Jinn

You can bring Langston and the Emissary in Guild to have two 50mms who can place a target in melee within 3" of themselves (Heave). Kaeris could do it with Grab and Drop in Arcanists, and Colette could swap you 8" with a dove. I wonder what the biggest model jail you could feasibly make in an actual game would be? With ideal terrain, like a blown out open faced three walled building or something similar, you could build something beautiful. Guardians can toss models that have already activated (for best effect) right into Hoffman's greedy robot arms.

What if he just traps your master on like turn 2 or 3? A lot of masters don't have an escape for that, especially if they don't explicitly plan for it.

That one is actually a lot scarier because you can get her to walk, which means staying out of a Pyre Marker doesn't save you.

It will almost certainly happen if someone doesn't see it coming. New Reva loves to hang out in Pyre Markers, it wouldn't be uncommon for a Journalist to hit her with Headline: Secrets Exposed! while she's within 2" of a model with Exclusive Interview. Is Brin still taken in half of all Bayou lists? Pretty scary incidental threat. Lyssa's haven't seen much play AFAIK, maybe this is the buff they've been waiting for

Her Enkindle the Cult ability combined with Visions of Fire and being in a Pyre Marker means if she is ever controlled by an enemy they can instantly kill her. As far as I know the only way to do this is with the Misdirected Rage trigger on Lyssas and on Big Brain Brin, but it means that if you face them they can instantly kill you if they land a hit in melee while you are in a Pyre.

@Maniacal_cackle I did not think about the entombing capabilities, that is terrifying.

It depends heavily on the terrain of a table. If a table is set up so that a 30mm marker placed at a choke point forces the opponent to have to go fully around buildings/through your deployment zone to reach a Ley Line or Turf War marker then it could be a problem due to some factions having no counterplay. Most tables aren't going to be easily swung by this mechanic, but two markers placed at the start of the game followed by Hoffman moving one 3" with his bonus action (allowing them together to block a 30mm from passing between them) could block decently wide pathways. It's just a bit rough to have a mechanic that combined with terrain can have such a devastatingly noninteractive impact on the outcome of the game for some matchups. On the other hand it really wouldn't be fair to new Hoffman for them to be destructible given how much he relies on them and how common Blow it to Hell is. He's gonna have enough problems with crews that can effectively remove them. Weird suggestion, maybe make it so any model in base contact with one can take an Interact action to place it in base contact with themselves? Enemies can't destroy them but they can unplug a passage with some effort.

Golem near Hillcrest is great (it can't even take damage from Immolate). It's other models (like Deacon Hillcrest) that are screwed. I really don't want to invest AP into making the Fire Golem have armour only for it to be removed with a 1-action from an opponent. The Fire Golem should have that aura baked into its card.

No, they're saying that after they stack 9 burning on the Fire Golem it won't be able to be directly removed by an enemy model's action while in Hillcrest's aura, which would leave you without any defenses. That aura will make it so that any matchups where you face Immolate (the Burning expunge) become very dangerous near Deacon Hillcrest. If Sonnia gets him to +5 burning, or anyone else in his aura, she can just keep hitting Immolates for five damage and be unable to reduce the burning. Same for the new Reva.

The FAQ giveth, and the FAQ taketh away...

The FAQ incorrectly quotes Chronicle abilities as triggering when models "would Heal" rather than what they actually say which is "After another model within 6 Heals". As the FAQ denies that Chronicle abilities trigger on full health targets due to the fact that they say "would Heal" (incorrectly) this could have been a problem. With how the FAQ entry is written there would have been a decent argument that Wyrd considered those wordings basically identical, and regardless of the misquoting of Chronicle they refer to "would Heal" effects quite clearly when disallowing triggering at full health. I think many people (including myself) would have argued that it was a mistake, but it is nice to have a hard ruling to fall back on.

Rejoice! This version of Jedza hard confirms that the wording of the Chronicle FAQ (section 5, number 13) that disallows "would heal" effects on full health models is incorrect. Good news for anyone worried about bad rulings on alt Kirai and original Jedza.

That still doesn't explain other "straight" damage flips that aren't after resolving, and yet are uncheatable without much reason to be now that they're no more different than any other damage flip. Look at Cage Fighter, Soul Ward, or the Ricochet trigger, they're all the same. Another way that FAQ was weird is that it made it so triggers like My Loyal Servant inherit the Accuracy fate modifier as well, which is just downright unsatisfying and lame in my opinion. Having a on a situational 1/2/3 healing flip really doesn't seem at all intended and I'd be surprised if more than a small handful of people ran it that way before the FAQ. Before that FAQ it was at best ambiguous as to whether variable flips generated by triggers counted as being "the result of an opposed duel", especially given how counter intuitive (and nonsensical) it is for your punch back to get stronger the better your enemy did in hitting you in some cases! With your model effectively getting their accuracy modifier. I think it's unfair to say that people who ran it the other way before the FAQ dropped were simply mistaken given the fact that the FAQ is often used for balance changes and new rules, such as the botched "another" ruling that lead to quite a few problems just to nerf Nekima. Using the FAQ for balance changes is pretty reasonable given that it avoids having to reprint any cards, but I'd still prefer not to treat all the rulings there as simply the one and only answers to questions when many of them are intentionally decisions made after the fact that aren't fully supported in the rules as written.

