Welcome to Wyrd Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Kadeton

  • Rank
    Angst Bunny
  • Birthday 12/29/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Yes, the model can Leap away and no disengaging strike takes place. The only type of movement that causes a disengaging strike is a Walk action (see p.44 of the BRB).
  2. This is covered by the "Duel Stat Types" rule in the breakout box on p.31 of the BRB, for reference.
  3. Because essentially, our whole discussion here boils down to the fact that you call Actions that can be used once per Turn and Actions that cannot target the same model more than once per Turn "very similar", and I call them "completely different". I don't think there's much further discussion to be had - we can agree to disagree?
  4. "Once Per Turn Actions" is a game rule, just like the "Placing Scheme Markers" and "Immunity" rules in callout boxes on the same page. It's not an explanation.
  5. Because the rule on p.39 is this: "Some Actions note that they can only be taken "once per Turn." This only refers to the individual model. Although the model may only take the Action once per Turn, other models may still take the Action." Prompt does not note that the Action can only be taken once per Turn. This rule, therefore, does not apply to Prompt. Since there is no other rule exemption for Actions that cannot target a model more than once per Turn, why would they be allowed to target the same model more than once per Turn under any circumstances?
  6. Is it tactically useful very often? Perdita's player doesn't get to control the action that Howard takes, Howard's player does. All you're really doing is forcing him to take his extra action at a potentially inconvenient time. But yes, I would say that matches the spirit of the rule - Howard can only ever be Prompted once per Turn. If you can turn that into a tactical advantage, that's good play. Indeed. Prompt doesn't say that, and it can be taken as many times per Turn as the caster has AP. Instead, it says "A model may only be targeted by this Action once per Turn," which is a different situation - FAQs should never be extrapolated to cover rules other than those intended. I think you could well be proven correct in the future, but right now in the absence of an FAQ I would take the rule at face value: a model may only be targeted by Prompt once per Turn.
  7. Different designers express themselves differently. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Why do you doubt that? I would assume that the Captain and Cassandra wouldn't be allowed to Airburst the same model twice in a Turn as well. If different models were supposed to be able to get around the restriction, I would suggest "This model may not target the same model with this Action more than once per Turn." "Once per Turn" stuff is inherently confusing, since (in at least some cases) it doesn't actually mean once per Turn. For me, the relevant distinction here is whether the "once per Turn" restriction is checked against the model taking the Action (in which case, a different model will not be restricted) or checked against the target (in which case, any model taking that Action against that target would be restricted). My own interpretation is that Prompt (and Airburst) are restricted based on what has happened to the target, not what the acting model has done, due to the way they are worded. (I'm not saying I'm right, just that I think there's a stronger case for that interpretation.)
  8. Based on that wording, I would have said the opposite. Note: "Some Actions note that they can only be taken “once per Turn.” This only refers to the individual model. Although the model may only take the Action once per Turn, other models may still take the Action." We can clearly see multiple copies of an Action printed on separate models' cards referred to as "the Action", singular. Even though they are different models, they are all taking "the (same) Action". While the "once per Turn" restriction takes effect on a per-model basis, all copies of that Action are still the same Action. Prompt doesn't care whether the target has been affected by "this model", it only cares whether the target has been affected by "this Action". All copies of "this Action" are still "this Action", regardless of whether they come from "this model". I would support @dancater's interpretation 2.
  9. Okay, but then: Not sure that came across right. Lucius probably had been playing the Guild more than the Neverborn, simply because the Governor General was the greater force holding him back. Now that Titania is in the picture, Lucius seems pretty intent on screwing up her plans too. McCabe may have spent years setting up the Governor for a fall, but basically everything else he did in that time was in service to the Guild since he couldn't risk blowing his cover. Again, the Governor was the one who had the most leverage over him... now that he's out of the way, I'd expect to see McCabe doing his best to get out from under the Thunders' thumb as well. The reason we haven't seen either of them betraying their other Faction up to this point is because they've never really done anything with their other Faction. Ultimately, every Faction has Masters with divided loyalties who may end up advancing or hindering the Faction's goals (if that Faction even has goals - the Gremlins, Ressers and Outcasts basically don't, which I'd say makes them far less closely tied than the Guild). I'm still not sure why you think the Guild is particularly unusual in that regard?
  10. I would have said that Lucius is way more pro-Lucius - his schemes are all to further his own interest, and he does that by playing the Guild and the Neverborn off against each other. Both the Guild and the Thunders have leverage over McCabe, who is basically just doing everything he can to avoid outliving his usefulness to either side. It's true that the Guild don't necessarily know about his involvement with the Thunders (though I bet Lucius does...) but that doesn't stop him serving their interests. I think those elements actually make the Authority theme more well-rounded. Any authoritarian organisation will inevitably produce corruption, and the Guild are no exception. Authority can be used in both idealistic and selfish ways, and the Guild Masters are all aspects of a morally complex institution. I vastly prefer that to having them all be "good guys" or "bad guys".
  11. Oddly, I've always found the Guild to have the strongest thematic group identity. Each Master has their area of speciality that is useful to the security of the organisation as a whole. Sonnia is the protector against arcane threats, Justice against necromancy, Perdita against the Neverborn, Hoffman against the emerging science of amalgamation, Nellie against public opinion. McCabe is useful for black ops and acquisitions, and Lucius provides central coordination and intel. They're a coherent organisation - with different departments, sure, but working cooperatively towards a common goal. It makes sense for them to share resources, personnel, and expertise. The only one that doesn't really fit is McMourning, because he isn't at all aligned with the Guild's interests, only his own. His character has been so well established as a murderous egomaniacal lunatic that it would be difficult to give him convincing Guild-oriented motivations... but at least he does officially work for the Guild. Collectively, they represent Authority, and all the good and bad that goes along with that. It can be a difficult or uncomfortable theme for people to connect to at times, but it's definitely there.
  12. Don't get confused by GW's massive "Australia tax" - all their prices are sky-high here, and every other game looks cheap in comparison. The 40K rules are $85 US. Still more expensive than TOS, but not $140 either. Also, let's not get caught up in an extended argument over whether TOS presents sufficient value (I've seen several of these already). People can make that judgement themselves.
  13. Yes, these statements are true. I'm pretty close to locking the thread for being off-topic at this point. Does anyone have anything they want to add to the original discussion?
  14. Dreamer also gets his summoning for free! You only have to pay extra if you want to summon things other than Alps and Daydreams. Dreamer is fairly unique in his choice of summoning - other summoners (even the ones with a similarly limited range of options, like Ramos and Seamus) can't take upgrades to increase their summoning pool, and nobody else gets the option to summon Enforcers.
  15. Your hand of cards is called the Control Hand (p.24, BRB), so "control card" is just a shorthand version of "a card from your Control Hand". Karina and Old Major's stat cards also use the term.