getting in range for their raison d'être: beating people's faces in. She isn't the greatest at killing on paper until you start getting the pass token engine going, but once the engine activates, likely turn 2 in tournament, turn 3 in casual games, basically everyone is burning through the deck and should largely hit above average, generating control hand pressure and inciting inefficient actions. With that, my current core crew is as follows, with the mentioned caveat to follow. The core costs 26 SS for 6 models Youko--free Chiyo--free 2x Geisha--4SS Bill--9SS Huckster--7SS (tax included) I originally had Hinamatsu in the core list--I now think she's less of a core, and more of a comfort pick because of her melee attack's reliability. I previously posted I had a caveat, which led into a discussion on swapping Bill/Hinamatsu. I think now you default to have Hinamatsu's 9 stones for her, Fuhatsu, or other suitable model while Bill more regularly stays in. He'll often be needed because he's one of the few models that can gain AP efficiency via cost-less Fast, and he's one of the few models with a reliable eject action--the anti-scheme marker trigger is icing. With the remaining stones, I generally want to hire to the S&S pool. At this point I feel Youko is very limited, as she wants as many in keyword models as possible so leverage has more noticeable impact, but most of the models are slightly over costed for their role. I think Youko will often have to build the crew with split groupings to score roughly 4-6 points per game while denying points to the opponent to achieve wins. I don't think her options, barring high variance one way or the other in game (e.g. flips), provide her the tools to consistently get 7-8 points per game as Youko has a lot of trouble scoring high on strategies and will have issues in the marker/position heavy rule book scheme pool. Typical non-core hires I currently factor in are: Charm Warder--has a variety of abilities that are situationally useful. Bonus action can poop on crews that depend on long term deck manipulation. Chi synergizes with leverage engine. Only model in keyword that can generate irreducible damage. Glass cannon though so wants to stay out of heavy fights--better for clean up and forcing awkward positioning. Doubles as a runner hunter or scheme runner, though not so much the latter. Over costed for most situations, but probably an auto-take in idols where summoners shine. Fuhatsu--former core model, but he doesn't answer scoring points or denying points (very well), which is probably more important than just having a ranged turret. He can help with VP management, but just as often be a non-issue if the opponent concedes Fuhatsu's position as acknowledgement of Fuhatsu's purpose in most games: zoning away from your scoring zone. Yamaziko--Nimble more or less makes up for Mv 4 and means she has a pretty decent threat range for runner and/or sniper hunting. I would hire her for runner hunting primarily, with a mid-late game flank in. If I need another beater, other models suit the purpose better. She just does it well against runners, particularly when they run in packs, but solo ones are fine as well. Hard to outpace so can help run schemes as well, probably just as well as bunraku just based on numbers In a full fight she's a glass cannon, but when she's flanking wide, her one on card defensive ability is massive to prevent drop in shenanigans, especially when paired with trained ninja. Another model where McCabe testing might render her obsolete. But, she's probably better in wedge formation, where three articulated movements is much more useful than having +2" in total movement. There are many more, some of which I've seen suggested, some I haven't. For example, Tanuki is definitely a model I've considered, but I don't include it because I have a preference for models that offer more direct impact and I'm trying to feel out how far I can stretch my resources before I have to hire more models, modify the core, etc. I'm pretty sure the core crew I've listed above is mostly solid, especially for my purposes, and flexible enough that as the model pool grows, I won't feel too restrained as I want to make swaps. General Strengths and Weaknesses: Strengths Youko is a master who'll largely hire beaters. Basically everyone in keyword except the master, totem, and geisha are beaters compared to the equivalent model in that role from another keyword/faction. Youko has incredible pressure in duels to stack odds in her favor via flip probability. This goes for actual opposed duels for your attack actions and generating more favorable odds when defending in duels. An interesting use is also to use leverage to pass simple duels to more easily avoid "monkey wrench" mechanics like terrifying, manipulative, etc. that seek to stop your duels from occurring by putting up a medium-high medium difficulty simple duel as a gatekeeper to actually starting an opposed duel as the attacker. It needs to be said that leverage doesn't just take care of duels--it simply increases probability that you'll do better, so using this is more of a scalpel than a hammer--taking unfavorably lopsided duels because you have a positive flip will yield poorer results than taking similar stat duels and putting pressure on your opponent to react and act, typically with cheats, SS, etc. Where this should shine is taking even stat or slightly advantaged (+1 favorable stat) duels where you should significantly more often win the cheating game (forcing your opponent to cheat first), letting you cheat with knowledge, cheat bait, or just gain hand knowledge or other advantage. Youko's crew gets a lot of its benefits passively. Leverage is completely passive--out of Youko's direct control, but once activated, requires nothing mid-game to obtain. How much leverage does will be based on, in order from greatest to least: (1) how many models have the leverage ability and (2) how you use the leverage tokens. Additionally a number of the models in the core gain benefits without having to do much--Chiyo can camp an uncontested corner generating 3 unimportant activations (himself, 2 pass tokens), Bill heals and gets fast for the opponent playing the game, etc. To the second point above, leverage's mechanic allows Youko to play flexibly between high pressure or disproportionate activation control. She can use the pass tokens in quick activation sequences with high pressure duels, especially when using ruthless model(s) that ignore monkey wrench mechanics like terrifying. Alternatively, Youko can use them to assert activation control to mitigate threats and strike when able, relying on her by default larger hand size and probability with any left over pass tokens to generate pressure. Neither of the above approaches will always be necessarily correct at this time, IMO, though this could change depending on how popular the following are: (1) alpha strike crews; (2) low model count crews; and (3) aura/pulse based death ball crews. If Youko had similar stats as in M2E, she would likely play similar to her "counter part" Nellie, in that activation control would typically be absolutely critical for most of the game given the popularity and availability of strong alpha strike and heavy activation control crews--I don't think Youko would be popular in M2E unless she could generate pass tokens under a summoning mechanic as the rules provide now, but if she could she might have been a decent to better control master. A little thing about leverage also is that if you do not need to use pass tokens, you can save them to effectively ensure winning initiative in subsequent turns. I had a game where my opponent flipped a 12 but I won initiative because I had 4 pass tokens left and flipped a 9, putting me at 13, giving me initiative on turn 4, which was critical for getting my beaters in quickly to assert extra activation control and pressure. Youko is also fortunately not particularly reliant on maps featuring any particular type of terrain or board set up out of the ordinary, assuming you board(s) have sufficient terrain in sufficient variety. She benefits greatly from having lots of LoS blocking terrain as she often has to spend turns 1 and 2 walking for set up with potential strike opportunities, but not to any significantly greater extent than most other crews. She also does not currently have too many unusual rules interactions, so for people who play competitively she shouldn't have too many situations where a particular ruling for an interaction her crew started will be needed. Other crews can be the exception, but knowing how a TO or relevant authority will rule is part and parcel of Malifaux's tournament scene, at least in M2E. Youko surprisingly is probably more likely a 2nd hire master--I hate to say it because she's my only TT master, but at this point I don't see Youko players (vs. TT players) being able to thrive in the rulebook S&S environment barring particularly disparate skill levels compared to their opponents. She sucks for idols and basically has to take OOK models for it (who'll kill themselves for their efforts), turf war is a mixed bag because she can neutralize markers relatively well and quickly but can't convert those neutral markers to points easily, and plant explosives is crippling for Youko to do. She is great at reckoning despite wanting to hire a series of henchmen just because of