AndreyF

As I understand Mallifaux which we are palying corresponds to Meiji period. Here is the photo I found in Wikipedia. Labled Promulgation of The New Japanese Constitution (1889).jpg

I think you made wrong assumption that all eastern dresses are kimonos.

I think I forgot to publish these here. Some images of new models. Kirai and Ikiryo are looking like on The Other Side art. But they are on the same shelf as other Malifaux models. Here Lady J is next to some what I believe is a TOS guy with big gun on the barricade. Sonnia Creed and some TOS guys again.

Here to the left of the front row is the new Guild master. Next to him is the Executioner.

New Wendigo is extra creepy. Great art.

Better quality cards from Nick Westbrook (Facebook).

Some schemes & strategies cards. New / modified. It seems schemes are 2VP max each.

I would love to post the video with all the minis and Wyrdscapes, but it is in closed Facebook group, cant easily copy it here. You may want to apply to the group if you are on the Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/AWYRDPLACE/ The video is here https://www.facebook.com/sean.overtonshadowopal/videos/10156543680978064/?view=permalink&id=868289023368163&_rdr

Not to offend the author, but I dig the name of the ponies box.

Some more from Chris Hammond on Facebook A Wyrd Place page

Lets gather all the videos, photos, reports from Gen Con 2018 for those of us who are not attending. Here on this video on 3:25 you can see the Wyrd lair. Here is official Stream, not sure if Wyrd will show up on it.

Strange decision. FAQ has F for reason.

The old FAQ entry was clean and it is referred from this forum. Returning it would be logical. Other solution would be to delete topics which refer to now non-existing FAQ entry. Regarding argument, that it was removed due to it being patched. I don't think FAQ is done this way. For example there is this entry: This is not even clarifying the original rulebook, it just answers Frequently Asked Question, which has clear answer in rulebook.

Ok. Thanks. I still wonder why they removed the clean answer from the FAQ. It does not help when ppl come searching the forum and find the reference to the non-existing FAQ entry.

There are a lot of discussions about this matter on the forum. But none of those discussions have official answer. Some even point to old FAQ: But this entry is not in the FAQ at the moment, so this adds to confusion a lot. In the rules Errata there is this one now: But it is still ambiguous. During Disengaging Strikes means model performing disengaging strike, or both models involved? Some defensive triggers look like they were added with disengaging strike in mind. Like the Doom Ward on Oxfordian Mage for example.

Doing the same in August ------------------------ И в августе тоже

We welcome anyone willing to try Malifaux any Saturday & Sunday from 14:00 at Look Bar per. Kooperativnyj, 5. Kerch Please contact me for arranging a demo. ---------------------------------------------------- Ждём всех желающих попробовать Малифо в любую субботу и воскресенье после 14:00 в Look Bar пер. Кооперативный, 5. Керчь Предварительно свяжитесь со мной.

I am having the same issue. Although I received confirmation email, so probably you have my application. If you ever need help in fixing that issue, send me a PM.

Thanks a lot!

Nice, thanks. No crew lists, but probably it is way too much for tournament organizer to track. Would be good to add masters at least though.

Do we have results of matches from this event? Who played who, scores etc.

This is the description of the scheme from Gaining Grounds 2018: Is the first mentioned Scheme Marker near Table Corner in the enemy deployment zone mandatory or not? I've been told it was discussed somewhere on this forum, and consensus was it is not mandatory. But I cannot find the thread and If it is not mandatory, then how could you place markers in other corners? Other then what? And if so, why not just remove first paragraph and make it (up to a maximum of 3 VP)?

It was 0=10 rule in draft of GG2018. Maybe fixed cost by station could be better. Anyway, the problem is actually not that huge. It is still 1 VP per game in a very small set of games.

Guild Hound cost is 3 Mannequin cost is 4 Duet cost is 0 So if Guild Hound is killed by Manequin its owner earns 1 additional VP according to GG2018, as cost of killer is higher. And no extra VPs for being killed by duet Duet as it's cost is not higher. Playing around rules glitches is ok with me. It is more about game looking better without them.