Flib Jib

Hello, I was thinking about interactions between terrain within terrain and how they would resolve. So if there was a large piece of terrain with the Dense and Severe trait and a Ht0 50mm terrain marker that was created by a model, (e.g. Underbrush, Pyre, Dust Cloud, Wind Wall, Hungering Land, etc…) does the terrain marker add or replace terrain traits in relation to the large terrain? (Effectively speaking. I know there are no rules about terrain adding traits to other terrain but I was wondering if this is cumulative or not.) Example: If a 30mm model was standing in the middle of a 50mm marker, would LoS be blocked because you'd be drawing through dense terrain? If the marker was Hazardous would a model resolve the effects of Dense/Severe/Hazardous, or just Hazardous? Also thinking of models that have things like Tangled Roots, can they no longer target models within the marker which is within the same Severe terrain? Also, what about Auras that have terrain traits? Can Jaakuna use her Drowning Aura and effectively become invisible if walking through dense terrain? If so, then can other models that ignore Hazardous terrain ignore her aura to then gain LoS?

So just to come full circle. Things like Laugh Off don't work to prevent movement from an Obey. Because the movement isn't technically from the Obey, its often from the action controlled by the Obay correct?

Side note, It's easy to to confuse Walk and Move as synonymous. I regularly hear things like, "Chompy moves 5 inches to here" when it should be "Chompy takes a Walk Action and moves to here" This is what makes solkan's bit super critical. It's also why the rules specifically have to call out, "Cannot be declared while engaged", because a charge uses a push for movement. You could charge out of melee if not explisitly dissalowed by the rules. (Some models break this) Another key note from the rulebook: So one of the ways Hasardous Terrain procs is from a move, doesn't matter if it is from a walk or push.

I can't remember but I'm fairly certain 3E aviods aura's that are Hazzardous because it would then cause ambiguity correcy?

This seems inconsistent, and I’m just wondering as to why. Would love expert insight.

If this is true, is there any reason not to believe that it’s always the model with activation?

For tracking which player (if any) is responsible for killing a model. Usually, it’s the model generating the effect. But sometimes it’s an intuitive and ambiguous. Things clicked when I thought of ‘symptom versus illness’; did the patient die of internal hemorrhaging or did they die from a stab wound? I like thinking of the ridiculous hyperbole, “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people” and in Malifaux it’s almost always the “gun”. Would love a fact check: It’s the root model generating the effect which caused damage that is attributed with the kill If the effect is an external/indirect effect like one that resolves during the end phase like burning then it is not attributed to any player Deaths from fall damage is attributed to the model that generated the move Damage from hazardous effects generated by a model are the exception, and cannot be attributed to any player. Root Model, indicating the first, e.g. Model A obeys model B to kill model C. Model A counts as having killed model C.

Regrettably, it is difficult to have as productive a discussion that you might find satisfactory when points are made from ad ignoratiam. There is close to an infinite amount of hypotheticals that the rulebook does not tell you you can’t do. None of which should be considered evidence. But if your point is that there is ambiguity, I think solkan and Paddywhack have given some invaluable clarity.

Theres also FAQ entries relating and support scheme markers being only friendly/enemy e.g. #25 ”Are Friendly and Enemy Scheme Markets considered different types of markers, such as for Research Mission? a) No. The type of Marker is Scheme, their alignment, (friendly/enemy) is the only difference.”

Short Answer, No. Ignoring markers/terrain traits is actually irrelevant. The key interaction is between Drop and Move. When dropping a marker, it (or models ontop) are not considered to have moved. The Hazardous Trait comes into effect after a model moves through, into BC, Resolves an action in, or when the hazardous terrain/marker is moved into B2B (again, Dropped is not considered a move) So none of the requirements of the Hazardous Trait are met so the model would not suffer the effects regardless of whether the model might ignore traits. Something to note regarding criteria #3. If the active model dropping the marker with a Hazardous trait hypothetically isn’t immune, it would suffer the effects not because of a drop but because it would be resolving an action while in… Side note- this is why there’s been some errata where Place was changed to Drop because Place effects count as movement

