Allandrel

#1) Hard to Kill refers to the model suffering Dg. Does this mean that effects that inflict Wd directly (e.g., Coppelius' The Dying Dream) bypass it? #2) Hard to Wound affects damage flips. Does that mean that effects that deal damage without a flip (e.g., Papa Loco's "Take Ya With Me!") bypass it?

Played some more games, getting a much better feeling for how the game works. I have a few questions about how some of the "death effect" abilities interact: #1) Interaction of Coppelius' The Dying Dream and the Executioner's Love the Job: The Dying Dream inflicts Wd "before (Coppelius) leaves play" and Love the Job heals the Executioner "when an enemy model... is removed from play." So is this timing correct? 1. Executioner deals damage with an Executioner Claws Strike, reducing Coppelius' Wd to 0 (or successfully Decapitates him, either way Coppelius is killed by the Strike). 2. The Dying Dream inflicts 4 Wd on the Executioner. 3. Love the Job heals the Executioner of all wounds and Coppelius is removed from play. #2) Follow on from #1, what if the Wd inflicted by The Dying Dream reduced the Executioner to 0 Wd? Do you resolve the Executioner's Slow to Die Action (including possible healing if he kills another model with it) before finishing resolving Coppelius' death? If the Executioner fails to heal himself, will he die before the Love the Job healing from killing Coppelius occurs? #3) Does Not Die!: Does this ability set the Stitched Together's Wd to 1 even if it was killed by an effect other than having its Wd reduced to 0? (e.g., Seamus uses Slit Jugular on an unwounded Stitched Together). #4) Regarding effects that occur when a model is killed or kills another model: Am I correct in understanding that if a model is killed but saved by Slow to Die or It Will Not Die the model is not considered to have been killed at all for any effects other than the ones that saved it? For example, is this correct? 1. An Executioner kills a Stitched Together with an Executioner Claws Strike. 2. Does Not Die! goes into effect, setting the Stitched Together's Wd to 1. 3. Since the Stitched Together is not killed after all, Love the Job does not go off. 4. During the Resolve Effects step, the Stitched Together is sacrificed by Does Not Die! #5) Following on from #4, Does Not Die! sacrifices the Stitched Together, not whatever effect would have killed it. Does that mean that a Stitched Together sacrificed by Does Not Die! is not considered to have been killed/sacrificed by an enemy model for purposes of Strategies like Slaughter or Schemes like Frame For Murder or Kill Protege (making the Stitched Together a very poor choice for those Schemes)? #6) Executioner vs. Executioner: I just want to make sure that we got everything right here: 1. Executioner Bob (Wd 9) hits Executioner Dave (Wd 9) with an Executioner Claws Strike, dealing 4 Dg and triggering Decapitate. 2. Dave takes 4 Wd, reducing his Wd to 5. 3. Dave can't/won't discard control cards, so Decapitate kills him. 4. Dave's Slow to Die goes off, giving him a 1 AP action. 5. Dave makes an Executioner's Claws Strike against Bob, dealing 6 Dg and triggering Decapitate. 6. Bob takes 6 Wd, reducing his Wd to 3. 7. Bob can't/won't discard control cards, so Decapitate kills him. 8. Bob's Slow to Die takes effect, giving him a 1 AP action. 9. Bob can't use the action to attack Dave, since Dave has already been "killed" pending the outcome of his Slow to Die action. So Bob uses his action to perform an Executioner Claws Strike on Guild Guard Alice (Wd 6), dealing 4 Dg and triggering Decapitate. 10. Guild Guard Alice takes 3 Wd (due to her Armor +1), reducing her Wd to 3. 11. Alice can't/won't discard control cards, so Bob's Decapitate kills her. 12. Bob's Love the Job goes off from killing Alice, healing his Wd back up to 9, and Alice is removed from play. 13. Bob has not negated Dave's Decapitate effect, so he is still killed. 14. Dave's Love the Job goes off from killing Bob, healing his Wd back up to 9, and Bob is removed from play. 15. Dave has not negated Bob's Decapitate effect, so he is still killed. 16. Dave is removed from play. Yes, this happened.

