LaevusLevusXIII

"4. If the new and original models belong to the same Crew, one new model becomes the target of any effects that targeted or chose any original models, such as Schemes, Leader designation, or lasting game effects. That new model is always considered a legal target for those effects." The exact wording states "any effect that targeted or chose any original models". You choose your leader. You never choose or target the dust storm to gain a summon upgrade. Being summoned is just a game state. It was summoned this turn. I don't see why that's a lasting game effect.

I think it depends if you consider "being summoned this turn" a lasting game effect. The new ashes and dust isn't a summoned model, it's a replaced model, so it doesn't suffer from the ignored for strategy effect for this turn. It does attach the summon upgrade from the dust storm, but that's not the relevant part of the issue because it's not interacting. Personally I would say you can score, logic being; because the "summoned models rule" (pg11 GG2) ignoring them for strat purposes is not a lasting game effect that carries over, it's a rule that checks if the model was summoned, and being summoned this turn is not a lasting gaming effect. It depends how you classify lasting game effect though.

Incorporeal: "this model ignores terrain while moving and is unaffected by hazardous..." Shattering shove trigger: "Push the target 2" in any direction. If the target comes into base contact with an ice pillar during this push, the ice pillar marker is removed, then place the target into base contact with any ice pillar marker." Question: Can you shattering shove incorporeal models through ice pillars? I don't think it matters if they're enemy or friendly models. Can you come into base contact with something you're ignoring?

An executioner is a much better example. For some reason I thought it was Dashel that was on a 40mm base. I understand a 30mm base can never block los to another 30mm marker. To flip the scenario, where a 30mm base is standing on a 50mm marker. By the same logic, Titania standing on top of a 50mm underbrush marker can also no longer see that. Hypothetically, If we just ignore the part of the rule "Sight lines between objects are never drawn in such a way that they cross either object’s base.", are there any unforeseen consequences or is it a redundant phrase? (Assuming sight lines drawn across a models' own base never blocks LoS at this point).

So, a question came up today, that looks unintuitive by RAW. We've always played it that models have LoS to markers underneath themselves I.E. 50mm model standing on a 30mm marker. For the purpose of dropping and picking up scheme markers this doesn't require LoS, only base contact, so there's no issue there. However for auras and abilities that target markers, are we missing a rule that allows models to draw LoS underneath themselves? Pg. 16 (Emphasis mine) A sight line is an imaginary straight line between two points on the edges of two objects’ bases. Sight lines are drawn from a top-down perspective. To determine LoS, draw a series of sight lines between the two objects. Sight lines between objects are never drawn in such a way that they cross either object’s base. Specific rules interaction. Any aura or abilities that target markers. I.E. Loot their Corpses on Dashel allows him to remove a marker within aura 2" at the end of his activation. If he's completely covering a corpse marker, does he now not have LoS to it and can't remove it. The logic here is that you can't draw a line from edge to edge unless you draw it through the larger model's base. It seems counterintuitive, and there are a lot more implications if played RAW. Do we just ignore it, or are we missing something?

Played a game with Shen2 last night. My thoughts so far: He black jokered his bonus action, first action of turn 1, so his handing out style upgrades never really got online. Otherwise, his ability to move and concentrate models is actually really good. Because monks can't concentrate multiple times an activation now, chi stacking can be a lot harder. It also synergies really well with the golem who had a constant 3 chi each turn. Previously as well, we used to use 4 wind style to push models forward for engagement (we play in a highly aggressive meta), which cost an action and a chi, now you get a 4" move, and net 4 chi with the tomes trigger. He didn't really do anything other than hand out + flips, chi and move things. But he ended up with enough chi by the end of turn 2, there was always the threat of attaching high river style and going to town if something engaged him. Turn 2 onwards, his +flip for minions put in some work with a thunder archer that had fast. You don't want to be running Shen and super friends anymore, but his archers, charm warders and maybe high river monks can beat incredibly well if you take 2 of them in his aura. His biggest boon was being able to interact with don't mind me though, I think into break the line or symbols he's really good. The wind golem in particular was amazing. If you can burn your opponents hand and end up with masks for pouncing strike, the damage and repositioning is amazing. His threat range is awesome, he's big enough to contend with almost any other flanking scheme runners, and when he did get engaged on a strat, he interacted for a chi and then kept punching away. I think he's very good.