Would love a 'share' option somewhere in the completed tab or prompt when completed feature. There are so many fun things this would open up, here are just a couple I had. Community Boosting: This feature can be highly beneficial for local meta's or the Malifaux community as a whole. It allows players to share, discuss, analyze their achievements, strategies, or memorable moments with others. Sharing Options: Providing multiple sharing options such as email, social media posts, and possibly uploading to your personal linked account. Lots of potential. Unique IDs: The app already creates unique IDs for games and players. So shared content would be easily traceable and can be used for tournament organization (TO) purposes. Text-Based/Graphic: Having options would enable users to share game details, strategies, or results in a more comprehensive format. Graphics for social / text for tracking. Streamlining tournaments: Sharing games with TOs would make tournament organization more efficient as well as significantly reduce errors. Imagine down the road if there were a companion tournament app that plugged into game sharing options. Content Creation: Users can create content around shared games, such as tutorials or analysis videos. Analytics: Imagine some fun data that could be collected. e.g. when Dreamer is the opposed master, Assassinate is chosen %76.2 when in the scheme pool. Fun maths! There are so many fun possibilities if sharing games were a thing, Thoughts?

What about a scenario where a Ht4 blocking terrain is between a Sz4 and Sz5 model so that no sight lines can be drawn between the two models without crossing the terrain. If the Sz4 model is farther than 3" then LoS can be made. but if the Sz4 model is within, (even partially) 3" of the Ht4 terrain, then LoS is blocked. correct?

Super niche scenario but because shadows extend to a maximum of 3", any sz4 or greater models need to be within 3" of terrain equal to or greater than their size correct?

So true, and when compared against all the other options out there Malifaux is far less '2 dimensional' or only killy than it's competition. Which is why I love it. I just sometimes wonder why Bad Things Happen.

Love the math! regarding tournament play I wonder how much is factored when considering "Ideal/practical" What I mean is that Ideally you hope that tournaments go a certain amount of rounds for the Swiss system to dichotomize once and that tiebreakers result from outliers and not because the system wasn't completed. however, practically speaking anything more than 4 rounds (a 16-player system) is unrealistic. so tiebreakers are less breaking ties rather could be interpreted as the ranking mechanic. which is a WHOOOOLE other topic. Another side topic that might be fun and I've seen in the past before. Are crews "balanced" for a >5-turn game? I remember in 2E there were some Super OP crews that dominated the first two maybe three turns but then fizzled out. So there were meta's that took into account many tourny games not finishing the full 5 rounds. I don't think balancing decisions should take this into consideration but balance for how games are intended. still festinating to think about though.

I wanted to give a thought experiment and hear what everyone thinks. We have encountered this dissonance in games and meta's since the 1st edition, between two concepts, Schemy and Killy. Wyrd strongly advocates the idea that 'denial' and 'threat' hold equal significance and should be treated as such in decision-making. However, despite efforts to balance these aspects, the disharmony becomes super evident. On one hand, there are potent methods of denying an opponent. These are often fun and entertaining but typically high-risk, rely on the opponent's play, and are complicated to pull off. Paradoxically, the most effective means of denial turns out to be the simplest: merely eliminating the enemy model. What makes this realization more ironic is that this approach is also the easiest to execute. Why go through the trouble of employing complicated, high-risk strategies when a straightforward elimination is more efficient and effective? Even if lethality was somehow less effective than denial, the fact that it is so much easier to implement naturally incentivizes players to use this strategy because humans usually have a higher success rate the easier a task is to execute. The tragedy is that much of the time the denial approach tends to be more entertaining for players long-term. The payoff is always more gratifying than the ubiquitous kill strategy and presenting players the choice of ‘fun’ vs ‘optimal strategy’ is incredibly undesirable. This frustrates me hearing the claim that these two inequalities are optimally balanced because it seems so willfully ignorant almost to the point of bad faith. I’m not super interested in counterpoints supporting that the two aspects might actually be balanced. I’m not closed-minded but more interested in creative ideas of how these mechanics might be brought more inline with each other. In essence, the puzzle revolves around the challenge of reconciling the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of balance and the observable dominance of a simplistic, lethal approach. Thoughts…?