I don't think it's quite fair to say it was always the case. Most people didn't run triggers as inheriting the accuracy modifier of the action that generated them, and most of those triggers that were natively straight flips stated they couldn't be cheated likely because they were originally intended to be run that way. Wyrd often adds or changes rules using FAQ, which is what lead to that whole Ricochet debacle.

It's definitely ignoring the bubble that she fears the most. She is absurdly strong in the bubble, and if she dives out of it she can still hit like a truck and tank well but she can't do it all game, especially against something like an executioner. If you can outscheme her and punish the models that leave her bubble then you should have a good chance of winning. Also, the counter punch was heavily nerfed in the latest Errata/FAQ as it now includes the fate modifier ( or based on difference in duel total) of the attack that generated it. This means that if your duel total is within 6 of hers (winning or losing) she will be at to damage on her "Good Shot, My Turn" trigger, which is much less threatening than a straight 2/3/5.

I'd also say if you know you'll be facing someone who is punished by ranged (Youko Hamasaki comes to mind) you could bring one, but then again Envy can fill that role better if you have him. One of the big problems people have with them by the way is that they have a projectile attack and you're constantly summoning blocking terrain for your opponent.

I think more competitive lists might drop them for a Silent One, but they still work with that role even if they aren't quite as efficient. Maybe the alt Title for Kaeris will encourage her to play with her team and support these guys a bit more rather than rushing ahead (at least in my experience that's how she plays best.)

I'd say it's pretty bad. Molly isn't really a schemer herself and a lot of the value she provides her crew is in the first two turns when she buffs them all up with focus and gives reactivate (which grants her activation control for a potential alpha strike.) If Molly dies at the end of turn 2 she may have already handed out four activations and 5+ focused. Also, not needing to move is a huge difference from not being able to move. Imagine if Molly had Mv 2 starting from turn 3, your opponent would be able to punish that to an enormous extent if they're good. If you bring too few minions with Spirit Walker Yan Lo then your opponent will potentially be able to plan for denying you movement. This Yan Lo is going to need to contribute throughout the game with his Obey and scheming I'd say. I don't know exactly what a game with this Yan Lo would look like where he only needed to move 10". I think getting a lot of movement out of him is key to his viability and bringing few minions will leave you quite vulnerable. Regardless, this isn't only an issue with Yan Lo, it seems many of the new titles are incentivising minions. I've seen a discussion on the Guild thread as to whether or not they will be simply running the super friends with new Sonnia despite Mad Mage. My point is only that if they successfully create balanced crews that rely on more low cost minions that make it work with powerful rules, then those minion focused Titles that aren't good enough will be hard to improve with general minion buffs in the S&S. Wyrd may be planning the balance of these new Masters to coincide with better minions in general through a GG (I kind of hope this is the case) but if they aren't then I worry that they'll make it hard to buff minions in general rather than with specific crews. Obviously this is just vague speculation as we've only seen a couple of the new Titles, but I noticed a bit of a trend with these minion abilities.

If your minions are all killed you almost lose your Master because of how slow he is, so that's something to watch out for. I think he may be a lot safer to play in Ressers because you can Summon Ashigaru with Toshiro there. Given the number of new Masters that emphasise spamming Minions (which has so far been a terrible strategy this edition) I'm really hoping they're planning to make the next GG more favourable to those kinds of lists. Otherwise we'll be in a bad situation where only those minion spam Titles who have enough synergy to make a bunch of minions work are playable, and then buffing minions in general through GG or Errata will make those Titles OP. Note that Gokudo can't use their best ability with this version of Yan Lo because it requires them to be replaced by an Ancestor, which I think is the first time I've seen an ability be unusable. That ability is why you take them so that's unfortunate. His low Mv leaves him very vulnerable to attacks and actions that target Mv. One example, if he gets Staggered then he literally can never pass a TN 15 Mv duel (like Quicksand), and he normally needs a 13 to do so. You can make him pretty tanky if you get the Izamu Reliquary on him, but still it is a massive vulnerability. His strengths compared to the other Yan Lo are definitely his scheming capabilities due to his speed and action efficiency. His speed is vulnerable however, if you take out a key minion he will have to expend a lot of energy to get back to where he wants to be (and again if you kill all minions he's just Mv 2 .) Old Yan Lo is pretty fast already (he can basically ride around any model with Paths in the late game if he wanted) but definitely less good at dropping markers where you might want them, although he could do that pretty well due to his mobility. Old Yan Lo is definitely tankier (absurdly tankier honestly), definitely hits harder, has much more crew support with healing/shielded/resummoning, and is quite action efficient due to his upgrade attach effects. He lacks Marker removal and card draw, and scheme marker stuff as I said before. I think discounting the liability of having to fill your crew with minions (where old Yan could get away with just one Gokudo if you really needed to) they could be pretty even for slightly different niches. With that liability taken into account I'd favour old Yan Lo personally, until I see minion spam become better for Schemes/Strats.

