Glint-Eye

A rare issue came up in my local gamming group, and I am curious if it could be clarified: There are three models: A, B, and C. Models A and B are engaged, and model C is not engaged with anyone. The melee ranges are 1". Model A wants to move out of B's melee range. Model A declares the walk action.As detailed on page 44 of the Rule Book, you declare that you plan on moving out of B's melee range and thus provoke a disengaging strike from B. After B fails his disengaging strike, A continues to move into C's engagement range. The owner of model A wants to move out of C's engagement range (A has a big walk value). I was curious how this should be resolved. Per rules, it seems that C would not get a disengaging strike, but it still seems somewhat ambiguous. Would C get a strike? If C does, would A go back to the point where they were engaged with B, since the walk was canceled, or would it be stuck in C's melee range? This is what Page 44 says on disengaging: "If a model wishes to leave an enemy model's engagement range with a Walk Action, it must declare that it wishes to do so before moving. This may provoke a disengaging strike from the enemy model that the moving model is engaged with. Only Walk Actions provoke disengaging strikes, any other type of move or push will not. To resolve a disengaging strike, the enemy models that are engaged with the moving model may choose to take a free Attack Action with any one Close melee Attack which the disengaging model is within range of. If the Attack hits, the disengaging model may not perform the Walk Action..."[/FONT]

I agree with you Issalbotproto that this should probably go in the general discussion, but while it's here I'll give some food for thought... On the subject of Emotional Trauma and some of the other abilities on Pandora, have you ever thought that the game designers originally used "...this model..." rather than the model's name because they planned on possibly using it on future models, kind of like Frozen Heart and the like? That being said, I would either take Cannon Fodder's suggestion and errata the Doppleganger (My preferred method, but not only this, but future shenanigans as well) or just suck it up and play around it like Magic Pockets suggested.

You are correct Mordakay. Spirits would only be immune to any WP effect that is a morale duel. However, not to confuse the matter, there is a talent called: Immune to Influence (p. 116) that states that a model is immune to any WP duel when it is the defender to the duel. So in theory, a model like a Night Terror could be targeted by something like the spell Obey and still have to make the test, even though it would be immune to something like a Lawyer's Cross Examination spell since it causes a morale duel. Also on this note, a model like the Dread Rider, who has Immune to Influence, would be unaffected by both spells due to the talent.

I wasn't even thinking about Dispel Magic and the like. I guess I should have realized just how stupid that would be; thanks for the quick response .

On the risk of shaking this up a bit, do schemes generate effects on a model if a model is selected by a scheme? By this I mean, page 19 defines an effect as "...a game term referring to anything that changes a model's state..." The examples it gives on the page apply to in-game actions, but would it be considered a change of state on a model to say choose it for "Grudge" scheme? In theory, it does change the model's state, as it goes from being just a minion to a minion that, if you kill it, grants you VP. But I can see this the other way as well, since it doesn't change the model's state during the game (modifying a stat, dealing wounds, etc.). The main reason I ask is thread: http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?19409-Nephlim Because, as per page 38 in the Rules Manual, "...Any effects on the model(s) being replaced are applied to all Replacing models,..."

I know on the strategy chart a player chooses his strategy when he flips a Joker, but what happens when both players flip Jokers? Who chooses first? This is relevant as one player might tactically choose his strategy based on what the other player picked. It would come up more on the Core Encounter chart, but similar issues come up on the expanded individual strategies chart if both players flip the same color joker. Also, on related note, how do you determine who re-flips first on the strategy chart by spending a soulstone? We've always assumed the person who flipped the lowest card to highest card, but the book doesn't specifically mention the order (page 69). Once again this is relevant as a player may choose to re-flip based on what his opponent flipped. My thoughts are that everyone commits to whether or not they wish to re-flip first, and then this action is carried out, but it doesn't specifically mention it. Forgive me if this has already been answered, I looked but I had time finding this topic.

