Yore Huckleberry

Anyone want to swing at this one?

This doesn't cover the full set of how they seem to be designed, though, @solkan -- every model that has Exclusive Interview has no Engagement range. So they cannot stop an enemy from simply walking off and taking the interact action at another point in their turn ... but they CAN control interacts in a specific area, whether for specific points like Power Ritual or for points developed into contention by gameplay (such as a need to drop Strategy Markers from Plant Explosives at least 6" from one another). The models in Journalist with EI don't have engagement range, and those with engagement range don't have Exclusive Interview, so you're playing with an odd patchwork of control.

To be clear: I'm not trying to say that every action has a target, and it may be that the ruleset simply has "target" narrowly-defined enough that something affected by an ability may not be "targeted" by it -- that's fine with me, and it makes sense with things such as a DF-testing shockwave not "targeting" defense for purposes of resistance triggers. I'm really trying to figure out where exactly the movement in the joints on this is, and -- as above -- I think your suggested errata would be the best one. It feels odd to look to a full rules errata to repair a single crew, but I've been working with Nellie a fair amount and it really does seem like she doesn't have the kind of internal work or teamwork with other relevant Guild figures that could be coming out of her manipulation of the Interact action, nor the kind of Don't Mind Me access that, say, a Collette crew has. I do think this is a "complaint" in the sense of "an earnest concern," and not simply a complaint in the sense of a "whine," and I appreciate the thought people are putting into responding.

Thanks @solkan -- your proposed errata looks sufficient to me, and I'll hope for that. I am certainly mostly interested in how closely the case can be made for Nellie -- it really DOES seem like odd design choice to have an ability that leaves so much control to the opponent, especially when much of the remaining tech depends on markers being down, and there's the chance to create some synergy in-faction with another keyword. Compared to the requirements for other efficient combinations, this doesn't seem like something game-breaking. As for Exclusive Interview, there are at least four models (Nellie, Allison, Field Reporter, and False Witness), fwiw, and obviously forcing an interact when your target is within the EI bubble is one moment of relevance. As in the OP, there's also relevance to forcing an interact at distance, as models can take a focus (and Nellie a card draw), simply off the action being completed. The Slander trigger is on nearly every model in the crew, though (I think Printing Press may be the exception?) and adds effects from additional markers being down, and the Undercover Reporter needs a marker (and does not itself have Exclusive Interview) to target Arson onto, making it a 7-point enforcer with a pseudo-from the shadows deployment that cannot perform its shockwave attack without significant help from another journalist. I think it's worth an errata to bring this up to the curve.

I just put this in the rules forum, ha! I'm trying to find the closest possible case that would make her tech work again.

That's interesting -- and I'd agree that the example from the Rulebook regarding "this or that" between "discard a card or gain stunned" is not an exact analogy. I'm not sure I agree that interact doesn't target the markers in base contact for the second option, though. It isn't a SPECIFIC target, but an action can have multiple targets: So there's a default for targeting: "a single model." There are other places where a scheme marker must be explicitly targeted, e.g., Trail of Gore declares, "Remove target enemy scheme marker." So there, we have switched from default targeting from a model to "an enemy scheme marker." Similarly, Shenlong's Four Winds Punch from the Wandering River Style upgrade reads, "Remove up to three Scheme, Scrap, and/or Corpse Markers within 3" of the target." In this, the "target" referred to at the end is the model targeted by the attack, but we would presumably still say that the other Markers are also targeted by that piece of the ability, and if zero markers are removed, then that part of the ability is not resolved. For example, an Investigator could not move a figure using its "Stand Back, It's Evidence" range when "zero markers are dropped," because the dropping of anything has not taken place: it is not an effect that has completed, and attempting it would fail. The Shenlong example is a bit confusing because that piece of the action doesn't cause the entire action to fail ... but that matches the case I'd make for interact, that the interact itself doesn't fail, but rather the attempt to remove something that is not there would ... requiring a different choice. I still wonder, therefore, if the Interact "this or that" requires you to choose an option that does not fail (it would seem to in a case in which there is already a friendly marker down and you must therefore remove it, e.g.), and whether the option to remove markers should be considered to "fail" if there are no markers.

As a corollary: under this interpretation, a model that is forced to perform an interact that is within 4" of a friendly marker but not base-adjacent to any markers, nor at option to perform any special interactions allowed by rules, would actually "fail" the targeting step of the Interact, but the Interact action would still "resolve" in step 6 (targeting failure at step 3 skips steps 4-5, but the action still resolves), so Nellie et al would still benefit from effects that proc off of an opposing figure resolving an interact.

