Allandrel

Yes, any ability with a +X value in its name is stackable. (Digital Rulebook, Page 24, under "Abilities.") Apart from that, the + serves the simple purpose of having one ability that can have different values, rather than having to create a separate named ability for Demise (Explosive +1) Demise (Explosive +2), and so on. This is, I expect, why Vengeance has a +1 value rather than doing a flat one damage - it is future-proofing for later models that may have higher levels of Vengeance, or effects that give a model Vengeance. (Of course, it is also possible that this is an artifact of the beta, where Kirai had Vengeance +2 for a while, and when they lowered her vengeance they never considered that now every model with Vengeance had it a +1. Kind of like how Mindless says that no player discards tokens from the model being summoned, when summoning does not make anyone discard tokens... but it did in the beta, and they evidently just never revised Mindless when that rule was removed.)

Constriction is poorly phrased, because technically the Disengage Action does not generate any duels - it generates another Action, and that action generates duels. With that in mind, I think that the intent is that it effects both attack duels by by enemy models when one of your models Disengages, and resist duels made by enemy models that are Disengaging. Otherwise, it would say the specific duel affected, such as "resist duels made during a disengage action."

I am very firmly in the camp of "models packed together should share the exact same set of keywords." This is doubly true if one of them can be hired out of faction, but the other cannot. Having to but a model in your faction, but out of your master's keyword, in order to get a model that is in your master's keyword is frustrating - but at least you can hire it out-of-keyword. Having to buy a model that you cannot hire AT ALL in order to get a model that is in your master's keyword is unacceptable.

Absolutely correct! The engaged model also cannot be Obeyed to declare a Projectile action for the same reason.

It's future-proofing so that a model could be made with Vengeance +2 (Kirai actually had that for a while in the beta). A good comparison would be Demise (Flaming +X), which is found with different values on different models. For example, Witchling Stalkers have Demise (Flaming +1), while Witchling Thralls have Demise (Flaming +2).

Big fan of the strategy and scheme alterations, I expect to start using them in casual games as well.

Thanks, I somehow missed that!

The Protected (Whatever) Ability states to "change the target to a friendly (Whatever) model within 2" of this model (ignoring range, LOS, and targeting restrictions)." So the question is, does the core rule that "A model may not target itself with an Attack Action" count as a "targeting restriction?" For example, I have a Wild Board next to Ulix. My opponent's Zoraida uses Obey to have my Wild Boar target Ulix with Tusks. Can Ulix use Protected (Pig) to change the target to the attacking Wild Boar, since it is still a friendly Pig and Protected causes the attack to ignore targeting restrictions? Or does "A model may not target itself with Attack Actions" not count as a targeting restriction, even though it is literally restricting what can be targeted?

The latter. "For each discarded card that matched the named suit, the enemy model suffers 2 damage" means that a model that discards two cards of the named suit suffers two damage twice, with damage reduction applying separately to each. If it was one instance of damage, it would be written "the enemy model suffers damage equal to twice the number of discarded cards that match the named suit."

That's a subject of much debate, and has been for ages. I'm in the camp that the term "lawful" is a poor word choice, and that Order would be a better name. It's not about "the law" as in literal statutes, but as in a worldview that things should be structured and orderly with everything in a proper place. In DC comics, Darkseid is basically the embodiment of Lawful Evil, but he doesn't follow any laws, because in his view, his will IS law.

There is: digital rulebook page 23, under Step 5: Apply Results: So if an effect would draw a range from a model that is no longer in play, that effect cannot be resolved and is ignored.

First question: I believe so, yes. The rules for Focused read: Now it does say "resulting damage flip" rather than "resulting damage flips," but I think it still works if an opposed duel results in multiple damage flips. Otherwise, you run into the question of "WHICH damage flip does the use of Focused apply to?" Further more, Triggers are part of the action that the model used Focus on. The rules for Action Triggers (digital rulebook, page 12) read: So if the Focused bonus would apply to any damage flips from the Triggers resulting from the opposed duel that the model used Focused on (as would the accuracy modifier, etc.). On that note, I'm not sure how this works if a Trigger makes a damage flip against a different model than the target that might impose different modifiers, but that is a different question. As for Resistance Triggers, I believe that Focused would also apply to those. The rules for Focused say that it applies to the duel, and the resistance trigger is part of the duel, so any damage flips included in its effects are resulting from that duel. Second question: No, Focused does not apply to Demise effects. The demise is not resulting from the opposed duel as a resistance trigger is, but is a separate ability that has nothing to do with any duels that might have been made. So