Firstly, let me say that I agree that the Companion is a very poorly worded rule. Secondly, let me also specify that I can see how it could be interpreted the other way. However, my whole discussion didn’t hinge on interpreting the rule a specific way. Rather, it was a breakdown using formal logic and replacement. That it leads to the possible interpretation that I supported was the reason that I showed the logic pattern (hence, supporting my argument). I will admit the pronoun usage is poor, but I’ll blame that more to the original writer of the rule rather than to the indented usage. Going onto another argument though, there is a problem with the way you propose, and it happens when you add the next sentence of the ability. “These models activate simultaneously.” Given your interpretation, this means two things: #1: The original model doesn’t need to be anywhere close to the companioning models so long as they are within 6” of each other. (Based off the already established pattern). And, more importantly #2: The original model doesn’t necessarily activate. (Based off the addition of the second sentence). To explain this point further, the “These models” in the second sentence references the models chosen in the first sentence. If the model with the companion ability doesn’t have the referenced trait, or does but isn’t within 6” of the selected group, then it doesn’t get to activate that turn. This brings me to my example: Rotten Belles with Companion (Sybelle). With your interpretation, you go to activate the Belle, but before you do (if you wanted to use the Companion ability), you would select all models with the Companion characteristic (in this case Sybelle) who needs to be within 6” of herself (she is unique after all). After that, you would activate Sybelle, but no other model. Furthermore, the Rotten Belle that companioned wouldn’t even get to activate that turn since the companion ability replaced its activation. In this way, you might as well have just activated Sybelle and then later activated the belle. I don't believe this is the kind of interaction Wyrd was trying to accomplish.

Okay, the simple terms then. The sentence is structured: "Before activating group A, choose group B within 6" of one another." Or "Before activating group A, choose B within 6" of each other (A & ." I'll ignore your slight against good math equations .

Now that it’s established that in order to companion, you have to be within 6” of a model with companion, Let us look at some of the examples. Example 1: Mannequin 6” from Collette which is 6” from Coryphée The Mannequin would be able to companion with Collette, but the chain would stop there as neither Collette nor the Coryphée have companion. Example 2: Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Companion (Characteristic X) Rewritten as A1 -- B1 -- B2 -- A2 Where: A = Model with companion B = Model without companion I’m also assuming that in this example all of the models have characteristic X (including the companioning models). In this case, A1 could companion with B1, but could not companion B2 as A1 was the chosen point of reference. Take note that while you don’t need to activate the model first that you choose, you still have to choose a reference point to start the companion “linking” hence the phrase “Before activating a model with companion;” you still choose where to start the chain. On that note though, it would work the other way too. If you choose to start with A2, then you could link into B2 but no further.

I believe I’ve figured out how to correctly interpret the intended ruling (the current way it’s played) from the mess of the companion rule. Let us begin by looking at what the actual rule says: “Companion (Model or Characteristic) Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6” of one another. These models activate simultaneously. Choose one of the nominated models to activate first, and complete its entire activation. Then the controller chooses and activates another nominated model. Continue activating the nominated models until all nominated models have completed their activations.” Since most of this talks about how to activate, as opposed to what to activate (what we care about), we're going to cut it down to what we need for this discussion. “Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6” of one another. “ For further analysis, we’ll do a simple replacement using the following: X = “model with Companion” Y = “referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic.” So now our sentence reads: “Before activating X, nominate any number of Y within 6” of one another.” At this point, we notice that the sentence can read one of two ways: #1: “One another” refers to any of Y within 6” of each other, regardless of the location of X. #2: “One another” refers to X and Y, meaning regardless of the number of Y, they must be within 6” of X. Let us break this sentence down with one more replacement: Z = “any number of Y.” So going back to the sentence we have: “Before activating X, nominate Z within 6” of one another” In this breakdown we see that the set Z is not checking to see if it within 6” of itself, but rather 6” of X and that “one another” refer to X and Z. If further explanation is needed, I’ll be glad to provide it upon request.

Nope, his brother . I was told about the game and it was the description that made me wonder about it, so I posted it to the forums with hopes that a Wyrd employee would come out with a clarification. This was of my own initiative, not his. (He has no hard feelings).

