Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'paralyzed'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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


  • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL






Found 4 results

  1. So I found myself quoting old errata and was corrected last night during a game? I seem to remember reading a FAQ that clarified engagement range after a model gained paralyze. I could bet money that it read, "if a model gains the paralyzed condition then its engagement range is reduced to '0'. ~~~if the model is in base to base contact with an enemy model then it would still provoke a disengaging strike." So I can't find this anywhere in the FAQ or Errata. Has it been re-re-errata'ed? The only thing I found was an errata on Pg. 52: This seems to contradict the FAQ that disappeared, did this happen or am I just remembering?
  2. A number of models have rules that allows other models to take actions, for example Lucius' "Commanding presence" and "Issue command", The Judge's "Combat effectiveness" and the general "Obey" action. I was wondering how these kinds of rules work with certain conditions, starting with Focused. Focused states that the model may remove the condition "when declaring an Action". But when a model causes another model to take the Action, which model is declaring it? The wording on both Lucius' abilities, which says "[the target] may immediately take a (1) Action", seems to suggest that it is the target model that declares the Action. Same thing with the Judge. Obey is a little bit different, since it states that "[the target] immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller". That last bit could be interpreted that the action is actually declared by the model using Obey. However, the FAQ states that Obey can be used make a model use up its Vengeance bullet, and that upgrade only works when the owning model declares an action. And that suggests that all kinds of actions that order another model (friendly of otherwise) could be used to remove Focused (and benefit from it). What do you think? My other question is how these types of rules work with the Paralyzed condition. Paralyzed states that a model generates no AP and may not declare any Actions "during its Activation". However, the "ordered" Actions do not require AP and are done outside of the model's Activation. Does this mean that you can still order a Paralysed model to take actions?
  3. Isolated or codependent mechanics? So I have never had any difficulty when determining melee range and whether I could legally make an attack. usually with engagement ranges typically being 1"-2" its rare that conditions or restrictions would intervene the engaged models and cause problems. However, there are some cases that arise which I would love to clarify. The relationship of Melee range and Engagement is somewhat ambiguous. Is engagement an individual mechanic and wholly distinct unto itself, or is it one of the many attributes of melee and just a slick term of being within range of close melee. The idiosyncrasy of engagement is that it acts like a condition, (but is not a condition to be clear) for the purposed of determining things like: disengaging strikes, shooting into engagement, interact action limitations. On the other hand engagement seems dependent on melee and simple a quality of melee, nothing more. This being important because I cannot find melee restrictions or conditions in the rules, at least not in the clarity that shooting and casting rules and restrictions have. it's odd that I cannot find something to the effect of, "A model may make a melee attack action if: X,Y,Z" Thankfully I don't see a malfunction in the rules that would need the clarification but the question still stands, Can a model make a melee attack action if: The model is within it's range The model is engaged So one possible logic loops might be: A.) Models have engagement range equal to their longest range Close (y) Attack B.) Model A cannot place a scheme marker because he is engaged with enemy Model B C.) However, Model B becomes Paralyzed which paralyzed models cannot engage enemy models, (unless in base to base contact with an enemy as per question 25 in the FAQ's ) ~.) Can Model A now place a scheme marker? Yes, Model B has been paralyzed and can no longer engage Model A No, Model B has an engagement of 0" but Model A is still within his close range and therefore is still engaged because engagement "goes both ways"
  4. A friendly model A is base to base with enemy model B. A fails a horror duel caused by an effect outside of its activation, becoming Paralyzed, reducing the range of its attacks to 0 and "not engaging" per the rulebook definition of Paralyzed. A gets Obeyed to attack B with a Attack, since the requirement to make the attack is in fact being in range of the attack, not being in engagement. Base to base is 0", so the model is still in range for the Close Attack, but will obviously not make disengaging strikes since it is prohibited from engaging. Is there a flaw in this logic I'm missing or is this valid / intended?
  • Create New...

Important Information