PirateCaptain

Iron Skeeters are alright, carrying franc is good, carrying pere is good, carrying anything to vantage point is good, if your area uses vantage point they're great for going on top of buildings and being annoying that way. If your opponent doesn't have flight they can fly up and scheme on rooftops which is hilariously fun

real talk, can we expect additional pony pig models? I'd like to know if I need to buy multiples of this to convert piglets, war pigs, etc. or if that is not needed.

I cannot like this enough, very well put

First: Gremlins and Rezzers Second: This is an absurdly long list in Gremlins, and frankly I do not have enough time to give you my full analysis of the gremlin faction, as that is what you've asked for and I'd rather do it justice instead of listing almost every model in the faction. Third: They are also aggressive, no where is it written that other factions can't have aggressive options, I simply believe that most of Gremlins and their tools favor a more aggressive/offensive playstyle. I think Raspy/Dita/Viks are all aggressive options, but I think Mah/Wong/Zipp/Somer/Ophelia/Ulix can all be played at near that level of Alpha-Strike. I also think there's more to playing Aggressive than just sending everything across the table for an Alpha-Strike, but that's just me. You can keep aggressive pressure on the board while running schemes and things if that's all that's needed. I don't think Gremlins plays a balanced/defensive/reserved/counter-punch style of game in most cases. They'd rather hit first whenever they can. They have a lot of synergy that promotes getting in, hitting hard, and hitting fast, as opposed to synergy that rewards taking a beating and hitting back, they have little synergy towards locking down areas of the board, immobilizing things, or other tricky sneaky things.

It is not an assumption, and what makes you think that it is an assumption? I actually disagree with you about wave 5. I have read the topic, and again my point is I disagree

Gremlins are fine, they're aggressive in nature, so you need to be extra careful with your placement and how you use your tools. Playing an aggressive faction like this is stressful for players on both sides of the equation in many instances. If the gremlin player plays well (and the opponent does not understand how it works) they can be oppressive, tilting, and negative for the opponent** It can also be stressful to play as, since many gremlin models are effectively tissue paper, and they can often be traded up INTO. BUT, almost every single Gremlin model can trade UP (if not equally) but more so than any other faction you have to be supremely careful when orchestrating trades. (since, as previously stated, it's easy to lose trades with them as well) You can't expect to take a hit and then hit back (outside of a few exceptions). (IMHO This is where I see the perceived "disparity" is coming from) Burt, for example, is generally a safer tool, but he is not better than other tools because of this, just EASIER. There is nothing wrong with playing with easier tools, but IMHO easier does not equate better. Very often though, people like taking "easier" things to events and the like as there is more room for error. Forgiving tools are typically seen as "more competitive" but I believe that this is a dangerous viewpoint to have towards a game. [side bar:] Start playing with more terrain on your tables to help advance your gremlin models, practice when and where to go in and strike, start with way too much and tone it back, you need to learn to use terrain to your advantage and how to hide behind it, etc. If aggro is understood and played properly it is infuriating and oppressive, but when taken apart crumbles. This is okay, there is nothing innately wrong or "bad" about this playstyle. While the perception of "alpha-strikes" is often negative, I think that the dialogue around them should change. There is nothing wrong with not enjoying a High-Risk, High-Reward style of play, there is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid those types of lists for tournaments (as many want to curb the risk as much as possible in a competitive setting). There is also nothing wrong with enjoying High-Risk, High-Reward styles of play, particularly for tournaments. If you can get good at managing your risks you can have great success, if you like taking that gamble, excellent! Join me in the gamble. Remember, just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean it's bad.

If you're not at an event then you can pretty much use whatever you want as long as your opponent agrees to it. At an official event you'd have to get permission from the TO to use any "Conversions". So long as it is 50% wyrd plastic it could be a legal conversion.

And I guess that's really the problem I'm trying to solve, the issue is the way the terrain and vantage points are worded, it's very clear that you can be "on" some things, and "in" other things. So, it doesn't only count inside enclosed terrain, that's just an example. it does however specify that there are certain things you can ON, and since those are different, is what got us thinking about this. That's where my issue is, and frankly I really don't care what the ruling is, but the language is a bit rough. As you said, there are better ways it could be worded, but it isn't worded that way sadly. So, as much as i want a RAW interpretation, it's very difficult to come to. The rules have precedence for a difference between "on" and "in" so with this rule is my problem with it. I really want o not only highlight the issue with this rule, but the terrain rules in general. There are plenty of weird interactions all over the place. Granted I think the game as a whole has great rules, and most of the time the terrain rules work fine, but there are weird instances like this where it is unclear.

I could say the same with your interpretation of any rule, ever. I am trying to come up with as solid a ruling as I can on a rule that I would like an official ruling on. Until then, all we have are interpretation and debate, hopefully to come to a good enough conclusion that people can know what to expect from a judge they've never met an event so they can practice how they'll play.

you can walk through the hazardous water, clouds, whatever it happens to be, but you're in that terrain feature, just like if you were in a structure. Even if it isn't represented on the table in a 3 dimensional fashion

I was actually talking about this with Duncan yesterday, basically for something to be able to be "on" it already has to be agreed upon before the game starts. So Hazardous terrain, 99% of the time can't be stood ON. For example, none of the characters can walk ON water. But you can stand ON a roof, i.e. enclosed terrain and structures. If you and your opponent decide you can't stand ON buildings, then no problem. We also discussed Zipp's smoke clouds because of this. They are terrain, but there's no way anyone could ever stand ON smoke, that's just absurd . So, while TECHNICALLY if you could convince your opponent that Reva can walk ON water (in the hazardous example) she could be ON the terrain, but in actuality, she would be in the terrain. The rules specifically call out that only certain terrain features can be stood on "... and that models may stand on (such as the roof of a building)" p. 42 While hazardous terrain does require you to be in it, you'd be hard pressed to find any judge rule that you can stand ON it. Really what I think it comes down to, like everything involving terrain, is that you just make sure that you and your opponent discuss the terrain features before a game begins. If you don't want vantage points, or anything going on top of anything, just discuss it before hand and everything is fine. If you'd like to be able to stand ON certain features, and fully use vantage points, and abilities like Zipp's, just discuss it before hand.