how stacked duels can get, though YMMV. Ironically despite complaining a bit above about Youko's viability in her "strengths" section, I think it isn't "too too bad" because while Youko will have issues scoring the 3-4 points, getting 1-2 points is pretty manageable and she more or less has the tools to deny that many points to opponents, primarily via killing the people moving in to do so. E.g. in corrupted idols where summoners shine, charm warder can make summoning crews suffer relatively heavily with a fairly wide reaching pain aura, decreasing summoning efficiency or just action efficiency in general. Youko also, at least on paper for engagement purposes, probably has some of the better match ups against some of the more popular/powerful (IMO, based on what I've seen and read) masters. Rig the deck from Lynch is heavily mitigated if Youko can assert her hand control early in any given turn and is possibly not useful if Youko's aura is applied to the model rigging the deck. Tara the OP can suffer pretty heavily because even though she mostly needs 5-7 for her simple duel TNs, her primary engagement model, the void wretch, is the perfect patsy for Youko to dump her actions on. Zoraida can pose issues, but many of her models are also great patsies. Against Molly (IMO one of the stronger resser masters as I understand how they work), many of her models are great patsies and the faded mechanic feeds into Youko's draw engine provided Youko can get proper positioning--many models are also terrifying, but at Wp 7 Youko shouldn't often be too concerned). This isn't to say Youko will silver bullet any of these match ups, but rather that Youko can pose a more substantial threat because she can consistently throw monkey wrenches into how they operate just by being nearby--and that's just Youko. The game will largely be determined by other models interacting, but Youko can help greatly mitigate, maybe cripple, some of these master's operations for a given turn because they are dependent on fate deck mechanics that Youko is good at manipulating. I'm including this part last because while I don't think it's something that should be encouraged, it's a real consideration, especially if someone reads this with the thought they may gain insight into playing Youko competitively: she is probably a monster for playing to time in timed environments. Opponents don't want to reveal schemes super early because a leverage engine netting 6+ pass tokens on top of natural pass token generation a turn means I don't have to do anything before most/all of your crew has activated, but not doing so could mean that playing to time wins you the game with how scheme VP are scored in M3E. If your goal is to win within the rules and your opponent leaves themselves vulnerable to a win by time, you can take the opportunity. Alternatively, if your opponent reveals at least one scheme early, you are essentially playing a more powerful crew than normal. I say this last sentence because anecdotally I find players locally are revealing schemes turn 3, meaning Youko would get a 2 turn leverage engine. I'm sure there will be some backlash to the above paragraph, but timed environments bring a new factor into the game and my background in gaming is typically competitive, so my thoughts are to think of whatever min/max strategy within the rules will win. Malifaux is one of my few current leisure activities where I don't want to be in the competitive scene, so I won't do this personally, but it's worth mentioning because people may look at this and think the same way and/or play in an environment where that's a normally accepted practice. This is NOT an encouragement or endorsement for "slow play" such that activations are taking abnormal amounts of time for the sake of doing so; doing so is actually against the core book rules in a couple spots if I recall. But, a regular set pace with good record keeping and accuracy double checks takes time and when round times are (typically?) 2 hours, games going to time will often be the norm unless you go quickly through decisionmaking and execution. I hate the "gamer's inch" measurement, but in casual play I don't really care barring it's particularly egregious. The same goes for misplays; I'll retcon my win into a fail if I ignored a negative flip by mistake even if that would lose me the game because I'm not particularly invested in winning casual games. In timed play, typically competitive, however, I will often double check accuracy, measurements, etc. I don't want to be an ass about it in not trusting my opponent, but people misread cards and letting things go through without checking actions/abilities work the way they're being used can be game losing. Malifaux is a massive game as far as player options, making studying and internalizing all player options a massive, unreasonable requirement; it is thus reasonable to read my opponent's cards and check for errata/rulings. For big ticket issues, e.g. M2E's interaction for Carrion Emissary with the My Little Helper Upgrade, checking with the TO is a must and expected, but for all the other issues reading at time of play is reasonable. All of this takes time to do at an effective pace, so playing to the clock is part of competitive play if you choose to make it so. Weaknesses Leverage is currently limited to Qi and Gong models, and will likely remain so. To be fair, if Qi and Gong had a couple more models and either one was a reasonably costed scheme runner, Youko would be pretty high powered. As is though, there aren't many options, and as discussed below, they are mostly over costed for their roles given what they do. This means Youko wants to hire as many models in keyword as possible, which is a weakness as most of her models have counterparts that do what the Qi and Gong version does but more often are better, but the opportunity cost from losing a model with leverage alone, never mind the OOK tax, may make the swap non-optimal. Bunraku are not terrible scheme runners, but there are better ones in faction, e.g. Tengu cost less with tax, but losing leverage will often make the swap a non-starter. Youko really wants the opponent to think twice about revealing a scheme early for two major reasons IMO: (1) the later the reveal, the more scrambling to score schemes there will likely be, meaning likely more lower action efficiency; and (2) in a timed environment, revealing the scheme for Turn 3 can result in major plays quickly or revealing too late means time will run out and deny points by virtue of mistaken planning. It sounds like I'm describing a strength above, and leverage is a strength, to be sure (otherwise no one would play Youko), but to make leverage an actually effective mechanic and threat to the opponent, Youko will typically NEED to hire mostly, if not all, Qi and Gong. If it's not in keyword, there needs to be a lot the model brings to the table.. Youko's (IMO) primary in keyword flaws: (1) bad answers to range models; (2) models with terrifying/manipulative; and (3) high mobility models. There are no in keyword models with good answers to range--virtually all of them are melee centric and the ones that aren't are the master, totem, charm warder, and Geisha; the first two are part of the control engine and don't want to engage the ranged if possible, charmer warder is a niche pick (which is fine, but still not an anti-range model), and the last has to lure to set up beaters. The only in keyword ruthless model is Bill, who plays more as a second entry beater to another true front line model like Hinamatsu--Bill will often get a turn 3/4 heal, but he doesn't really have much in the way of defense, so while he can be the anti-terrifying/manipulative, he has to play around the situation as opposed to just slugging at the enemy. Lastly, Youko's models are pretty slow for the most part, and should encounter trouble chasing down higher mobility targets like enemy scheme runners.. I don't go into the strengths against other crews Youko has because I think it's more suitable for the Matchups section, but I think it's worth mentioning crew types Youko will have trouble against because that's where players like me will need help more. IMO, Youko will more often have trouble against other low model count crews (natural pass token generation greatly increases leverage effectiveness), crews that manipulate pass tokens (e.g. Somer), crews with good healing, and crews with high damage reduction abilities (only charm warder and Hinamatsu can ignore damage reduction, with the former having to go in melee as a sub-par melee model and the latter only ignoring armor by giving up an onslaught trigger). Hopefully future in keyword releases the damage actions are less "big number" (Bill with 3 min, kabuki warriors with 3 min) and more specialized (e.g. an attack that ignores incorporeal only or armor only without triggers that does like a 2/3/4 and doesn't have built in positive attack flips). Additionally, "keep away" crews are almost always an issue. If you listen to Third Floor War's deep dives, some of the deep dives describe crew building for the tournament level as playing essentially keep away with surgical attacks, mostly in situations where you can't do anything. Youko can mitigate some of this with a leverage engine, but in timed environments in particular, it can be rough to get traction quickly/in time. Since "keep away" is typically