CRC

If I was going to start up Ramos right now, I'd buy two Ramos crew boxes, and a old metal Brass Arachnid. I'd convert the new plastic BAs to be Large Arachnids, and I'd sell off the spare Joss for like 20$ or so. No idea what I'd do with the spare Ramos.

Hard to Wound only affects the damage flip, and you only flip for damage once, so clearly only the original target matters. However, your attack is "damaging" all the models it damages, so the blasts will ignore armour as well. The attack only "targets" the original target, so only the original target will gain slow. I think that's your A.

Ignore all the "not for beginners" stuff you hear. Everyone takes several games to figure out how to play their masters before it really starts working. The question is are you willing to lose because you made "stupid mistakes"? If so, you'll be fine, and after a couple games you'll know to avoid those mistakes. It's more of a "know what you're getting into", than a "avoid this crew" thing anyway. On to your bolded points: Hiring Pool: correct. He can hire living models just fine now. Death & Rebirth: Generally correct, but his death/rebirth cycle does give him advantages, primarily healing and repositioning. Abominations: generally correct, but really spending a soulstone to summon a 4 point model is a good deal. Also channel helps you get the cards you need. Desolation Engine: yep. Rusty Alyce: before she was only good on paper and rather lackluster in game. Now she's actually pretty solid.

This. Instead of trying to attach pins to the feet, sculpt the sprue into the necessary pins. It requires a little forethought, but it works really well. Failing that, either plastic-glue their feet to some sprue and embed that into the base, or get yourself a good quality epoxy.

There really isn't much of a difference. As you said, model height matters, but mostly it's a difference of feel. Generally, 8" would be a single target power, p8 would be an instantaneous effect that targets multiple, and a8 would be a persistent effect that targets multiple.

Historically, the best way has been to hope someone buys the box, clips the models apart, and auctions them out individually on ebay. If you want to start the process, you could buy the box and hope people are willing to buy the bits you don't need.

I think the "right" answer is to shuffle it back in. The practical answer varies, but is usually just put it back on the top or similar.

Consider it in comparison to the following: Q: The Melee Expert Ability states, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” Can AP from Melee Expert be used to take Actions which aren’t Ml Actions, for example, Charge? A: No. To me, the main difference is where the question is answered. In the first case, that is literally a question people ask, and on the face of it, could be ruled either way (and has been ruled the other way in other games.) In the second case, the information is loaded into the question. I've heard the equivalent question many times, both online and in person, but never phrased anything like that. A more representative phrasing would be something like: Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves? A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action. Or maybe: Q: Can I use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay for a Charge action? A: No. While the Charge Action results in Ml Actions, it is not actually a Ml Action itself. Anyway, I don't think the Charge question needs to be changed in the Errata, but it seemed like a good example to use here.

I do understand the need to write the errata with a view to future rules interactions. It's just that the phrasing reads like a strawman attack. Further, it feels like the writer went out of his way to reduce the question to absurdity at the expense of clarity. For example, above you reference "other abilities, soulstone prevention, etc", and I don't feel like I have any guidance on how to resolve those issues. Let me take a concrete example that will come up in play: Armor. Now, from the language on the models, (in particular, from the tense of the verbs), I would assume that Purifying Fire would take effect before armor reduced the damage. However, the errata makes me me unsure, and your comment about soulstone prevention (which clearly happens after armor) makes me think it would.

Neither Rail Golems nor Fire Gamin are immune to Burning. The gamin just take zero damage from it, and the rail golem doesn't resolve it at all. Here's a list of all the things that are immune to burning that the eternal flame helps you against: Lenny Clockwork Traps Ashes and Dust (and its parts) Shang the Emberling Monks of the Low River (list produced by grepping the pdfs, may not be accurate due to changes between pdfs and printed cards) All this assumes that "immune" is a defined game term, which is isn't. You can tell, because it's not capitalized. Which means we have to use an "English interpretation" to determine if something is immune to burning or not... Edit: As pointed out below, Immunity is a game term, and so that last paragraph doesn't apply.

<rant> Sometimes I really hate how Wyrd writes errata. We have a simple question and want a simple answer. Can they answer that question? No, they have to rewrite our question into a garbled and heavily biased question and then answer that. Seriously? Was anyone anywhere curious is a model suffering zero damage from burning would heal? Anyone? No. The question was "Do abilities get a chance to reduce or prevent burning before Purifying Fire converts the damage to healing?" There. Simple unbiased question that could receive a simple answer and close this mess. </rant> Well, at least this back-handed FAQ answers the "intent" part of the question. We know what they meant, and I'm going to leave it at that.

No. You can only activate two in a row. It's in the main rulebook under "Chain Activations".

"after determining" means things like damage flips, not the reduction from incorporeal. Prevention occupies the same timing interval as Reduction and incorporeal, so you follow the math rules as laid out early in the book.

Kaeris' limited upgrades are both strong and cheap. I would definitely take one. I have never regretted taking Imbued Energies. In fact, as a general rule, if I have spare SS, I take more of it instead of stones. Arcane Reservoir is sweet.

If you play a scheme pair like Line in the Sand + Breakthrough, which is the sort of thing Colette might consider you'll need seven markers to get full points. You probably want a couple spare, so that you can over-mark your objectives, so ten should do. However, Colette uses schemes for other things, and you probably want to have enough for that too, so fifteen? That seems really high, though. I think ten would do you in the real world. Less for non-Colette crews. I have nine, and I've never had a problem, but I've only fielded Colette once.