PiersonsMuppeteer

16 minutes ago, Assdex said:

I won him all his master except lj

I would say it’s a play-style issue then. I’d warrant that whatever strategies you favor are strong into the other masters and weak into LJ. LJ could also be your opponent’s “gloves off” master, so their skill level or play-style with her could be very different than with other masters. Like Adran said, focus on why he wins and try to incorporate models and strategies that will counteract it.

28 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I think Barbaros is a pretty g good leader pick. At least at 9ss he's going to get a little more utility out of an extra AP then cheaper henchman. And he opens a bunch of new model interactions.

I think my biggest concern is that it's a 16ss card draw engine. It gets 4 cards a turn +2 for every additional model you commit to it. 

I might try a  Lelu, or two, + Yannic. With just two models you don't have to worry about Auras as much and can be a little more mobile. With Yannic the Lelu can interact for a marker and then pick it up with Good For a Laugh for 3 card draw. 

I hadn’t considered Lelu’s, that is good to know. I wouldn’t say it’s a 16ss card draw engine, as Nox looks like it does quite a but on it’s own and it’s upgrading card filtering to drawing. So Yannic is the only real “cost” for the engine imo. I think you’ve presented a decision between 16ss draw 2+ w/ additional benefits vs 14ss draw 3 w/ better scheming potential. I don’t necessarily think they overlap either, so Nox vs Lelu actually gives better pool diversity to Barbaros. Nox will probably shine in mid-brawls, and Lelu looks to support a more spread out game. 7ss might be a bit high for a schemer though, and is likely to be a prime target for the opponent.

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

It's an interesting idea, you should play it and see what you think. 

Posting relevant cards.

I only play in person, don’t have the models, and don’t play often enough to justify a buy and try, so I’m only able to think about it in “Theory Land”. I own Alt Barbaros and he is my favorite model of the Malifaux lineup, but the rest of the Nephilim have never interested me. Now if I could take him as a leader and at least be able to put up a decent game with him, then money may flow haha. However, what I’ve read on these forums dealing with Hench vs Master has not been remotely positive. Just fishing for thoughts on if the use of Nepilim models in Outcasts with some of the new releases can bridge the gap.

Doubling up on a minion is also for maximizing an interaction in addition to, or instead of, redundancy. For Vatagi Huntsman, taking two is a possible strong choice if you are planning to use Malisaurus Rex and are looking to use Tail Whip for the trigger every turn. Lets you put out a possible 4 traps per turn, but this is where you would need to weigh two Vatagi alone, two Vatagi w/ Rex, and one Vatagi w/ Rex against the pool, opponent’s Leader, and you’re own favored plans.

Is the combo of Noxious Nephilim and Yannic Waller giving outcasts a once per turn draw 2 for 1 dmg strong enough to give Barbaros the ability to offer a viable Henchman leader vs Master led crews? 

2x Mature Nephilim w/ Soldier for Hire also looks like a strong force to throw at enemies.  NN’s Corpse marker generation would make them even tougher to put down, or make BBS a strong inclusion (focus and effigy placement).

My initial thoughts are:

Barbaros - Leader

Effigy

Waller

Noxious

BBS

Mature w/ SfH

Mature w/ SfH

In what pools might this have what it takes, or is the Hench-Master gap too insurmountable?

20 minutes ago, Adran said:

That could happen on your reading if you moved a construct 3" so it was then in range of a scheme marker and then gained undead for you to make walk. 

Thats why I said that I think largely the reading is neutral, sometimes you gain a benefit if you lock all traits in before you start resolving them and some times you will gain a benefit if you can add traits during the action. 

 

Very true, but that resolution only affects Constructs. The effect is more narrow than determining all effects at the start of the action’s resolution.

However, needing the scheme marker nearby the enemy to determine all effects is probably more balanced, and creates a consistent and simpler application of the Action. So I think I agree with determine all effects at start of resolution, but it still sadly needs an FAQ imo.

34 minutes ago, Adran said:

I've thought a little more about this. My problem with this approach is that we don't have a time stamp for Shade of Delios. I don't think that the intention is that a model near a scheme marker would be subject to all 4, because every time you go to check a characteristic you can change your mind what is gained from shade. 

So the simplest way that this doesn't happen is that you "lock in" the characteristics as you start to resolve the action, just as you would "lock in" the effects at the start of the activation, and moving the model into or out of certain effects doesn't add/remove them from the list of effecst it has to resolve. 

 

Hmm, that is a significant problem. I would think that the line prior to the Keyword effects is where the choice for Shade of Delios is locked in, but it’s not super explicit on that either. I think the intention is sequential keyword checks, but, like you mentioned,  it is far too vulnerable to exploitation as written. Just seems a little strong to me vs an enemy Undead or Construct to place it outside 3” from the marker, and then be able to walk it even farther out of position.

