Jinn

I forgot Komainu have hard to kill as well, so gross. I wish Gokudo got something to make up for Ancient Bloodline being blank in Yan 2. I'd say they should have a (low statted, not built in) version of Mold of the Other, but Yan 2 doesn't need that. Still sucks. Oh yeah, McCabe (more 2 than 1, but both are good) is great against Hoffman! Hands out armour ignore, does ping damage, eats scrap, what more could you want!

Oh yeah, and the Soul Porter can vacuum up the scrap as well! The question becomes, are you still better of taking Komainu over Gokudo? I don't think the scrap drop is that big of a problem, but Joss is very scary given he can one shot them. Probably Gokudo then IMO.

Against that much Armour +2 you're looking for either ping damage or Armour ignore. Samurai have Armour ignore and free focused, and they can still do decent damage at ranged if they spike severe. Mei Feng would be decent against them except that enemy constructs are immune to her hazardous for some reason... Even with Neil Henry ignoring Armour natively now I definitely would avoid her against construct heavy crews. Yan Lo 2's gun ignores Armour, but it's only 2/3/4. Izamu has a trigger to ignore it as well, but his Armour is a weakness against some of that crew. Yan Lo 2 would be my pick I think, he can hole in the world the Peacekeeper at stat 6 vs. df 4 and throw it 6" away. For a Mv 4 50mm there are so many painful places you can leave it, and Obeying to burn power tokens attacking their friends is great.

My idea: give Parker2 an ability called Thousand-Yard Stare that lets him draw LoS ignoring models if he chooses to.

Only thing I can think of is Primal Flame on Myranda, which is decent to copy I guess. Don't know if I'd hire Cassandra into Marcus though.

Oh damn, that's a good point! That does make his options more balanced I guess, I was almost always choosing the Pyres because they're an absurdly large shockwave at 50mm. I do think this is what the rules (and FAQ) say is what should happen, no idea if it's what's intended (or even if that matters as long as it's balanced given the Bete situation). I could absolutely see it being an oversight and them adding it to what's shared for simplicity and consistency on the board though. I imagine Hazardous with two different marker sizes could get confusing. I do like the potential of them adding 50mm Ice Pillars to a model one day though!

You're mischaracterising me here. This conundrum in Sparks (which we've found out doesn't exist) has nothing to do with Kaltgeists as their base size was never a problem. The issue with it was that it is a rule that requires extra interpretation beyond what is written because treating it literally lead to impractical outcomes. Those cases in the rules that require that extra step (of thinking 😆) are always inelegant and should be avoided if possible. The difference between Base Size and other characteristics is that it is not listed under the Terrain Traits section of the rules. The FAQ on Terrain Markers specifies Terrain Traits. Do you see how it's not arbitrary?

If the base size of a marker isn't mentioned then it defaults to 30mm. None of the other Ice Pillars mention a base size either. The issue with the Banasuva's Demise was that it didn't state the Ht of the pillar. My thought with changed Sz was the Bayou upgrade going into and out of Von Schtook1's (and Shenlong2 now) blank upgrade aura. Especially on a Sz 2 model if there's a Ht 2 wall between them and Schtook; while the upgrade is blank they aren't in the aura. What a nightmare, but a hilarious image of a bouncy Gremlin on Yer Head. There is no issue with Kaltgeists seeing over a Ht 3 wall (they can't treat themselves as Pillars), all that happens is other friendlies can effectively see a Ht 4 Ice Pillar in the same spot as the Kaltgeist. The only possible issue with changing Ht (or Sz) is that an object that fits under terrain becomes incompatible with that location, but as this problem already exists due to Von Schtook I don't think it is any more of a problem here. I'd just assume that you cannot treat it as an Ice Pillar Marker if it is in a place an Ice Pillar Marker cannot be (same as if there was an aura that turned off Markers, which sounds like a cool ability), so it's even less of an issue than Schtook.

