Jump to content

Philosfr

Vote Enabled
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    882

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Philosfr

  1. Philosfr
  2. Philosfr
  3. Philosfr
  4. Philosfr
  5. Philosfr
  6. Philosfr
  7. Philosfr
  8. Philosfr
  9. Philosfr
  10. Philosfr
  11. Philosfr
  12. Philosfr
  13. Philosfr
  14. Philosfr
  15. Philosfr
  16. Philosfr
    Say that to the 6 SS Grootslang!
  17. Philosfr
    I think the difference is how we see the "immunity". If a model becomes immune to burning, the rules tell us to drop burning. But this ability isn't making a model immune to burning. It's making a model immune to conditions caused by enemy models. A model isn't immune to burning if it's from a friendly, just if it's from an enemy. This is the key distinction I think. I think it is only immune to an enemy applying conditions, which is different from immunity to a condition. Since it's a condition (not enemy or friendly) that is affecting the model, it wouldn't drop off when it became immune to the enemy applying conditions. Granted, that may not be what is intended, but I think the scheme/strategy scoring is a more solid ruling than the "immunity causes conditions to fall off" ruling in this case, hence still believe it wouldn't fall off.
  18. Philosfr
    But that's not a tracked item in Malifaux. For example, let's say instead of burning, we're talking poison. I give my model 2 poison, then my opponent gives my model 2 poison. End of the turn happens, I take 1 damage and my poison condition drops to 3. Now I enter the immunity aura. Do I drop 1 poison or 2 poison under your scenario? It gets messy. On the other hand, Malifaux already does have a way of handling the "owner" of conditions, such as for scoring schemes. And that's that the condition doesn't belong to either side. So while it's not a great point, it's at least something on the side of "no conditions drop off".
  19. Philosfr
    I'd agree if they were gaining immunity to a condition. But the wording makes it seem like they're gaining immunity from an enemy applying conditions. That's a slight difference, and enough to make me think they wouldn't lose conditions they already had
  20. Philosfr
    I wasn't sure, but thinking about burning makes me think that you would NOT lose any conditions that were on you already That's because of scoring schemes and such. If a Frame for Murder target dies from burning, it doesn't count as the enemy killing them, so the condition wasn't "owned" by the enemy. Based on that, I would say you're only immune to enemy models applying conditions, not immune to conditions themselves. So I'd say D) Burning +4, because the conditions were on the target before it was in the aura
  21. Philosfr
    Yeah, now that I reread that, I think I was in error earlier. The sentence is singular, and would lean towards only being able to do it once.
  22. Philosfr
    As Adran mentioned, named things are never different between models. Flicker is the same for everyone, and Flicker decreases. There are many many cases of this, where the ability name is used without the full text.
  23. Philosfr
    You're going to have to ask the TO for the event
  24. Philosfr
    1) Correct, as you are no longer in range of Wrath of the Oni when you try to take the Charge action 2) I've always played it as Flicker +3 is max as stated, though I have no rules basis for this 3) Flicker always decreases at the end of the turn, and there is no limitation on how much flicker you can use to lower the action. The upgrade is still crazy good, but you have to be careful and give her flicker through other means, or not burn all your Flicker so she goes poof at the end of a turn
  25. Philosfr
    In my last game, Titania attacked a target with Bloody Command, declared the Into Thorns trigger and discarded 2 scheme markers (before flipping damage, discard up to 2 friendly scheme markers within 2" and LoS of the target to deal +1 damage for each Marker discarded), but then flipped the Black Joker. Does the total attack deal 0 or 2 damage? Black Jokers "always deal no damage". Does that mean they can't deal damage regardless? Or does it count as 0? I would assume the attack did 0 damage total, except that I've successfully attacked people when flipping the Black Joker. On an attack flip, it just counts as 0, but I can still add my Ml to it, and hit low defense targets. So does this work the same? The black joker does 0 damage, but because the trigger isn't "after damaging", it would do +2 damage because the scheme markers are already discarded?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

  I accept