baskinders

The problem I guess is that we have two types of values that use a shorthand +#. We have statistics ie +2 Cg or +2 Wk, which can not add to something that doesn't already exist, and we have conditions i.e. Burning +2, Armour +1, which can be added to something that doesn't exist. Damage is defined neither as a statistic or a condition as far as I can tell, hence the confusion as to whether a +# Dg can add to nothing. I'm not sure either way, but am leaning towards it being in the statistic camp simply because it also uses the shorthand of a capital letter and a lowercase letter abbreviation after the +# just like stats, which isn't a very good reason…

I agree that it could easily be taken either way, to the point where I'm actually arguing internally with myself about it right now... Simple to clarify this one in the FAQ. Makes me wonder how most people played it through the Beta as that wording had not changed for quite a few updates?

+ Flay is just repeating the rule from the rule book (you may cheat fate) and then adding an extra bonus to it (even when...).

Great question! My reading of those rules would be yes to your first question, it is an opportunity to activate so can be affected by Mood Swing. With Marcus, because he has cast Alpha, there is already a Chain Activation "declared" as such. So once he's finished his activation, the mood swing target does not have an opportunity to activate because the Alpha'd model has already taken that opportunity. At least that's how I'd play it

Sorry to bring this up again but two more examples of "can you target a model with this action even though the primary effect does nothing" came up in our game yesterday. The Rail Worker's Shovel Faster and whether it can target models with no Burning condition, and McMorning's Expunge and whether it can target models with no Poison condition. I don't want to start the debate again, just wanted to add those two to Pandora and the Monk of Low River as they are all worded (in English meaning, not necessarily the exact words) the same, so should probably all be yes or no

Amen

Yeah good point, the negative damage flips would definitely apply to all generated actions with that wording. But probably not the -3Ca or positive Attack flips huh? Same with Wendigo's -3Ca on Overpower triggered December's Curses? That doesn't feel right even though it's RAW... And you're right, magical extension wielding totems can use triggers as well.

I think the point he's making is in this instance Jackhammer Kick is not a seperate action that you're trying to copy, it is simply part of the Just Like You action. This is consistent with the Actions generating Actions bit of the rules that says an action is not resolved until all generated actions are completed. So in this case Mini Mei takes Just like You: this generates Railwalker: this generates Jackhammer Kick: this generates whatever trigger/action selected: Just Like You is now resolved. There's no such thing as "copying" actions, but there are actions that generate other actions. Which kinda makes me wonder if he's a Mini Rasputina and generates a second December's curse, it probably wouldn't get the -3Ca, positive attack and negative damage flips would it? Given it's being generated by The Decembers Curse trigger rather than the Just like You action...

Ashen Core is an Enforcer with Wk -

Sure I get that he doesn't have it on his card and could not normally declare he was takin the (1) Jackhammer Kick action because of it, but does that stop the trigger which says he may take it from working, hence breaking that rule of it normally having to be printed on his card? I don't think he should be able to, but the way it plays I would let my opponent do it to me because I don't have a good argument against it?

So I'm thinking this might have snuck through the Beta unnoticed... Malifaux Child takes the (1) Just Like You action to cast Mei Feng's Railwalker ability. Unlike most "copy" actions, Just Like You doesn't have the proviso of not being able to use triggers. So the little fella can potentially: - Place himself in contact with a friendly construct or scrap counter within 6" - Trigger Express Line and do a Jackhammer Kick!!! (which I assume would not get the -3Ca as it's using Ml, nor the positive to the attack flip but would get the negative to damage?!?) - Trigger one of either Intimidating Pose, Thunderous Smash or Pressurized Vent, depending on upgrades taken, if the Jackhammer kick was successful/did damage!!!!! Not sure the 3ss totem should be able to carry that out for 1 Ap?

As the original poster I can say I'm no more clear now than before asking . However, can I throw in the Monk of Low River to this debate and ask if he can target a model with his attack that has no Condition present? Because the way that attack is worded is the same as Pandora's, so the answer should be consistent either way.

