Gabbi

"This damage may not be reduced or halved". (But I'm pretty sure that in the case, someone would jump up stating that "halving" IS "reducing", heh). We could go on forever. I don't get it. I've got what I asked for (how should I play this rule? you know, it seems a bit odd to me and I'm also non native English speaker) almost instantly, in the first posts. Now, it seems that a few paladins in the defense of their beloved freaking game wants to delegitimize me from the right of having doubted and so asked, and thinking I was in the right of doubting because the rule actually didn't feel 100% clear as it is.

Thanks, will try your suggestions. Also, it seems that Viks are specialized in quickly making people dead, and since you cannot stop them, the best tactics is to choose myself the models to let them kill. Speaking of Dark Debts, what should I feed them first? I suppose that sending forward a couple Depleted would be of no use, as a wise player would ignore them. Reading pullmyfinger, it seems that while I can choose what allow them to kill, this has to be something worthy anyway, am I right? Hard choice.

(2) Agree. But in that case, if you weren't interested in discussion outside rules, all your post beside the faqs link was superfluous. And the faq links wasn't really needed, as I had already stated on my post on Thursday at 1:10 PM that I had understood how the rule was meant to be played. In fact, my whole question here was made because applying rule strictly RAW seemed odd. (1) I wasn't "complaining", really. I was posting my opinion here. an opinion you may not like, an opinion Justin may not like, but I believe it's a valid opinion, as much as yours. this may not be the right thread to post opinions, agree, but nonetheless you should avoid accusing me to complain just because I disagree with you. point is, I thought the rule has to be applied RAW because it was oddly written in first place. Why write "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half" instead of "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions"? There must be some subtle difference to consider, I thought. That's why I thought in first place I had to read the rule as written. It would also been much shorter, so the point that you have to wrestle with space on cards here doesn't apply at all. So, maybe, if you stop thinking I'm complaining for the sake of it, and try to get why I'm writing this, maybe next time we'll have a rule written in a less counter-intuitive way.

No problem, mate. And (as said) I would totally understand in case the seller will prefer to deal within his Country to keep things simpler. Cheers.

Well, I can stop reading here: As I strongly disagree. My opinion is that game rulebooks should use consistent wording as much as possible. And this is possible. Warmachine manuals are near perfect in this. In over 5 years playing the game it happened just one time that I wasn't able to correctly apply the rules by simply reading them and applying strictly as written. This also makes me a little sad as Malifaux seemed the game with the rulebook most close to Warmachine ones. Please note that I'm only considering here how the rules are written, not judging the games themselves (and in fact, I'm enjoying Malifaux way more than Warmachine, these days ^^). Anyway, not a real problem. I just take a mental note to check forums when some rule feels odd if read-as-written, as I cannot trust RAW 100% (and I totally refuse to RAI as it would be a bottomless pit of arguing, as anyone would have a different interpretation). Also, I strongly disagree when Justin talks about two terms meaning the same in English in the part quoted above, as I would like to have consistent wording and I'm sure it would be the best way to lay down rules, but I understand that at some point real world kicks in and you have deal with reality (manpower, deadlines, etc. yest I've read the whole post). So once someone has honestly did his best, you cannot really blame him. And one thing for sure: Malifaux feels like a labor of love. Once more, thank you (and I really mean thank you, even if I disagree with you to some extent, as you provided good points and interesting material). On a side note, it seems the game is in the process of being translated in my language (Italian). I think I will not want to touch Italian stuff with a 10 foot pole. Given the basis, the translation process (in a language more suited to poetry than tech books) can only do worse.

If you'll decide to keep things UK-only I will understand. Your call, here. (anyway, I confirm my will to buy the University of Transmortis box) Either case, just please let me know. Thank you.

Collodi also miss an Avatar model. I believe this is due to the fact that in 1st edition he was an henchman.

The wording I have quoted for Incorporeal ability is a word by word exact copy of the text on my Hungering Darkness card.

I've also noticed it. Yellows are colors that comes to mind that generally have a slightly glossy finish and make inks run more. Didn't even keep record or anything, but it seems to me that is something that happens across all brands, it is not brand or line dependant. But it's just a memory/feeling thing, I have no statistics

Ok, reading around, it seems that Mr. Graves is considered a very resilient model. Last game (vs Viktorias) I had him almost one-shotted. Now, still reading around, it seems that Viktorias are a very hard hitting crew, and what they get in range dies. So, this could not be the best matchup to base the evaluation of a piece survivability. Also, sure I played him too carelessly, due to lack of experience. Nonetheless I'd like to ask: there's something that can be done to further improve Mr Graves survivability? Looking at upgrades in both arsenal decks, nothing catch my eyes...