playing high mobility or a gimmick like Tara's bury manipulation, Youko often will struggle to keep up. At least so far in my play, the general idea before making match up considerations is to pick schemes that allow me to bubble around my scheming "area" to deter the free anti-scheming. The opponent will attempt anti-scheming anyway, but Youko punishing it hard when it happens may prevent it from happening or mitigate/eliminate the opponent's ability to permanently deny those points. Youko leaves much to be desired in scheme running. To be fair, Youko's keyword is not really suited to scheme running, but the rulebook S&S heavily favor having either lots of generic extra actions/out of activation actions or getting into X, Y, & Z positions at various points in the game, all of which Youko's in keyword options are pretty terrible at outside of fighting, e.g. Hinamatsu blender. I am going to test running a 2nd master, specifically McCabe, because he doesn't seem stone hungry for what I need him to do, his totem synergizes very well and serves a purpose the whole game while not drawing massive amounts of attention, and he's fast. Mei Feng requires scrap markers which don't exist for Youko and the forgeling is not a good solo source of scrap marker generation. Jakob lynch without Hungy is a bad range model. Asami loses a lot of her utility in a Youko crew because she'll be a summoning battery that requires healing or she'll kill herself. Misaki and Shenlong are largely self-sufficient except they're stone hungry to get maximum effect from their actions and Youko doesn't want to spend 16 stones for more melee centric models. Finally, Yan Lo takes too long to be efficient for Youko and he really needs a reliquary model to utilize a lot of his own model, making him a 20+ SS commitment. Finally, and this might seem very fatalistic, especially early into M3E's release, but it's here so that I have a reference point as I get more reps in, I experiment, etc. I think Youko, barring particularly useful releases, will likely be a mid-higher mid tier master if you're looking to play competitively, and will be a higher mid tier-high tier master in casual play environments where players aren't running the "in meta" masters with by and large optimized lists. She lacks the options to really answer some of the most common ways people will play in more competitive environments, and this is due mostly to a small in keyword model selection and to a lesser extent OOK options. In most setups she can't "score" turn 1 with 1-2 schemes set to score turn 2, which will likely be more of a factor in timed environments but still a consideration in casual play. Her AP efficiency is about making duels better, but not auto-win, and she still has to win them by and large because she doesn't get many free actions on her models' cards by and large. She is a master that currently leads a crew "honestly" with walking to an area and taking rulebook interaction actions to accomplish interact schemes while charging/shooting at you to accomplish the killy schemes. This isn't to say Youko can't be played, but she probably isn't the best all comer master--more likely a secondary master to pull into S&S sets where her weaknesses aren't easily exploited for a loss. I'll continue to play Youko, at least for now, as my primary master because I want to play in a casual only environment. So, I'll probably maintain a lower win rate if my local meta runs more "meta" masters with optimized lists, but I want to keep model acquisition costs relatively low and starting with a master that has few in keyword choices does that. I could also be VERY wrong about Youko as far as competitive viability--maybe she'll fit very well into it because of how tournament games go in M3E, e.g. time limitations still generally result in 3-4 turn games, so schemes get revealed early and/or playing to the clock is a reality of tournament play. Matchups: To be written. Strategy and Scheme Decision Making: Since we only have the rulebook S&S right now and I've mentioned my thoughts above, I'll keep the strategy discussion relatively short. The scheme section will be more general guidelines because those choices vary more greatly IMO depending on board set up, opposing crew composition, deployment, etc. Corrupted Idols--possibly Youko's worst strategy, with its competition being Plant Explosives. Corrupted Idols may not require as many interact actions as plant, but the self-pings to push are hugely painful for Youko's elite style crews and (IMO) over costed in keyword options for running the strategy. Getting 1-2 points isn't super painful, but getting 3-4 is very rough because of how much irreducible damage her models will have to take in a crew that will not typically have massive amounts of healing. Charm warder/Fuhatsu are probably strong picks because Fuhatsu can heal himself and guard the idols he's pushed while charm warder can mitigate summoning effectiveness. Plant Explosives--competition for idols in going for worst strategy for Youko. Youko has plenty of models to carry two bombs, but few of them are good choices to spend their AP just walking and interacting. Fuhatsu can be great for protecting dropped markers, but to put two down takes him 2 turns. Bill is one of the best suited among the non-minions, but he'll probably be needed to provide back up to Hinamatsu so she doesn't get in over her head. Also without cute movement tricks to start planting markers at the end of turn 1 or start of turn 2, it becomes a big decision to either set up scoring the strategy versus denying positioning/points to the opponent. Turf War--probably the most neutral strategy for Youko. What makes this strategy better or worse for Youko will be the scheme pool and the opposing crew. If it's another elite crew, Youko is probably happy at playing for her 4-6 points and playing the denial game. If it's a summoner/action efficient crew, this is rough because Youko can neutralize markers easily enough, but she's terrible at converting them to her side. Reckoning--probably the strategy a TT player would pick her for, with the other 3 being auto-excludes for Youko as a leader. Beating people down is what Youko wants to do with her crew, and she supports it mind, body, and soul. It can be risky in a "race to the bottom" sort of way with her favoring hiring a bunch of henchmen as her in keyword beater options, but they have some resilience. Fuhatsu I feel is particularly effective because of how powerful his zoning can be, which can turn the game from a competition for X out of 8 points to X out of 4 points if the opponent doesn't have a good answer to Fuhatsu. Hopes for future models: Please Wyrd, if anyone involved in model design reads this. Give Youko a real scheme runner. A 6 cost scheme runner with a critical strike trigger and 1 damage self-ping push for 3" at 6 Wds is bad math.-Armor +1 and building Df stat on trrigger are not the defensive abilities we were looking for Kunoichi is not a scheme runner--she's a skirmisher. Chiyo is the only real in keyword scheme runner and relying on child labor leads to bad things. Kabuki warrior is great for fighting, when it releases but Youko is in no short supply of melee beaters. If not for her amazing leader only ability, I'd say she should always be a 2nd hired master because her model basically supplements any crew she goes in. Alternatively, errata leverage so it starts turn 2; then no one will complain about lack of in keyword ranged models or scheme runners. Having to wait until Turn 3 at minimum to use leverage is a huge hit considering this game favors having the most critical interactions start turn 2 and tidy up halfway through turn 3. It's nice to have +6 pass tokens on someone, but if I'm toeing engagement starting turn 2, I'm definitely in it by turn 3, at which point my pass tokens are almost exclusively going into duels because hey, I've got way fewer models and I need to decrease that differential if I want to have a comparable number of actions to score points. TL;DR Youko is a beat down master--her own model is a control model, but her in keyword models are pretty much all melee beaters, and they beat good by having Youko soften up your opponent's hand so they need to Yugi Moto the heart out of their cards, but you stack the odds against them with leverage for critical duels or set up counter-strikes with activation control via pass tokens (possibly on the latter--I've never been able to do it). She suffers from generically high costs in keyword compared to equivalent models in the same roles from other keywords/factions, so she'll need to hire out of keyword options, making crew building difficult, to make up for her largest weaknesses of running schemes, dealing with ranged attacks/manipulation, and getting into position without losing threat presence by spending beater actions walking into position. A second master hire may be the answer, but that's more or less a stop gap solution until more models come out. Youko is likely a better "pocket" master for particular situations where she doesn't have to go out of her comfort zone much, but she can likely be played at all levels to some effectiveness because her playstyle and mechanics have ways to capitalize on the realities of playing in timed environments by playing to time or casual environments by trying to kill enough to win by a small to medium margin.