So, serious question: A fair amount of Nellie's tech works around scheme markers. She can move a minion towards one, various keyword attacks add damage if there's a marker or more down, the Undercover Reporter targets its Arson shockwave on them, etc. In addition, there's intra-faction synergy with things like the Guard keyword to summon off of enemy scheme markers or use them for the Executioner's Trail of Gore cost. Counterplay can already take a fair amount of the sting out of Nellie's powers: say, for example, you want to remove a scheme marker that Nellie is guarding, which is friendly to Nellie. You can simply walk up (Nellie has no melee engagement range, having Exclusive Interview as a 2" alternative) and take the interact action: because you must take an action, Nellie must therefore control your action and choose to remove the marker, because she cannot place another friendly marker within 4"). Now, when Nellie forces an opponent to take the interact action, a number of things happen. If Nellie (or another Exclusive Interview model) is within 2", then she controls it. That's pretty straightforward. If Nellie is between 2" and 8", she can focus and draw a card from "Breaking News," and a number of other Journalists get a focused off of that range, no matter how the interact is resolved. So there's a case to be made that even if the opponent chooses something non-beneficial, the tech is "working" at least partway. However, I've heard people make the case that because you can ALWAYS choose to "remove all scheme markers," even if "all" is "0" in a given case, an opponent will NEVER have to drop an enemy scheme marker to one of Nellie's powers. While this might still lead to niche cases where they're adjacent to their own marker and are forced to pick it up, this is obviously a minimization of a key ability. Similarly, it limits things like the Undercover Reporter's ability to target a minion from the buried state to cause an interact action, if the minion can simply decline to drop a marker in a vacuum of choices. In other words, there might be even more counterplay against Nellie's signature abilities that requires nothing of the opposing player. The relevant rule seems to be: "This or That choices, rulebook page 33: And then we look at the "choices" of Interact (a "this or that or that," as there are three): So: I've heard the case that you can "always" choose option 2, whether there are markers there or not (as having a marker there is not a cost), and thereby neuter some more of Nellie's potency. Now, the case in favor of Nellie comes by comparison to the This or That example above: discard a card or gain stunned. It notes that if you do not have a card, you cannot choose to discard a card. So there's a case to be made that if there is not a scheme marker to remove, you cannot remove "all scheme markers." Ruling on this basis involves interpreting the set of "all" in a logical sense rather than a mathematical one: that is, you cannot have "all scheme markers" when there are "no scheme markers." There's a bit of support for this understanding in the "Targeting" section of actions on page 23: On the one hand, we know that there are cases where you can legally choose to begin an action that will then fail at the targeting step, such as a Wrastler charging to gain the extra 2" from rush, or declaring Wrastle to remove a marker as part of the cost, only to have the option fail in targeting. On the other hand, it seems that you cannot choose the failing option of a This or That choice that has a non-failing option: e.g., if attempting to gain stunned would fail because of an ability on the model, you must choose the other option of the This or That example, which will require you to "target" a card in your hand and discard it. Similarly if there are no legal "target" cards in hand, you must choose to gain stunned. So you cannot, in other cases, choose an option that will result in a targeting fail if there is an option in which targeting will not fail. By all of that, I conclude that Nellie's crew SHOULD be able to "force" an opponent to drop their own scheme markers by forcing an interact action, if the opposing model is unable to either remove 1-or-more scheme markers or perform a particular interact via option 3 of the interact action. Has this been explicitly ruled on, one way or another, before?

Serious suggestion: A rules FAQ declaring that a model that is forced to take the interact action must choose to drop a scheme marker or resolve a special interact if possible if there are zero scheme markers in base contact. This would fix some really complicated design issues with the Nellie crew, including, Eg, Undercover Reporter’s ability to force a marker to drop and then target it with arson. It would also open the in-faction synergy with the executioner’s trail of gore. The rules as-is for “This or That” choices seem to suggest this is the intent: it notes that you cannot choose to discard a card from hand of there are no cards. However, “remove all markers in base contact” seems like it could reasonably include the case of “remove zero markers” mathematically, even if you point out that you are not, in that case, making a choice to remove markers. I’d love to not have to pre-confirm how this will be ruled with TO’s every tournament.

This may be well known, but I found myself a couple times today cheating in a low ram on the Pale Rider to get the defensive trigger and reduce damage when the flip was already going to be at a minus from Hard to Wound (Eg, he couldn’t cheat it anyway).

I’d agree — I started with Lady J and Nellie and they can work for two strats apiece pretty well. Hoffman or Sonnia each play pretty differently from Lady J too ... Hoffman is an armor ball who’s great at working on one area, while Sonnia is hyper aggressive and incidental summoning.

As a new player In M3E, I’ve been catching up on the fluff of the Breachside Broadcast podcasts ... Theres a short story in there (episode 20-21 or so - I was listening in the car and didn’t check it exactly) about a Sir Arthur Mumbles, who raids a tomb and discovers a giant set of chairs and various idol statues. I think his team carries one off. So ... Sir Arthur Mumbles, anyone?

The ol’ “stop grenading yourself!” build. Papa Loco is an auto take! Honestly, it’s sort of fun to imagine burning out a hand to just plain spam 5-6 grenades round one on a monster hunter ...

