PiersonsMuppeteer

Wouldn’t changing Hole in the World to Glimpse the Void fix the kidnap issue while keeping the reposition aspect? 

I think that swapping to Glimpse, removing the tome from Lingering Voice, and dropping Komainu Mv to 3 or 4 would curb Yan2’s power without any drastic changes to how he plays. 

I think his defensive stats are mostly fine, they aren’t terribly different from Yan1 T3+ (especially if Komainu are slower), and you can always tech in Mv attacks (not terrible into Yan1 and a better tech pick with slower Komainu).

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 

In Your Face:

Funnily enough Reva 1's grave golem is good at the second point, but scoring the first point is awkward as she doesn't kill up close.

 

 

Luckily you don't have to kill up close, you can kill the model near the opposing leader for the point (any leader). Reva's 3" push seems pretty relevant there, knock the model down to 1 HP and use Pulled Here and There to push the model through a Pyre to w/in 3" of the opposing leader. Burning goes off before scoring, and the scheme only needs the model to be killed (no specification to a friendly model needing to kill it). I think Reva1 looks pretty good for it when taking a corpse crew. Reva2 probably has an easier time getting the reveal but scoring the end with a hired Lampad might be tricky. 

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I don't think this works. You only consider the Guilty an enemy for your abilities, actions, and triggers from memory. You don't consider it an enemy for strategy purposes (same way it dying doesn't give you points on Reckoning).

Your Model would be taking the Interact Action to pass a Curse Token, why wouldn't it be able to treat the Guilty as an Enemy during that Action? I don't think you can use Reckoning as a comparison because the Player is checking Enemy status EoT for it.

I’ve taken Kenshiro in Oni and liked the results. He was a decent lodestone carrier, not as durable as Kitty but turning Asami Pushes into moves helped him position into tight spaces. Seeking the Blade paired really well with Jorogumo too, 50mm base and 2” reach made it easier to dig up jokers than in-keyword. Tactics tokens are always welcome, and work really well when looking at the top two cards of the deck more often.

1 hour ago, Jinn said:

Tengu are more for scheming than healing, I wouldn't plan to rely on their healing at all even in Oni. 

Depends, they can be great healers vs blast or shockwave crews. Being able to heal most/all of the crew 3-4 a turn is pretty solid. Definitely not usable healers OOK though, need to be able to rip the Flicker Tokens to do it more than once.

14 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Ugh, another thing that will come up if you restrict it to effects that target or select the model.

There's a difference between target (noun) and target (verb) in the game... So, since the replace rules use the verb form, things with a noun target won't transfer over either?

That creates another mess.

Just listing this stuff here in case Wyrd takes notice. I hope it'll just be some errata to clarify and clean up, rather than an FAQ that breaks more things.

That is leading back to the argument that no effect targets (verb), which leaves either effects that affect a target (noun) do target (verb) or the entire clause of the new model becoming the target is ignored and you transfer all effects.

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

Additionally, to your later comment, either is not the same as any. Either is implicitly telling you to make a choice of one or the other, whereas any does not.

I think you are confusing ‘either’ with ‘either or’, they have distinct uses grammatically (‘either’ is the correct form of ‘any’ when dealing with only two options). Prob could use an FAQ though since the use of correct grammar here is different than their previous uses of ‘each’ for explicitness.

10 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Couldn't you use the same argument you use for 5 for 4? Wouldn't they have said 'any' there as well? 

I see your point about #5 and think you may be right, but I'm not sure I agree that they are different. If Public Demonstration has to be the same model, then Reveal reads like it has to be the same model as well with 'either' meaning either your leader or the Enemy leader to have all three near. 

Either is the same as any when given two options. Any would be used for #5 because there can be 2+ options.

Philip looks good for a few of the GG3 strats. Deadly Pursuit seems like a staple for Covert Operation. While Ressers have it on up to two of any minions with Killer Instinct, Philip's ability to use SS's means he will likely place his Claim Marker. Chatty & Boring Conversation both look pretty important for stopping interacts in Carve a Path, I'm not really sure what else works.

