Kadeton

You wrote, "I'll play the devil's advocate," i.e. argue a position that you do not personally agree with. Perhaps you mistyped that, but I think it's worth explaining why we don't do this. In general, where there is ambiguity in the rules, we try to establish a consensus. If more than one interpretation is possible, but everybody assumes it works one way anyway, then the disambiguation isn't necessary. Natural language is inherently difficult to write unambiguously without being very verbose - trying to remove all possibility of alternative interpretation is a Sisyphean torment (even before we get into the difficulties of translation). Instead, the rules rely on a "reasonable interpretation", much like all laws. The rules are only relevant in terms of the gameplay effect that they produce. It doesn't really matter what the letter of the rule says, only how a given interpretation affects the outcomes of the game. This is where it is reasonable to disagree - if you feel that allowing someone to score Search the Ruins with a scheme marker in contact with an Ice Pillar represents a balance problem for that scheme, and I do not, then we can have a discussion based on the relative merits of our positions. But if you're saying "Well I interpret these words this way," and I disagree, then we're just arguing semantics and wasting everyone's time. Yeah, that's fine. I often do that too. But if that's all you're doing, then you're not actually adding to the conversation. There are any number of ways the rule could have been written differently (and none of them are flawless) but what's important is trying to reach a consensus on which interpretation produces the best outcomes for the game. Playing the devil's advocate is doing the exact opposite - it attempts to challenge the consensus to purposely create further debate. Literally: arguing for the sake of arguing.

The devil doesn't need an advocate. By all means, argue for how you genuinely think the rule should be played, but this isn't a high school debate. Arguing for the sake of arguing is not encouraged.

I certainly follow "interpretation 1", where effects resolve when you are instructed to resolve them, even if that means nesting their resolutions. "Interpretation 2" seems unnecessary to me, and as you've pointed out, it gives a lot of similar results. Crooligan: same result. Philip and the Nanny: I don't agree with the rigidity of the timing from your interpretation. If the Night Terror discards a card and Philip is within 3" of it at that time, then both models will gain the Terror's Fading effect simultaneously. You could push Philip first, then the Terror, or the other way around if you prefer. (The need for Philip to be within 3" when the card is discarded, not after the Terror is pushed, is the same in both interpretations.) Exploding so hard and Black Blood: These can be cleanly resolved under "interpretation 1" by making a different interpretative assumption (that the "If this effect would bring the model above 0 Health, it is no longer killed" timing listed under 6a on p. 34 is the only timing point at which a model can avoid being killed after being reduced to 0 Health). Scorch the Soul: I'm not sure what this has to do with effect timing. Given that "interpretation 1" resolves these, and is (IMO) more intuitive, I don't see the need for "interpretation 2".

Yep, that sort of nonsense is a big part of why I think it will eventuate that models cannot avoid being killed after 6a, even if they heal. In that case, this would resolve as: A is killed. A has no abilities that heal it upon death, so resolves on-death effects. A explodes, reduces B to 0. B is killed. B has no abilities that heal it upon death, so resolves on-death effects. B explodes. (A heals, but it no longer matters because A's window to survive in 6a has already passed.) B is removed. A is removed. Clean. And roughly what you would intuitively expect to happen. Here's a theoretical: if Demise (Explosive/Flaming) didn't specify that the model didn't drop Markers when killed, and we allowed models to avoid death by healing after 6a, then the Drachen Trooper could both drop a corpse and still be walking around. Not sure if that makes the problem clearer? By allowing post-6a-death-avoidance, Schrödinger's Drachen Trooper is both dead and alive. That seems clearly unintended.

That's a great screenshot - it's actually three examples of variant wordings: Puncture: "...in the final duel total" Severe Injury: "...in this Action's final duel total" The Light Inside: "...in this model's final duel total" Those are all completely synonymous, as far as I can tell.

