Finally got disappearing act with triple tome

[CannonFodder]

I was playing Colette last week and finally got it to work. Best part it was on Jack Draw, with his aura up. She was outside the 6 inch aura to stop cheating and use soul stones, but in 8 inch range of spell

Just had to to mention it here, I got the hardest trigger in the game to work on one of the most annoying guys to kill in the game.

:hangman:

:bowsucker

Yes I know I'm gloating

[LoboStele]

Nice! Congrats! I've only got it once in a normal scrap, I think. In a Brawl with Ramos...well, not nearly as tough to pull off when the Mobile Toolkit is giving you extra tomes.

I also got it once in a normal scrap because we had an Arcane Apparatus on the table, and I got lucky in that it gave me an extra :tomes. Next activation I used Illusionist to move to the front line, and promptly turned a full health Samael into a Mannequin.

[Ciaran]

I hate that trigger!

Congrats on getting it though.

[Jonas Albrecht]

I've never played a game where Tuesday couldn't get it to go off.

Curse her!

[LoboStele]

I've never played a game where Tuesday couldn't get it to go off.

Curse her!

OUCH! That's some luck!

I do find that if I don't get the triple tome trigger, that I do often end up with a Mask in there somewhere, and get the Soulstone added back to my pool. So that's nice.

[Mentat_Canis]

Ya I got it against a guy in his 2nd game he said he wanted to see what a crazy list could do so I was nice and fed him a Duet to his teddy then made the Teddy turn into a Maniquen.

[MrNybbles]

It is always great to turn your opponent's minions into your minions, even if your minion happens to be a Mannequin, by far the least threatening model in the entire game.

If you can replace your opponent's toughest model with a Mannequin it can really swing a game. However, I always suggest planning on what to do when it doesn't go off.

"Oh, I just buried an enemy Steamborg Executioner that I simply must kill and spent a total of one or two Soulstones depending on if I got the other trigger to go off, I better use Illusionist to switch places with another friendly Showgirl within 18" by this bottomless chasm so when I place the model at the end of the turn I can place it over this Hazardous deep chasm which is a legal place to put him which will instantly kill it."

Your plan B doesn't need to be more Epic than your plan A, you just need to plan both out ahead of time.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Case in point. She used it first turn today to summon a Mannequin off a Mechanical Dove because she didn't have any.

[CannonFodder]

I usually use it as a stalling tactic, temporarly remove the biggest threat and deal with a couple other targets. Though I have had a dove pick up a enemy target and then toss him half way across the board taking him out for a 2 turns.

I also had a dove pick up a friendly model within 3 inches of Colette, then use Colette to swap the place of the dove and showgirl who has taken a hit. The dove get sacrificed and I drop the friendly buried models on the table. Favorite target for this maneuver is Johan, who flurries on whatever was stalking my showgirl.

another version is to have the dropship dove fly next to a showgirl. Either is a target and gets killed dropping the cargo, or the showgirl sacrifices it as soulstone for a defensive bonus to drop the cargo which gets the next activation, which retaliates.

Really looking forward to the gunsmith with his lead storm.

[Adran]

I usually use it as a stalling tactic, temporarly remove the biggest threat and deal with a couple other targets. Though I have had a dove pick up a enemy target and then toss him half way across the board taking him out for a 2 turns.

I also had a dove pick up a friendly model within 3 inches of Colette, then use Colette to swap the place of the dove and showgirl who has taken a hit. The dove get sacrificed and I drop the friendly buried models on the table. Favorite target for this maneuver is Johan, who flurries on whatever was stalking my showgirl.

another version is to have the dropship dove fly next to a showgirl. Either is a target and gets killed dropping the cargo, or the showgirl sacrifices it as soulstone for a defensive bonus to drop the cargo which gets the next activation, which retaliates.

Really looking forward to the gunsmith with his lead storm.

I don't think this can work, as the dove is unable to cast the spell. It does not have use soulstone so it can not discard a soulstone which is required to cast it.

[CannonFodder]

I thought the use soul stone ability was for the rule book actions.

[Adran]

Hmm, looking at the old rulings, we nailed this one before the rules manual, but now with different wording in the rules manual it isn't clear.

I retract my correction, and instead re-phrase it as a question.

[MadArcanist]

Doves have Magical Extenstion. Disappearing Act is a (1) spell with the connected Master. Therefore the dove can cast the Disappearing Act spell, and since it is Magical Extension doing it you can use a Soulstone to change the duel total.

