SunTsu

Even if it's OT, I agree with you about Bete Noir's "rise again" that doesn't make sense allowing it while unburied, frankly I think this is a simple and plain mistake. But by raw until there will be an official errata it works that way unfortunately... 🙁

Well, any rule clarification should be supported at least by a rule-based reasoning about why it should work in that way. A statement like this without any explanation is simply unuseful and confusing, so we should avoid things like these, at least in the rules forum... If you want to argument why you think these abilities works diffent, we could speak about that. 😁 Well, why are you so sure it's legal stacking on the same model multiple times? Frankly I would like these situations would be clarified in a faq/errata document, but actually as I read these abilities I think those cannot stack on the same model multiple times. My reasoning is that these abilities let you choose a model for each card of a specific suit you putted back in your fate deck. It's clearly a single effect that happen at the same time, so if you bringed back 3 relevant suited cards, you may select up to 3 models. Nothing suggest you can select the same model more times. But even if you should force the reasoning in that way, I don't think the output would be different: when you pick up a model, that model gain the "choosen" tag (it's not a formal game effect, but it's emerging by the ability sentence as written). Even if you would choose the same model 3 times, that model wouldn't gain a "choosen+3" tag, since it's not defined as a condition/token/other that can have multiple values. Finally last sentence says that the "choosen" model(s) have to discard a card or get stunned, and even if you would chose that same model 3 times, that remains a chosen model and the effect is "discard a card or become stunned" just once. My two cents.

Yes, absolutely. I meant "Strategy" but mistakenly wrote "scheme". However after reading the Gluttony faq I saw my thoughts were wrong and @solkan was right instead: that faq clarify that a model can't do anything that involve a Strategy Marker, if it's not explicitly written in the strategy rules itself. Effects coming from Schemes and not from models should work however.

As you wrote, you found the faq that explicitly says all markers of the same name are identical, so there is not possible having two markers with same name with different base size. That said, the situation wrote about by @King of Draconiss is not a real exception to this general rule: it's true that a model retain all its traits and characteristics even when you count it as a marker (a model you are considering as a scrap/corpse marker doesn't drop its size to 0, neither change its base size), because "counting as a marker" it's not the same as being that marker. So the fact that some models can be treated as a specific marker retaining their stats, it's not a real argument to counter the rule stating all markers of the same name share the same traits.

Hello! You should be a little more specific when you ask a question, since could be difficult to answer if you don't provide precise informations about what you're asking for... However.... I guess you're speaking about the ability "Students of all" on Sandeep2 card, that states: <<After a friendly Academic activates, it may discard a card to have another friendly Elemental within 6 of it take a non- Action, drawing LoS and range from that Academic. Models cannot take Actions this way more than Once per Turn.>> I put in bold the part that says that is the Elemental model that take the action, not the Academic one. So in your example about the action "Off the Rails" it's the Metal Golem that moves because is the model that's taking the action. The part about measuring range/los from the academic is relevant only if the action you're going to take requires those (for example an attack action).

But actions like Secret Passage works with strategy markers, as far as I know... 🤔 Edit: I was wrong, read below...

I'm not so sure black blood would be triggered by an aura effect like this one (or many others that gives, for example, hazardous terrain). Just some points: - BLACK BLOOD: After this model suffers damage from an Action or Trigger, every model within 1 suffers 1 damage. This model ignores damage caused by Black Blood. - PERUPERU: After an enemy model fails an opposed duel with this model by 3 or more, it suffers 1 damage. So, the damage from Peruperu (as damage from hazardous terrain aura in the example I made), even if happens during an action is not a damage that is caused "from an Action or Trigger", but it is caused by the lasting effects of a previous action. In other words, the action don't deal any damage by itself; it's failing the duel that brings the model to suffering a damage. So by my understanding of the rules, nothing states the Black Blood ability would be triggered by things like these.

You forgot tunnel markers.

Well, considering the Gearling's rule "Expert Getaway", in the situation proposed in the original question here the Gearling could completely ignore the terrain suffering no hazardous at all.

I searched but found nothing. Rules about models taking actions during an activation says: "Most models can take two Actions. Models may take up to two Actions during their Activation. This is referred to as a model’s Action Limit. These Actions are resolved one at a time, with each Action fully resolving (including any Triggers) before the next Action begins (see Actions on pg. 22)." The verb 'may' suggest that you can forfeit your actions doing 'nothing', but isn't explicitly defined what that 'nothing' exactly means. You can skip the entire action as you would never do any actions? Or you can do nothing as part of your actions? 🤔 That's relevant (for example) if that model is inside any hazardous terrain: if a model can skip completely its actions he could result 'immune' to that terrain (looks a bit counterintuitive activating inside and don't be affected at all), instead if it's considered doing nothing in place of any action he would suffer hazardous effects. Thanks in advance for your answers. 👍🏼

Exactly what I thought. Essentially is a transfer. So, finally the main question is about the timing about when you remove the "old" upgrade and when the "new" one is attached. If the new upgrade is attached when the old one is already in play, you wouldn't be able to attach it to McCabe again. But frankly I can't remember anything leading in that direction, also because if that's the case you could not attach an upgrade you already have 2 in play, that frankly in my mind don't seems the intent of that rule... A more intuitive way to think about it, is that you detach the previous upgrade in order to attach the next one. But reading the rule as written, my insight is that you attach the very same upgrade to the new model, literally "moving" that specific upgrade from a model (detaching it) to a new model (that attach it). If we postulate that you cannot attach that upgrade to a model if previously you hadn't detached it, the result is that McCabe should be able to detach an upgrade to attach it again to himself.

Well, your question isn't totally silly however. About your second question, it's obvious (as you said later) that you measure the shortest line between the two objects you're measuring range in between. About your first question, vertical height is relevant only when the two objects are on different levels of the battlefield. So, if you ignore Los and there is a very tall terrain between the two models, but those are on the same ground level, then you simply ignore that terrain. If instead one of the two models is on the tall terrain while the other is ground level, then you have to take into account different heights, that could lead (or not) to a range reduction.

A question, just to be clear about it: as I read the ability, if McCabe use that ability to another model that don't have any upgrade attached, McCabe itself would remove the upgrade on itself in order to attach it to the new model. Or it would results in two upgrades from one? I'm asking this, because that could change the outcome in some ways... 🤔

Thanks ! 😅 In which FAQ it is? Just to know... So, if I read this right, basically the effect originated by the strategy marker's push is friendly to the model that triggers the push, independently by the alignment of the marker itself... Is that correct?

Hello! As written in the title, I searched in the forum but found nothing about. The interaction in question is the "remove any marker" effect in the "Carve a Path" strategy, and effects specifying that a marker "cannot be removed by enemy effects", such as the Assault markers or a scrap marker within 4" of a Rock Hopper, just to name two examples. My question is if the strategy remove rule is considered a friendly effect, or not. My guess is that it's not considered a friendly effect to anyone, since the strategy define it, and in this case those markers are removed as usual. The opposite would lead to undefined situations. For example, the "friendly" status would depend on the owner of the marker pushed, or on the model that's activating the push??? And in case of an unremovable impassable marker (don't know if there's any in the game...), the strategy marker would stop its push, or would continue its movement? Let me know your point of view... 🤔