Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'journalist'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Wyrd News
  • Games
    • Malifaux 2E
    • Through the Breach
    • Puppet Wars Unstitched
    • Evil Baby Orphanage
    • Jetpack Unicorn
    • Showdown
    • Kings of Artifice

Forums

  • Forum News & Rules
    • Wyrd Announcements
    • Wyrd Board Help and Code of Conduct
    • Community Events
    • Wyrd Events
  • Discussions and Interests
    • News, Reviews, & Discussion
    • The Hobby Room
    • Wyrd Apps
  • Malifaux
    • Faction Discussion
    • Malifaux Discussion
    • Malifaux Rules Discussion
  • Through the Breach
    • TTB Discussion
    • Player Creations
  • The Other Side
    • TOS - Allegiances
    • TOS - Discussion
    • The Other Side Rules Discussion
  • Board Games
    • Vagrantsong
    • Bayou Bash
    • Other Games
  • Super Secret Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography:


Location:

Found 2 results

  1. Since my Collection of painted Guild models growing fast I decided to start a new topic dedicated to the Guild as a whole. Sorry for posting some photos again, but I want newcomers for my topic to see all of my miniatures. So lets get to the models I painted previously.
  2. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information