That makes sense — so it’s legal, but not helpful, as it still counts against your bonus action limit for the activation. Eg a pathfinder couldn’t move/charge-grenade/set the trap, or something.

Mostly confirming here, but the Guild upgrade “No Prisoners” gives minions access to run and gun (charges can generate ranged actions as well as melee), and a bonus-action ranged attack in clockwork grenade. Can you use the grenade as the attack generated by a run-and-fun charge?

Happens to all of us! I've got to admit that I'm charmed by the idea of a four foot rule, though ... I'm going to hunt down a misprinted rulebook and show it to opponents during tournaments when they try to set up Harness the Lay Line or something.

Also I never use the four foot rule when I interact, finding it prohibitive to my diabolical plans! ;D

Yeah, that's for sure! I think Guild is definitely a faction that rewards knowing where to spend your high-weaks and low-moderates from your hand, and I want to make some kind of in-depth study of that at some point.

At the risk of removing another of your thoughts ... keyword “Tome Raider,” surely? And perhaps Big Game Hunter could be “Raiders of the Lost Mark” while we’re at it ...

Here’s an interesting one: Phiona Gage: more a tech pick than anything, but she’s good vs Undead (hard to wound) and bubble crews (Bring It lure), particularly M&SU (ignores positive flips to defense). The issue is that she’s got 2/4/5 melee damage ... but grit takes her up to 3/5/6, and she gets plus flips to duels if you have a scheme marker near her. Take the Hit lets her get into Grit mode a bit more at your choice than the opponent’s, and a Lead-Lined Coat can allow her to keep her initial position rather than move around. At this point I mostly envision using her as tech vs M&SU, Yan Lo, or Leveticus crews that need particular positioning, but I like the figure more and more.

Thought more about this: it could be fun to have the airwaves be a shared resource. Like, the more the airwaves get used, the less useful they are, because it gets confused and staticky. You could also use the Projected Voice ability from a number of models, and possibly an Obey somewhere in there as theme fluff with the whole idea of propaganda broadcasts. Though I also like the idea of the whole faction operating just beyond Guild control and slowly breaking free of it.

I had a stray thought today that I’d love a crew based more around aethervox radio. Dashel’s totem is connected to that and I was listening to the Breachside Broadcast and thought it could be great to have a foreign-reporting themed crew where their abilities all get sent through airwaves to each other, similar to Nino Ortega’s aura being able to affect Family models wherever they are. So a couple radio models of some kind, maybe some photography abilities a la Nellie’s crew, and a Master who’s the Voice of the Frontier or something. I may look into this for some kind of local event!

I'm not sure you're right, here: From the Rulebook, p 33: Some effects within the game provide a model with a choice, such as “discard a card or gain Stunned.” In cases such as this, the model making the choice may choose either option, provided they have the capability to resolve that option. In the case above, if the model had no cards in its Control Hand, it could not choose to discard a card; if the model already had the Stunned Condition (or could not gain it for some reason), it could not choose to gain Stunned. If a model cannot resolve either option, the effect is ignored. Interact reads, p 22: Do one of the following: 1) Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with this model and not within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker, 2) remove all Scheme Markers in base contact with this model, or 3) resolve a specific rule that refers to an Interact Action. So you could not choose "3" if there is not some specific rule that refers to an Interact Action, and you cannot Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact and not within 4" (if there is another such marker there), and you would be forced to remove all Scheme Markers. Of note: you CAN choose option 2 at any time, because "zero" is a legitimate "number of scheme markers." (Note: this is not a "failing" action) My sense is that the "This or That" rule from page 33 requires of you to choose an option that you "have the capability to resolve," and you do not have the "capability to drop a scheme marker in base contact and not within 4" of another model" if there are no such models. Wrastlers can take an attack with no target that explicitly fails in step 3: targeting (page 23 of the rules: "If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails; skip steps 4 and 5."), but it isn't governed by the This-or-That rule that requires you to choose an action you are capable of completing in the Interact action, so it may be legal while choosing an incapable-of-completing interact choice is not.

Yeah -- that's the kind of precedent I'm wondering about with Start of Activation things like the Vogel/Beast Within back-and-forth. Edit: to be clear, it isn't an exact precedent and it doesn't deal with the same timing -- just one way of trying to get at what the designers intend to be the formal way to deal with timing windows in Malifaux.

Other things that (alas!) foil Nellie: - An enemy model can, in an Exclusive Interview aura, take the interact action in base contact with your scheme marker. Because the rules force an either/or and you cannot drop a marker, you must (control the action and make them) pick up the marker. It's hard to compare Nellie to Collette. Even the best tech surprise of the crew -- the Undercover Reporter's unbury mechanic -- pales in comparison to Collette's Presto Change-o ability, in terms of repositioning utility over 5 rounds. Reporters are really good on Corrupted Idols and probably have some good play at denying Power Ritual or achieving Detonate the Charges, but in general you're getting more denial out of slow and distracted than you are out of their interaction control game.