Angelshard

I guess it's something I'll have to discuss with my group and TO. If B2B doesn't work then there's no scheme or strat (except maybe first point in deliver) that can be done through another model, as you can't place or remove scheme markers either. It would be nice to know if it was the designers intent that interact should work or not.

A lucius Gunline I'm going to try tomorrow Lucius Gunline (Guild) Size: 50 - Pool: 5 Leader: Lucius Mattheson Totem(s): The Scribe Hires: Agent 46 Pathfinder Guild Lawyer Doppleganger Pathfinder 2 Changeling Changeling 2 The idea is that the list has enough card draw/cycling to get me at least one trap per turn to act as speedbumps and annoy my opponent. The mimics will be using the pathfinders gun. One of the changelings can be swapped for upgrades if I need it.

I agree. The discussion came up because interact and putting down a scheme marker also requires base contact. But in one of the TFW round table discussions they talked about interacting through pillars and placing markers, which also requires base contact.

Just wanted some extra eyes on this. Can models that can interact through models or markers score symbols of authority or other strats/schemes that require base contact? I'd say no as the rules for base contact are: Two objects are said to be in base con-tact with each other if their bases are physically touching (edge to edge or overlapping). As I see it, even if Rasputina places an ice piller in base contact and draws range and line of sight through it she can't score it as it still has to be her own base that's in contact with the marker, not her pillar. I'm in doubt about whether she can score the first point of deliver a message, as her range is drawn from the marker and so she counts as being within 1". On the other hand the scheme specifies that the model has be within 1" and her model isn't.

Doppelganger can mimic her own lure or attack to increase the Stat to 7😁

Moving through essentially means that your base is in the terrain at any point during the movement (note that being base to base with the terrain feature doesn't count as being in it). If you move into hazardous and then spend a second action moving out, you would suffer the effect twice. If you attack twice while standing in hazardous you would suffer the effect twice. If you have a place effect, like flight or leap, and start or end in the hazardous terrain you would suffer the effect. This is because your base is in the terrain when you start or end your walk and so you count as moving through it. Hope this makes sense😊

@Adran having an unsuited R6" condition removal on a survivable 4 stone versatile model, this alone makes it better that mysterious effigy, in my opinion. The arcane aura creates a bubble that the opponent really don't want to enter or you can walk into range of an opposing model and then use accomplice to charge something into it and cost him extra cards to cheat. Mysterious is an annoyance, but it rarely results in the same direct rescource drain that arcane does. At least in my experience.

@Ogid I never claimed that any of the effigies are useless. Their front card alone is almost worth 4 stones. I just feel that the value differential of the effigies varies too much. Yes carrion has a heal, but personally I don't see him unless the opponent has declared something you feel you can use the aura to counter. Mysterious lure can be used yes, but there are plenty of better options in neverborn for moving a model around, including lure on other models. The aura isn't decent. It was bad on the effigy in m2e and it was bad as an upgrade on lynch. Yes the idea is good, mindgames are always fun, but the actual effect is negible. Every time you cheat last it doesn't matter and if it's an important duel both of you will cheat high regardless. The effect of being able to bait high cards or get a hidden trigger out just doesn't happen, in my experience. I've yet to take or see anyone else take a mysterious effigy in m3e, except with a fate upgrade to save stones.

Might sound a bit boring, but we always try to make a balanced board that gives as few advantages as possible to any kind of crew, while still including terrain that gives models that gain advantages from certain types of terrain value. It isn't easy.

I'd love to see a rebalancing of the effigies. Some are just so much better than others. I do realise that one needs to take in faction balance and abilities into account, plus the emissary and how much you can gain from the effigy upgrade, but the difference between mysterious effigy and arcane is glaring. My personal ranking is: 1. Arcane. An offensive dispel and a really strong aura that can quickly empty an opponents hand. 2. Shadow. Giving don't mind me on a 7, with a possible push on top is really strong and concealment is one of the best protections against ranged threats. 3. Lucky. The slow attack is an ap Well spent against some models and anyone who's played or played against Som'er knows how good top decking your cheat card is. 4. Hodgepodge. The heal isn't bad and a card for a soulstone is almost always a good trade. Especially when you get it for doing something you would do anyway. 5. Carrion. Mostly a tech piece, but the aura can be devestating against some crews and models and the heal isn't bad although ressers have a lot of healing. 6. Brutal. Pinebox is interesting when copied, but otherwise a gimmick. The aura could be good if it didn't only work in the models own activation, as it is I'd rather just have the hodgepodge heal or use a Governors proxy. 7. Mysterious. The lure is in a faction with access to a lot of models with lure and a better Stat and an aura that honestly doesn't do much (it had the same aura in m2e, without a TN, and it was meh there too). While the exact ranking might wary from person to person the value of the effigies is just too great, in my opinion.

Yes, that is correct. Twitchy doesn't specify friend or foe, so the ability triggers from every other model that ends its activation.

I'm pretty sure there's going to be an errata regarding this point. I highly doubt the design intention was to copy suits and modifiers.

@Cursed25 you're right. I've managed to add an 'up to' in my head that doesn't exist. Oh well, guess that means I'll have to give the focus to two different models and use Santiago earlier than I'd prefer from now on.

