LeperColony

If your opponent is a decent person, maybe try a game where he's willing to tell you why he's doing what he's doing and what he would find more difficult to respond to than what you're doing. @Adran is probably right that the issue is one of player skill, since your opponent is always winning regardless of pool or match up. In those cases, your opponent is probably seeing things happen in real time that they can exploit. Rather than playing the game to win, if you ask if they'll play to teach, they'll be able to say "well, if you move there like you planned, I'll be able to do X and Y. But if you move here, I can only do X, and if you move here, I can't do anything and you'll be able to do A and b." Now, if your opponent is unwilling to be helpful, then A) maybe find a new opponent and B) give us some of his lists and we'll see if we can't offer suggestions.

If you don't want Ten Thunders, then perhaps the Viktorias may fit the bill. They have an ability to teleport to each other, which is hit-and-run'ish. Tara may be another choice in the Outcast faction, since she has the bury mechanic. Otherwise, perhaps Marcus in either Arcanist or Neverborn. You can give butterfly jump to some already pretty mobile models, and if you're neverborn you can also have Scamper from upgrades. No crew truly has hit-and-run as a dedicated mechanic in Malifaux, and that's partially because there's asymmetrical play (I may not be able to fight, but I can complete my goals and make your actions inefficient), and partially because there's a "rich gets richer" dynamic in a lot of games, where once a player acquires an advantage, it's often the best course to press relentlessly. There are some abilities which sort of map hit-and-run, or provide similar capabilities. And you can search for these in the app, which can let you find models (or upgrades, if you search upgrades) to find models you may like. Butterfly Jump Scamper Sisters in Spirit Seize Pray Lair to Lair And plenty others. I'm too lazy to list them all.

I think it's pretty clearly an oversight. There's been a determined effort to systemize abilities, actions and triggers in 3E. Now, is it super critical if different actions happen to share the same name? I think we all know it's not, but that doesn't mean a better job couldn't be done to maintain consistency.

Serene Countenance and Protected also only work against enemy attack actions. If you obey a friendly model to attack him, they won't apply. Neither are effective against things like Hazardous terrain, abilities, shockwaves or tactical actions. There are answers in the game. Dashel is a good master, and a lot of that is the Dispatcher. But I think much of Dashel's strength comes from the somewhat overtuned nature of summoning generally. I don't believe that any change to him, outside of a general change to summoning, would be either necessary or even appropriate. The OPs reaction is a common one to seeing something for the first time that just "feels off." There's a lot of that in Malifaux. And sure, some of it is genuinely overpowered. Some of it is situationally overpowered. But most times, there exists within the framework of the game models or tactics to respond.

I've been waiting to get a Wild Ones for a while, so I'm pretty psyched this time around.

The description on the website says: Guild/Explorer's Society Set, containing six 32mm 'heroic' scale miniatures made of high-quality plastic. Will require some preparation and assembly. Oh who are we kidding, it's called 'Nightmare' for a reason. So even though it was also my understanding they were changing over to Rough Riders, since the website says Guild/ES, I thought that indicated they were remaining Mounted Guards.

Whew, glad I got those TOS items from the Kickstarter. Otherwise it'd be a really pricey Black Friday. Or, I suppose I should say, even more pricey. Still, I have to admit to being a little disappointed that Eli and Patti weren't changed to Rough Riders. I'd want to take the models together, so I'm not sure of the justification for why they retain their Guild allegiance.

All of the Wyrdscape stuff is nice, but in my opinion given the line's expense, only the Solarium and the Mansion really feel special. Ruins and walls? I think you can get comparable pieces elsewhere, cheaper. The store? Again, it's fine, but not unique. That being said, I do intend to complete my collection. But most of the sets are fairly low priority for me.

Reliably the only source is ebay, but that doesn't always mean high prices. If you stay alert, you can find what you need at a decent price...eventually. One trick I've used in the past is Google searches using the SKU or, if appropriate, ISBN number. You can find a lot of smaller hobby store inventories that way. Of course, those stores are sometimes lackadaisical about inventory updating so there's a lot of false positives. But if you're hunting for OOP items, it's mostly a function of converting money into time (or vice versa). I would say that their other PlastCraft lines can still be nice. There's a Japanese-themed line made for Test of Honor I believe (or maybe Bushido), but it works for Malifaux too. Companies are starting to make terrain for RPGs like D&D that can be effective for Malifaux. There's a graveyard set for the RPG Pathfinder that I use frequently. Now, if you're willing to go premium and you like painting, I wholeheartedly recommend Tabletop World. Their lines are very high quality resin buildings. They have kind of an indistinct late medieval/renaissance aesthetic which isn't what you'd probably want for the entire board, but individual pieces like the Stables (which I own) definitely works.