I have a solution to the base size issue with Spark's ability! Markers with the same name only share all Terrain Traits, and base size is not a Terrain Trait. Theoretically there is no issue with a future model dropping a 50mm Ice Pillar Marker. Doesn't really matter for the Kaltgeist example, but it's always good to know the rules actually work. Well, just to put it out there as this discussion seems to be over, my final view on the topic: Ice Pillar Markers are defined as Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible and Impassable, and this applies even if a given instance of an Ice Pillar is missing any of that text (FAQ). Ice Pillar Marker = Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker. Models can be treated as a Marker with terrain traits (Moorwraith). Kaltgeists have an ability that lets you treat them as an Ice Pillar Marker Due to point 1. this is a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker Due to point 2. we know the game allows for models to be treated as having terrain traits, and uses identical wording There are no practical issues with this in play as there are other effects that cause models height to vary mid-game that cause no issues In this case Kaltgeists would be simultaneously Sz 2 and also be a Ht 4 Marker. I can't think of any issues with this that don't already exist in the game. Treat them as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker This seems the most direct interpretation of the rules to me, and the one least likely to create issues in the future due to narrowing the application of the FAQ on named Markers. As far as I can see, the only way to not treat them as this is to allow a case where we have a named marker but don't treat it as having the Terrain Traits of other identically named markers.

I don't really think it matters how it's played as it is rather minor, it only really matters for things like Obeyed Slam actions and niche Joker fishing. I just think that the rules can only lead to them being treated as having those traits if we want them to be consistent. I doubt you'd argue that the Banasuva's Demise FAQ statement wouldn't apply to a created marker that had missed a trait all other instances of that marker had, I just don't understand why you wouldn't think it applies in this case.

I've already said that I'd understand taking into account the physical limits of the thing on the table (there being, for example, an unstated rule that base size isn't shared) but there is no such case for a model being treated as having actual terrain traits when it is treated as a terrain marker. This cannot be an unstated rule because otherwise the Moorwraith makes no sense. I would use the sparks case as the example that tells us that treating an object as a marker does not include the base size, but even that is just because it isn't practical to have a physical marker that has two differing sizes. That grounds doesn't stand for refusing to treat a Kaltgeist as Blocking, after all we know that the game can allow us to treat models as having terrain characteristics and there is no actual issue in play with treating them as having these characteristics.

If Terrain markers with the same name have the same traits, then the Ice Pillar marker mentioned on Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability is the same Ice Pillar marker that is Ht 4, Destructible, Impassable, and Blocking from all other cards that define it fully. As models can be treated as markers with traits (see Moorwraith) and Kaltgeists are being treated as a marker with traits why should we ignore those traits in this case? Because of that FAQ we know that markers with the same name necessarily share all traits, so whenever a card refers to just an Ice Pillar Marker it is still referring to a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker, even if it doesn't have all of that text. So when the Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability says "Other friendly models may treat this model as an Ice Pillar Marker." it is saying "Other friendly models may treat this model as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker." even if it doesn't mention that text, just as it would if it, like the Banasuva, had a demise that dropped one without fully defining it. This is because all markers with the same name share all terrain traits. Note that if the Ice Pillar Marker mentioned on the Kaltgeist does have the same traits as all other Ice Pillar Markers (which we know it does) then the wording on the Kaltgeist is identical in style to that of the Moorwraith which I think we all agree can be treated as a marker with traits. Why can't the Kaltgeist be treated as a marker with traits then?

It's from the FAQ regarding Ice Pillars created by the Banasuva's Demise, it's pretty ironclad: 1. Banasuva – What Height are Ice Pillars placed by Banasuva’s Demise (Elemental Breakdown) Ability? a) Height 4. All Markers of a single name share all of the same terrain traits.

I'm confused how in one case we treat the Moorwraith as being a marker with traits, but in another we do not treat the Kaltgeist as having the traits of the marker it is being treated as. I could understand if there was an unstated exception when it comes to physical characteristics like height, but why in the world would treating them as an Ice Pillar Marker not include the blocking trait? I simply see no rules basis for this. It's mostly irrelevant, given you would only want to do this for some niche RJ fishing (I guess?) but I don't understand how you're all reaching this conclusion for the Kaltgeist when it uses near identical wording to the Moorwraith. The only reason I could see to treat it differently is that the Ice Pillar Marker isn't defined on the Kaltgeist's card, but Wyrd have said that all Markers of the same name share all of the same terrain traits.

They would still be the Zombie and you can't walk through models. I've already gone over this.

hmm, that's strange. I thought all markers with the same name had the same traits though? Are there any other examples that clarify this? Your example doesn't help, because if you treat an Ice Pillar as a corpse it would still be an impassable Ice Pillar as well. Assuming stuff can be two things. Why wouldn't you count them as having those traits if you're treating them as a marker that has those traits? If you're treating them as something shouldn't your model act as though they are that thing? Here is another example from the Moorwraith: Rolling Stones: Other friendly Seeker models may treat this model as a Severe Impassable Terrain Marker, which cannot be removed. Other models treat area within 2 of this model as Severe. So you can definitely be treated as having traits of a marker if you're treated as being a marker with traits. Ice Pillar Markers have traits. Logically being treated as an Ice Pillar Marker means you are treated as having those traits, no?

