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?

A pair of questions regarding Timing during the Activation Phase: The Activation Phase rules on page 21 of the digital rule book included the following: FIRST THING It's clear that effects that go off "at the start of a model's activation" (such as Death Marshal's Hate The Dead) and effects that go of when a model "starts its activation" (such as Hamelin's Source Of The Contagion) resolve during Step C1. (The difference in phrasing just seem to be due to different context regarding "this model" versus other models.) But some effects resolve "when a model Activates" (such as Death Marshal's Pine Box) or affect "models that Activate" (such as Witchling Handler's Goad Witchling). I THINK this is meant to be the same as "at the start of the model's activation," just phrased differently due to the different context, and so would also resolve during Step C1. But I can also see the reasoning that "when a model Activates" refers instead to the first, un-numbered part of Step C "The chosen model Activates," and such effects would thus all be resolved then, before moving on to Step C1. Am I reading too much into the difference in phrasing to think they might be different? Step C doesn't say anything about resolving "when a model activates" effects, leading me to think those effects are meant to have the same timing as "at the start of a model's activation." But like I said, I can also see the other reading. SECOND THING How do you determine which effects to resolve during Step C1? Do you A) Check to see which effects would resolve, the active player chooses one to resolve, then you check again (with a possible different set now applying), the active player chooses one to resolve, and so on until when you check there are no applicable effects to resolve? or B) Check which effects would resolve when C1 starts, then resolve those in an order of the Active Player's choosing, even if resolving one would seem to make another inapplicable? And any effects that would not apply when you checked will not resolve, even if resolving another effect would cause those effects to apply? Two examples to show what I'm saying: Example 1: A Ronin (with On The Move) starts its activation 2" away from a Stolen (with Diseased). Option A: The players check for "start of activation" effects, find that both On The Move and Diseased would resolve now, and the active player chooses to resolve On The Move, moving the Ronin so that it is now 5" away from the Stolen. The players then check again for "start of activation" effects, and find that there are none that would now resolve, as the Ronin is not within range of Diseased. Option B: The Ronin starts its activation and the players check for applicable effects, and find that On The Move and Diseased would both resolve. The active player chooses to resolve On The Move first, moving the Ronin so that it is now 5" away from the Stolen. Then Diseased resolves and the Ronin gains a Blight token, even though it is not currently within range of Diseased, because it was when the Ronin started its activation. Example 2: This time, the Ronin (with On The Move) starts its activation 5" away from a Stolen (with Diseased). Option A: The players check for "start of activation" effects, find that On The Move would resolve now, and the active player resolves On The Move, moving the Ronin so that it is now 2" away from the Stolen. The players then check again for "start of activation" effects, and find that Diseased would now resolve. Diseased resolves and the Ronin gains a Blight token. Option B: The Ronin starts its activation and the players check for applicable effects, and find that On The Move would resolve. The active player resolve On The Move, moving the Ronin so that it is now 2" away from the Stolen. Diseased does not resolve because the Ronin was not within range when it started its activation. My inclination is to go with Option A, because that seems to be how general timing works, where you are constantly checking to see which effects would apply, and resolving one effect can render another effect inapplicable or cause a third effect to apply when it would not have before. But I have seen it argued both ways.

There is a HUGE difference between rotating cards out of a CCG format and rotating models out of a miniatures game - namely, player investment. A player might spend more on a magic deck than on a Malifaux crew, but were any of those cards what drew them into the game in the first place? "Magic looked mildly interesting until I saw Necropotence, now I HAVE to play it." Does a specific card play a central role in every game someone play with a given deck? Only if they play Commander, which is a non-standard format. Otherwise, someone can easily go a whole game without ever drawing a particular card. Do CCG players spend hours painting the art for each of the cards themselves, making it their own? The fact that people accept rotation as part of CCGs but are upset about a handful of models not being tournament legal or part of their faction should show that there is a world of difference in player investment between the two hobbies. There are people who still refuse to buy any GW products because of Age of Sigmar retiring several factions from Warhammer - is that really a model that anyone thinks Wyrd should follow? I'm upset because the two factions I play are losing five Master between them, and they aren't even my favorite Masters. If Wyrd was to put, say Perdita and Sonnia "out of rotation" I would quit the game just like a Warhammer player with a Bretonnian army.