Because some of us have never played a game of M2E or seen the M2E rules, as far as M3E is concerned it's a new game with new rules. I only reference start of activation effects because it's the only situation I can think of where you generate a bunch of effects and then resolve them, disregarding new effects generated within the timing window. Is it the same, no, but the rules don't spell out what to do if you immediately end an activation. Maybe we have different ideas on the nature of the timing phases. Is it a linear or dynamic process? Active player resolves effects on their models first. They resolve regret before hazardous. Their activation ends moving to C3 end of activation. Hazardous resolves in C2f, why are we allowed to retroactively resolve it outside its timing window now? Effects on the defending player then resolve, but we've moved to C3 now already. Does each model have it's own separate timing phase, so we go back and resolve scamper and execute on Zoraida? Or do we ignore that and toss those effects as well. Or is the timing phase more fluid than that and we can jump back and forth as needed? Am I just missing the whole plot somehow? Without further complicating things. What if you obey a model with onslaught to attack Zoraida? Regret ends its activation before onslaught, but it's not its activation anyway so does it even matter?

I don't see how an M2E faq is relevant here. From what I understand a lot of the rules and intentions have changed since M2E. The GG1 FAQ ruled on start of activation effects. We queue them up, then resolve them all disregarding any new effects that would interrupt or add to the sequence. Why would that same logic not apply in this situation? You queue up all after resolving/hazardous terrain etc. effects and then resolve them. From GG1: "18. If during Step 1 of a model’s Activation (pg. 21 - resolving Start of Activation effects) if it would be affected by a new Start of Activation effect (such as by moving into another friendly model’s Healing Draughts’ A) does it resolve the new effect? a) No. Effects that resolve when a model Activates in Step 1 (such as On the Move, Life Leech, Goad Witchling, etc.) are generated at the start of Step 1 before resolving any effects. If a model would generate another effect that would normally resolve during this step, the effect is not generated."

Just to add to the pyre. A model standing in hazardous terrain attacks Zoraida, cheats and declares the Execute trigger. Zoraida has the Inhuman Reflexes upgrade to trigger scamper and declares Regret as well. Which abilities/effects happen? Regret would resolve before Execute because of the timing of simultaneous effects. This ends the active models action. Does execute now dissapear from the "queue/stack/generated effects pile"? What about hazardous terrain and scamper, both of which resolve after resolving but before timing step 3C (end activation step) presumably. Is there any precedent in M3E for resolving unresolved, generated effects simultaneously?

No they are not, the artwork is the same, and they're high quality, but the corners are rounded and the cardstock is different.

One of the best aspects of the game is a cool looking/interactive table. Our gaming group tends to be a little more gung ho when it comes to using terrain on the board. We arise guilty of using a lot of different elevations, destructible pieces, and generally fill the board more than not. When it comes to more interesting options, how do you go about balancing adding attributes like hazardous, injured, burning, shielded etc. without breaking certain crews that heavily use or deny conditions? Some of the ideas we've been throwing around included: - concealing, poisonous mushroom forests with mushrooms being impassible, but not blocking. - concealing, injured steam vents - a set of fountains, one beneficial granting fast, focused or a heal if you end your move in base contact, another detrimental granting slow, injured X or damage X instead. Even just generic hazardous, burning terrain pieces, how do you account for the existence of crews like Kaeris? Is it worth declaring traits or flipping randomly after selecting crews? Or just a gentleman's agreement? Does anyone else use more varied terrain traits they've had luck with?

Loved the format! No critiques right now, only thanks. It's been very well received by our group that is often lacking the time for a 2hr report. Just about to watch the Basse v Daw one now.

I can't speak for general competitive Malifaux games as we live in quite an isolated Meta (Canadian Rocky Mountains), but we definitely like to load the table up on all sorts of ridiculous terrain. One of our stronger players often runs Marcus who just ignores most of the severe terrain or jumps around it, but that doesn't really stop us running multiple levels, rivers, entire hazardous sections for push damage, tight streets, and all other plethora of weird setups. Usually I find we try to set up an interesting table, or a themed table if we can, and then worry about whether the game will end up one sided as a result. It's very rare one side is completely discounted, but some features will definitely dictate the way a crew is forced to play into or around them. For us that's not really a negative as it makes each game and crew selection different from the last. I think the terrain interaction in Malifaux is one of its strong suits. We have had one game where the layout of the rivers definitely screwed with the ability of large based models to move, to the point of almost making them useless. It was still fun, but lesson learnt, use a few more bridges and don't play with canals between buildings 😝.