I'd bet you the reason they're worded slightly differently but mean the same thing is that different people wrote the cards. Justin even mentioned during the beta that he could tell who had wrote which card based on the language and phrasing used. Unless we're talking about a defined game term, there is absolutely no need for two rules to contain the exact same words. As long as they both are talking about the same thing then they're compatible.

Fair enough. So it boils down to whether the word Ignore is a defined game term that needs to be referenced, or if it's a common language use of the word in which case it's the effect that matters rather than the word of the law (which is what I think) I've not noticed the word Ignore being a definitive game term like Attack, Ability, Opposed etc? Could be wrong?

Was that the official word? Because that doesn't really make sense to me? All models need LoS to target according to the rules. Lilith has an ability that says she doesn't need LoS, breaking this rule (or ignoring the rule, whatever you like). Silurid have an ability to stop other abilities ignoring this rule. That seems pretty clear cut to me, what's the argument for otherwise?

Don't the words "you don't need a prerequisite" and "you may ignore a prerequisite" mean the same thing? And given that the word "ignore" is not a defined term in the game like "attack", we're just talking plain language that means the same thing. So Lilith does actually need LoS against Silent models because she can't ignore LoS... Austringers are worded the same btw (don't need LoS) but they would against Silent models.

Ah, good point about the book reference. They would also still count as making a Wp check too, so that's another reason for her to want to be able to target non-shooters.

Can pandora cast Self Harm at a target that has no ranged attack? The answer boils down to whether the first sentence "Select a (1) AP ranged attack on the target." is a requirement of casting or if it's an effect of the casting? The reason I ask is that if it's an effect then you can cast it on non-ranged attack targets and trigger Mental Anguish to Paralyse them if you take that upgrade, as it's triggered off success and not damaging. The way it's written it could be either I guess? It doesn't say "target a model with a (1) AP ranged attack" so I'm leaning towards it being ok to target anyone. What do you all think?

​The From the Shadows ability has two separate sentences; the first is about forward deploying and the second says that this model may not take interact actions on the first turn. As written, even if you forgo the forward deployment part of the ability and deploy in your deployment zone, the model still can't take interact actions in the first turn. Is this how you play it, or do you condition the second sentence upon the first in the ability?

The Void Wretch's Time is Meaningless ability states "This model gains double positive on all duels with models with the Fast Condition". I'm a bit confused as to whether the word Opposed has been left out on purpose so that Simple duels are included somehow? For instance, if an enemy model with Fast that has Terrifying (All) causes a Void Wretch to take a Horror duel do they get the double positive modifier?

The action fails and you move on with the game, because the action requires you to simoultaneously declare a trigger without having a suit to declare a trigger with which you can't do, action ends. Not sure where the confusion is?

I'm of the opinion that its not a matter of one trumping the other. In order to complete an action you've got to fulfil all of the requirements to make it happen. In this case for Hanah to use TYM with MaNE she simoultaneously may not and must use a trigger, which is not possible, hence the action is not possible. There's no need to refer to the specificity paragraph at all because it's not an interaction between two conflicting rules that needs to be resolved, it just simply can't happen as they are requirements for an action that can't be fulfilled. In the same way that a target that's out of range can't be a target.

Sure can

I play using both my tablet and the model cards mostly, as I have both so happy to use them both. Either way the way my group tracks activation is to put a small token next to each mini on the table once activated so you can see who's still to go without referring to either cards or tablets . Works well for us.

I think that's a bit unimaginative and a little bit selfish myself. I would prefer to play against opponents who have completely painted crews, but that's my problem not theirs. I'd also prefer to play against an opponent who had a tablet connected to my tablet via Bluetooth with an app that kept track of current model status that instantly updated for both of us to keep track of the game. But as that's a bit hard to find I'll take an opponent with whatever they bring to the table. And if I find it hard to keep track then I'll take it upon myself to tap into my notes app on my tablet each time something happens to keep my own notes. Or just ask my opponent...