New Seeker/versatile minion!

[Mindbadger]

 

So these new guys got shown in Waldo's Weekly.

They seem pretty interesting for 5ss cost. Kind of similar to Waldgiests in Neverborn, but less tanky, more mobile and with a bit of utility.

The fact that they don't need any card flips for either tactical action is nice, depending on the board set up, they can get a decent amount of free movement from Nature Spirit. Earth's Remedy can activate Chronicle effects, though can be a little situational. Models like the Kurgan or Moorwraiths can help by counting as severe terrain.

Their attack again works well with severe terrain (starting to think that board set up will be a large part of their viability) and is the first time Hungry Land markers appear outside of the Mysterious Emissary (these guys would have been amazing for Titania!).

Interesting to see Vengeance pop up outside of Kirai, not sure how useful it will be on a 5 health model, but should add a ping or 2 of damage to punish attackers.

As to where they fit in, they could be good in Jedza 2, who is a bit less focussed on bubbling and can summon Moorwraiths. They can be reasonable, cheap schemers. I guess in Jedza 1, they can make the bubble more dangerous by clogging up areas with Hungry Land markers, but it's not super reliable (trigger on a stat 5 attack) and add some movement with their Chronicle.

I actually think they might be decent in Basse. I don't play Frontier, but seeing as Dustcloud markers count as severe terrain, they would synergise well with them. They could go and scheme in enemy territory away from the rest of the gunline or heal and move around the gunmen. Not sure how important that is to Basse.

For 5 points, they seem quite cool, not a huge investment for reasonable utility.

[RoivasO]

How are these not a Fae model! 

 

They looks situationally good in Seeker. Being able to ping that last bit of irresistible damage to a model within 3 of the Kurgan or 2 of a Moorwaith in Jedza1 will be nice. 

Other keywords that get good use will be Frontier and maybe Cadmus? Most likely are going to be quite board dependant though. Seems an odd model to be versatile personally. 

 

More Planted Roots will never go amiss though. 

[Tired peasant]

I'm not sure about the Moorwraith at 2".
The 2" aura is for the ennemies ...

So you'll need to get the moorwraith in base contact with a model and the Yaksha in base contact with the moorwraith ...
Looks like star aligned.

But a Crypsis Corp may help spreading a 3" extra aura ...

[Cursed25]

18 hours ago, Tired peasant said:

I'm not sure about the Moorwraith at 2".
The 2" aura is for the ennemies ...

So you'll need to get the moorwraith in base contact with a model and the Yaksha in base contact with the moorwraith ...
Looks like star aligned.

But a Crypsis Corp may help spreading a 3" extra aura ...

why would the Yaksha needs to be in base with the moorwraith? Earth's remedy has 6'' range! Also Moorwraith does not have to be in base with an enemy since has you said the 2'' aura is for all the other models! so as long as the enemy is within 2 of the Moorwraith, he is in base with a severe terrain and also within 6'' of both the Yaksha and Jedza you can kill 1 HP enemy without any test needed!

[Tired peasant]

The Yaksha can jump the full 6" but he has to arrive in base contact with the Moorwraith:

• Other friendly seeker models may treat this model as a severe impassible terrain marker
  • The Yaksha is a friendly seeker, so fall in this category
• Other models treat terrain area within 2 of this model as Severe
  • You are in the 1st category, so not "Other models"

Also, base on this document (not it's not an official FAQ), there is a point about

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z6jmZUtGXBxx31gHywREs95h-26js4maH0JBsBLWRRU/edit

Quote

Is a model with Trail of Slime in base contact with an area being treated as terrain by an ability such as Wilds of Malifaux or Born of Shadow?
   *   No. Base contact requires base-to-base contact, and an aura does not have a base.
 

Now that explanation is odd to me, but I prefer to have a consensus rather than nothing and argue during the game ... 
So, taking that point in, I think it would apply the same here, the Yaksha need to be in base contact, both for the heal and the jump
So, only in base contact with the model (Kurgan or Moorwraith)

I'm waiting after Wyrd to officially clarify this point of rule 🙏

[Jinn]

2 hours ago, Tired peasant said:

The Yaksha can jump the full 6" but he has to arrive in base contact with the Moorwraith:

• Other friendly seeker models may treat this model as a severe impassible terrain marker
  • The Yaksha is a friendly seeker, so fall in this category
• Other models treat terrain area within 2 of this model as Severe
  • You are in the 1st category, so not "Other models"

This is just not true. "Other" in this context refers to the Moorwraith as the subject as it is a brand new sentence, so models other than the Moorwraith treat area within 2 of it as severe. 