You can't get the trigger off, because it doesn't have any of the triggers, but you can at least cast the spell and bury them.

[LoboStele]

No, you can't cast EITHER Disappearing Act or Discharge Soulstone with the Doves because they do not have Use Soulstone. You must have Use Soulstone in order to discard stones, unless an effect specifically says so. Magical Extension specifically says that the Dove can discard a Soulstone in order to change it's starting total. But it does not allow it to discard Soulstones in order to fulfill he requirement for a spell.

So, you could declare that the Dove is casting Disappearing Act. Then you flip your cards. If you pass the Casting Total, then you would move to the next step, which is "discard one Soulstone". Since the Dove does not have Use Soulstone, it can't fulfill this step, and the spell fizzles.

Unfortunately, what you did was smart tactically, but not something the Dove is allowed to do. They are mostly for Soulstone fodder for your other Showgirls, or doing Magician's Duel.

Now, you can pull of a somewhat similar trick with Cassandra and her (1) Understudy ability though. Since she has Use Soulstone when in Colette's crew, she could cast Disappearing Act or Discharge Soulstone.

[CannonFodder]

Since we have 2 differing henchmen giving different judgement can we get a higher level ruling.

our entire LGS has been ruling it the same as MadArchanist. and we have multiple Colette players and even more rules lawyers.

[elril]

I remember this being argued in a thread previously, and I think Sketch weighed in on the side of Lobo, let me see if I can find a link...

[CannonFodder]

If you find it, can you also check the date, and compare it to which book. I've looked up ruling before and with a change of book it completely changes.

Can I ask Wyrd to make a complete compiled FAQ for these types of things. There re too many rules revisions and people need to perpetually read these forums to keep up. A single document we can look at would be appreciated. So far I've seen a couple ruling already counter the rules in the Newest book. (Paralyze for instance).

Or make a new forum where only 1 henchmen can post, and other henchmen who make a ruling need to submit to the senior henchman to review and post. preferably in a format like ratty did in the post below. Makes it so those of us who don't want to have to dig threw all the forums all the time can just review 1 spot and know the ruling at a glance, without conflicting opinions or interpretations. I know dealing with rules lawyering is difficult but I have seen other companies try and spread out the responsibility amongst multiple people and fans, but lose players (including me) because of rules confusions. I know I've heard rants from other players because of this type on confusion already. Malifaux is a great game and great mechanics, but is steadily making a list of exception that if gets too long will hurt it.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20298

[LoboStele]

Well, there is this thread here: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18498

But no Rules Marshall weighed in there.

Even so. It's pretty clear in the Rules Manual that you may only Discard Soulstones/Scrap Counters/Corpse Counters etc., if the character has an ability that specifically allows it to do so. In this case, Magicial Extension says nothing about discarding Soulstones, only using one to add to the starting total. I'm not really sure what the argument is.

I also found this thread, where Doves and Use Soulstone were discussed back in September, and no Marshall ever contradicted the ruling.

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15229&highlight=dove

[LoboStele]

If you find it, can you also check the date, and compare it to which book. I've looked up ruling before and with a change of book it completely changes.

Can I ask Wyrd to make a complete compiled FAQ for these types of things. There re too many rules revisions and people need to perpetually read these forums to keep up. A single document we can look at would be appreciated. So far I've seen a couple ruling already counter the rules in the Newest book. (Paralyze for instance).

Or make a new forum where only 1 henchmen can post, and other henchmen who make a ruling need to submit to the senior henchman to review and post. preferably in a format like ratty did in the post below. Makes it so those of us who don't want to have to dig threw all the forums all the time can just review 1 spot and know the ruling at a glance, without conflicting opinions or interpretations. I know dealing with rules lawyering is difficult but I have seen other companies try and spread out the responsibility amongst multiple people and fans, but lose players (including me) because of rules confusions. I know I've heard rants from other players because of this type on confusion already. Malifaux is a great game and great mechanics, but is steadily making a list of exception that if gets too long will hurt it.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20298

Well, first of all, you shouldn't trust a henchman's word 100%. The Rules Marshalls are the ones you should listen to. Henchmen are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, and we aren't privy to the behind the scenes rules stuff that the Marshalls are.

