Jehenna

Hello everyone! This sunday at spelets hus (djurgårdsgatan 40) in Gothenburg Sweden you are welcome to come and play Malifaux. I will be available to help with rules and demos.

Hello everyone! Just wanted you to know that on this sunday, 14-20 you are welcome to come and play malifaux at spelets hus, djurgårdsgatan 40 in gothenburg sweden. I will be available to demo and generally help out. /Johan

Hi everyone! This sunday at Spelets hus, Gothenburg I will hold demos for those wishing to test out the game. There will be additional tables ready for if you just want to come and play. I will be there from 13 to 19. Welcome!

Dirial, I really appreciate your last post here. It's the kind of answer I was looking for. Languages are rarely precise though, demonstrated here in that we both used it to mean different things. How can we be sure that our own way is the right? Neither due to or because are established game terms. The intention of the rule is something we can only guess at.

And I agree with you. The question is not what the damage is, but how embalmed and mithridization behaves to that damage. What I wonder is (and it feels like i have written something like this several times before): Typically they use "from the poison condition" in this situation. For example on That's the Stuff on the Plastic Surgery Upgrade. Why do they use different (vaguer) wording to mean the same thing, especially when there are situations here were the poison condition plays into the damage, not directly, but close to. And if you think that I try to twist this to suit my own needs, this is how I read this from the beginning, not thinking there was any other way to interpret it. I only learned of other ways when it came up in a game.

The question is asked in all seriousness, and making parallells to someone you considered cheated is very rude, Hoyled. And all the answers I get seem to be that expunge doesn't do poison damage. Which I have myself stated over and over again. Or that it is obvious how it should work. Neither are satisfactory answers to what I have asked. I appreciate your longer answer though Asrian. At this point I'm kind of sorry that I asked. Wyrd, if you read this I have a small request. In a future faq, could you please put in "When a model with embalmed/mithridization is targeted by exhumed or sip of wine, does it suffer the damage: Yes/No"

As you yourself said, due to means because of. In neither of the cases in the first post is there a direct relation between the effects. Obey doesn't cause an attack, it causes a tactical action that causes an attack. Expunge doesn't cause poison damage, it causes damage in relation to the poison condition on the target model. Both cases have an effect that kicks in, you cannot target a model again that performed an attack action due to obey, and the model heals 1 instead of taking damage when it is due to the poison condition. Or if you will, cannot be targetted again by obey if it performed an attack action because of obey. Or the model heals 1 wound instead of taking damage because of the poison condition. In both cases there is a direct cause between obey -> attack action and exhume -> embalmed. Just one small step between. Isn't the vague formulation of "due to" enough to cover this gap? And if not why? And why should they be handled differently?

Yes we all agree that the damage comes from expunged. That was not the question however.

Sure, expunge doesn't cause poison damage, no one argues that. But it causes ordinary damage because of the poison condition. Which is what the embalmed ability reacts to, damage because of the poison condition.

So "due to" doesn't have any real meaning? Honestly I thought it was pretty clear as well. In that you could not charge and prevented damage from expunge.

Hello eveybody! This phrase "due to" keeps bugging me as what it means doesn't seem entirely clear. I have noticed it in two types of places. The first is in Obey for Perdita, Zoriada etc. "A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation." So a model which simply does an attack can't be targeted again the same activation. But what if the model charged instead, a tactical action that in itself causes two attack actions? Remember that som models can make (1) charges, Rooster riders and War pigs for example. The second is in Mithridization and Embalmed, Rafkin and Flesh Constructs/Guild Autopsies respectively. "When this model would suffer damage due to the Poison Condition, instead, it heals 1 damage." So it heals 1 instead of taking 1 damage from the poison condition. But there are stranger situations that can arise. Expunge from McMourning that causes a model to suffer damage "equal to it's its current Poison condition value". The A Sip of Wine trigger from Performers have the same phrase. In both cases there are odd situations where it isn't obvious if the ability/action works. Had it said "from" instead of "due to" the effect had been clear and neither situation had been affected. But "due to" is a vaguer phrase than "from" and in both cases only one step has been added. Obey -> charge -> attack actions from the charge Expunge -> check poison damage -> do ordinary damage from Expunge I interpret this as both effects come into play in these situations. No charging twice with a War Rooster with Zoraida and no easy killing of Guild Autopsies with Performers. However, during previous rules questions for Embalmed/Mithridization I have seen, a majority of players have been adamant that "due to" means the same as "from" and the Autopsy would indeed take it's poison value in damage. Wouldn't this mean that the War Rooser can indeed charge several times with Zoraida? That most people have been so certain is what causes me the most confusion so I would love to hear other opinions.

Hi everybody! This sunday I will hold my first event as a henchman at Spelets Hus, Gothenburg. I will demo the game and there will be more tables ready if you just want to bring models and play. The Adress is Djurgårdsgatan 40 and I will be in the conference room from 13 to 19 roughly. See you there! /Johan

So "from" and "due to" have the same meaning according to you in this context? (From is used in induction and due to in embalmed and mithridization). Seems odd to have different wordings if they mean the same thing. To me it seems that the wording in embalmed and mithridization is kept vague to cover this exact thing. If the model didn't have the poison condition they would not suffer damage, hence the damage is due to the poison condition. Not from the poison condition, but due to it.

Well, isn't the damage suffered due to the model having the poison condition? If so, embalmed and mithridization would kick in and convert it to healing. Note that neither of the abilities requires the damage to actually come from the poison condition. The damage certainly comes from A Sip of Wine or Expunge, but it is still due to the model having the poison condition.