And that Malifaux World Series ruling is just wrong, terrain doesn't even have a base for goodness sake, and it quite obviously works with that! And if Terrain by necessity does have a base (to allow all the things in the game that mention "base contact" with terrain), then any aura being treated as Terrain would also have a base for the same purposes.

If 'Objects' must have 'Bases' (to allow them to be in base contact) and 'Terrain' is an 'Object' and an area is being treated as 'Terrain' then that area logically would be treated as an 'Object' with a 'Base'.

[Tired peasant]

Quote

This is just not true. "Other" in this context refers to the Moorwraith as the subject as it is a brand new sentence, so models other than the Moorwraith treat area within 2 of it as severe. 

Ha yea ... So I learned something today. Thanks !
 

Quote

And that Malifaux World Series ruling is just wrong

For my opinion only, I would agree with you 100%.
The explanation is over the top as you mentioned.
And also because this ruling is just cutting out so many interactions that seam designed this way...

However this point is still quite unclear for many people.
You know what, I'll send this thread to the organiser of my club so this way we can agree on something.

[TheUnseemlyOne]

4 hours ago, Jinn said:

And that Malifaux World Series ruling is just wrong, terrain doesn't even have a base for goodness sake, and it quite obviously works with that! And if Terrain by necessity does have a base (to allow all the things in the game that mention "base contact" with terrain), then any aura being treated as Terrain would also have a base for the same purposes.

 

Question one in the Terrain section of the FAQ doesn’t agree with you on the base bit. All Terrain has a base. 

[Azahul]

16 hours ago, Jinn said:

And that Malifaux World Series ruling is just wrong, terrain doesn't even have a base for goodness sake, and it quite obviously works with that! And if Terrain by necessity does have a base (to allow all the things in the game that mention "base contact" with terrain), then any aura being treated as Terrain would also have a base for the same purposes.

Not to get into the nitty gritty, but the official FAQ is very clear that all terrain has a base that must be defined by the players at the start of the game. Nothing in that infers auras must have a base however. Auras are clearly treated differently, as can be seen by the fact that a model generating a Hazardous aura doesn't apply Hazardous to other models when it moves.

[Jinn]

11 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

Question one in the Terrain section of the FAQ doesn’t agree with you on the base bit. All Terrain has a base. 

Thanks, I skimmed the FAQ looking for something like that and I missed it. Still, as I said, if all terrain has a base then something treated as terrain should be treated as having a base.

Also taking that FAQ taken to an illogical conclusion, does this mean you cannot be in base contact with overhanging terrain, like bridges or balconies, because the "base" is the part that's touching the table? I don't think so.

Found some wording on an ability that explicitly mentions a model being in base contact with an area actually:

"Burn the Midnight Oil
Target a Lit Lamp Marker. Until the End Phase, when taking the Interact Action, this model treats the area with 2 of the target as in base contact with itself."

Which implies that base contact does not necessarily even require a base on both sides.

[Jinn]

1 minute ago, Azahul said:

Not to get into the nitty gritty, but the official FAQ is very clear that all terrain has a base that must be defined by the players at the start of the game. Nothing in that infers auras must have a base however. Auras are clearly treated differently, as can be seen by the fact that a model generating a Hazardous aura doesn't apply Hazardous to other models when it moves.

Only Hazardous Terrain Markers deal hazardous when they move. If you could move a piece of regular Hazardous Terrain it would have no effect on models it moved through.

[Azahul]

5 minutes ago, Jinn said:

Only Hazardous Terrain Markers deal hazardous when they move. If you could move a piece of regular Hazardous Terrain it would have no effect on models it moved through.

Fair enough, a poor example. There is still no indication from that FAQ that auras have a base, since the FAQ specifies terrain pieces and not all instances of things with terrain traits.

 

The aura rules don't indicate that an aura exists as an object on the table, but rather a measurement tied to the object projecting the aura. I'm inclined to go with the MWS ruling on this, it seems like it's inventing the least amount of language. 

[Jinn]

48 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Fair enough, a poor example. There is still no indication from that FAQ that auras have a base, since the FAQ specifies terrain pieces and not all instances of things with terrain traits.

 

The aura rules don't indicate that an aura exists as an object on the table, but rather a measurement tied to the object projecting the aura. I'm inclined to go with the MWS ruling on this, it seems like it's inventing the least amount of language. 

So would you say that a model standing on a bridge is not in base contact with that bridge then?

