Mr_Smigs

DOES NOT DIE DOES NOT ALWAYS GIVE REACTIVATE!

It only gives reactivate if the Stiched has already activated.

whoops. you're right. my mistake. scratch that

was remembering the "Does Not Die" always triggers, but doesn't mean it always gives Reactivate.

now, if they can somehow toggle reactivate before getting to the model's action, then they can get up and running again...

[whoops] misread a bit on the cards

Nope.

so... page 72 is wrong?

If I have Rasputina leading...

I can have Special Forces MS&U Assets, and an Effegy in the force?

Kaeris' boxed set comes with fire gamin... arn't they a "may" for her (since normally she can only bring MS&Us...)

if so, that sets the standard that in hiring policy, there's some sort of cock up in the wording. (Which would bring us back to Ophilia's interaction with certain other masters... )

I haven't yet seen a ruling on recieveing multiple reactivates to clear multiple paralysed.

it came up in the Slow Stacking discussions last month (and the month before)

Yes, because the ruling that "Does Not Die" isn't a lingering effect..

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25899&page=2&highlight=lingering

the model can get reactivate multiple times...

Page 34 of the rules manual says that the two cancel each other out. A model is not affected by by both Reactivate and Paralysed at the same time

It seems to follow the same rules for fast and slow in that you can not be affected by them both at the same time, but if one of them is applied again, the model is affected by it.

Page 34 is badly written.

they don't really "cancel each other out"

it's more "they resolve at the same time, resulting in a net change of 0 unless there are more of one than the other"

again...

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24905&highlight=slow+stacking

and all the threads that links to...

end result: by current ruling

YES

if you paralyze a stitched together, they can just kill it a couple times to purge the paralysis and restore it to normal actions, and still get the reactivate.

huh... most Henchmen are Special Forces, right,

which means, you can't take an Effigy with a Henchman even if you're running a Master leading the list... right?

Is that an assumption or in the rules?

sadly, assumption based on wording in the rules manual.

of the three "out of play" states mentioned on page 13 of the rules manual,

only Buried states that effects remain on the model when it is put Out of Play

as a killed model is out of play it would imply that all effects on the model are removed.

what impact this has on traits given to the model before it was killled is another matter, as, it's last in play status included those traits...

most impressive.

meh... I like how the reds have come out... but the blue flame without some kinda reflection on the Gamin themselves seems.... flat...

if you applied some of that as OSL to the figure (causing purple highlights around the flame) it might pop a little more.

Edonil, at work not so dont have the paints in front of me, but would the grey one as final coat look right for dead flesh? Need to figure out how to paint dead justice and co. And so wondering if that could work, as I suck at painting flesh even more so than the rest of the models:)

for undead...

I've had alot of good turn out with using a grey basecoat (troll flesh highlight from PP, it's a really light, ashey grey) then washing it with a mix of Ogrun Flesh and Leviathan purple... (or thraka green if i want more zombie flesh)

Usually, I use the PP tentacle pink when I want to do pale flesh...

cutting elf flesh with white usually ends it out looking artificial...

alternately, you could just go with white, and do a couple washes a purple/ogrun flesh mix (thin washes) until you hit the tone you want...

But whilst we're still in the closing phase I can still sacrifice a waif to put him into play surely.

Old man lives

not if the gremlins were second in activation, as your chance to sacrifice the waif would have already passed.

as "closing phase" options go in activation order (noted earlier)

it would go:

1. Levi player activates first....

2. gremlin player activates second...

leading to closing phase

1. Levi player has chance to sacrifice to summon levi... (can't, levi is still alive)

2. gremlin player kills levi...

3. turn ends.

page 32 of the rules manual says the closing phase goes in activation order so if the gremlin player went first levi would come back

neat. good catch.

and if the gremlin player was second...

well Eternally Shackled does read:

If this model is killed or sacrificed during the turn, during

the Closing Phase sacrifice a friendly Hollow Waif and Place this model into

base contact with that model before it leaves play, then sacrifice all other

friendly Hollow Waifs in play. Discard your Hand and draw up to your Crew’s

Maximum Hand Size.

During the turn. Closing phase ends, old man dies.

well, there is no active player (old ruling, active player goes first)

so...

Dud? and Shackled resolve at once,

since the Master cannot exist in duplicate on the table,

he can't summon (he's still being killed in the end closing)

so he dies.

ok, a little off topic.

Now that I understand your career background and some of your gaming background it all makes sense now. With my English and Teaching background, you might find it surprising I don't question things more.

here (Malifaux community), not so much. In my experience, the bulk of the Malifaux players I've met would rather play the game than argue a rule... (which is one of the reasons I keep playing, I ask them how they expect the interaction to work and we go with it, usually)

but I've seen too many good game groups (including a malifaux group) walk away from a good game because of one rules troll who net-decks their way to victory using exploits that were not intended in the game.

that is, kind of the point of just about every discussion I start... I see something that could be read differently and turned into a overpowered tactic,

and ask questions until the rules are show to be inline with the existing logic of the game.

I'm "in charge" teaching and promoting Malifaux at the local gaming store (waiting to finish my Marcus crew before I apply, 1 model to go). My friend and I keep up with rulings, and postings on a daily basis, so we are always "In the know." I can see how the constant evolution of the game can turn some people away from the game. I do agree some aspects of the rules can get confusing at times.

i know a lot of people that were chased away from WARMACHINE for the same reason... and that game has a freaking flow chart (and still has powers that ignore it...)

last year (right before Rising Powers came out) I even heard a Malifaux player say he refused to acknowledge any "it's on the forums rulings" unless the TO could prove it right then and their because of the "in the know" players constantly pointing out that his understanding of the rules wasn't the standard...