23 hours ago, le_wahou said:

4) Reveal of Load 'Em up : can you score with 2 markers near your leader and 1 near opponsing leader ?
5) public demonstration, reveal : can you score with 1 model near an ennemy master and 1 near an ennemy henchman ?

4) Yes, "either Leader" is making both leaders a single entity.

5) No, the Master or Henchman are separate entities. If 1 model near each was the intent, "... of any enemy Master or Henchman of a higher cost, ..."

41 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I thought the point was to allow A&D to use its demise to scheme

I think the original point was to allow A&D to scheme fully only once reformed (which is perfectly reasonable and what the Summon Token on Dust Storm currently breaks).

4 hours ago, Zebo said:

No, it wouldn't

Maybe not for all formats, but for Gaining Grounds it would (GG Summon Rules are more specific than the Core rules).

Personally, I think having Demise (Desolate Core) replace A&D with both Ashen Core and Dust Storm is better. Storm could then get an ability like “If this model would be placed by Demise (Desolate Core), instead place it in b2b with a table edge”. Fixes Summon issue without treading into grey waters and keeps the text light-ish on both cards.

5 hours ago, Zebo said:

It's still a summoned model, so still can't do this the same turn it appears. 

Removing the Summon Token would allow it to interact as normal on the turn it appears, GG Summon rules use Summon Upgrades (which includes Summon Tokens) for all summon-related restrictions:

Quote

In addition to being ignored for friendly Schemes and Strategies and not taking the Interact Action on the Turn they enter play, models with a Summon Upgrade cannot take the Interact Action to affect Strategy Markers in any way.

35 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Ooooo, here is an interesting one if you DONT let the actions transfer over because they don't choose or target the original model...

Bonus actions are once per activation, but this limitation doesn't choose or target. So under that interpretation, this would mean that you reset the bonus action limitation every replace.

So coryphee duet could infinitely replace, effectively giving it infinite movement 🤣

Less exciting is that you could charge, replace, charge if these limitations don't transfer over.

“Once per” are restrictions, and are separate from effects. I would say they transfer over as part of Replace(7), not because of Replace(4).

3 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

So I think with the way the rules are written, the Attacker does all of their modifying first, followed by all of the defenders modifying. 

Potentially. Only the use of soul stones is spelled out as being Resolved by the attacker first. The detailed timing is a helpful summary, but it doesn’t take precedence over the rules text for specific sections. Nothing spells out how Attacker & Defender effects resolve when additional effects (Luck Thief) are generated, so I’ve just used Sequential & Simultaneous rules to handle everything.

Like Adran’s reponse; I think Step A using a different method for generating and resolving all effects instead of using the method every other step uses feels wrong, but there is a lack of explicit wording to refute it.

3 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I don’t agree with this. Serene Countenance is modifying the duel. With the Detailed Timing that we have, that would put it after the Attacker modifies the duel. If Runic Siphon is also happening in step A, it would resolve when the Attacker modifies, before the Defending model. 

Attacker/Defender Priority is only for Simultaneous effects, not all effects in Step A (some will be generated as sequential effects). Detailed Timing attacker note is a reminder of that.

Runic Siphon would need to be Generated as a Simultaneous effect to Serene Countenance & Focus to resolve successfully. I’m not sure that is the case with how Runic Siphon is worded. 

7 hours ago, Adran said:

Edit-to clarify, I don't think if Ivan used focus against a serene countenance model he could use the from the focus for a before it was cancelled by the . And the faq already tells us that luck thief is even faster, switching the before things cancel. 

I would say Serene Countenance cancels Runic Siphon because it is slower. Focused and Serene would generate at the start of Step A. Runic Siphon is generated as a sequential effect after the is gained, and therefor resolved after Serene.

Luck Thief is not a trigger, so the “immediately” shouldn’t be treated as the trigger related game term. The FAQ is simply specifying that Luck Thief resolves in Step A after every gained. Sequential and Simultaneous effects should still apply to it since Luck Thief is still an effect. Using the same sequence above: Focus would generate and cause Ivan to gain a . Then Luck Thief and Runic Siphon would generate as simultaneous effects, Ivan as the attacker would get to resolve Runic Siphon first. Luck Thief would trigger on any additional gained but Runic would not since the effect is singular. 