I'll be very interested to see how this one ends up being ruled. Personally, I don't think this particular interaction (or indeed any interactions where a killed model ends up healing after Damage Step 6a) was accounted for in the rules. My strong suspicion is that the eventual ruling will not allow the model to survive, and that in fact Step 6a will end up being the only time that a killed model can avoid being killed. The lack of a specified timing on the "healing after being killed" rule can be accounted for by there being a precise timing specified for it in the Damage Timing structure (i.e. p. 25 specifies how it works, and p. 34 specifies exactly when it happens). This would make the 6a wording not "redundant" at all, and it would also cleanly avoid "paradoxes". Or I could be completely off-base, and Drachen Troopers can explode and re-form their bodies as often as they like. Dark Powers, indeed!

Being able to Interact while engaged (or after disengaging) can often come in handy. Or to Charge while engaged, even if you've already Charged that turn...

Damage Reduction, p. 24: "If a model suffers 0 damage, it is not considered to have suffered damage." The model hasn't suffered damage, so it does not gain Burning from Blaze or Poison from Infect.

Yes, I agree. I think we've come a long way in clearing up the game's timing structure, but there's always going to be some weird edge cases that need further clarification, and this is one instance where a direct "It works like this" answer would be very helpful.

In my opinion? Intent, and convention. The non-standard timing of effects has to be specified in relation to the "normal" sequence of events. In general, they are not simultaneous with any steps in that normal sequence, but occur in the spaces between them. Occurring after something that normally happens implies occurring before the next thing that normally happens. I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules that specify that, though.

I've played it that way because that's how it worked in M2E. But it's based on the following notion: The pulse "instantaneously" affects everything within its area "as long as they are within the generating object's LoS". Ergo, if an object isn't in the generator's LoS at the instant the pulse happens, it isn't affected. Then, because multiple models have been simultaneously affected by the pulse, you resolve those effects according to the simultaneous effect timing. But all the simultaneous effects from the pulse have already been determined before you start resolving them. What's an example of an effect where you "start the timing outside of some effect but before completely resolving that timing are then within the effect"? I'm having trouble getting my head around that sentence.

I think that's a pretty solid argument for the "before shockwave" timing, honestly. If your timing looks like this: 1. Drop Shockwave marker 2. Resolve Shockwave pulse then in order for something to happen in between those two steps, you would have to refer to that timing as "After dropping the Shockwave marker" or "Before resolving the Shockwave pulse". The second of those would have been much clearer, but that doesn't make the first less precise. Following that to its conclusion, if Not A Bomb had been intended to resolve after the Shockwave pulse, its timing would presumably have been specified as "After resolving the Shockwave's pulse" or similar (or equally, "Before removing the Shockwave marker").

I feel this discussion has run its course - both sides of the argument have been rehashed many times, and are starting to turn belligerent. Mod status gives me the privilege of the final word, so I will gently suggest that while it's possible to semantically support an interpretation in which the cost of a trigger might be refused, it's almost certainly against the spirit of the rules. My personal opinion is that where a trigger must be declared if able, any costs for that trigger must also be paid if able. In the absence of an FAQ, I would recommend that you read through the responses, draw your own conclusions, agree with your opponent, and play it the way you decide.

It's certainly not a game that lends itself to "I want to play this specific crew, what objectives can we play that will help it work?" The whole approach is the other way around: This is your mission, who are you going to choose to fulfil it? That said, there's nothing stopping you from arranging everything in advance, surely? Just have a conversation where you agree on encounter size, scenario and schemes, reveal your chosen factions and leaders, hire and reveal your crews, and secretly select your schemes. Then when you actually get to the table, you can place the terrain (this is the only thing that will happen out of sequence), deploy, and go. So far, I haven't found the gap between crews to be win-or-lose based on the scenario. Slower ranged crews might not get to the objectives as quickly, but they can more easily kill the enemy models who do, for example. (Also, the December theme has Ice Dancers who are more than fast enough for scheme running, Acolytes who deploy up the board, and Snow Storm who can boost friendly movement. A Rasputina crew can definitely get wherever they need to be.)