No worries. With the announcement of M3E, however, my log is short lived on how useful it will be. I would just play with what you have until the stat cards come out, because I suspect Reva won't be running as she is now--thematic hiring has a large emphasis, and my lists all run basically nothing from the box except the weird shield bearers build.

I'll assume you own only the following, so no crew box add-ons. Reva McMourning Seamus Nicodem Flesh Construct 3 Canine Remains Carrion Effigy 5 Mindless Zombies Carrion Emissary Rafkin I'm unsure how you would get some of these models without the crew boxes, particularly Reva, given that she only comes in a crew box AFAIK. I hope you have the upgrades, but this'll lead to one of my points to save money: proxy. A lot of people don't like proxies if you've been in the game a while, but if you're new I don't think they'll have an issue. Print the cards off--either through the card ordering program, drivethrurpg (I think that's the official vendor) or bringing your books. Malifaux has a rule set that is essentially written for models that are coins. The rules are written so you could play with just bases--if you buy a bunch of bases ($5-10) then you have unlimited models to proxy theoretically. But, assuming you want to play with real models, I'd suggested the following: Reva--7 SS pool (3 cache), the non-charge limited upgrade, 2 SS no-SS on damage upgrade with 4" no healing aura, 2 SS no-damage reduction upgrade--just play this until you're more familiar with Reva, and when you get more models start experimenting with others. (5ss upgrades, 4ss saved) Flesh Construct (6ss) 3 Canine Remains (15ss) Carrion Emissary with My Little Helper (11ss) Rafkin with a 2 SS Upgrade (9ss) Rafkin is not useful really, but at least he's a decent scheme runner hunter. Expect him to die every game, probably around Turns 2-3. Turn 1 is your power play set up turn, or it can be your power play if your opponent doesn't play correctly. You want to get at least 1-2 opposing models off the board, preferably efficient scheme runners or a major target. the 1ss limited upgrade drops a corpse candle with from the shadows 1.5--math allows that if you use its activation early, it can walk, kill itself, and drop a corpse marker within 3" of a model despite the range restriction on summoning--the only issue is whether you'll have the marker in position to hit the thing. Practice learning how to get the first, aggressive strike, by timing activations so that your opponent plays off schedule or forces early attacks to mitigate AP efficiency come Turn 2. Once you're competent with that, practice anticipatory position so that the candle blocks off movement--Reva's threatened reach is often more effective than the actual thing. Reva's activation usually blows all your good cards, so I'd be careful of doing it too early and losing a lot of your threat for the Turn. Your remaining models are for activation control and getting schemes. Rafkin should look for a kill. You want to take out a big target kill, e.g. supporting henchmen or high investment enforcer, but 1-2 scheme runners isn't bad. Emissary should try to activate before Reva to set up blockades and mitigate AP efficiency and set up future turrets and activations. I often use MLH Turn 1 depending on board layout because with two sets of shards, you can literally lock your opponent into a pass or lock them out of an area for you to get in position. Turn 2 will often be the turn you win the game if things go to plan, or at least bring the game to a push so that it comes down to the cards--crew composition matters here and it's where playing average numbers is most important. Reva needs to kill a high priority target during this turn. Emissary will almost guaranteed use MLH this turn if it hasn't Turn 1--position lockout is one of the best ways to mitigate AP efficiency. Everyone else does whatever. Turn 3 you should be cleaning up if things went well or flipping cards to try and make things work. Carrion Emissary is likely dead by now, but if not go for a hurrah charge on a key piece or cause as much damage as you can, blocking off the escape or blocking off another model(s). Everyone else does w/e. Reva's activation will almost always be discard a card to summon a candle and attacking. In an ideal world you already have a corpse in position and you spend 3 AP attacking with the 0 for the finish as needed. Generally you'll use 3 AP to attack and the 0 to reposition to your summons--you can summon up to 8" away but can only teleport to one within 5", resulting in almost 8" of movement. Your SS is basically 1 per turn to cycle two cards pre-turn. 1 SS for the 0 to finish as needed. I pretty much only use stones otherwise for datuse-ba summons if I think it'll get me a significant amount of advantage or if I need to save Reva towards the end of her life. Funnily you can be very conservative on SS prevention, just using them to save her at the end as needed. You can't really afford to lose her at any point because you won't have the force threat, but you don't generally need to stone for suits, just to save her as needed. But, 5 turns of card cycling is basically 2 stones to spare.