I'm trying to get some clarification on the timing with Collodi and his marionettes. 1) Holding the Strings reads "Friendly Marionettes within 6" may immediately activate after this model's activation ends." Collodi's Dolls reads "If this model starts its activation further than 8" from a friendly Collodi, immediately Push this model directly toward a friendly Collodi until it is no further than 8" away." Since Holding the Strings causes the marionettes to simultaneously activate, do you resolve Collodi's Dolls immediately, or when you resolve each individual activation? Given the way the marionettes pull Collodi all over the place this can obviously have a big effect on how they play. 2) Collodi's (0) Doll Friends reads "One friendly Doll within 6" of Collodi activates after this model's activation ends." Since Holding the Strings says marionettes "immediately activate after this model's activation ends," does that mean that the subject of Doll friends is considered to activate separately after the marionettes' simultaneous activation? 3) Regarding Collodi's Dolls, the rules for pushing a model "directly towards" something state that it stops if it touches anything it cannot move over (blocking terrain, another model's base, etc.), even if the effect would push it further. So if a Marionette's direct path to Collodi is blocked, say 10" from Collodi, how does this affect the limitation that the marionette cannot be moved further than 8" from Collodi? Is the marionette able to move at all until its direct path to Collodi is no longer blocked, or can it move so long as its move takes it closer to Collodi? 3) (2) Mend Puppets: Do you make a single Healing flip and apply it to all friendly Dolls within 4", or make a separate Healing Flip for each affected model?

Another company, Back to Base-ix makes blank bases with an extra-deep hollow for water effects and the like. They give you about 2-3mm more depth to work with, which is especially good if you want partially submerged objects on your base.

And a sixth by interacting with an Arcane Apparatus.

Sacrificing and killing are two distinct effects. There are quite a few abilities and spells where the distinction is important, and Does Not Die is a good example.

That's my reading as well. It also means that a Paralyzed Dead Rider will not check for Unnatural Purpose changes when given the "forfeited" activation, just as it would not regenerate or resolve Poison.

No problem at all. Especially given how much you're putting in to this discussion. I don't even want to think about that one...

Thanks for pointing that discussion out to me! While I've been wargaming for 20 years, I'm new to Malifaux so it's good to see input on how pre-measuring affects this game.

This has been my experience as well. I've played Warhammer and Warhammer 40k for 20 years, and both games got quite a bit faster when they changed to allow pre-measuring. I have seen many players spend a lot of time trying to estimate ranges, using all sorts of "tricks" and aids. Whereas measuring ranges to half a dozen potential targets takes just a few seconds. Obviously, though, this can vary depending on people's playstyles.

You actually don't need to calculate the square root, just keep in mind a list of squares. For example, if the hypotenuse squared is 61", its length is more than 7" (squares to 49), but under 8" (squares to 64). Yeah, I've found that I generally enjoy games that allow pre-measuring a lot more - games that disallow it (like the earlier editions of the Warhammer games) lead to a lot of people memorizing the dimensions of their arms and hands, terrain pieces, etc. such that allowing pre-measuring actually sped gameplay up. I'm working on a TerrainLinx Malifaux setup, and was considering this issue for whether to print up gridded or gridlesstiles. I really prefer gridded because those are more useful for other purposes like RPGs. But my main thought was that it wouldn't really matter. (Heck, even if Terraclips tiles were gridless, you still know their dimensions.)

Yeah, I understand there's some issue with Tannen's Pitiful and Immune to Influence interacting in a way the designers did not intend that effectively prevents non-Ruthless models from targeting him. True. I'm keen on finding things which are strictly defined - for example, the difference between simple and opposed duels. The rules states that they are two different types of duels, and that Casting Duels and Resist Duels are both simple duels, but I keep being told that Resist Duels are opposed duels in direct contradiction to the manual. So have the rules marshals stated that Casting Duels and Resist Duels are simultaneously simple and opposed duels? Because I have not been able to find that in the manual, errata, or FAQs, but it seems to be how people play. Thanks. But I cannot find any valid argument for Resist Duels being opposed duels, since the rules on the page explicitly define them as simple duels, and they use the resolution sequence for simple duels, not that for opposed duels. So the argument that the resisting model is a defender based on the rules for opposed duels does not seem to have any basis. Me too.

Malifaux does not allow pre-measuring, but the Terraclips tiles have a 1" grid. Combined with Malifaux's "top-down" measuring, this allows players to calculate the range between two points very easily. Does this cause problems for people? Would you object to your opponent using other pieces of gridded terrain (such as Terraclips' sibling Terrainlinx)?