What part of Michigan do you play at?

almost done with the boss, should have her posted by the end of the week.

No i am not wrong Ratty has said so /\ look up and read the quote.

first, he says REDUCE. not that Armor -1 doesn't exist. Ratty says in that post you cannot REDUCE to Armor to -1

and as you've seen, asssuming you read the next few posts.

I already responded to that with a previous ruling of Ratty's that conflicts with that ruling.

But I do have a question for you Mr_Smigs. Why do you nit pick rules and beat them to death.

I nit pick when i find a conflict in rulings, or a flaw in the definitions.

the long of it, read the link in my sig.

the really long of it, PM me.

...

see, here, it comes into a couple of rulings all around armor...

1. A model's full damage reduction isn't calculated until the attack is resolved. (Thus when Bulletproof, Evasive, Armor, and similar abilities all "give Armor")

2. Some Effects do not resolve immediately. (Slow for example) even though they are considered added immediately for other effects.

3. An effect that "gives Armor" is not Armor as an ability itself, but...

4. Can be affected by effects that target Armor (in Ratty's commentary in this thread...)

5. Effects that cancel each other out are both on the model until the effect needs to be resolved (EG: Slow and Fast, Paralysis and Reactivate)

6. An ability on a model cann't be "Ended" unless a special rule says to take it off (ruled for Spellbreaker)

now,

no where have they said Armor cannot be negative.

people have assumed

1. Armor is a Stat. (But the book defines armor as an Ability not a Stat)

2. Cut Away removes the Armor ability. (But, the spell itself says the model "gains Armor -1")

so when I posted the initial question,

It was using the logic presented above,

which lead to the initial question of "what happens when the Armor ability totals out to be a negative"?

and later "Can you stack Cut Away effects for resolution later to have a model unable to benefit from later application of Armor at a later time?"

Now, Ratty has said, quite clearly

you can't reduce Armor to -1.

and thus why I had to ask a few follow up questions to understand how/why this resolves differently from other abilities.

There is no such thing as Armor -1, never was, never is, never will be. Once the model has been reduced to 0 Armor it no longer has Armor and cut away can no longer be casted on it.

Cut Away gives the ability Armor -1

so your first statement is wrong.

If the ability said it "Reduced the value of Armor by 1, to a minimum of 0" then it might support your statement,

alas, it does not.

[whoops double post]

What you have done again, is take something I said. Not understood it and therefore made a ludicrous conclusion. In the thread you quoted, we were discussing talents for copying via assimilate. I said that there will only ever be one Armor +# talent on the card everything else would be effects that were applied and added to the Armor. Yes a model in the right power cycle would have Armor +4 so could have cut away cast on it multiple times.

and what you've done is ignored the general question and addressed a specific question that wasn't even asked.

Your Statement (As I understand it):

The Armor From Power Cycle is not part of the model's Armor. So it is considered Separate from the model's actual Armor ability.

A Model can have multiple Effects that grant it Armor, but each Effect is separate until attack resolution.

Thus a doppleganger could Copy Armor, or Power Cycle. But would have to mimic both to get the full effect the Rider has...

The General Question

As a model can have multiple effects that apply Armor, that are not considered Armor because they are Effects,

when a model is affected by the Cut Away effect, it would not actually lose Armor, but have two effects that total out at resolution.

As a result, what happens if that total is Negative?

any word on this?

The explaination I was given at one point was:

The model gains 1 Specific AP which they can use for the WD/Push exchange.

unfortunately, I've been told that while that makes sense,

it is not how the power is supposed to be interpreted.

that it's an "optional ability" only listed under Actions for tracking purposes, but it might as well be at the top of the list as just an ability that reads "Relentless - once per activation this model may suffer 1 wd and be pushed 3 inches..." or something along those lines...

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24991&page=3

when i pursued the question further, it didn't really become any clearer as to why it has the (+1) but there was some explanation

It's conflicting with the statement that an Effect that grants Armor is separate from the actual Armor ability until resolution.

basically

In which case the Armor +3 is granted by an effect generated by the Power Cycle. So the model would have Armor +1 and the Power Cycle effect on it, which would give it Armor +4 in damage resolution.

In which case the [COLOR=Red][I][B]Armor -1[/B][/I] [/COLOR] is granted by an effect 

generated by the [I][B][COLOR=Red]Cut Away[/COLOR][/B][/I]. 

So the model would have [B]Armor +1[/B] and the [I][B][COLOR=Red]Cut Away 

[/COLOR][/B][/I]effect on it, 

which would give it [B]Armor +0[/B] in damage resolution.

but the ruling he posted in this thread says that the armor change is calculated before damage resolution.

which is it?

1. at resolution all effects are stacked,

or

2. all effects are applied immediately when generated.

????

This is where the question gets interesting,

Johan is cheaper for Members,

are Assets not Members (and as stated above, he costs extra for Kaeris)?

Evasive/Bulletproof etc only apply the Armor at resolution.. When you cast the spell they are not giving the model any addition Armor. The spell says it only affects models with Armor +1 which the model doesn't have at the time the spell is cast. If the model has had it's Armor reduced to 0 it doesn't have Armor +1 so the spell has no effect. IE you can't reduce Armor to -1.

but your post:

In which case the Armor +3 is granted by an effect generated by the Power Cycle. So the model would have Armor +1 and the Power Cycle effect on it, which would give it Armor +4 in damage resolution.

A model should never have more than one Armor +# ability on the card, all other Armor modifiers will come from one effect or another.

said that Armor, granted by an Effect isn't actually changing the armor, but the Effect, and isn't calculated until damage resolution.

which conflicts with your newest ruling.