Angelshard

I was thinking of using beckoners to lure people to lynch who then kills them.

With ca 7 and cheating last you're quite sure of getting people to you.

@Ludvig that might be the case with madness. But I don't think incorporeal models in general are designed to be glass cannons, although that would explain it

But in your example the reason they don't die is because they're running by themselves and aren't near any enemies. Their survivability is still pathetic for 5 stones if something actually tries to kill them.

Again I'm not saying there aren't good incorporeal models. I'm saying that as a defensive mechanism it's very unreliable because there's too many counters

I agree that poltergeist might be a bit overpriced, but sorrows would be solid if they were 6/5/5 instead of 3/4/4.

Insidious madness has pathetic 3 wd for a 5 stone model and ubume dies to a stiff breeze the instant she has activated.

I don't find the resilience of the Nothing beast impressive for a 10 stone model.

As I said I might be wrong in how valuable incorporeal is due to being able to ignore terrain, but to me it seems like a hefty tax on their defensive stats.

@Math Mathonwy True, but it still Shouldn't make my henchman envious, still, stitched might have been a better example. And they're kind of fragile.

@Da Git I honestly think the nothing best would be better without incorporeal and 1 wound more and min 5 defense no matter the amount of cards. Incorporeal doesn't do a lot for it.

It seems to me wretches are popular because they're cheap minions in outcast that gives slow. 

@Dogmantra the problem is that a flat damage curve doesn't really save them when they are so easy to kill. Also try only flatten the curve if you can't bypass incorporeal, and my whole beef is that there are so many ways to bypass it

@Da Git

Hungering darkness, insidious madness, nothing beast and void wretches are all extremely fragile for their cost (and yes I know huggy is 0)

It's not only durability. A lot of control abilities also gets through easier due to low defensive stats.

But a 0 stone henchman that is a huge part of the masters power should be more durable than a 4 stone model

Problem is that even when the opponent doesn't have ca, there are so many ways to bypass incorporeal. First off 'may not be reduced' attacks have gotten more common, but these hurts a lot of different defences.

Then there's conditions, pulses, auras and abilities.

The issue I have is that it seems to me incorporeal gives up a lot more than models with armour, htk, htw or other kinds of reduce.

The more I look at it the less I like incorporeal as a defensive ability.

The ignore terrain part is awesome, but it seems to me that models with incorporeal gets punished so very hard on df, wp and wd for a defense that is quite easy to bypass.

Ca attacks aside there are so very many ways to bypass this ability.

And that is before factoring in that you round up. Incorporeal is only better than armour +1 If you take 4 damage or more and only beat armour +2 at 6 damage or higher. 

I honestly think the stat penalties for gaining this ability are too harsh.

When my hungering darkness looks at my effigy with envy something is wrong.

Unless I'm missing something and incorporeal models are supposed to be fragile little flowers that pay heavily for the ability to ignore terrain.

I wouldn't until you've got some more games under the belt. He's very play style dependent and not the easiest model to use.

Good episode, I liked the host swap

I'm curious as to why you don't think cheating bastard is good enough.

Your whole crew cheating last seems so strong to me that it's worth risking huggy for. Every time the opponent wins with a weak or low moderate card he's forced to cheat air take a huge risk. Coupled with your already awesome deck management and I think it'll be amazing.

The rest of the upgrade is just sugar on top.

I would very much recommend schemes and stones building on a budget guide. They have some excellent suggestions on what transitions well into what so that you can efficiently expand your collection.

That is a tricky one. 

My gut tells me it shouldn't work on ffm or eliminate, but I can't find a rule or faq to support it or refute it. 

When the model is killed it haven't left the table yet, so it's still within the aura and shouldn't count, on the other hand the scheme doesn't card about the model itself until it has left the table and at that point Its out of the aura.

Regarding reducing a master to half wounds I'm really uncertain. I think I'd argue that it would count the instant the aura goes away. But not while it affects the master.

With the caveat that I don't have book 5 and so are not certain of the precise wording I'll try to answer.

Question A is answer 2.

It doesn't matter how many scheme markers you're in base contact with, as the requirement is fulfilled once you're in base contact with the first. If the auras didn't stack they would include the line "one or more models with this ability". So the auras stack.

Question B.