In a game I recently viewed I saw an Arcanist player use a Mannequin to companion a Performer that was six inches away. However, he continued to chain the ability to two other showgirl models (which did not have companion) within six inches of the Performer, but not within six of the Mannequin. My thoughts were that this activation was incorrect and that the only way he could have chained the companion chain from the Performer was if there was another model with Companion (Showgirl) as one of the other targets or if the Performer itself somehow had acquired the talent. For reference, page 115 of the rules manual: “Companion (Model or Characteristic) Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding characteristic within 6” of one another. These models activate simultaneously…”

A question about Bad Ju Ju and his ability to heal came up in my group the other day (interestingly, my opponent was arguing in my favor). I had used Bad Ju Ju’s Eternal to bring him back from the dead and I reduced his wound stat by half (down to 6). When next turn came around I was moving Bad Ju Ju and my opponent asked why I didn’t regenerate 2 of his wounds, I told him that the wound stat was reduced in half, but then he pointed out something peculiar about the wording for damage on page 44. “When a model suffers Wd, reduce its remaining Wd stat by one point for each Wd suffered.” This is worded similarly to Bad Ju Ju’s ability, to quote part of eternal: “…reduce this model’s Wd stat by half…” I believe the original intent was that he came back with increasingly less wounds that he could regenerate up to (12, 6, 3, 2, 1…), but is this even correct? Can Bad Ju Ju actually regenerate up to his original 12 wounds? Likewise, does Eternal reduce the wounds lower than 6 on subsequent respawns? It’s worded similar to things like Indiscriminant void, and it fit any of the cumulative requirements listed on page 20 in the rules manual (something my opponent also advocated). In any event, I played with the way most everyone else plays it (reducing the wounds cumulatively and not regenerating them), but it got me to question if I was playing it wrong. I tried looking this up elsewhere, but with little luck. Is it just bad wording and the intent was been the way it Ju Ju has always been played, or is there something more here?

This came up the other day in my play group: An Executioner killed an Ice Gamin. The Executioner was at full health when this happened, the question was whether "Love the Job" would heal him back up to full after he took the 2 damage from the Gamin's "Shatter 2" or if the Executioner would be at 7 wounds since “Love the Job” would trigger and then “Shatter 2”. Our thinking was that you still had to calculate the burst from where the Gamin was, so “Shatter 2” would resolve first, you'd then remove the model and trigger “Love the Job” which would heal The Executioner. For reference: Shatter 2: p2 Dg 2 when this model is killed. Love the Job: When an enemy model killed by a Executioner Claws Strike is removed from play, heal all wounds on this model.

I was watching a game between my friends the other day and at one point Nino Ortega got off a headshot on a Coryphée. However, the Coryphée had used Soul Dancer to gain Use Soulstone earlier in the turn. The Colette player didn't have any reserve soulstone in their cache, but there were two mechanical doves near the headshotted Coryphée. At the time it was ruled that the Coryphée would need to discard two control cards if it wanted to live, since Soulstone Powered specifically mentions using soulstones rather than discarding (i.e. using soulstones involves discarding them, but discarding soulstones isn't necessarily using them). I just wanted to double check to see if this is correct. For reference: Headshot: After hitting a defender with a Repeating Rifle Strike, do no damage. Kill defender unless its controller discards 2 Control Cards or 2 Soulstones. Only models with the Use Soulstones ability may discard Soulstones. Soulstone Powered: A friendly Showgirl model within 3" of this model may sacrifice it when that model could use a Soulstone. The Showgirl gains the benefits of having discarded a Soulstone even if she does not have the Use Stone Ability. If the Soulstone was used to flip a card by a model other than Colette, the flip receives (+). Also, could Colette use her Artificial Soulstone ability as one of her discarded soulstone for an instant kill effect targeting her (like headshot)? I'm thinking yes on this account since it talks about discarding soulstones rather than using them. For reference: Artificial Soulstone: The first Soulstone this model discards each turn is not deducted from its Crew's Soulstone Pool. The Soulstone may not be discarded to summon a model.