@Calriel great initiative and very comprehensive. Well done! A couple of things. I don't see expert marksman mentioned for Nino. It's a massive boost for him. It gives him expert shot so he can shoot into melee without penalty and, thanks to his build in tome, it gives him built in armour piercing. Heroic intervention, it might be me reading your post wrong, but it seems like you think it can only be used if you target a model that is within 1" of one of yours. That's not the case, you can always use it. I'd also mention that turn one you can use Santiago to give perdita 2 focus with sober up and then have him move up turn two, he wants to hang back a bit anyway. I'd also argue that Lead lined coat on loco makes him a lot better. The armour is obvious, but I think he gains more from laugh off. Suddenly lures and many other movement shenanigans don't work on him, making his wp 3 less of an issue.

Congratulations! Well done, especially with only two games before the tournament. Out of curiosity what was the list and the strats? I have a hard time seeing perdita win against Zoraida in cursed idols, for example.

@Jesy Blue I'm not the one who quoted your edit.... Nor do I see any need for the aggressive tone just because we disagree.

@Maniacal_cackle How is the distinction between a model's actions and actions available to a model arbitrary? It's two different meanings. I've yet to hear an argument from either you or @Jesy Blue as to why different wording should be considered the same. Is there any rules argument for why it makes more sense that the designers have used two different terms? It could also have been written as " Select an Action available to the target." and there would be no argument. Again, since the designers use the word available in the rulebook when referring to the general Actions, why not just use it here too? An alternative would be to write general actions in the rulebook as "General actions are actions that may be taken by all models in the game, but arent considered the models actions." Or, if written in a way that would agree with your reading of the rules "General actions belong to all models." This would clearly indicate that the actions should be counted as the models inherent actions. PS: No matter which way we interpret it you can already infinite loop this ability. Just keep spamming it on yourself. That has nothing to do with wether or nor it allows for general actions to be taken. The idea that a model can use a rule or action without the rule or action specifically belonging to that model isn't some new and groundbreaking idea.... It's actually quite common in games. Oh and by the way, editing your post withoutat least writing edit, especially when someone else has quoted the original line, seems a bit fishy.

@eddy Only if he has the opportunity to do so, there's quite a lot of situations where that would require spending an action walking, meaning you only get shot once instead of twice. I'd take that deal any day. Additionally, placing his model in a spot that would negate the push might place the model out of position or in range of one of your other models or away from an aura. Honestly Drawn to pain is a strong ability and doesn't need a boost.

@Jesy Blue My bad, Mimic doesn't include , it really doesn't matter for the sake of this argument. The target's action I.e an action that belongs to the target. This isn't about rules, this is about gramma.

@Maniacal_cackle While I agree that the rules could certainley use tighter writing I cannot agree in this instance. The difference between add to the conflict and place into the conflict is quite clear. They use the two terms in the same sentence. P 8. Under Flips: "If multiple cards are added to the Conflict as the result of Fate Modifiers, only one card is placed into the Conflict, the others are discarded." This sentence, and thus the entire resulution of multiple cards in a conflict, doen't work if added to the conflict and place into the conflict are the same in game terms. So if we presume that the rules works the term placed into the Conflict has to be a consistent term and therefore also be the one used in Fiendish Gambit.

@Maniacal_cackle It's a matter of the words. The text on Adaptive tactics or mimic or just like you or any other copy ability that I can think of, requires you to select one of the target's actions. Not an action available to the target. Just because something is available to you doesn't mean it's yours. @Jesy Blue I'm not arguing that a models options are limited to what is written on the stat card, I am saying that the defienition of targets actions are limited to the actions on the stat card or an upgrade attached to it. Your quote just says that there are actions outside of the models actions that are available to all models. Again, just because something is available to you doesn't mean it belongs to you. If was to be written they way you would want it to work it would read "Select a non- action available to the target that does not Attach Upgrades or list a model by name."

No. The difference is that Hanna can use Tactical actions from upgrades, whereas lazarus is limited to the card. The general actions are available to all models but they don't belong to a model, only actions on cards are a models actions.

@CD1248 P. 29 in the ruleboook: "Focused +X: Before performing an opposed duel, this model may lower the value of this Condition by one to receive a + to the duel (and any resulting damage flip this model makes)." The defensive trigger is a resulting damage flip from the duel, so focus should work.

@Maniacal_cackle the difference with The Old Ways is that it's well written. It clearly states that you can only use it when you have no fate modifiers, and it says that you flip the card from the discard pile instead of the date deck. Fiendish Gamble, on the other hand, specifically states that you use your removed cars instead of flipping, without specifying what they mean by flip. If we presume that wyrd has thought the writing through (which I doubt, fiendish gamble was added as a late change) the fact that Fiendish Gamble doesn't say you can only use it when you have no fate modifiers implies that it can be used with fate modifiers. Placed into the conflict is consistently defined as the card you use in your final dual total, nowhere in the rules have I found a different use for the term. Since it's the exact same wording in every instance, including Fiendish Gamble, I read it as a rules term. Unlike flip where I will agree that there are several different uses.

@Maniacal_cackle I agree that fiendish gamble is way too good. It wasn't until I sat down to look at all the consequences of making GYL an attack action that I realised all the things you can get around with fiendish gamble (if you read the rules as I do). Stitched can pretty much ignore any effect that would put it at a minus flip, both offensively and defensively once per activation.