The "must... or" phrasing is certainly ambiguous. It's a "Cake or death!" situation, and everyone is insisting that your only option is "Or death". That said, allowing players to opt out of mandatory triggers seems completely against the intent of making them mandatory. I wouldn't expect that interpretation to be upheld in a future FAQ. It would have been much better if the rule had read "These costs must be paid in order for the Trigger to be declared." But to be on the safe side, that's how I'd play it.

I think you're right, and this question will become 'frequently asked'. And there's nothing wrong with clarifying any rules that people need clarified. My post above wasn't trying to argue that clarification was unnecessary, but more about the kind of mindset that leads to the confusion, and how the way people approach the rules will need to be adjusted for M3E compared to previous editions. It's not at all saying that people don't have good reasons to think that way, just that it's an approach that now causes more problems than it solves - the M3E rules are written without taking those assumptions into account (in a well-intentioned effort to make them more consistent and concise).

While I get where you're coming from, M3E's rules are far more carefully worded than in previous editions. If a particular word is used, the default assumption should be that the word was chosen deliberately and purposefully. If a rule is written such that it specifically applies to Markers, it should be interpreted as applying only to Markers. Extending those rules to non-Marker objects on the assumption that the devs made a mistake is only ever going to lead to problems. Not unreasonable, but also not the way that M3E should be approached. After "Well, it doesn't say," the follow-up assumption should always be "so I guess nothing happens." The FAQ in this case, I suspect, will read something along these lines: Q: If a model with an aura that acts like Hazardous terrain moves, are the models that their aura moves over affected by it, as they would be if a Hazardous Marker was moved? A: No. Models are not Markers.

The terrain rules aren't like model rules - they're not printed on the terrain's "stat card", since such a thing doesn't exist, and the Hazardous Terrain rules aren't "removed from the game" when the Marker is removed. The game rules don't care about whether the Hazardous terrain still exists after the action is resolved. All they care about is this: Q: Did the Lucky Emissary move through or resolve an action while in Hazardous Terrain? A: Yes. That's the entire condition fulfilled. Therefore: After the current Action or Ability is resolved, the Lucky Emissary suffers whatever the effects of that Hazardous Terrain were.

You're not likely to get a definitive answer from the designers here, those generally come in FAQs. This is my personal take on it. Breaking down the timing in detail: Crooligan The Crooligan's activation begins. By Your Side goes into effect, and the Crooligan discards a card to place itself within 2" of a suitable model. The discard triggers Fading (Footprints). How is this resolved? By Your Side has an effect (discard and place). In the course of resolving that effect, another effect (Fading) is created. Sequential Effects (p. 34) tells us what to do in this situation: So we fully resolve By Your Side's effect (placing the Crooligan) then move onto resolving the additional effect (removing a marker). The Crooligan removes a marker from its new position. Rabble Riser The Rabble Riser makes an attack, then discards a card to Flurry and make another attack. The discard triggers Fading (Misfit). How is this resolved? Flurry occurs "After resolving", and it has an effect (discard and make another attack). When an Action is generated by an effect, Actions Generated By Effects (p. 34) tells us what to do: So when resolving Flurry, the Rabble Riser discards a card, which creates a new effect (Fading). The attack that Flurry generates has to wait until all other effects are resolved, including any effects that those effects generate. The Rabble Riser gains Focus +1 before it makes the additional attack.

To print efficiently, you'll want to combine the files into a single PDF. If you've got access to Acrobat (the full-fledged version, not Acrobat Reader) then this is under the Tools tab -> Combine Files. Just drag & drop all the cards you want to print on there and it will do the rest. If you don't have an Acrobat license, there are free options that do the same thing (I suggest PDFsam). When you're printing, the option you're looking for is for multiple pages per sheet. This will depend on your OS and printer, but it should be there somewhere! The most efficient arrangement I've found so far is in portrait orientation, four pages wide by three pages tall (we use A4 paper, not sure whether there's a better option for US paper sizes). They're small, but readable.