My take on effects resolved during the damage process is that it refers to specific effects that ONLY resolve in these situations, not to any other effects. Malifaux is built on explicit language meaning specific things. Short version: "After a model is damaged" effects refers specifically to, and only to, effect that contain language to that timing, such as Black Blood. Same with "after a model is killed" effects. Only effects that specifically say they happen at such points happen at such points. Long version: STEP 5 Step 5 is effects that happen "after a model is damaged" or "after a model is reduced to a specific Health." Meaning exactly those effects - those that contain language such that this is when they happen, e.g. an Ability that reads "After this model damages another model" or "after this model suffers damage." It does NOT include sequential effects that happen to resolve subsequent to a damage effect. Those are separate, unrelated effects. Black Blood is an "after damaging" effect. The pulse from Unhinge is not. It is the second effect from an action. The nature of the first effect has no influence on what kind of effect the second is. Look at it this way. There are two actions: Action 1 has the effects: "Target gains the Stunned condition. Target must discard a card." Action 2 has the effects: "Target suffers 2/4/5 damage. Target must discard a card." Is "Target must discard a card" an "after damaging effect" in Action 2, but not Action 1, even though it is the exact same effect? Of course not. It is not an "after damaging effect" in either case, because in both cases whether it resolves has nothing to do with whether the target suffers damage. So whether the target suffers damage also does not affect when the effect resolves. STEP 6-A Likewise, Step 6-A refers to effects that specifically heal models or replace them when killed, such as Demise (Eternal) or Grim Recruitment. It does NOT refer to other heal or replace effects that haven't been generated. So for an example, Coppelius targets a Young Nephilim (Health 2) with Unhinge. The YN is 2" away from Coppelius, and 1" away from Serena Bowman (Health 1). (skipping over steps that are not relevant) ... Unhinge damage Step 4: The Young Nephilim's Health is reduced from 2 to 0. Unhinge damage Step 5: Effects that happen after the Young Nephilim is damaged resolve. Just effects that specifically happen after a model is damaged. In this case, the only applicable effect is Black Blood. The second effect of Unhinged does not apply, because as outlined above, it is NOT an "after a model suffers damage" effect. The Young Nephilim resolves Black Blood, FULLY. This will interrupt the damage sequence, because the rules say to resolve effects such as this now. ... Black Blood Damage Step 4: Serena Bowman's Health is reduced from 1 to 0. ... Black Blood Damage Step 6: Serena Bowman is Killed. Black Blood Damage Step 6-A: Effects that would heal or replace the killed model resolve. Serena Bowman's Demise (Eternal) resolves FULLY (again interrupting a damage sequence, as outlined above with Black Blood). The second effect of Unhinged does not resolve at this point. While it would heal Serena, and she is the killed model, it is not an effect that heals "the killed model." Since Serena is no longer killed, no further steps in the damage sequence for Black Blood resolve. We go back to the damage sequence for Unhinge. Unhinge damage Step 6: The Young Nephilim is killed. ... Unhinge damage Step 6-D: The Young Nephilim is removed from the game. The damage sequence has finished, so now the first effect of Unhinge has fully resolved. We move on to resolve the next effect of Unhinged. This effect cannot occur, because there is no longer a target to measure the pulse from, so the effect does not resolve. (Digital rules, page 23 under Resolving Actions).

The argument seems to change. Right now a number of people are arguing that if Effect A is damage, and Effect B is resolved after Effect A, Effect B is an "after damaging" effect and would resolve during Step 5 of the damage sequence. This... does not seem sound to me. "After damaging effects" clearly refers to effects that resolve BECAUSE a model was damaged, not just any effect that is listed after a damage effect. I think it is clearly 2. Measuring for an effect is part of resolving that effect, and you do not resolve an effect until you have FULLY resolved previously generated effects. i.e., if an action's effects are "Push the target 3" away from this model. Models within (Pulse)1 of the target suffer 1 damage," you do not resolve the pulse effect until you have fully resolved the push effect. Saying "I resolve this part of Effect B, then go back and resolve effect A, then go forward again and finish resolving effect B" makes no sense and conflicts with the rules for sequential effects.

Got a question that another player and I are on an impasse on. The rules for resolving an action's effects read: So if an action's effects are "Do A. Do B." You resolve A completely, then resolve B. As I understand it, this means that if resolving A results in a situation where B cannot be resolved, B is ignored. For example, A is "target suffers 2 damage" and B is "all models with (Pulse)3 of the target gain the Stunned Condition." If the damage from A kills the target, it is removed from the game as part of resolving the damage. So when you move on to resolving B, the target is no longer in the game, thus no pulse can be measured, thus B does not resolve. The other player is arguing that if resolving A would make in impossible to resolve B, you interrupt resolving A in order to resolve B, before finishing resolving A, because the rules for sequential effects read: So, he argues, in the example, while resolving effect A, effect B is "in the queue" and you would resolve B in the middle of the damage sequence, because the model being killed an removed is a "additional effect" of A, and thus comes after resolving effects that have already been generated such as B. This seems absurd to me, as the entire damage sequence IS effect A. You cannot resolve B before the damage sequence has finished, because if you have not finished the damage sequence, you have not finished resolving A yet. Thoughts?