Here's the list I'm bringing against Insomniac soon: UP Ironsides Mouse Amina Naidu Fitzsimmons Langston (mainly for Vent Steam/the upgrade, as I want Dreamer to have to work to summon Chompy) Diesel Engine Gunsmith Union Miner Magical Training Probably going to have Toni give Langston and the Gunsmith a Focused on turn 1 while Amina spams Walk the Line for card draw and movement (and maybe fast with the trigger.) Not an optimised list, mainly trying to see how the different models play with the new title. I expect that Steam Arachnid Swarms will eventually find a place in my UP Ironsides lists.

I'll look into that. Edit: Found it "10. *If a model would place an object “anywhere within range” of an Action, does it need to have LoS to that range?* a) Yes. The range of an Action includes LoS. The only exception to this is if a model is placing itself it does not need LoS." While I'm unsure why this is an FAQ given this is definitely a new rule rather than a clarification as far as I can tell (though that isn't unusual for Wyrd), this does poke a hole in my reasoning that Asami/Sandeep prove that Summon actions must separately state they ignore the general placement and LoS restrictions. It doesn't prove the other way however, and this is kind of important for a few models. So whether the Drudges can be summoned out of LoS of Ironsides comes down to your ruling on the general summon rule (I'll put it again for convenience): "Summoned models are placed into base contact and within LoS of the model whose Action or Ability Summoned them unless the effect states otherwise." So if you rule "states otherwise" to mean any statement contradicting any part of the rule nixes the rule entirely then you're good. I'd say this could use an FAQ of its own IMO, but at least you can make the argument for ignoring LoS. I'll have to see what my opponent thinks, I'm trying Union President Toni soon. Some models this impacts (as it would allow you to Summon out of their LoS, though maybe some already are running them this way): Asura Roten (could come in out of LoS on any board edge) Carrion Emissary (Zombie on opposite side of coffin wall) Dashel (barely, you could summon around a corner by targeting a marker) Sonnia (you could summon through walls using Seeking Flames, very cool) Colette (barely) English Ivan (actually pretty big deal, could summon on the other side of large models) Lynch Probably many others.

Targets require LoS, not ranges, see leaps for proof. As that's the case and you seem to agree that Summoners like Asami require LoS despite bypassing the base contact part of the general Summon rule I don't know what more I need to say. I think you may be the one who refuses to change their mind in this case.

So do you play it that Summoners like Asami or Sandeep don't need LoS because their action states they can summon 6" away? I've never seen anyone play it that way and as far as I can tell Labor Contract is similarly stating where to summon and not mentioning LoS. As far as I am aware Summon effects that specify that you can place the model out of base contact are still bound by the LoS restriction unless they also say you can place the model out of your LoS (or another rule trumps the general rule, as is the case with the bury Summoners' upgrades.) On the "grants the global ability" thing, I am dead certain that the ability belongs to Toni. She doesn't give it to other members of her keyword, it is simply triggered by them dropping a scheme marker. Ability is a defined term in the game that specifically refers to things written on the front of stat cards (like Unionized for example, which the Drudge actually can explicitly grant to other models), it isn't just the usual english definition of something you can do. Whose ability is Labor Contract? Ironsides. What Summoned the Drudge? Labor Contract. Does it need LoS? Well if you don't think it does then why would Asami/Sandeep/Asura Roten or whatever else need it as they also "state otherwise" for (the b2b) part of the general Summoning rule. I'm pretty sure I've got the correct read on the rules here but I do also wish the ability didn't require LoS, so I guess I hope I'm wrong or I hope it is changed before release.

The rule is that the model must be Summoned in LoS of the model whose action or ability summoned it. The ability is what's doing the summoning, not the action, and the ability definitely belongs to Ironsides.

That is from his Summoning upgrade, which violates the normal rules, and specific beats general. I don't think the existence of the "Summon Buried" masters which have a very specific way/reason of ignoring the base contact/LoS restrictions should mean that the general rule on it doesn't apply to models that don't have abilities/upgrades that direct you to summon out of LoS. On the other hand, normal Summoners that do require LoS but don't require base to base contact only tell you where you can summon them on the board, which is what Labor Contract tells you. As far as I can tell if the Summoning action/ability, or another game rule, doesn't give you a different limit on summoning (by saying you can Summon 6" away, or in base contact with a scheme marker in this case) then you default to the book one. My interpretation here is that Ironsides' ability tells you where to summon but doesn't tell you anything about LoS, therefore that rule still applies.