MrDeathTrout

Mastershake, I see your point, but I think the sequencing does matter. Consider these two scenario's. They have the opposite effect based on what order the special abilities are resolved in. I have found very little in the rulebook to support either scenario. Secnario 1. MS attacks Pandora Pandora uses Wp for defense. MS chooses Df for Pandora's Defense. Scenario 2. MS attacks Pandora MS chooses Df for Pandora's Defense. Pandora uses Wp for defense. Consider this example using triggers. MinionX attacks MinionY. MinionX declares a trigger "After resolving target gains +2 Burning" MinionY declares a trigger "After resolving this model removes any one condition" The order here is critical. If minionX is first then the condition can be immediately removed. If minionY is first then the Burning cannot be removed by his trigger. Is see this and the Pandora v. MS debate as the same, two models with conflicting abilities triggered at (arguably) the same time. Luckily with triggers we have a rule that states when two triggers happen at the same time the defender goes first. With the attack the rules are not nearly as clear. The common consensus seems to be that MS must declare Df or Wp when attacking, then Pandora declares her ability to change it to Df or Wp. This makes logical sense, but the same logic would dictate that MinionX's Burning would happen with the attack, then MinionY's defense would nullify the Burning, which is opposite of the rules. The Declare Action and Spend AP (pg 25) does support favoring Pandora since resolving Special Abilities with Duels happens after the attacker declares targets (and I'm assuming other variables), but Breaking the Rules (pg 19) states "In the rare instance that two special abilities contradict each other, the more specific of the two rules takes precedence." Pandora's "any opposed duel" is less specific than MS's one specific attack, favoring MS. Without any rule clearing showing the timing I would consider these two special abilities that contradict each other and give precedence to the more specific. FYI - In case anyone is wondering I do not use (or plan to use) Pandora or MS.

Thanks everyone. I thought so, but wanted to make sure I wasn't cheating.

First off I know this is academic at this point since the FAQ is out, but I'd still like to understand the rules behind it, because at this point is seems very arbitrary to me. I disagree that Pandora would declare this in step 2. I don't see anything in her ability or step 2 that support this. I cannot think of anything else in Malifaux where the attacker and defender do virtually the same thing in different steps. In every other instance I can think the model with the lowest duel total or the defender has to declare first. But after rereading pg. 35 a few times I do see support for Pandora's ability happening (during paragraph 5) after MS's (during paragraph 3). Paragraph 5 is when Special Ability's that require a duel are resolved. It could be argued that both attacker and defenders Special Abilities are handled in paragraph 3 and the duels are resolved at this point, but this is the closest I've come to a rule that specifically supports the ruling in the FAQ. Resolving actions 1. Declare Action and Spend AP ...The model also declares any variable in the action.(choosing which stat target will resist with) (paragraph 3) ...Sometimes a target will have Special Abilities (such a Terrifying) that require a duel in response to being targeted. These duels are handled now, after AP is spent and targets are declared. (paragraph 5)

I would like to request two things in future editions of the FAQ. 1) Anything changed from last version of the FAQ is in a different color so we can find the additions without having to reread the entire document. 2) Where possible can rules and/or reasoning be cited. The answer to the last question in pg 8 "Thunderous Smash is a trigger.." is a perfect example of what I like to see. Citing specific rules and reasoning help me understand the game better and to make better judgement calls when rule issues arise. I see how many answers require no explanation like "If a model suffers 0 (zero) damage, does it count as having suffered damage?" is a simple clarification with no clarification or citation needed. The answer to the Pandora question in the middle of pg. 7 is less helpful. It does address that specific special rule, but I've found no rules to support the ruling and seems to contradict the "More specific ability" rule on pg. 19, which makes it more difficult for me to understand how to resolve other special rule conflicts. Thank you

ty

Can anyone tell me where this is stated in the rule book?

Agreed. I do see some wiggle room on my second example. And I am curious if the two-move sneak out is what the rules intended. I think that is probably the way we will play it. IMHO its not broken for a model gives up its entire activation to get unengaged from one model. One other thing to consider. Assume it is decided that moving out of LOS (even while 2" of Seamus) does trigger disengagement strikes. That means if the Stalker just wanted to reposition to the other side of Seamus while staying engaged he would be subject to disengagement strikes for the fraction of the move while he passed around the Belle. This assumes he could not go around the way for some reason, Seamus probably has a Belle on each arm . I'm not sure if that is what the rules intended either.

Pandora's ability - Applies to any opposed duel where she is defending. Moon Shinobi's attack - Only applies to one specific attack. MS's attack only applies to attack actions (instead of all opposed duels) and it only applies to one of his attacks. To me it seems like Moon Shinobi ability is more specific, and so takes priority. Why do you guys give Pandora the preference here? Is is a timing issue? MS uses his ability to pick Df, then Pandora uses her ability to pick Wp after his ability is completed?