I mean, technically Kaltgeists can give cover to enemies if you choose to treat them as Ice Pillar marker while targeting an enemy behind them. It's true that in the new version of Raspy1 this is no longer an option due to the Harsh Winter ability.

That's a good example as well because as the obey happens during the Start Phase you cannot declare any actions with the Once Per Activation restriction, so no Shove Aside. The Daeva summon upgrade doesn't get Made to Kill either.

I just wish her gun had a way to avoid damage on friendlies so that blasting onto a Kaltgeist for the +1 damage was viable, then their Frostbite Aura would have some more synergy with her slow trigger. Disclaimer: I haven't played the new version yet so the following is just baseless speculation. I think she still doesn't look very good. Sure she got more consistent with resources, but more of her power is now in her gun and out of her shockwaves which makes her need good cards more. I'm just imagining how many activations I'm going to want to target a specific model that isn't next to an Ice Pillar (or they've positioned such that a crate or a corner is between them and the Ice Pillar) using her gun and then realising that I'm using a 2/3/4 attack as a "damage" Master, or I'm going to have to spend an AP to get one down next to them. The movement bonus action is very nice (She can move herself almost as fast as a Mv 6 Master if she does it and triple walks! It actually is great for scheming though.) but what is the crew's identity, melee or ranged? Do I focus on sending the Golem in even if it means my main damage with my Master suffers friendly fire, and my now Ice Pillar ignoring Acolytes go back to being penalised at range? I guess my question is, what is her role intended to be now and is she actually good at it? I feel like she's missing something basic, like some solid Slow Synergy. If she had something crazy like versus Slow models, or an unresisted bonus action that gave Adversary (December) to target Slow model I'd feel like her identity was more clear. Also, no Ice Gamin buff? Why would I take these when Kaltgeists exist? They're outclassed in their own keyword! I haven't heard many people complain about Sandeep since his nerf, so I don't think buffing them is much of a risk.

I've had too many bad experiences with Hayreddin/Nekima Blade Rushing over a group of models and then triggering Black Blood multiple times. My opponent ended up declaring Nekima 2, so I probably could have brought them without too much risk.

I was going to try out Terracottas in my next game with McCabe, but my opponent declared Nekima and I decided not to risk it. I'll try out Fuhatsu and a Cryptologist instead. My original plan was to use the Terracottas as bodyguards for the Rough Riders, who can Ride With Me to allow them to keep up somewhat.

Biggest disappointments: Yasunori is unchanged and still terrible Graves has big problems in Lynch, unchanged Ruffians... Looks like they removed "Just Like You!" from the game with this Errata (edit: Malifaux Child still has it), don't know how good Terracottas will be without it though. Nefarious pact is great, it's half of what makes that NB upgrade so OP. We'll see if they can actually serve in this tanking role they seem to be in now. A lot of models won't be able to kill one of these in a single activation, meaning you might have the chance to activate and Mold of the Other so that they can kind of heal up. Fuhatsu I don't know about. He seems like he's very vulnerable to being tied up now (losing scatter) and he has lost like 40% of his damage potential (losing stones and rapid fire). He dropped a stone though, and has some utility. I can see myself cheating to fail his attack given his new ability and the card draw. He's probably still good, just don't build your crew around him anymore. Also, Poison and Burning were capped at 5 damage and non-destructible terrain markers are now able to be moved anywhere within 1" of you by taking the Slam general action. Does this affect much in TT? I don't think so. Should have changed more models in my opinion.

I wouldn't hire the Effigy into Mei for the dispel unless I was fighting a super condition focused crew. Her totem already provides a cleanse for the crew.

Just got my Malifaux Burns book. The Possession trigger is now Enemy Only. Edit: Her bonus action is Once per Turn now as well, so no Ama No Zako synergy anymore.

Why? She's not exactly sweeping tournaments as she is, I doubt she'd be buffed too far by a change like this. It's a decent boost, but she wasn't even competitively strong when Bombs in Your Belly made her melee defences much stronger than this. She is poorly rated competitively due to the ease of countering her and her crew's schtick, so buffing the non scrap/hazardous/armour parts of her crew would be nice.