Saviouress

Just a bit disappointing. I didn't attend the last one, because I'm painting too slowly and didn't feel my standard of play was up for a World Cup. Then I heard about the tournament and hoped surely the very valid points of constructive criticism about team sizes and chess clocks would be addressed and releasing the pools beforehand. I'm still cautiously optimistic for the rule pack. If they are a carbon copy of this year I can only interpret that as not wanting international guests and I would be very hard pressed to call this a competitive event. Maybe the year after that :)

Not sure how Wyrd uses their forums, but I upvoted the original question/thread to improve visibility. The only thing I miss about playing Warmachine was the Infernals, that gave you official rulings in the forum. Instead of arguing endlessly and hoping Wyrd answers your questions once a year.

That's some super elite list, so few models.

Has anyone tried out the False Witnesses being able to 2" 'engage' models that would usually be able to interact in GG3 while engaged for some of the new strategies? Or are you of the opinion that the Elite package is mostly below the curve in Neverborn?

Okay I didn't understand the argumentation either, thanks for confirming.

I've had the following come up during a game that I was judging, one player was adamant about the ruling of this, but I wasn't able to confirm it in time. Here it is: Immolate on a target with 4 burning will do 5 damage, because the target will also suffer from the Burning +X effect. The reasoning being that the Conditions page has the paragraph about "some game effects cause models to suffer damage from a Condition. Damage suffered this way is affected by any effects referring to the Condition" and any effects would be the Burning +X condition itself. In my mind that paragraph is only about things like "Alcohol Poisoning", but as Wyrd unfortunately hasn't made clear what a game effect (or lasting game effect) is, it could be interpreted that way? Thanks for your answers and I hope I've represented the argument of that player correctly and fairly.

I commend you for the creativity and wish you good luck trying this out

The Cyclops is kind of a feel bad model. But it can also support your list with unresistable staggered.

So after a couple of weeks, how is everyone's feelings on the Bultungin? I'm currently playing Titania1 and Euripides1 and I don't find space for a Bultungin in any of my lists to be honest.

Carver is a decent 8 point model, not great for 8 but decent. Unfortunately that thing costs 10 points. In comparison to other in- and out of faction 10 point models Carver lacks Threat range Third AP Survivability At first I thought it's designed to be a pretty efficient beater (Stat 7, built in suite, leeches Focus), doesn't require much cards to do something with these values. But lacking in threat and survivability makes that thing really inefficient. Forcing opponents to focus because of having hard to wound or serene countenance or something similar would be interesting to make his Misery really miserable , of course you can remove other aspects to pay for that strong of an ability. So why all the Carver hate? Because it's justified ... maybe?

The "data" could be very skewed by the fact that a lot of the Malifaux Burns Titles have abilities that are not very interactable (or at least it's very hard to prevent it from happening). Not requiring a lot of interaction from your opponent is of course something strong on it's own, but in addition to that it feels quite a bit worse. So things like a 12" 4 irreducible damage laser cannon, constant ping damage without flips, very easy summoning, free build in value, free mobility literally all over the map, kidnapping models ... are probably strong already and feel a lot stronger because it's hard to tech/play against. From a Neverborn perspective (I might be biased here...) our titles seem rather fair in comparison with the top dogs.

Having LoS not be blockable during the perfect alignment of equally big bases (and model sizes) does make more sense to me too. Mostly because of the points you argued (it's an "impossible" game state so the more elegant solution is to not have it be an option). But in the end this is about which default is used by the system, here it's perfect alignment does block LOS, and that's not going to change. So I just accept it and try not to (mis)remember my Warmachine knowledge for Malifaux situations. No point to get overly frustrated about it, and I'd argue a lot of abilities without requiring LoS are "[...]backwards, and flat out stupid[...]" (see Zoraida and Nexus for example).

Ah so I can end up base to base in front of the marker by choosing the correct reference points?

This sure is a bit of thread necromancy (and it's not the Rezzers forum) on the topic, but I guess it's useful as this is the rules forum after all (checked the FAQ didn't find what I wanted) I had this question about pushing towards markers popping up, do we by now have a ruling on when to stop? For our game we used middle of the models base being on top of the middle of the markers base for the point of stopping the push. The follow up came up if there's even a difference between being base to base and being overlapping. Meaning you got argue that you could push "over" the middle points as long as you would stay in base contact, because technically the distance to the marker is still 0" ... but that seems a bit too odd.

I wonder if three pages of everyone agreeing that the Bultungin is bad helped in getting it erratad