Another issue with this interpretation, if you cannot be in base contact with an aura then you will not be affected by a hazardous aura if you take actions while touching but not overlapping it. This is because Hazardous Terrain only affects models who move through it, take actions in it, or take actions while in base contact with it, and you are only considered in terrain if your base overlaps it. For example, English Ivan 2's main defence is Refraction Matrix, which makes the area within 1 of him Hazardous (Distracted+1), would you rule that models with a greater than 0" attack can simply charge him and ignore the Hazardous by stopping 1" away? Same for Dashel Barker 2 and his Jailer trigger on Draw Them In. I've never seen anyone play these abilities that way, and this interpretation of base contact with auras would require it. Note that by rules Malifaux allows you to say your intention is for that level of precision, so this has real and not theoretical implications.

[Azahul]

15 minutes ago, Jinn said:

So would you say that a model standing on a bridge is not in base contact with that bridge then?

Another issue with this interpretation, if you cannot be in base contact with an aura then you will not be affected by a hazardous aura if you take actions while touching but not overlapping it. This is because Hazardous Terrain only affects models who move through it, take actions in it, or take actions while in base contact with it, and you are only considered in terrain if your base overlaps it. For example, English Ivan 2's main defence is Refraction Matrix, which makes the area within 1 of him Hazardous (Distracted+1), would you rule that models with a greater than 0" attack can simply charge him and ignore the Hazardous by stopping 1" away? Same for Dashel Barker 2 and his Jailer trigger on Draw Them In. I've never seen anyone play these abilities that way, and this interpretation of base contact with auras would require it. Note that by rules Malifaux allows you to say your intention is for that level of precision, so this has real and not theoretical implications.

You wouldn't see anyone play it like that because the rules say that touching is within 0", so if you are 1" from a model with a 1" hazardous aura you are within the hazardous. 

 

As for the bridge, terrain is a consensus system particularly as it gets complicated with elevation. I would just call the bridge itself a base.

[Jinn]

11 minutes ago, Azahul said:

You wouldn't see anyone play it like that because the rules say that touching is within 0", so if you are 1" from a model with a 1" hazardous aura you are within the hazardous. 

 

As for the bridge, terrain is a consensus system particularly as it gets complicated with elevation. I would just call the bridge itself a base.

Touching terrain is not in terrain. It is defined on page 36, in the Terrain section:

"Any time a model’s base is overlapping terrain, it is said to be in that terrain. If a model’s base is touching terrain (either overlapping or directly next to the terrain), that model is within 0" of that terrain."

A model is only 'in' terrain if its base is overlapping the terrain, if it is merely touching without overlap then it is in base contact and within 0", unless you disallow base contact for auras for example in which case it is only within 0".

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

So would you say that a model standing on a bridge is not in base contact with that bridge then?

Another issue with this interpretation, if you cannot be in base contact with an aura then you will not be affected by a hazardous aura if you take actions while touching but not overlapping it. This is because Hazardous Terrain only affects models who move through it, take actions in it, or take actions while in base contact with it, and you are only considered in terrain if your base overlaps it. For example, English Ivan 2's main defence is Refraction Matrix, which makes the area within 1 of him Hazardous (Distracted+1), would you rule that models with a greater than 0" attack can simply charge him and ignore the Hazardous by stopping 1" away? Same for Dashel Barker 2 and his Jailer trigger on Draw Them In. I've never seen anyone play these abilities that way, and this interpretation of base contact with auras would require it. Note that by rules Malifaux allows you to say your intention is for that level of precision, so this has real and not theoretical implications.

I am fairly sure that if you are close enough to attack with a 1" attack you are in the aura not just touching it. Every one happily played it as that before the errata that added touching hazardous terrain was enough.

Likewise if I am just touching a 30mm base, then a model on the opposite side that is also just touching is more than 30mm apart. 

I know the difference is small and possibly immeasurable but if you can place a 1" object between2 thing and it only touch but not overlap then those2 things are more than1" apart. 

 

[Azahul]

1 hour ago, Jinn said:

Touching terrain is not in terrain. It is defined on page 36, in the Terrain section:

"Any time a model’s base is overlapping terrain, it is said to be in that terrain. If a model’s base is touching terrain (either overlapping or directly next to the terrain), that model is within 0" of that terrain."

A model is only 'in' terrain if its base is overlapping the terrain, if it is merely touching without overlap then it is in base contact and within 0", unless you disallow base contact for auras for example in which case it is only within 0".

Ah, my apologies. I get the argument you're trying to make now, I wasn't quite understanding what you were getting at before.

 

I suppose you could argue that point if you wanted to. Auras with terrain traits are a bit of a vague point in the game for a few reasons and the Hazardous rules specifically aren't well written. You might note that in the MWS they effectively house ruled how Hazardous works because Impassable Hazardous didn't really function rules as written. And then there's the Elevated rules, which the MWS couldn't decide between two interpretations of the rule so went with a third compromise version that isn't supported by the rulebook at all. At a certain point you and your opponents just need to pick an interpretation you want to live with and go for it.