If you're the lazier sort, Battlefield in a box is a nice solution for forests and rivers. They even come pre-painted. Of course, it's more expensive. The stuff is quality and looks nice, though the rivers can be spruced up with a little effort if you're into it. There's always the old PlastCraft Malifaux line. I love the Carnival sets, and the Quarantine Walls or the walkway sets can be fun to change it up. All pre-painted, and the material is more sturdy than it seems. Sarissa-Precision has several nice MDF product lines, though none are pre-built or painted. I know you said you wanted something that themes well together, and most boards (including most of mine) are composed similarly. Though in my case, that's mostly because of the way terrain is sold, so like ends up being with like. But I'd make a pitch for getting stuff that isn't thematically connected. One description of the city of Malifaux is something like "all the world's capitals shuffled together." I think you could make quite a nice, thematic set up that included a wider range of architectural styles. Finally, if you don't already have them, I'd make a pitch for the Wyrdscapes. Quality-wise they're nice, aesthetically only the Solarium (and maybe the mansion) really impresses me, but mostly I know Wyrd won't make more if we don't buy more!

Without laying claim to any special expertise (I've only played her twice, and against her a few times more), the ability to obey through her models seems pretty important. Since Colette's defenses don't work against friendly models, I think Zoraida might be a sleeper pick against her.

I think Zoraida probably is best with a heavy keyword-based slant. When I play Daw, it's almost all keyword (with Sloth usually the only exception).

Playing the most efficient models is not, in itself, WAAC. It could very well be the case that Plaag's meta doesn't allow for a lot of inefficiency. And at any rate, when evaluating the effectiveness of a model in the abstract (as is typically done on the forums), indicating reasons why one is preferable to another has nothing to do with your desire to win, or your willingness to abandon any other value to winning. I'm not saying this is anything you don't know. But my concern is when WAAC gets used, as it was in this thread, as a pejorative to undermine the value of objective comparative analysis between models. Plaag could very well be wrong for other reasons. But a moral judgment of his priorities doesn't address whether a model is effective or not.

Do you happen to have a higher quality video you could upload? Nevermind! Another gripping game!

Fun watch, please keep making more! I'm not sure I agree with how you guys resolved Candy's Self-Loathing attack against the Nothing Beast at the end. Since Self-Loathing gains the effect of the selected attack action, the "enemy" and "friendly" text should have been resolved from Candy's point of view, in my opinion.

While true, it's not actually so clear cut. They used to (and maybe still do) offer free 20 card starter packs that also included a rules card. And that rules card was sufficient to teach the vast majority of the game. If anything, I think Wyrd would benefit from Magic's model. The basic rulebook is sufficient for the vast majority of cases, but having a comprehensive set of the rules that really broke down these interactions step-by-step would be an authoritative source for resolving the outliers.

I can't claim to speak with any degree of certainty since my "evidence" is anecdotal, but from the sentiments I've seen expressed here and in other venues, I feel most opinions are that summoners, while maybe not broken, are above the curve. The tournament issue is commonly understood to be due to round timings. In events with more permissive timing, they may be better. For instance, the final of the Vassal World Cup was summoner vs summoner and went over the time, but the players played it out anyway. As for my opinion on the topics in the thread: Summoning: OP, but not auto-win. Focus: Too good, should be changed to a single to almost any duel or flip (probably anything except soul stone damage reduction). Low Cost Models: On the whole, problematic. The best tend to have strong defenses that make it difficult or inefficient to remove them. There are a few standouts, but most aren't great. Also, in Malifaux but unlike in other games, LCM also have to compete with just not being taken, since unspent points have value (and a lot of value). In 40k, it's just a loss to not spend all your points. In Malifaux, pretty much nobody goes into a game with zero stones.

That makes sense. Not sure why I didn't notice the different formatting. Or maybe I chalked it up to a mobile version display? Anyway, thanks for the ID.