Yeah, it's probably because I am initially learning the game on my own from the manuals rather than as joining an established group. So I have no assumptions of common interpretations to go on. That does appear to be the issue. I've been gaming for over twenty years, and usually end up as the rules reference guy. And it can be quite common for conventions of play to be thought of as part of the rules, which is why I'm so concerned about the rules as written. Another part of it is that Malifaux's complex rules interactions seems to place a lot of emphasis on distinct terminology, more like a CCG than most minis games. For example, I've played Games Workshop games for twenty years, where "target" just sort of means "whatever the effect is affecting, roll a D6 for it if you aren't sure." And I played Legend of the Five Rings for ten years, where the rules about what constituted targeting changed about once a year until they finally (eight years in) started templating card text so that something only targeted if it used the word "target." Malifaux's rulebook appears to go for a strict definition of targeting (which will be vital to keep straight when I build a Hamelin the Plagued crew). And my understanding is not based on how the game is played in any area, but on how the rules appear to read - hence coming here for clarification. And it appears to me that defender is defined explicitly, in two different contexts: * A model that is the target of an attack, or that is potentially affected by the attack (RM, p.18). This definition is not specific to duels, but to attacks overall, including strikes, spells, and even actions that do not involve duels (like a Steampunk Arachnid's Self-Destruct). * During an Opposed Duel, the model that is being acted on (RM, p.29). This definition is specific to Opposed Duels, which are separate from the rules for Simple Duels. Based on my reading of the rules, I initially thought that references to being the defender in a duel meant that only Opposed Duels would qualify (and Shriek does not involve any Opposed Duels). But Ratty and others brought my attention to the first definition, which can apply even when there is no duel to be made (again, Steampunk Arachnid's Self Destruct has defenders but no duels). So outside of Opposed Duels, status as a defender is not dependent on being in a duel. The target of an attack is the defender as soon as they are selected as a target, before any duels begin. Since nothing specifies that they cease to be the defender once part of the attack sequence is finished, I concluded that they remain the defender until the are no longer being targeted or potentially affected by the attack. I like discussing rules because it can help all parties get a better understanding of them. ---------- Post added at 05:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ---------- Thanks! One thing that I've noticed in twenty years of gaming is that people can often blur play conventions with the rules as written. A few months ago some members of my Star Wars RPG group were surprised when I pointed out that a rule we had been playing with for six years was not actually part of the official rules, but just a practice that we had adopted because it made some parts of the game less frustrating. But there is no Opposed Duel involved in Shriek. There are normally three Simple Duels: a Casting Duel by the attacker, a Resist Duel by the target, and a Morale Duel by the target. That's why I initially thought that ItI would not help in Resist Duels - they are Simple Duels, so there is no defender in the duel. But there is a defender in the attack, which is why ItI applies to the Resist Duel. And why it seems like it would apply to other Wp Duels forced by an attack. But Casting Duels and Resist Duels AREN'T Opposed Duels. They are Simple Duels. RM, p. 51 "Casting Spells" RM, p. 53 "3. Resist Duels" I've seen several people refer to Resist Duels as "a special type of Opposed Duel," or "effectively an Opposed Duel," but the rules clearly differentiate between simple duels and opposed duels, and Casting Duels and Resist Duels are both explicitly stated to be simple duels. ---------- Post added at 05:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 AM ---------- Very much agreed. Especially in game systems where a broadly-understood word ("target," or "within" vs. "wholly within") may have a specific meaning to that game system. Which is part of why I get so hung up on "but what does this word mean in this game." It's near dawn here in the U.S., so I hope to continue this discussion tomorrow evening.

No problem, I tend to write walls of text. (I also tend to become the walking rules encyclopedia for any game my group plays.) Okay, I see that we are not on the same page here. Based on my reading of the rules on RM p.18, it is not performing a Resist Duel that makes you a defender against that spell. It's the fact that you are targeted by or potentially affected by an attack: RM, p.18 "Attacks:" RM, p.18: "The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack." Two examples: A Steampunk Arachnid's (1) Self Destructis an action that inflicts Dg on another model. Thus it is an attack (5th definition), and any model potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack. Potentially affected models are defenders, even though there is no duel involved. Sonnia Criid's (1) Flame Burst is a spell with a (ranged) icon in its Rg (2nd definition), a spell that requires a Resist Duel (3rd definition), and an action that inflicts Dg on another model (5th definition). Any one of these qualifies it as an attack. Therefore the direct target and any other models potentially affected by it (if it generates blasts) are defenders of that attack - even though only the target be will required to make a Resist Duel. So an attack may require a Resist Duel, but still have defenders that will not be required to make a Resist Duel. I don't see the basis for this. As I outlined above, making an opposed duel or resist duel is not what makes the affected model a defender. Being targeted or potentially affected by an attack is. Furthermore, in a Strike Attack, "F. Apply Duel Results" is part of the Strike Attack Sequence. This includes inflicting damage and "additional effects of the Duel, such as Triggers" (RM, p.43). Same with the Casting Sequence and "4. Apply Spell Effects." It's part of the sequence for resolving a spell, and if that spell is an attack, any model targeted by it or potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack. Right, and therefore any model targeted by it or potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack. Not really. The Wp>11 Morale Duel is an effect of the attack - so any model potentially affected by it is the defender of that attack. They would continue being the defender until the attack could no longer potentially affect them, which would be once the attack is fully resolved. In the case of Sonnia Criid's Flame Burst, there would only be one defender right up until Step 4, at which point if blasts are generated any other models potentially affected would become defenders (even though they do not make a Resist Duel). Does this make sense?