I can elevate the issue if necessary, but in this case, I would reference the first link that I gave in the above post. That's a discussion between multiple people, where the various rules are pointed out in the Rules Manual. To me, it's pretty clear that the Dove cannot discard a Soulstone to use Disappearing Act or Discharge Soulstone. If you still have questions after reading through that other thread, then I would either bump that thread and ask for a Marshall to rule on it, or start yourself a new one in the Rules area.

EDIT: And I'm not sure what the Ramos thread, or Paralyze has to do with anything. It all works exactly as the book says it should. The only change I can think of on Paralyze is just that Poison doesn't effect you if you're paralyzed.

[CannonFodder]

Well, first of all, you shouldn't trust a henchman's word 100%. The Rules Marshalls are the ones you should listen to. Henchmen are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, and we aren't privy to the behind the scenes rules stuff that the Marshalls are.

I can elevate the issue if necessary, but in this case, I would reference the first link that I gave in the above post. That's a discussion between multiple people, where the various rules are pointed out in the Rules Manual. To me, it's pretty clear that the Dove cannot discard a Soulstone to use Disappearing Act or Discharge Soulstone. If you still have questions after reading through that other thread, then I would either bump that thread and ask for a Marshall to rule on it, or start yourself a new one in the Rules area.

EDIT: And I'm not sure what the Ramos thread, or Paralyze has to do with anything. It all works exactly as the book says it should. The only change I can think of on Paralyze is just that Poison doesn't effect you if you're paralyzed.

I quote them as general example on how people need to dig threw all the forums for ruling that actually differ from the book (For the dove question I didn't have the new book in front of me to reference the use soul stone ability). I was in a thread before were the actual paralyze rules now complete differ from the newest book. Now apparently a paralyze model does not even get an activation with no AP. They are just skipped for a turn now. hence poison does not kick in for that turn. This was an official ruling and buried in a performers thread. I actually got a direct PM from a marshal on that. I would love to see all these rules changes put in 1 list that people can look at without having to dig threw the forums to find. I've seen a couple arguments mid game because different people where playing different rules based on forum discussions.

if the rules marshals actually could post the things the henchmen see as player confusion in 1 spot. Like the post ratty did it would be appreciated by the players who don't spend their days in the forums.

[LoboStele]

I quote them as general example on how people need to dig threw all the forums for ruling that actually differ from the book (For the dove question I didn't have the new book in front of me to reference the use soul stone ability). I was in a thread before were the actual paralyze rules now complete differ from the newest book. Now apparently a paralyze model does not even get an activation with no AP. They are just skipped for a turn now. hence poison does not kick in for that turn. This was an official ruling and buried in a performers thread. I actually got a direct PM from a marshal on that. I would love to see all these rules changes put in 1 list that people can look at without having to dig threw the forums to find. I've seen a couple arguments mid game because different people where playing different rules based on forum discussions.

if the rules marshals actually could post the things the henchmen see as player confusion in 1 spot. Like the post ratty did it would be appreciated by the players who don't spend their days in the forums.

To be fair, the Paralyze thing is NOT counter to the Rules Manual. It's just a clarification, and in effect is the same as Paralyze was always supposed to work.

[Hookers]

I'm fairly certain that Lobo is correct

[MadArcanist]

Sorry forgot disappearing act had a ss cost. Yea then doves can't cast it XD

[Dark Alleycat]

On a mostly unrelated note,and while not quite as epic as making a enemy minion into a Mannequin,last week I turned a Coryphee duet into a Witchling Stalker.

[CannonFodder]

To be fair, the Paralyze thing is NOT counter to the Rules Manual. It's just a clarification, and in effect is the same as Paralyze was always supposed to work.

Our entire LGS agrees that having an activation with 0AP is very different from no activation. Effects poisons, the ability to pass and do a wait an see. If I dig I can find more. Also with that and the ruling I was told about that a buried model does not lose effects that end at closing (stitched together and aura ruling) then if you paralyze then bury before its activation then the model is out for 2 turns which I think is a little broken. And I can't find in the new rule book.

Our Hamelin players all got a shock when it was found out the the encounter ends before VPs are counted. So all the models that gained insignificant count for objectives claiming. This was another ruling on the forums that we can't find anything in the rules.

Sorry if I'm bringing up a beef about the way ruling are done in wyrd here but I know I'm not alone. The new book was supposed to be a single set rules for players to follow, but its barely 2 months old and are finding stuff not in it. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a single FAQ that got updated once a month.