This doesn't establish anything like what you're claiming. An ability that says "after this model ends its Activation" would happen after the "effect in question" is resolved. In this case, the "effect in question" is the "end [of] its activation." So anything that is "after" the end "end of [its] Activation" would, both by plain English and the text on page 34, be subsequent to the conclusion of the activation. There's no textual justification for this ruling, it's just a shoehorn. Pretty much identical to how they ruled "another" works. This is also inaccurate. The rules already use the wording "at the end of this model's Activation." My point is that @mattc's ruling makes "after this model ends its Activation" essentially the same as "at the end of this model's Activation." It's true that technically they resolve after "at the end" effects, but since they are still occurring during the model's activation (despite being "after" the activation's end) and before C4, there is very little functional difference. Which, actually, is probably a positive in this interpretation, because if the practical significance of the timing were substantial, it would be exactly the sort of kitty-corner distinctions that are often difficult for players to master and tend to lead to gotchas. The entire point of temporal wording is to establish an order of things. A clear reading (and the actual rules) of "after" places the effect subsequent to another defined event or effect. In this case, the defined effect is the end of the activation. If the activation has ended, then under both page 34 and English grammar, we are no longer in the activation. You cannot be in something that has ended. But instead, they've chosen to shoehorn it into the activation, and place it after C3 and before C4 (so essentially C3.5). The ruling has created a new timing step, which was probably inevitable no matter how it was ruled. But the timing step they did create is so corner case that it's hard to imagine what they've gained by maintaining the incredibly tiny distinction between "after the end" and "at the end." Neither of these help your case, and we've already gone over why they don't in the other thread. Just because something happens during the effect's resolution sequence doesn't mean they don't happen "after" the effect has occured. Step 5 says that anything that "happens after a model is damaged" occurs in this period. The effect itself could then prevent or eliminate the damage. That doesn't mean it wasn't resolved "after [the] model [was] damaged." "After" event X is the timing, not the effect. It's the exact same for "after a model is killed." This case is particularly ironic for you, given your attempt to find a distinction between the common meaning of "after" and the text on page 34 (which actually isn't any different from the common English meaning). Because here, the game is telling us that "killed" does have a special meaning. It indicates the model has been brought to 0 health (or, presumably been killed through something like Execute, though I don't see that included on page 34). "After" being killed doesn't mean the model has actually been killed. It means subsequent to the effect that brought the model to 0 health, you then generate the "after killed" effect. For some reason, you seem to believe that a model that is reduced to 0 health and yet lived (for instance because of Demise Eternal) somehow invalidates "after" timing. But not only doesn't it invalidate "after," Demise effects work specifically because "after" defines a timing step subsequent to another defined event.

I couldn't find the actual post, but here's the screenshot that was shared on the Swampfiends discord. To me, this is a very poorly thought out ruling. "After" is not the same as "at," and in my opinion, the better way to resolve these issues is to admit that the cards were incorrectly worded rather than try and pretend the phrases are equivalent. They should have issued an errata that changed A Por El's wording to be "at" rather than after. By pretending "after" means "at," what they've done is shrunk their own design space and made it harder for us to derive logical resolutions to unclear wordings.

So just considering the actual text, I agree your friend's position has some merit. However, this came up in the Swampfiends podcast discord a few weeks ago, and someone there was able to screenshot a post from the Wyrd forums with a ruling that said "after the end of activation" happens during the activation, at the same time as "at the end." Why they think "after" and "at" mean the same thing is unclear to me, but at least for this purpose, they do. So the action generated by A Por El! happens during the original model's activation.

This isn't clearly true, but it may be. Nowhere in the rules does it say you only check range once (or more than once), and there is an absolute statement in the rules that an action's effects can't reach models outside its range. That prohibition is in the rules for actions, and it is not linked to the check range process. Additionally, the effect text of certain actions specifically say it affects a target "within range" which can be (though again, isn't necessarily) another range check. This concept that you only check range once in the targeting step is frequently asserted, but not proven (or disproven). However, if you aren't always checking range, then I don't see how you can impact models with actions like Vent Steam who aren't within the original range of the , but later enter it. What's more, the question of how Scamper works goes beyond range and LoS (since most people who believe you can ignore range also believe you can ignore LoS). If you Scamper into a forest, do you get conceal? If you scamper behind a wall, do you get cover? If you argue all that was resolved during the LoS step, then you probably don't think so. But then, suppose you Scamper into a Bodyguard aura? Or an aura that grants concealment? Do you get those? If not, why not? They aren't LoS or range based. If so, it seems odd that you can get cover from Bodyguard but not a wall. Scamper mid-action is a pretty messy proposition, and I don't think either of the major schools of interpretation really provide a satisfactory answer. I also don't believe there's a clear textual resolution, and in the end it's going to require Wyrd just telling us what to do.

Pretty sure there hasn't been any, thus far. No matter how you resolve Scamper, there are bound to be odd results. You just have to decide which ones you can most happily live with.

This is not the same as my other thread. Currently, there are some replace options that can exist in crews, but aren't active in the app. They don't have the little replace double arrow on the model in the crew roster. Then, there are other replace options that may be currently incorrect/illegal under the rules. Finally, there may be some display or house keeping items that could be made more tidy. Nothing here detracts from the excellent app, these are all pretty corner cases and definitely not high priorities. But I figure they may be of interest. This thread is meant to be a compilation of those issues, so that they can be located and fixed more easily by @dzlier. I'll start off with a couple: Model - Issue Arcanist Myranda - After a model with Bestial Form is replaced with Myranda, Bestial Form should automatically be removed, but the player must manually bin it. Bayou Explorer's Society Guild Death Marshal Recruiter - Any living minion in the DMR's crew should have a replace option into a Death Marshal. Neverborn Will o' the Wisp - A Will o' the Wisp with the Bestial Form upgrade that replaces into an Adze should have Bestial Form automatically removed, but the player must manually bin it. Outcast Resser Ten Thunders There are bound to be more. If anyone responds with some, I'll add it to the list.

No, of course not. If the solution were that simple, don't you think I'd have thought of it rather than post publicly asking for help? Get out of here! *Searches Replace on the app*