Yes, that's why I decided to try kinda of blog thread on painting progress. It's a first time, see how it goes Small update today. Not much to see, but just to keep things rolling: Base colors almost done for the first 4 models (the illuminated is a bit behind). Also, I have finished basing the Mantic Ghoul I'll use as temporary proxy for a Depleted, due to the renewed regime of austerity that I have imposed to myself regarding the purchase of new models ^^ Since Mantic models have an integral round base, I've tried to kinda of "sculpt" wood planks in it then use greenstuff to extend them. While working at it, I realized that they looked more than bricks than wood planks (probably due to my poor sculpting skill ^^) so I think I'll end painting them red

What about this one as proxy of McTavish? Kinda of two-in-one... =)

That's consistent with the authors not making a distinction between "reduce by half" and "halve". Or "reduce to half" or "divide in half" or "divide by half" or number of horrifying ways that an English language person might state that while expecting the context of the situation to clarify for them. If you're studying how people use English across the world, then studying how people distinguish between those two phrases is probably interesting. But what we have is the FAQ answer stating that the meaning of "reduce by half" is "halve". Disclaimer: The definition of halve on this laptop's dictionary includes the bullet point "reduce or be reduced by half". That's how you get someone writing "reduce by half" meaning "divide by two" instead of "Set damage equal to damage minus one half of the damage". Excellent, thank you Solkan (and my bad for not properly checking FAQs). I appreciate the philology (no sarcasm, honest) but let me say that variety of writing should be kept for narrative and poetry: rulebooks should be written in a consistent way as far as possible, to keep interpretation easy (and eventually help people non English native to not come up with weird questions). I have been said "That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case." and I can reply that "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half." is an "incredibly convoluted" way to say the model suffers half damage.

..to UK, I suppose Would you ship to Italy? In case I would be interested in University of Transmortis, how much would be shipping to here?

Maybe I'm biting more than I can chew, but this is what I'd like to complete in October: Since Huggy is already painted, and this isn't an entirely new crew to me (it's new in M2E) I don't think it entitles for TOMB. Also, I could swap one Illuminated with a Beckoner, if base inserts I've ordered will show up in reasonable time

The rule states that then I have to subtract that half (rounded up) from the whole damage. So, if I read rule as written, I still consider my interpretation correct, from a RAW point of view. Nonetheless, I will play applying half damage rounded up as common sense seems to suggest and the following quote nails down. Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks Because is what the sentence "reduce all damage by half" seems to state to me, and in years of Warmachine I have grown the habit to read rules as written unless instructed otherwise

Incorporeal description states: Now, if my comprehension of English language doesn't fail me, "reduce all damage by half" means I have to subtract half damage from the damage total. Since manual states that all roundings are made rounding up to the next integer, this means that 5 damages become 2. (5/2=2.5, rounded up to 3, 5-3=2). So 1 damage becomes zero. So, in the end, an Incorporeal model would always take half damage rounded down. The only way this could not be (beside my eventual lack of comprehension of the language) is if in case of multiple math operations, rounding has to be made at the very last, once all operations are resolved. But the manual seems to state otherwise. Small rulebook, page 20, inside the "math" box: So, since it clearly states that is the result of the division to be rounded up, my interpretation above seems correct. What bugs me is that this may not be what the authors intended. So, am I correctly interpreting the rule or am I stretching it ?

Did a couple, but since I usually don't use too many copies of the same thing (I like variety ^^) I soon realized it was quite superfluous, so now I use cards as they are, eventually marking them someway. On a side note, I mark on cards (with felt pen) stacking conditions, too, because while I like my tokens, too many of them are a hassle, so I write on cards things as Poison or Burning.

Thank you!

FAST (and SLOW) On page 62 (small rulebook) there's the following rule description: Just to be sure: a model gaining the Fast (or Slow) condition outside its activation, and that has already activated in the current Turn, will retain it until the next Turn and Activation? TERRYFYING On page 55 (small rulebook) there's the following example: The rule seem to state that a model does take a Wk Action that brings it at engagement range by a Terryfying model, THEN performs a Horror Duel and eventually gains the Paralyzed condition. The "explanation" following it, instead seems to suggest that the Horror Duel must be performed BEFORE taking the Wk Action, and if failed, no Wk is done at all. Which interpretation is correct? Also, a model with a Terryfying Ability, is not automatically immune to Terryfying, right?

The blinking emoticon is there because it's a joke? I ask, because I'm unsure. But if you're serious, well, I'm strongly against your three wishes

僕は京都に住んでれば、他の欲求がない (^-^)

does this helps? http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42571/transferring-pdfs-from-ibooks-to-your-laptop-desktop