[Jinn]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

I am fairly sure that if you are close enough to attack with a 1" attack you are in the aura not just touching it. Every one happily played it as that before the errata that added touching hazardous terrain was enough.

Likewise if I am just touching a 30mm base, then a model on the opposite side that is also just touching is more than 30mm apart. 

I know the difference is small and possibly immeasurable but if you can place a 1" object between2 thing and it only touch but not overlap then those2 things are more than1" apart. 

 

I believe the rules define this scenario of being exactly next to but not in terrain as being within 0" of it, meaning that if both objects are within 0" of it and it is 1" wide then they can be exactly 1" apart, which counts as being in range (as in range is defined as at the distance specified or closer). Note that this isn't a problem at all if you allow for terrain auras to be in base contact with objects.

[Adran]

9 hours ago, Jinn said:

I believe the rules define this scenario of being exactly next to but not in terrain as being within 0" of it, meaning that if both objects are within 0" of it and it is 1" wide then they can be exactly 1" apart, which counts as being in range (as in range is defined as at the distance specified or closer). Note that this isn't a problem at all if you allow for terrain auras to be in base contact with objects.

I disagree with some of your leaps of logic. 

Yes if you are in base contact with something you are defined as being 0" from it.

But I think if you are 1" from a model you are in its aura 1. If you are in the position that you would be touching the aura but not in it you are by definition more than1" away. And so you aren't in range of the aura, and so aren't treating the area as hazardous anyway

(Edit- this may depend on the source, as there are multiple wording that turn the area into terrain and some don't rely on the model being in the aura as I look at them. ). 

 

The concept applies in several situations, not just here. It is not possible for a model with a 1" engagement to attack and be out of range of black blood. Likewise if you are splashed with black blood then you will be within1" to attack.

This isn't saying your conclusion is right or wrong, but the argument you are using to get there is wrong. ( or I'm misunderstanding your argument). 

[santaclaws01]

17 hours ago, Adran said:

Likewise if I am just touching a 30mm base, then a model on the opposite side that is also just touching is more than 30mm apart. 

This isn't how measurement works in malifaux. Malifaux uses inclusive measurements, so "within X" means any number from 0 to X will be within X". This is most easily deomstrated by a model being in base contact, and then moving exactly 2" away is still within 2" of the other model and you'd be able to perfectly fit a 2" ruler inbetween them.

[Jinn]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

I disagree with some of your leaps of logic. 

Yes if you are in base contact with something you are defined as being 0" from it.

But I think if you are 1" from a model you are in its aura 1. If you are in the position that you would be touching the aura but not in it you are by definition more than1" away. And so you aren't in range of the aura, and so aren't treating the area as hazardous anyway

(Edit- this may depend on the source, as there are multiple wording that turn the area into terrain and some don't rely on the model being in the aura as I look at them. ). 

 

The concept applies in several situations, not just here. It is not possible for a model with a 1" engagement to attack and be out of range of black blood. Likewise if you are splashed with black blood then you will be within1" to attack.

This isn't saying your conclusion is right or wrong, but the argument you are using to get there is wrong. ( or I'm misunderstanding your argument). 

That is just not correct, Range is what is used to determine whether you are in an aura or within range for a pulse, but overlappingness is what is used to determine if you are in terrain. You can be in an aura by being exactly its range away from its source, you are not overlapping it at all but you are still in it.

Here's what the rules say: 

Auras: An Aura extends out in all directions from an object a number of inches equal to the listed distance in inches, as measured from the edge of the object’s base. For example, 3 means that everything within 3" and LoS of the object is affected by the Aura.

Measuring: Many times, a player will need to determine if an object is in range of another. This is referring to the distance between the two objects. An object is within range if any portion of that object’s base is at that distance or closer. Any effect that references an object being “within” a distance is talking about range.

Now, why doesn't this apply to terrain? Because you are only in terrain if your base overlaps it, not if you are within 0" of it.

[Adran]

5 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

This isn't how measurement works in malifaux. Malifaux uses inclusive measurements, so "within X" means any number from 0 to X will be within X". This is most easily deomstrated by a model being in base contact, and then moving exactly 2" away is still within 2" of the other model and you'd be able to perfectly fit a 2" ruler inbetween them.

You are right and I am wrong. I  am wrong about most of what I said in the last day, not sure quite what I was thinking. Sorry @Jinn, you're right I'm wrong.