Longtime player here, veteran of about two dozen edition changes over various games. I'm overall looking forward to the new edition: Streamlined abilities? Yes. One of the things I really like about the change-over from 1E to 2E was the elimination of useless cruft, which 1E was chock-full of, which which 2E has accumulated. No Paralyzed? Great. Paralyzed was way too powerful of an effect. BUT, a few of the issues raised here are troubling to me: 1. It sounds like AP is going away and being replaced with a set of number of actions per model. I'm not a fan of this, as the AP system allowed a lot of flexibility in design and was easy to track. 2. New card sizes: Really, REALLY not a fan of this. It will require the purchase of hundreds of new card sleeves that may need to be special ordered, and create storage problems when looking for boxes and binders to use. Not to mention how this will-be off-putting to new players. Standard-sized cards are important, it means players can pick up card storage at just about any shop that stocks Magic. Requiring unusual sleeves, boxes, and binders that you need to search for on the web is a hurdle for new players to overcome, and you want as few of those as possible. One of Malifaux's appeals over games like 40k is how easy it is to get started. Seriously, cut down the art space and make the cards standard-sized. On a lesser note, I dislike having the faction symbol in the middle of the statline. It breaks the statline up in a distracting way. 3. Changing crew-building from "play the faction" to "play the master" by penalizing the use of out-of-theme models sounds like it will result in cookie-cutter lists to an even greater degree than what we've seen with M2E. If you have three models that would be equally valid choices, but two of them are penalized for being out-of-theme, then only one of those three models is actually cost-effective. So you'll take the one and leave the others gathering dust. Every time. One of the appeals to collecting M2E is that it is fairly easy to add a new Master to your collection, with both generalist models and plenty of themed models being useful for multiple Masters. Restricting crews to theme makes expanding into additional Masters less appealing if it requires buying an entirely new, full-size crew rather than just a new crew box. 4. Losing masters, both to the Dead Man's Hand and to other factions, is a Big Hairy Deal. "Only tournament legal if the TO allows it" translates to most game groups refusing to allow something as well, plus the likelihood of a "dead" master's theme no longer being developed. Masters going single-faction is much the same. I play Guild and have pretty much the entire faction. Sure, I could continue to play McMourning and McCabe if I went Ressers or TT, but that means either collecting an additional Faction or restricting myself to a single crew build in the new faction, and neither are things that I want to do. I LIKE being able to choose from a wide variety of options within my declared Faction.

Okay, I see what you mean - it's a simple extrapolation from the timing rules on p. 46 (the "General Timing" box). This means that any ruling that clarifies when you resolve a Trigger DOES also apply to non-Trigger abilities with the same timing. In this case, because you resolve an "after suffering damage" Trigger after Step 5 (resolving the effects of the action), you would have to resolve an "after suffering damage" non-Trigger Ability after Step 5 as well. So "Rotten Contents" will not resolve if the damage kills the Stitched Together, because it is dead by the time you finish Step 5. This also means that the "after resolving the current action" text in Toshiro's "Bloated Stench" is actually just clarification, rather than a timing difference between Rotten Contents and Bloated Stench. Thanks!

Looking at the FAQ, I'm seeing that the second section (Actions/Abilities found across multiple Factions) has a few questions that address "when/after" as it pertains to when/after a model is killed (#14) and to "After Damaging" Triggers (#15). But neither of these seem to apply to non-Trigger abilities Rotten Contents that resolve "after suffering damage," as unlike a Trigger there is nothing stating that the ability waits until the action has finished resolving. (Some abilities like Toshiro's "Bloated Stench" clearly state that they resolve AFTER resolving the current Action, avoiding this problem.)