Please re-read my first post. I am new to the game, and I want to get a good grasp on the rules. I do not know what "we all know," I know what is written in the manuals, FAQ, and errata. That's why I am here asking for help. Please re-read my first and second posts. My initial post was questioning WHY people say that ItI/Stubborn apply to Wp Resist duels, because of my confusion on when a model is considered the defender. Several people have helpfully explained, showing that I was focusing on the use of "defender" in the rules for duels, but that a model is also considered the defender while an attack is being resolved against it. Thus meaning that the model is the defender in all duels forced by the attack, not just opposed duels. I understood that, and said so in my second post. "Because it does" is not an answer. "Because the resisting model is being affected by an attack and is therefore a defender" is. Which was helpfully explained to me back on the first page and, again, confirmed as understood in my second post. As I wrote in my first post, I am new to the game and trying to understand it, not to rules-lawyer it. My current understanding is: A model being potentially affected by an attack is the defender. Therefore, the model is treated as the defender during all steps of the attack, including simple duels such as resist duels. A model with ItI/Stubborn receives the benefit of that ability when it is the defender, and would therefore receive the relevant immunity/stat bonus to Wp Resist duels. My thanks again to the people who clarified this for me. So let me re-state my unresolved question one more time: Why are people claiming that ItI/Stubborn do NOT apply to other simple Wp duels forced by an attack, such as Madame Sybelle's Shriek and Hamelin the Plagued's Haunting Melody? Where is this in the rules? Because someone asking for help in learning the rules requests an explanation or citation?

So a model that is currently being attacked is treated as the defender during ALL duels forced by that attack, right? Going back to Madame Sybelle's Shriek, it is an attack that forces the defender to make two Simple Duels: a Df Resist Duel and a Wp>11 Morale Duel. So logically the target is the defender during BOTH of these Simple Duels. But people keep saying that the the defender is only treated as the defender against one of those Simple Duels (the Resist Duel), but not the other, with no rules quotes to back it up. Where is the distinction?

Consider Santiago Ortega - he is armed with two Peacebringers, both of which clearly have blades attached. But only his "Peacebringer" weapon is paired, his "Peacebringer Blade" weapon is not. Fluff-wise, I figure that Santiago doesn't bother with fancy dual-wielding in melee.

Thanks for the responses. It makes perfect sense that the resisting model is considered the defender because they are currently being attacked (since any spell requiring a Resist Duel is an attack). So I understand why ItI and Stubborn apply to Wp Resist Duels. But I still can't find an exception that differentiates Resist Duels from other Simple duels that an attack forces a defender to make. People have repeatedly stated "Resist Duels are special," but the explanation for why the resisting model counts as the defender would seem to apply equally to other Simple Duels forced during an attack. Madame Sybelle's Shriek and Hamelin the Plagued's Pipes (with Haunting Melody Triggered) are both attacks, and both of them force the defender to make a Simple Duel. Why does the defender not count as the "defender" during this part of the attack? In the case of Shriek, the attack forces a living defender to make two Simple Duels. A Df Resist Duel, and a Wp>11 Morale Duel. So why does the defender only count as the "defender" during one of these simple duels? I'm probably coming across as thick for not being able to get this, but I still can't find where a distinction is actually made in the rules.

Thanks! Glad to know my understanding was correct. I really like that Malifaux rewards tactics more complex than "I attack the guy I want dead."