GG18 uses turn flipping, so most players will have practiced that way and expect it I would think. Especially getting people from out of town, I think most would expect to flip.

Since the symbols have a static HT stat, it doesn't matter how you construct, it is always treated as HT 5 (so a good base if you want accurate would be 5 inches)

Cool, i missed that, so yea, all structures > 2" high would have vantage point as well. But even if < 2" high you could still put a model on top of it Edit: i misunderstood something. So it does look like anything you can put a model on, structure or not, if is terrain > 2" has vantage point

We use vantage point a lot haha, and something can be on enclosed terrain even if it doesn't have vantage point, vantage point just provides the LoS benefits. Enclosed says things can be on top of it: This is where my problem lies. Every building, vantage point or not, is enclosed, so models can go on top of them. BUT they are not REQUIRED to have vantage point. Enclosed - Models without the Incorporeal ability which begin their movement outside of this terrain may not use Abilities or Actions to ignore this terrain if they are ending their move inside of it. Models without Incorporeal lose any Abilities and Actions which allow them to ignore terrain while moving while inside of this terrain. However, models act normally while on top of this terrain and while ending a move on top of this terrain. (For Example: A Nephilim may fly over a building or take flight from its rooftop, but may not teleport through the wall.) Structures come in an infinite variety of sizes and shapes in Malifaux. All buildings default to having the enclosed, impassable, blocking, and hard cover traits. Buildings might have climbable areas (if the walls have hand holds), and might have areas that provide a vantage point.

Yea, that's what I was worried about... just makes it difficult to practice him, if one of his abilities could work differently game to game.

I will attempt to explain my question as succinctly as possible, if you would like more clarification or reasoning behind my current interpretation, please ask. Zipp's ability "up we go" is worded: "Place the target anywhere within 5" of its current position, not in terrain". Originally I did not think this was confusing, until discussing Enclosed terrain features. Enclosed features specifically reference things being inside of them. What I would like to know, is the "IN" in Zipp's ability, referencing this, so that you cannot put someone inside of enclosed terrain (which would be incredibly unfair, and I completely agree with). OR do they mean "ON OR IN" as in, he cannot place you on top of or inside of any terrain feature. As I read it, it appears to function that he can place models "ON" terrain (or on top of terrain, as it were, such as moving a friendly model onto a roof), but he cannot place models "INSIDE" of terrain features. (this also fits the flavor of him carrying and dropping you, he wouldn't drop someone on the ground floor of a 3 story building, you'd get dropped on the roof, it's also far too friendly for a crazy gremlin pirate to care what he drops you on top of) I believe my RAW interpretation to be correct, but I really would like to make sure, as it is confusing. I am not interested in Rules as intended Interpretations, I have already decided to err on the side of caution with this, but would like some kind of official ruling one way or another, and was unsure where else to ask this.

Right, our local EOs and Henchmen try to provide interesting decisions for games through terrain, which I think makes games way more interesting. We were talking after the game and figured that in this case, he still could have played bears, but if he would have plugged in Kaeris, he could have given them flight and just caught me on the rooftops to kill me. There were ladders, staircases and things he could use, but it just took him a lot of AP to try and get up that way.

Today I played my first official Gremlins game I played: Zipp: Gift of Gab, Dread Pirate, Hovering Airship Franc: Stilts, Dirty Cheater 3 Iron Skeeters: the upgrades Pere Ravage: Do Over 4 Bayou Gremlins Opponent played Bear Force 1 w/ Marcus Pool: Flank Public Exec Eliminate Show of Force Vendetta Recover Take Prisoner I took Recover and Show of Force, he took Recover, and I'm not sure what else, cause he didn't score. I got crazy lucky and the table we got today had a lot of vantage point terrain so I just kind of hid out on rooftops, plinking bears to death from above as he tried to find ladders to climb up to get to me, so yea, really lucky. Bears are scary. (all of his large bases are bears, all of his bears haven't arrived in the mail yet) The game ended 7-2 my favor because I spent the whole game hiding on rooftops as seen here:

Well I misread and misunderstood haha thanks for clearing it up for me before I tried it!

I want to try some jank involving throwing bayou gremlins with poorly handled explosives at people, if you throw ones somer summoned or summoned off of, they've only got 2 wounds so they die to volatile and end up pulsing 4 damage. I don't know how good it'll be, but it sounds cute

The way I see it, Reva has a really solid core in: Reva; GoD; LotF; and DA Carrion; MLH Asura Shieldbearer x 2 Rotten Belle and then she has 9 points to play with; plug in 1 of the following based on strats, schemes, what you expect to see, and personal flavor Phillip and the Nanny (card draw is never bad, chatty is great in some scheme pools); Yin for the stated reasons, Anna Lovelace, or Bette Noire Bete is for the super aggro play, dropping her on your corpse so they can't hide it from Reva, Reva can also has more control on where she comes back

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yea pretty much exactly all of this. I agree whole heartedly. And having such an open center, it's the perfect place to drop a few corpses early game with guises of death, asura, and the emissary, you can easily force them through your trap while scoring Show of Force along the way if you go that route.

Oh yea, I'm super excited to see how it works, could be great with Nicodem and Circling Buzzards, or with Reva and Guises of death *-*

I really love this! everything about it is fantastic