I've stopped playing for a long while, but I do know some of the models, having seen the previews. I'm not sure if it's still the trend here, but most of the time (from my perspective) people recommend playing first and then choosing models to purchase. Since models are mostly evergreen, there's not a huge incentive to purchase everything and then figure it out, but rather figure out what you need based on play style and level of competitive play you want and purchasing to taste. For example, I don't play McM, so I don't need flesh constructs. It is possible getting them won't be "wasteful" if you play McM or you find you like running them for one reason or the other, but when I was playing, I didn't find them fitting how I played at the level I wanted to play. I ask the play style and competitive level you want to play at first because that sets the beginning, and most important, limitations--(1) money, and (2) tolerance for adjustment. If you want to play a themed crew for Reva, where you play vincent and the shield bearers, filling the rest of the crew to taste, buy and play whatever gets you the most fulfillment in games, win or lose. There is NOTHING wrong with that because this is a leisure activity. This arguably also stresses money and tolerance for adjustment to a minimum. If you want to play strictly competitively at high levels, I would probably not play ressers--listen to people who consistently win/place well in hard fought tournaments, e.g. max value podcast, and copy what they do. That'll get you the most bang for your buck and get you the competitive edge. I actually more or less swapped to Arcanists because of my issues with ressers after having tried the "top tier" masters by popular vocal opinion. This stresses money the least and tolerance for adjustment to the max, as you'll often be playing "best of" rather than models you like. If you want to play competitively as much as you can with ressers, see below. Keep in mind I'm probably fairly outdated, having not played in a while, especially in the context of GG2018. Also, Malifaux is a unique game at least for how rulings are done, because the rules set has some quirks that are, unfortunately, very key to how well certain masters can perform. I'll go over them in detail below, because they affect Reva to varying degrees, but they are: (1) Ht rules; and (2) RAW (rules as worded) vs. RAI (rules as intended). Playing what ressers do best will moderately stress funds and be a large, though less than strictly competitive play, stress on tolerance for adjustment. Reva's main strengths are being a cannon equipped for the crew you'll likely face and having one activation, possibly two, tricks that can blindside your opponent's tempo/plan. This does not make her a generalist as I understand the term in Malifaux--she is more favorable in match ups where she can quickly (1-2 activations, or 1-2 turns) eliminate the largest threats on her own, allowing her relatively minimal crew to maximize their AP. As I noted in the log previously, your crews will tend to be elite ones. This tends to mean you do well on area control type strategies & schemes ("S&S") where your opponent must engage you, as opposed to S&S where activation counts really matter. Keep that in mind when evaluating models--will they directly help you in ensuring you can control the intended situation better than the/an alternative(s)? Keep in mind Reva essentially costs 4-8 SS to play by herself--I would generally consider her favored against Arcanists, but to get to 7SS pool I need 4 (3 cache) plus 5 SS in upgrades between a limited and the 2 SS no-reduction and 2 SS no-SS upgrades. Joss cries if he's against you, but you're giving up a higher end (for resser) model to load up Reva. I don't recommend swapping sybelle with belles because that list is mostly for fun. It can get your opponent hard if they don't know how to play around it or if their crew is just incapable of dealing with it, but often times the opponent will simply wait for you to disperse your belles and pick you apart from there. It's fun to have 7 Wk belles sprint from deployment to do stuff, but I'm unsure how often that kind of thing matters in that build. The same kind of goes for Philip & the Nanny, though a little less so because Philip can at least be an anti-scheme runner and can nicely set up Reva's card pool as necessary. However, Philip almost always requires an escort, usually a dead doxy, to maximize his card cycle. That's 14 SS without any upgrades on Philip, though when I ran him I usually did this because he was 14 SS for up to 6 cards cycled a turn. Moderately useful. I suggest running Datsue-ba because she is a fairly competent fighter for later activation, and is a spirit who can benefit from Reva's alternative upgrades. Activation control can be important, and having a bunch of seishin to buy you time is nice. Her ability to summon off kills is also fairly nice, provided you can hit the triggers--I try not to SS or save cards for these as Reva is the main drain on cards. I don't know what Asura Rotten does in great detail, but having learned some of her card via podcast, I'm not super impressed as far as synergy with Reva. You basically need your "elite" crew to run S&S for you, and she seems capable of it, though I'm unsure how she performs in the current environment. The markers are cool, MZ summons are nice for extra activations and corpse markers, but I don't know if she offers a whole lot for getting S&S done for you. Your choices with Reva AFAIK should largely be heavy hitters or more durable S&S runners. Bete Noire can be cool, but requires the opposing crew to trigger her ability to be regularly useful--you can have her pop out of your stuff, like the 13 SS version I forget--outcast enforcer that has to charge when able. Bete Noire is not the missile that guy is, so you may not get the mileage, especially if you clutch a 10 to ensure the ability goes off. She's also mostly unfavorable against certain crews, namely the ones that turn off defensive abilities/triggers. Yin can be polarizing. When I first started, I got yin on Fetid Strumpet and others' recommendations. After playing her for some time, I realized she has severe limitations outside a Wp oriented crew. Against Guild you can't play her--she'll get eaten alive by the firing lines with all their positive flips. Somewhat the same for TT, Gremlins, Arcanists, etc. I think you get the idea of why I may not like her too much because every faction has crew options that get repetitive, relatively low cost positive flips. Terrifying can be nice, but in my experience usually doesn't pan out. That being said, if you can pull off her 0, possibly getting a second shot with MLH, you can really hurt your opponent for the Reva activation. Arguably cheaper to ensure it goes off with the Ca 6 and only needing to do it once, but two models over two separate activations is fairly expensive when Yin costs 8 SS and Reva somewhere between 4-8 SS. I generally don't run her unless the board terrain is unusual in having dense buildings and things for her to fly over. What I didn't do was explain how Ht and RAW vs. RAI factor into those models. Reva manipulates LoS and Ht rules to make life hard or just dumb for your opponent. Because she is Ht 3, she literally sees in a right angle over anything that isn't Ht3 or higher. Because most people don't like building boards with lots of terrain that's Ht 2 and above, this means on many boards, Reva will literally see everything from behind the best cover. This is important because your corpse markers are Ht 0 and 30mm, meaning you will be able to effectively see around corners to your opponent--Reva sees over a wall to a corpse marker that has normal LoS to the Ht 2 and below model on the other side of a wall, and you blast them with your normal attack. This may warp your local area into incorporating higher Ht terrain--there was a lot of discussion on this when Reva first released. If your area simply includes lots of Ht 3 and greater impassable terrain for when you play Reva, you're basically winning when you employ datsue-ba, who literally ghosts anywhere she damn well pleases, or Yin, who can fly over them, albeit with some difficult at Wk 4--Datuse-ba at Wk 6 often gets through most terrain, hence my preference for her. NPEs are more likely to result if the local group starts blocking off large sections of the board to disable Reva LoS. If your area starts including lots of Ht 3 and greater passable terrain, the real fun begins, depending on how you guys play. I virtually never use the triggers on Reva's card when I take the 2 SS no-reduction upgrade, and when I don't, I rarely look at the triggers because they're usually not relevant. But, the only way to avoid LoS with Reva and (often) remain relevant to the game is to be on top of the passable Ht 3 or greater terrain. However, because range is measured top down and Ht 3 is above Ht 2, you now care about 2 of your triggers generally speaking, because a mask means you smack them for 3 pre-reduction/SS, and then the push throws them off the ledge for another 3 damage pre-reduction/SS in a separate tick. Fall damage in Malifaux is strictly equal to Ht value rounded up for any remainder, so long as Ht exceeds Ht 2. Depending on your RAW vs. RAI, a model instant falls if a push/pull moves a model in any portion over the ledge of a building, or you have to move it off completely. If you have to move it completely off, it's virtually impossible to make models fall, because your opponent will put models at the edge of the 2" to maximize range requirements and allow for LoS. Theoretically, the second push should push the model off, but RAW vs. RAI because of top down measurement. With that, Datsue-ba manipulates Ht better than the other choices because of Wk 6, above average, and being a spirit, which allows Reva's alternative 1 SS upgrade to push, turn her into a corpse marker, and let datsue-ba use a 0, which could be a walk for another spirit or a seishin summon. Bete, Yin, and Asura can't do this, so this is where you learn a bit of crew building--do these alternatives give me options that are better than datsue-ba? RAW and RAI is actually the primary reason I don't run sybelle. There are a lot of game making plays you can do with Sybelle but for RAW vs. RAI. Comply from Sybelle should in theory allow you to force fail your opponent's model on Sybelle's on Terrifying 12, effectively killing the model for that turn and some of the next. I posted a rules question if you decide to look it up, but the conversation didn't go so well. RAW favors my interpretation when I last checked, RAI prevents you according to any TO for a tournament and the vocal parts of the community. If the ruling ever changes, I would slot Sybelle in a heartbeat because she presents an incredible threat alongside datsue-ba. As it is, she is an "either or" type with datsue-ba, so I often pick datuse-ba over sybelle. Also, Reva enjoys Ht manipulation because 18" is really far, allowing her to often reach corpse markers with ease once the game reaches Turn 2. If she is 3" from the edge of a Ht 3 or higher terrain, she can see and reach just as easily through her corpse markers generally speaking--with sufficient Ht 3 or greater terrain this is not true, but that much Ht 3 or greater terrain likely makes the game NPE and/or unplayable for most crews. The extra inch generally means she's that much further for range calculation purposes and may be in a position of impunity--e.g. hiding on a circular water silo in the center with 3" from any edge, she can't be melee attacked by anyone who doesn't climb up, braving at least 1-2 turns of attacks. Importantly, Carrion Emissary has this kind of manipulation, and he's often in my crew along with datsue-ba, with both having MLH and datsue-ba with the seishin summoning upgrade. When Emissary summons the markers he has to summon them in LoS. Usually not an issue, but sometimes you need to wall off a shooter on a building or have safe cover and room to get onto a roof. RAW vs. RAI, Emissary can't see markers Ht 3 or greater if they were just markers, but ability makes them Ht 5, so theoretically you could place them 5" from the edge provided you're close enough already. I'm sure someone will see this and post issues with my post--discussion is good if it's resolved officially. Without clear rulings--though I admittedly haven't followed up on my original rules issues since I've stopped, playing ressers is much more of a gamble because you need the rules to operate consistently in a certain fashion to make some plays. I would start with datsue-ba, play with emissary, get the upgrade pack to put MLH on each of them, and play with what you have, because you've got various henchmen and some varying levels of other models. Once you figure out your playstyle, purchase from there. If your group lets comply do self-terrifying, I'd slot sybelle and datsue-ba in together instantly. I think the log covers my thoughts to supplement pretty adequately because it was up to date when I was still regularly playing. I might change that I think spirit henchmen/enforcers are better with living/undead minions, though I never really got to test that too much. I know this is a lot for the post--hope it sheds new light on a starting point.