Luck Thief resolving outside the bounds of sequential/simultaneous effects before Runic Siphon would require a more detailed timing chart for Step A imo. 

Runic Siphon resolves during step A, same as Ungentlemanly Affairs and Luck Thief. Your order of resolution is correct-ish. Ungentlemanly affairs would resolve first, which would trigger both Runic Siphon and Luck Thief to resolve as simultaneous effects prior to Step B (both require a model to have a positive twist). Ivan, as the attacker, would resolve Runic Siphon first and Luck Thief would then fail to resolve.

I’ve found summoners to be bad for introduction matches, combating summons is not newbie friendly. Reva and Colette have worked well though, summoning an insignificant totem hasn’t had the same negative impact as real summoners.

Anything that gives positives to damage flips has also be a little anti-fun. I’ve tried Asami while not summoning, but flicker tokens were a bit much for newbies to enjoy on the receiving end.

I’ve mainly used the Viks and Rasputina for intros. Imo, the best beginner games use masters that introduce various types of movement/marker use and lack heavy card draw or +damage twists (to include lots of Focus).

7 hours ago, ShinChan said:

 The real "problem" is that is easy to get activation control by killing a cheap model. Every competitive player agrees with that and has been said many times. So let's not keep messing with focus and address the real issue for low cost models with very little or no defensive tech: activation control. 

The fix is could be as simple as giving the owner of the model that dies a pass token if the model hasn't activated that turn.

Why are cheap models so easy to kill? Focus. Better to address a root cause than a symptom of the root cause, ie ease of activation control.

Activation Control should be addressed in a more holistic manner rather than as a band-aid to separate problem.

38 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Abilities use the same format, on some of them, but there is no place in the rules where abilities are described as having special restrictions or what they are.

“Once per” effects details that there are restrictions for Abilities, stating that “once per” or any additional modifiers that restrict the Ability are a restriction . It’s pretty plainly spelled out and matches the metrics for Specific/Targeting restriction under Action restrictions. The language is also using “restriction” as a game term in the same way that the TTH FAQ established “targeted” as a game term.

As I’ve said, the reason for not using only restrictions for “friendly” effects makes sense from a playability point of view, but the rules based backing for why is sorely lacking.

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

Special Restrictions is a specific game term, restrictions is not. Abilities don't have Special Restrictions, and it being included in the list of things a model with the ability can choose to be affected by should show that it's not talking about the Special Restrictions that actions and triggers have.

Abilities do have Special restrictions though, check out Marcus2’s Pack Leader. Special Restrictions are also just one type of restriction.

That aside I do see your point, using restrictions only to resolve the effect makes it wonky. Infiltrator just seems like an overly good effect when resolved like that (hence the question), but I guess using only restrictions makes it even more overly bad after looking a little more deeper.

Since Infiltrator specifies the enemy model’s Action, Trigger, or Ability, it is restricted to the enemy/friendly text that is on the enemy model’s card. 

Engagement restrictions are checked prior to an Action, which is an additional reason for why it isn’t ignored.

Infiltrator only lifts restrictions on Actions, Abilities, or Triggers for being affected as a “friendly” model. Relenting requires being treated as a friendly model for the Action’s Duel (Step 4) and is separate from restrictions (Step 3). Restrictions are Italicized for Actions/Triggers, ie Friendly only or Forgotten only. Im not sure if Abilities have a similar specification for restrictions or if you play those loosely.

To that end do people usually play the ignore “enemy” and gain “friendly” the same (simplicity) or different due to gaining “friendly” specifically calling out restrictions (specific game term)?

51 minutes ago, DeadManTalking said:

Wait seriously? I thought they were ignored for schemes and strats?

Only on the turn they enter. The only permanent limitation on summons is that they can’t interact with Strategy Markers, which doesn’t matter for Leylines.

I think the change to scoring has the highest likelihood to help lower cost minions. I’d like to see most/all reveals being scored end of activation (but needing 2+ activations for pure marker ones) along with the EoG scoring to transition to EoT (still only scoring 1 per turn).