My thought is that “Beast:” is short-hand for “If the target is a beast, then…”. This is in line with most cards in the game which either specify “keyword only” in targeting restrictions for the action or the relevant keyword check is in the effect itself. So the check would be made while resolving each effect, and a model moving outside the range of the marker could remove the relevant keyword before the effect is resolved. 

Unfortunately, as with many of the new titles, there are clarity issues here which probably require an FAQ to get everyone on the same page.

Take two samurai w/ silent protector and call it a day maybe? She can’t possibly kill both, and all you need is one to take the hit for the other when at 1 health. If you include juggernaut and the in crew healing, she will take min 2 turns to kill one. Could possibly take 3 turns depending on flips and your management of take the hit.

Favoring mobility and scheme-based play is the probably the better option, but will be more difficult because of the discipline needed. Very easy to get dragged into unfavorably trading models.

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

All of those use targeting. If there is a noun/verb distinction for vengeance, then there should be a gerund distinction for “targeting”. That means those triggers would use the current target as the object. Conveniently, this would be the same for both camps so the complexity of the issue is not as broad as it could be.

—Edit— 

Maybe gerund isn’t the right term. However, to use those triggers, wouldn’t you follow something similar to: this action currently targets X and the trigger will continue to target X? Unless the argument is that what the action targets and the target of the action are different entities? 

7 hours ago, ShinChan said:

I haven't played her, but she looks extremely squishy. If you kill a Corpse Candle, you're giving a lot of activation control to the enemy (1 activation if it hasn't activated + 1 pass token when you get the next one). Other models can do the same with Scrap, Shadow and Ice Pillar markers, which are infinitely better to produce.

Lampads are bad, and a summoned Lampad that comes in low health are even worse, plus all the investment to get 1 out... Doesn't seem better.

Reva1 was already struggling to survive a 5 turn game (with so much more healing, more movement and  to her defenses). This one is going to struggle way more, specially any sort of ranged attack can easily remove her from the game.

But by far, the worst thing is that she does (almost) nothing for her crew, and definitely less than before. A keyword that is already struggling to reach a mediocre level.

I’m not sure shield bearers being able to do a possible 5 dmg with shield slam or becoming a min 3 beater counts as nothing for the crew. I like shield bearers even more for the new title.

Summoning a Lampad with a crew centered around taking advantage of gaining burning doesn’t seem like a lot of work, especially since she can transfer the burning needed to summon during her activation. 

Samurai w/ Silent Protector does good work. Ranged attack vs Df works best to put damage on her and the Take the Hit can help protect support/tech picks.

Fuhatsu would be the more offensive oriented option.

1 hour ago, Raising said:

if is one per activation and midel miranda can "generate" 3 mutations on its activation making 2 other beasts cicle theirs

Ah… that does seem a bit over the top, but the crew would be pretty static T1 exploiting it. Eh, I think I’d like it to be total once per activation, but i think there might wiggle room in the way it is written that someone can try and claim once per model. Seems like at least half the new titles so far have clarity issues in one ability or action.

13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Once per turn is per model receiving it.

Once per activation is total, I think.

Thus Myranda cannot hand out two upgrades on her activation.

I think Once per Activation is per model in this case since the friendly model is the one resolving the effect of Pack Leader not Marcus, or at least that is how it reads to me absent a “this model” in Pack Leader.

Though maybe that interpretation is too simplified?

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Yes and no. It means they'll never have cover or concealment for being behind blocking/concealing terrain. But some models have abilities that just work on everything in an area. Like Bodyguard just gives cover to everything in the aura. 

That seems a bit too powerful for what the ability looks like it intends to do (ignore LoS targeting restrictions). Note that shadow should still grant cover if your interpretation is correct because cover in shadow is if the action can draw LoS through the terrain, not if it actually did. 

A good counter example is Gigants, their ability says to ignore LoS and Cover. So I think sight lines are still drawn even when ignoring LoS.

10 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

For additional context, though, my view is a bit skewed because...

• I always thought that start of activation worked based on simultaneous effects (and you couldn't generate new ones).
  • FAQ then confirmed this.
• I always thought double terrifying didn't work with take the hit because of simultaneous effects (and then you don't generate new ones).
  • FAQ appeared to confirm this to me.

So I'm of course going to go in with some confirmation bias here.

Technically nothing prevents simultaneous effects from generating new effects, so double terrifying was possible prior to the FAQ with some interesting logic. 

I always played double terrifying as not possible since the enemy model only declared the first target.

The language for targeted or not should only pertain to effects resolved in Step 3 of resolving an action, and only to the declared target. Step 4+ , it’s whatever model who flips a card or to whom the Action’s effects will be applied. The FAQ says just that prior to attempting to read between the lines or create context. Any more than that requires bridging logic gaps to make something work or not work. For example, saying targeted (simply the past tense of target) is now Targeted.