@Ludvig A lot of the terrain I play on locally consists of medium square buildings with flat or slightly slanted roofs that easily allow models to stand on them. Many of them are Ht 3, so if Reva is > 3" from the ledge, she is invisible from that ledge. This results in the odd interaction where she gets her 21"+ range with the option to move out of LoS. Costs an AP and her 0, but she gets 2 attacks with relative impunity. It only takes 1 such building to achieve the set up. Reva is not as abusive as Raspy or seem as untouchable/unkillable as Seamus for capitalizing on terrain, but the combination of all three makes it easier to simply not play with being able to go onto the roofs in the first place. As a result, Reva often has large areas she can't see, so her range is rarely oppressive. That, and her lack of quality activation control make it fairly easy to mitigate her Turn 1, possibly Turn 2, activations. At least locally, sniper spam isn't particularly common. People often bring a trapper/katanaka, with the odd Nino or Hanz, but they don't often have oppressive situations because of the high scatter count and building distributions we use.

Reva: Champion of the Bronies, Master of casual level meta change. I've noticed since Book 4 some of my opponents have started defining flat elevated terrains, roofs usually, as impassable. Slightly less often but somewhat more odd is defining many building interiors as impassable. I suspect the reason is LoS shenanigans, probably internally thought of as abuse. I usually primarily Seamus, Kirai, Raspy, Sandeep, or Reva, most of whom require tight rules usage for LoS, especially vantage point. Reva is on the more extreme end of needing precise usage of LoS rules, and depending on your view, could require more common rules consultation than even Seamus, given how LoS is determined. I don't think Reva's rules are as bad as Raspy, just more obvious because if someone casually plays a bunch of fences and small ruins on a map, then abandon hope, all ye who enter. It might be earlier in this thread or in another similarly themed one, but terrain will really affect Reva. If you have only Ht 2 or less terrain, Reva can be Eye of Sauron + Death Star. If you have all Ht 3+ terrain, you'll play a game of hide and seek or Reva can start abusing vantage point rules. Varying terrain design will mitigate a large part of Reva's map control/force projection, depending which terminology you use. It's particularly significant here because Reva presents an anomaly in Malifaux--she's utilizes an efficient, easy to grasp long range mechanic in a faction where all the other options tend to be melee oriented. Her often compared to peers come from factions that generally utilize range, so it's not as surprising. At the casual level, this is likely a more devastating effect than at the competitive level, especially if the terrain isn't varied enough to prevent the Eye of Sauron + Death Star effect. I would note that despite the chatter in this thread and some others, Reva hasn't made a visibly large splash in the competitive scene.