A question came up regarding the timing of abilities that resolve "when this model suffers damage" vs. those that resolve "after this model suffers damage." Specifically, what happens when the damage in question kills the model. When a model suffers damage, you reduce its Wd by the amount of damage suffered. If a model's Wd is reduced to 0, it is immediately killed. Are "suffers damage" and "reducing Wd by the amount of damage suffered" distinct steps? I'll use some examples to illustrate what I mean: "Black Blood: All models without Black Blood within (Pulse)1 suffer 1 damage when this model suffers damage." This one is very straightforward. "When this model suffers damage" means that Black Blood occurs at the same time that the model suffers damage, so it goes off even if the damage in question kills the model with Black Blood. Here's where the confusion comes in: "Rotten Contents: After suffering damage, this model must flip a card which may be cheated. If it is a (Crows), all Livingmodels within (Pulse)2 suffer 2 damage." If this model suffers damage that will kill it, does Rotten Contents go off before it dies (between "suffers damage" and "reduces Wd by damage suffered")? Or does "after suffering damage" include resolving the effects of the damage (in this case, death), meaning that the model will no longer be in play when the time comes to resolve Rotten Contents?

While the Initiative Flip is not technically a duel, cheating would seem to follow the rules for cheating in an opposed duel. So if both players have a model with Ill Omens, Initiative goes as follows: Step 1: Flip For Initiative: As normal. Step 1.5: Cheating (due to Ill Omens) Compare Initiative totals. The player with the lowest total has the first opportunity to cheat or pass. Then, the other player has the opportunity to cheat or pass in response to the results of the losing player's cheat/pass. (Remember that a player flipping the Black Joker cannot cheat, and a player flipping the Red Joker prevents their opponent from cheating.) Step 2: Use Soulstones Once both players have cheated or passed, compare totals again. The player with the lower total has the option to spend a soulstone to re-flip. This will replace any cheated card. Then, the other player has the option to spend a soulstone to re-flip in response to the results of the losing player's re-flip. This will replace any cheated card. (Remember that Jokers have no effect on whether you can re-flip Initiative.) Step 3: Determine First Player As normal, based on the final Initiative values generated.

I remember some years ago, when talking to one of GW's designers in person, I brought up a rules issue with two similar but differently-worded rules in a book he wrote. There was a situation where it appeared that one of the rules would be in effect but the other would not, due to the difference in wording. He was quite surprised and confused that people thought there was any difference between the two rules. He literally did not understand why people would conclude that, if two rules (in the same book, mind you) were written differently, they must be different rules, and the difference between them must be meaningful. This is why I love designers that use templating in their rules.

Buried models may not declare Triggers, per the FAQ. Models that are buried still use their abilities, though some will not apply because of the specific effects of buried. Some examples: A model's Armor applies to any damage that it might take while buried (such as from Burning or a Void Wretch's Void Maw). Explosive Demise will have no effect if the model is killed while buried, as its effect has a range and requires LOS. Toshiro the Daimyo's "Bloated Stench" will affect a Void Wretch that damages him with Void Maw, as no range or LOS is required. In addition, some abilities and actions have an effect with a duration of "until the start of this model's next Activation, or until this model is removed from play", while others are "until the start of this model's next Activation, or until this model is killed or sacrificed." The first effect would end when the model is buried, but the second would continue (potentially until the end of the game if the model stays buried, as it cannot activate).

I'm not sure what you mean here - the FAQ on Self-Harm and Self-Loathing makes it clear that the action CAN be performed, and can succeed, because having a close/projectile action is NOT written as a targeting requirement. It just doesn't do any damage if it succeeds. This means that Pandora can declare Self Harm,/Self Loathing against a target that lacks the relevant action, and performs all of the steps of the action normally (most importantly, the attack and defense flips). It's only when you get to the last step and resolve the action's effects that no effects resolve. But everything else does resolve - and for Pandora, getting the target to fail that Wp duel to resist if often all she needs.