1. Yes you take damage from multiple auras. They don't stack, as such, but each one goes off. Same as if you activated a model that was inside two fear given form engagements, you would be forced to take 2 df duels.

2. This is merely a difference in wording, the effect is the same, as soon as you're in base contact with one you fulfill the requirements. Think of it as the same as pushed away and pushed directly away. 

3. Yes they would. It's two different auras that both effect them. 

Hope this helps

Personal puppets take one damage to take a (1) action. It hurts every time

The other big sinner is that lone swordsman has a push. I manage to forget it almost every time I play against him...

Both her (0) actions are very good. Problem is her attack is meh for a nine stone henchman. 

But she's great against masters and beaters that use ca attacks as she can give them  which really hurts.

She's also good against incorporial if your crew is lacking that.

I would be very much in favour of this. Also because alt models is a good way to keep new things coming without creating a model bloat in the game.

Have anybody tried running primordial with collodi in a bag of props list?

I rarely take more than two marionettes with him in props anyway, so switching them for pm the worm might be worth it. He can still siphon focus from it and rush of magic is always nice

20 minutes ago, edopersichetti said:

That would be a welcome change - I'm so looking forward to using Moon Shinobi again
And yes, I love good old pukeworm, but he's just too good.

On the Collodi note, half of my meta play almost exclusively him, some even started to play Neverborn because of him. Sure, some occasionally play Lilith, or Lynch, or Zoraida, but when they want an easy win they go for Collodi. That's so obnoxious that made me want to stop playing him, and I did. When I did use to play him, my favorite playstyle was to spam My Will - it's just so effective
Also, one could argue that if players don't spam My Will it's because he has many other good options - his attack is great for example. What is Colette supposed to do now that her Prompt is so limited? The Sabre Trick?? Summon Doves?? Perhaps the reason people were spamming Prompt was that the alternatives weren't as good...then a solution would have been to make her other talents more desirable. I still think crippling Prompt was not the right answer - reducing her options doesn't encourage variety. But I'll let the Colette case rest - we were here to talk about Collodi after all. And designers haven't been known to go back on their erratas, no matter how wonky they are...

You mentioned design team doesn't like to tear models down - pardon me, but that's not what happened with a good number of the last erratas. Stuffed Piglets are just the last example. 

Have you tried switching to the gg18 beta? 

Gg17 is really good for collodi. Not that he isn't a really strong master, but it does help when the schemes and strats really suits you.

Regarding my will, yes it's good, but you also want to use his attack, give out a condition, sometimes summon and, in rare cases where you brought breathe life, push your whole bubble. 

I think spamming my will every turn is mostly for gimmicky lists like trapper plus mimics. And if you play a props list you almost always want to attack.

Honestly I think that if anything should get a nerd it should be strum. Getting fast whenever you need it is extremely strong.

Aether connection, fears given form and audience are still very potent on her. Especially with royal indignation.

Plus now that both she and the emissary can give armour and emissary can heal too I don't think champion is worth 2.

It could already be a bit of a trap if you focused too much on getting it on the right model.

I think the main difference is that you want to do other things with collodi than just spam "my will" all day long. Sure once in a while you make a stitched go crazy or lure spam with a beckoner, but I think it's quite rare that I spend 3-4 so on my will in a turn, especially on the same model.

Haven't gotten the new upgrades yet desperately waiting for the masters deck to hit stores.

I'm quite sure queens champion will never again see the light of day though.

I think the main reason collodi is seen as really good is because gg17 suits him extremely well.

He can easily do the always and the suited schemes and interference, headhunter and extraction is right up his alley.

Add to that his double mask is one that can easily stop any big beater dead in its track for only 1ap. A crew that easily out activates and is still very resilient and you have quite a lot of salty tears.

I think he just meant that every puppet can use strum.

27 minutes ago, looka said:

there is also a word target. Should I target someone in this tactical action? how many duels should I go through under the aura of barbaros? 2 per enemy ? maybe you'll start reading what's on the card written rather than rip one word out of context

you declare a flurry under the aura of barbaros and without passing the first duel you lose all attacks?

Uhh you do realize there's a difference between declaring a target and randomizing targets when shooting into engagement right?

The "here we go!" Action doesn't declare a target when you declare the action. 

Randomizing into engagement if you have a symbol is something completely different