You pick Seamus over Reva when: Your collection doesn't include Reva You're demo-ing the game Your terrain is all literally Ht 3+, blocking, and impassable on top You're running belle spam In more seriousness, I'd pick Seamus over Reva based on match up choices. I prefer Seamus to capitalize against certain factions because of their vulnerability to Wp duels, so basically specific Neverborn and TT masters. Alternatively, in GG 2017's high activation favoring scheme/strat line up, I prefer Seamus where the pool requires having higher activation counts and/or I can't rely on Reva to gain activation advantage via killing stuff. Seamus also tends to run independently of his crew moreso than Reva and will usually be more reliable to pin 6 VP on. While the above are true, I have found few situations where the benefits were large enough to warrant the decision--Seamus is preferable in certain match ups--but he's not the anti-faction master of my choice, and generally doesn't make the cut over Reva on merits as opposed to flavor pick. Belle Spam 2018 when that new hench model from the new book releases. #MakeBellesGr8Again.

I recommend listening to Schemes & Stones' master spotlight on Kirai. The person being interviewed on the podcast sets out his rather unorthodox Kirai list. It's a very powerful list, and funnily will utilize the sebastian from McM's box set, which you'll get if you get McM's box. The only other major piece from a box set would be Philip from Molly's box set--Molly can be a spirit summoner as well though, so gives you a different take on spirit summoning. Kirai is like using a precision rifle while Molly is more using a bazooka. While the podcast doesn't explain activation by activation play, it's not particularly hard to figure out after a few dry-runs, and it's a pretty consistent list. I'd recommend doing the unorthodox one if you want more "competitive" kirai right away. Alternatively, you could hire the Flesh Construct from McM's box and use it as a summoning battery, bringing the construct back to full with the nurse so you can rinse and repeat as desired.