Hey fellow Malifaux painters! I've been a fan of this amazing game for quite some time now, and one aspect I truly enjoy is the process of painting the miniatures. Recently, I stumbled upon the concept of using AI to generate renders for color combo ideas and inspiration, and I was curious if anyone in our community has given it a shot. After being in the hobby for over a decade I more easily recognize my creative valleys. Sometimes when my creativity is drained I feel like all my recent models feel ‘samey’ and when searching for inspiration online I can’t escape the same popular collection of photos I’ve seen before. Randomly, I thought about AI being a possible kickstart to boost me out of a rut. Have any of you ever experimented with AI-powered software or tools to generate renders to help with color combo ideas or inspiration for your Malifaux miniatures or terrain? If so, I'd love to hear about your experiences and learn more about the resources you've used. Did you find it helpful in expanding your creativity and finding new color schemes? I found myself going down a rabbit hole in the wee-hours of the morning thinking about future tools for the hobby. Perhaps there will one day be AI-driven platforms or applications that can analyze the miniature's details and recommend complementary level, time estimates, priming recommendations or contrasting color palettes. Imagine feeding an image of your favorite Malifaux character into a program that generates a range of color schemes specifically tailored to that miniature's unique features. Or on a broader level feeding it keywords and a favorite paint brand and getting specific color combos and which paint bottle to grab. It could potentially save a lot of time and open up new avenues for experimentation. Of course, traditional methods and personal intuition will always be invaluable, but it's intriguing to think about the potential AI could bring to our painting process. Don’t want to spark any bad feelings and really really want to refrain from any heated philosophical debates. (just a happy hobbyist wanting to hear the communities friendly thoughts/history) So, fellow painters, have you ever explored the possibilities of using AI for Malifaux miniature painting? If you have any experiences, insights, or recommendations regarding AI-assisted painting or tools, would love to hear them.

I really need to remember this; I keep forgetting this is a step.

And they were so close.... Seems like they could have used 'Wounds' and made it into a mechanic.

Was wondering if Wyrd would consider creating a player page linked to our forum profiles where we can see and display our analytics? Since the app collects our game data it would be super slick to see a GUI of stats and figures. It would be so neat to see my total games played, faction and master breakdown, schemes and strategies breakdowns, number of unique opponents played, ext. Super hopeful that this might be implemented. What are your thoughts? are there any stats or other ideas that you would like to see if you had a game tab linked to your forum profile?

The only thing I have found was from Adran "If you ignore a marker, you ignore the traits of that marker (otherwise it means nothing) so sight lines drawn through an underbush marker won't cause concealment to them."

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... 😅 Reference Please? What's the argument? How is it technical? In which way was it applied? How was it silly? Reference please? What was the actual consensus?

I had a rules question in a game last night regarding Underbrush markers and how certain traits where ignored and by which models. Underbrush Markers are 50mm Ht0, Concealing, Severe. Models with the Abundant Growth are unaffected by Underbrush Markers. From the rulebook: A model with the Abundant Growth ability was targeting an enemy model standing in an Underbrush Marker 6’ away. The question was does the attacking model receive a negative modifier in the duel? The attacking player said that since the Attacking model was unaffected by the Underbrush Marker, it ignores the traits of the Marker, (Severe and Concealing) Since the concealing trait is ignored the defending model does not gain concealment and does not impose a negative to the duel. The defending player argued that though the attacking model ignored the traits of the Underbrush Marker, the model standing in concealing terrain did not ignore the traits and therefore gained concealment. And since the attacking model ignores the terrain not the model, the attacking model would still have a negative modifier. Thoughts? Would love to hear the consensus of the forum.

Great point!