If the FAQ did create a game term fir targeted, Kirai can deal vengeance damage when hit with a blast off of a model she use Protected(Urami) to change target. She was targeted and was dealt damage, but this seems horribly out if place in the rules.

How have people been playing Protected(Urami) and passing off being the target with current Kirai? Does a Urami Minion’s vengeance ability currently do damage when it is the target due to Protected? I don’t see why the answer to that won’t carry over to the Gwisin.

I think the FAQ was trying to address a timing issue more than what “targets” vs “targeted” means. Considering that the ability doesn’t trigger until after damage is dealt, the Gwisin is the current target of the action while taking damage. So it was still targeted by the action, just not “targeted” for the sake of an ability which only triggers in the declare targets step, like terrifying. I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

57 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Predatory instincts gives either a or  to an action to give the other to its damage flip. Does literally nothing if modifiers that apply to the action also apply to it's duel.

Entropic Siphon specifies duel and damage flip.

Grit (Frantic) specifies duel and damage flip.

They're clear when they want something to be able to affect a damage flip.

Yes it's not explicitly stated anywhere that modifiers that apply to an action don't also apply to any resulting variable flips. No it will never be FAQ'd the way you're arguing it will work.

Predatory Instinct always read as a typo to me. You have to read it as “to that Action’s duel” instead of as written for it to even make sense.

I’m not arguing for it to work or be FAQ’d to work a specific way, I agree that it should be the duel only for balance purposes. I’m saying the way it is written leaves whether it is duel only or duel and damage flip to personal interpretation.

If it is supposed to be a duel only, it should be specified. If it is supposed to be duel and damage flip, it should also be specified.

—Edit—

Generalizing a rule interpretation from a different rule which is worded differently usually seems frowned upon in other threads pertaining to rules. The support for that here doesn’t make much sense to me.

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

If the interpretation that VonSchill let's models ignore  on damage, scouts are going to be even better. Being able to always cheat damage with is going to be nuts. 

New VonSchill has a 24" melee threat range. With From the Shadows and a 14" range you should bee able to absolutely murder some stuff turn one.

I’ve Got Your Back will be an important ability to consider when an opponent declares Von Schill. Strong if Soldnerkapitan affects only the duel, and near mandatory if it is all flips.

2 hours ago, solkan said:

See Focused and Distracted.

You’re trying to insert the meaning “to all flips during the Action” somewhere it doesn’t exist.

 

Focused says “Before performing an opposed duel”, no mention of Action. Distracted says “Action suffers a minus to the duel”, not “Action suffers a minus”. I could say that you are also inserting “to the duel” into Soldnerkapitan when it doesn’t exist. The ability does seem like it should be only duels, but does not limit to only the duel as written. I’m not pulling other rules from anywhere to infer what is happening, I’m just reading the rules as written and going through resolving the action in a vacuum.

7 hours ago, Da Git said:

I think hoping for Soldnerkapitan to ignore to damage flips is wishful thinking. The ability is the exact same as the Sandworm's (aside from keyword limitations) and no one I have heard of has been clamouring for that to ignore negatives to damage.

As an aside, I think having it ignore negs would be absolutely broken when models like Hannah & Arik exist in keyword with that 2/4/6 (up to 6/8/10 with a full power Hannah!). No way should you be able to guaranty that.

Not wishful thinking, just using the ability as written. If an Obey’s control lasts for all 6 steps of resolving an Action while only specifying that the Action is controlled, I don’t see why you wouldn’t ignore negatives for all 6 steps of resolving an Action when Soldnerkapitan, or Sand Worm, has the same specification. Saying that only ignoring negatives apply to the duel requires more deviation from what is written to what is interpreted. Action =/= duel in the rulebook.

—Edit—

To illustrate the congruency issue more: if a positive or negative to an Action only applies to the duel, why does Serene countenance have to specify “to the duel” at the end?

5 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Yeah. I think successful attack actions generate damage duels. Things that effect both usually spell it out.

 

Those effects that spell out both, like flicker and focused, are used during a duel not an entire action (hence why it must specify damage flip).

1 hour ago, Trample said:

No. The attack action and the damage flip are two separate events. The ability to ignore negatives applies only to the attack action. The damage flip occurs as a result of a successful attack action. 

The Action’s duel and the Action’s effect (damage flip) are separate effects, but both are parts of an Attack Action. Since it doesn’t specify “duel only”, how do you justify ignoring negatives during step 4 but not ignoring them for step 5 while resolving an Attack Action?

6 hours ago, touchdown said:

Soldnerkaptan lets you ignore all negatives, so a good counter pick for crews that rely on serene countenance, manipulative, or distracted

Soldnerkapitan just says "Attack Action" and not "Attack Action duels". Wouldn't all negatives also apply to the Attack Action's damage flip as well? Seems a bit powerful, but I don't see a reason as to why it would be limited to only the duels since the damage flip is part of an Attack Action and the effects mentioned above do explicitly state they affect the duel only.