I'm also cautiously optimistic. Barring a hired Hanged, the upgrade favors activating Seamus earlier so that the 0 "hits" more targets. I think per the rulebook, if a model has already passed Seamus' printed Terrifying 12, then the 0 would not work because it's from the same model. I don't think this will significantly hamper Seamus, as you would position and/or plan to him to activate relatively early as needed if you take this upgrade. This also seems a good potential denial upgrade for position based schemes such as Turf War, Extraction, Guard the Stash, etc. Seems to have good synergy with Sin Rep, but if the opponent cheats 1 guy or has someone who doesn't get pushed, this may hurt quite a bit because you're stuck with the printed melee action if you're still engaged. Seamus is really starting to be a spirit master if he's getting an upgrade that favors hiring Hanged and, by extension, Datsue-ba.

Quick corollary to main question--if I utilize Perdita's Obey, targeting opposing Cassandra, succeed, and take the Understudy action to use the opposing Colette's Prompt, could I prompt my Francisco to take a 1 AP action? I guess the real question is--to Obey type effects inherently change what models are friendly/enemy to each other? In Sybelle's case the card explicitly states the complied model treats Sybelle as friendly, but Obey does not, for example. For reference, Obey: Target non-Leader model immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model’s controller. A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation. Understudy: Take a (1) Ca Action belonging to target friendly non-Leader model within 8”. This Action may target friendly Leader models if they have the Showgirl Characteristic. This Action may only be used once per Turn. Prompt: Push target other friendly model up to 3" in any direction, then the target may perform a (1) Action.

Assume Sybelle successfully hits Colette with the Bleeder Lash attack, triggering the Comply trigger. Assume Seamus is leading the crew containing Sybelle, and Colette is an opposing master. Assume Seamus has the Bag O' Tools upgrade. Assume all three models are within 1" of each other. Can Sybelle Comply Colette to prompt Seamus into utilizing the Ml attack printed on Bag O'Tools to hit Colette?

Yeah, that sounds about right given design tendencies. I thought the reason they may have done it as X pushes specifically because it would be less advantageous than a move, and it's a guaranteed push on your own models since it's after succeeding. Combined with the ability to get "free" tomes for extra distance, it seemed like it was an intentional balance to give multi directional pushes against having the pushes guarantee going through.

For the Oxfordian Mage's Elemental Bolt, there is a trigger on a tome to push the target up to 2" for each tome in the duel total. For reference, the text reads: "Windblast: After succeeding, push target up to 2" for each tome in the duel total." Based on the wording, is it one push that is up to 2*n, where N is the number of tomes? Or, is it X "up to 2 inches" pushes, where X is the number of tomes?

Thanks for the answer--so the end result would be that Phiona places at the edge of the aura due to Gravity Well, pushes the Marshal away, and then takes the (1) Ml action? Want to make sure I have it right.

Assume Anna Lovelace and Rotten Belle are in a crew facing against Phiona and a Death Marshal. Rotten Belle and Death Marshal are now engaged by virtue of Belle luring in the Marshal. Belle is fully within Anna's 8" auras, most importantly Gravity Well, with her closest base edge <1" of the closest edge of Anna's auras. The Death Marshal is partially in the aura, with half of its base out of the aura such that the Belle would not block the Marshal's push assuming the Marshal were to be pushed away from the Belle. Phiona, not engaged with any model, uses 1 AP for "Look Out!" targeting Belle. I don't have Phiona's card or access to my book, but I do remember Phiona's action has an "and" between her placement into base to base with the rotten belle and pushing friendly engaged model(s) up to 4" away. The next sentence then details Phiona may take a (1) Ml action. What would happen? Would nothing happen with regards to the place AND push due to the "and" in the action text? Alternatively, would Phiona be placed at the edge of the aura, per Anna's aura, then getting the push? Also alternatively, would Phiona's place fail entirely because it cannot fulfill the base to base requirement and just get the push? I don't think the (1) Ml action portion of the action would be affected, but it is also not likely relevant unless Phiona actually places, given she can't ignore LoS requirements for her Ml actions. Phiona has a reach of 2 or 3", so if she were to place at the edge of the aura, she would be able to attack Belle. I haven't found references in the rulebook saying "and" between two effects requires both to occur in order for either to occur, so am unclear on the interaction. Any and all help appreciated!

I think that's what I'm trying to clarify. Explosive Demise specifically references when the model is killed. Searing Mark does not. Does that distinction matter?

The simpler question is inapplicable, I think, because Explosive Demise references being killed. At least in the rulebook, killed is defined as a default state when a model is reduced to 0 Wds, at which point, on pg. 46, "f the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed." But, below is a question that may make this portion of our discussion irrelevant. The only things that would prevent that are effects that state they occur before a model is removed from play. I agree an ability is active and may proc any number of legal times during an Encounter so long as such interactions are legal. I'm just asking for a clarification on the precise timing for how the abilities interact, or an explanation of whether abilities operate independently of a model's current status, because the rules state that if a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is by default removed immediately. A mechanic must insert itself between being reduced to 0 wounds and removing the model from play. The rules don't state that, once removed from play, models cannot resolve their abilities. So, in theory, a model could be released that interacts with previously removed from play models that procs an ability(s) of that removed model. Yan Lo as far as I know is the only model with interactions with non-buried removed from play models, but none of his interactions could proc an ability on any of those models prior to summoning--Yokai gain flicker on being summoned, but that's a result of coming back into play as opposed to just by being targeted or interacted with. So, what I'm asking is not whether searing mark would/would not apply, because I agree that it does after initial thoughts and reading your answer. What I am asking is the "why"? Is timing a relevant discussion, or does it resolve because abilities on models can resolve regardless of model status?

I figured the answer was yes it worked that way. But why is the searing mark ability able to proc after the witchling stalker has been killed? Also I'm unsure about the quote RE the abilities killing models--not sure how it's applicable. Just trying to get a sense of the more detailed timing required to make the searing mark proc after explosive demise. Essentially, since Searing Mark has no timing requirement, is that why it gets by? Explosive Demise only occurs on the model with the ability being killed, so during the killed process, you get Explosive Demise before removing the model--during this time the model's card is still relevant to the represented model?

Does the Witchling Stalker's Searing Mark ability proc on death due to Flaming Demise? Or is it determined by the First Player? Or, is it determined by the person who controls the Witchling Stalker?