That's part of what I'm trying to get a handle on. Part of what I want to make sure that I understand is if targeting restrictions are an absolute effect or if you can get around them through effects like pulses and blasts, and it looks like the general principle favors the latter. "Spells that generate an aura or pulse area effect, or affect all models within a certain range, do not require a target to cast." (Malifaux 1.5, p. 46, "Spell Basics.") Presumably the same applies to non-spell attack actions that also generate an aura, pulse, or affect all models within a certain range (e.g, a Steampunk Arachnid's Self Destruct). The rules for auras, pulses, and blasts allow them to affect models that the attacker does not have LOS to as line as area effects can "see" around and over blocking terrain (with a Ht restriction on blasts). The rules for Blasts make a pretty clear distinction between the "target" and "other models touched by the (blast)." The first blast marker (which must at least partially cover the target's base) must be placed within the effect's listed range (Malifaux 1.5 p. 23), but additional blasts can explicitly be placed outside of the effect's listed range. And "Blast Placement Diagram #3" (Malifaux 1.5 p. 43) shows blasts being "snaked" around an LOS-blocking wall. So this appears to mean that such effects that can affect a model without targeting them work on models that the acting model cannot target. For example, an Insignificant model cannot target Hamelin the Plagued with a blast, but could it target a model near him and have the blast affect Hamelin as well? Can a model affected by Hamelin's Inevitable Truth could freely use auras and pulses? Can a (non-Bullied) model affected by Hamelin's Inevitable Truth target Hamelin with blasts, and freely affect additional models with the attack? (Obviously a Bullied model affected by Inevitable Truth cannot use blasts that require a target.)

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all. There's no reason why Immune to Influence and Stubborn would differ in which situations they normally apply in: Immune to Influence: This model is immune to Wp Duels when it is the defender. Stubborn: This model receives +2 Wp in Duels where it is the defender. And Terrifying is not an attack, nor does it require a Resist Duel, so the model making the Morale Duel is not a defender, so neither ability would apply to that duel. Furthermore, a model does not have to be the target of an attack to be the defender, as "defender" includes "any models potentially affected by the attack." So models affected by a pulse attack are defenders when resolving the attack, even though a pulse does not target. Opposed Duels specifically refer to the model being acted on as the "defender," so ItI and Stubborn obviously apply IF the ItI/Stubborn model is being acted on in an opposed duel. That's quite clear. What I'm trying to understand is why ItI and Stubborn apparently apply to Resist Duels, but NOT to other Simple Duels forced by attacks. I'll use Hamelin the Plagued's Understand the Soulless and Haunting Melody to illustrate this: A) Understand the Soulless: The affected model is the defender against the Understand the Soulless attack. The effect forces a Wp Resist Duel, a Simple Wp Duel. Haunting Melody: The affected model is the defender against the Pipes attack. The effect forces a Wp>attacker's combat total, a Simple Wp Duel. The rules for Resist Duels refer to the affected model as the Resisting Model, NOT as the defender (as in an Opposed Duel). There is no equivalence for "resisting" and "defending" mentioned. My understanding is that ItI/Stubborn apply to the Resist Duel because the affected model is the defender in the attack being resolved, and thus is treated as the defender throughout the attack, even though Simple Duels do not normally have a defender. The same principle would logically apply to any other Simple Duel forced by an attack. So why do ItI/Stubborn apply to the Simple Wp Duel forced by Understand the Soulless, but not the Simple Wp Duel forced by Haunting Melody? I cannot find ANY rule singling out Resist Duels in this fashion.

Ah, TY!

I'm confused again. It seems like "defender" has two different meanings in Malifaux: A) Rules for attacks: Malifaux 1.5 p. 21: "The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack." (emphasis original) Under this definition, it appears that the defender in the attack would be the defender in any duels that occur during the attack, including Resist Duels and other Simple Duels. Duels: Resolving an Opposed Duel, Malifaux 1.5 p. 29 Note: The model responding to the action is referred to as the target model, defending model, or defender." (emphasis original) The rules for Resist Duels (p. 48) refer to the model making the resist duel as the "resisting model." Nowhere do the rules refer to the resisting model as the defender as they do for Opposed Duels. I can't find anything in the rules, Errata, or FAQs indicating that a model being attacked is considered the defender for one type of Simple Duel required by the attack (Resist Duels), but not for others (Shriek, Haunting Melody, etc.).

Thank you. It seemed like the staff was wounding Hamelin because the effect is part of the staff's rules, rather than a separate talent.