Colette is certainly quite difficult to kill for most opposing crews. That's not particularly unusual any more - there are a number of Masters now who are extremely hard to take out. I think you missed out a bit of your question, but from the previous thread it looks like it was about Lady Justice and her Stunned trigger. Colette can still Fade Away from this, yes - if she couldn't, she'd be very short-lived! If you have some way of putting Stunned on her before Justice's activation, you'll have a better shot at killing her, but I'd suggest that Justice's efforts would be better spent killing off everything else. If you really want to end her, some Death Marshal Recruiters might help... but you don't need to. Killing the enemy Master doesn't win you the game. Performers (other than Colette herself) are pretty squishy, relying on a few special survival abilities to compensate for their generally low Health and middling defenses, and are relatively easy to kill. Once her crew is depleted, Colette herself doesn't do much. She's mainly there to be an annoyance and a tarpit to protect her crew, so that they can get things done - if you focus your attention on trying to kill her, you're playing right into her hands. The Performers' scheme marker potential is indeed very strong, as they're quite specialised in that area. They trade that off by being below average in the killing department, so it's unlikely that your crew will be under significant threat. The strategies take this into account to some extent - killing gives you a "free" interact to neutralise your opponent in Turf War, the Performers don't much like taking the damage from Corrupted Idols, and carrying Explosives puts a big target on their heads (and they struggle to get them back off enemy models). My advice: keep practising against them, and pay less attention to Colette - she's just the illusionist trying to distract you from what's really happening, as she should be.

A bit convoluted due to Stealth's sloppy wording, but I would say: Since Stealth talks about a distance in relation to targeting, that means we're dealing with a restriction that occurs when measuring range. Eyes in the Night allows Zoraida to measure range from certain other models. If Zoraida is measuring range from another model, and that model is within 6" of her target, then she has targeted that model from within 6". Stealth should not apply. Edit: You know it's a doozy of a question when the mods disagree on the rules interpretation! I think this portion of @Adran's answer is interesting: "Targeting a model is not the same as drawing line of sight to a model or drawing range to a model." It got me wondering whether that difference (whether or not it exists) actually matters in this case. If Eyes in the Night instead said "This model may target its non- Actions from friendly Swampfiends blah blah" then I doubt this would be an issue needing much discussion. That reads awkwardly, so I can see why the designers didn't go with that style of wording, instead opting for the more explicit "draw LoS and range". But the semantic difference is slim at best - to target means to announce, and then to check LoS and range. The question of whether Stealth's limitation is intended to be checked as part of range, or separately, is key here. (There is also, to my mind, the issue of "What do these abilities represent within the world of the game?" Stealth means you can't be seen from far away, Eyes in the Night means Zoraida can see through the eyes of other creatures. If those creatures are close enough to see the Stealthy enemy, it feels like Zoraida should be able to see them too.)

It's perhaps worth noting that this only applies to Walk actions, not other forms of movement. I expect that's going to catch a lot of people out, coming from 2E. You can't Charge somewhere that you have to climb to reach, even if you're a ghost. (But if you have Flight, you can.)

Ice Tornado is a bit of a messy one, because it seems like there are layers of "effects". The effect of the Action is to create a Shockwave. The effect of that Shockwave is Damage 2. The effects of the Shockwave (note the wording in the Shockwave rules, which specifically reference "the effects of the Shockwave") only apply if you fail the duel. However, friendly December models are able to ignore the effects of the Action, and it's not clear at all (to me at least) that these are the same as the effects of the Shockwave. Unless there's been some re-wording of Ice Tornado since beta, I don't think this is definitively resolvable. It seems like a great FAQ candidate, since that would let us get to the intent. Requiring December models to fail the duel in order to push certainly feels wrong to me, and greatly devalues Snow Storm.

While the conversation has been a bit belligerent, it has (mostly) been civil and on-topic enough to pass muster. It has also accumulated quite a lot of good advice on how to combat Titania effectively, which other players may find useful. We're monitoring the discussion. But if you think a thread has run its course, the best approach is to simply stop posting in it.