Misaki's Risky Ventures gives her a to all Df flips and +:crows to Ml if she has no SS in her pool. Now take this scenario: 1. Misaki is attacked. 2. During the Declare Soulstone Use step of the attack Misaki spends her last SS for a on her Df flip. 3. In the Flip Fate Card and Add Stat step of the attack Misaki has no SS. Does she get the free to her Df? This gives her her :+fate on the flip. I think so, since when the flip occurs she has no SS, but I play Misaki so I may be biased.

Is there a special ability I'm missing here? I don't see any wiggle room. Under disengaging is it says if you wish to move out of the the engagement range you must declare it before moving, enemy models that are engaged (which requires LOS) may take a free attack action. If the attack is successful the model may not perform the Walk action. It seems very clear that Seamus's attack would occur before the Witchling Stalker could move behind the Belle, and so would either not move at all or would be free to leave Seamus's range. If the Stalker took two actions, one to move behind the Belle (no leaving Seamus's or the Belle's engagment range) then there would be no free attack. If he was then out of LOS to Seamus the Stalker could take a second action to leave Seamus's range (but not the Belle's) without any free strikes since without LOS they are not engaged and only engaged models can take the free strikes.

DF (:masks) Misdirection: After an Attack from an enemy model succeeds against this model, target model within 2" of this model must discard two cards or suffer the effects of the Attack Action instead of this model. The model which Attacked this model may not be the target. If the target discards the two cards is the damage still misdirected and the target cancels the damage? Or is the entire Misdirection cancelled and the damage goes back to the model that used misdirection?

Sorry I don't follow. My logic is the FAQ says if you are in base contact (0" away) you cannot be moved farther. Seems to me that means if you are moving 0" you are not moving. Though it is not a clear as it could be. But right or wrong the next FAQ will address it. I'm looking forward to seeing the answer.

Yes, the standard death cycle still happens.

Correct. That is exactly what I was thinking of. "...model which is already in base contact may not be moved..." I think it can be paraphrased that moving 0" is not considered movement, otherwise lure would work on models in base contact.

My thoughts... I've wondered why this Action has a range as well. My only guess is since the caster is not the target a range of - would be wrong. It does not give an "up to" option so I assume you must place 2 if able. If not, place 1 if able. If not place 0, though the Action is pretty useless at this point since you could cast it's only trigger (Shadow Stride) easier than you can make this Action trigger it. "Place two 50mm Smoke Markers touching this model, and not touching any other models or Markers" is vague as to whether the two markers can touch each other. I believe the intent is that they can touch each other, but no other Markers. I'm curious why the have the not touching other Markers restriction in the first place. Good question about do you have to be able to place markers to use the trigger. I'd say yes since Wyrd has been pretty consistent that 0 damage = no damage, and 0 moment = no movement so I'd guess placing 0 markers = not placing markers. On the other hand you can use Shadow Stride without placing any markers.

I totally agree with Csonti. I forgot Rising Sun is JL's ability not HD's.

The only way HD could come back is if it is removed from the table before the IG is removed from the table. If they are removed simultaneously (or after) then there is no model for HD to be in base with. Pg 46 says "If the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed." Also on Page 46 under General Timing first step "The Acting Model [JL] resolves it Abilities. 2nd step "The Defending Model [iG] (if there is one) resolved its Abilities". HD would not go until step 3 or 4. Depending on if it is in the first or second players crew, which is irrelevant for this question. I haven't found anything to break down the exact timing of each step, but based on this I would say the IG inflicts damage and is removed, then HD is removed and resolved its ability after the IG is removed. I can see how it can be interpreted that HD is killed and removed as part of resolving the IG's ability. I don't think this is so because the IG is removed immediately. But this argument is pretty thin.

The 10T Smoke and Shadows upgrade says "...unbury this model within 6" of a friendly model." Does this require LoS? My guts says yes, but I can't find anything in the rules that confirms this. The closest I've found is pg 40 "Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see the target." But I'm not sure if there is a "target" in this action and unburying is not an action in this case.

IMHO 1. Yes, armor does protect from Burning. Burning inflicts damage and armor protects from damage. If Burning bypassed armor is would say it cannot be reduced like the Poison condition. 2. Imbued Protection says to discard when damage is taken. I'd say if damage it taken in the end phase then it can be discarded in the end phase. 3. My initial thought is the model taking the action would be considered to make the kill, but I don't a firm stance since I cannot recall anything in the rule book that covers this.

Misaki and Von Schill can both charge when engaged and can ignore intervening models and terrain when moving on a charge. So can they charge someone they are currently engaged with to end up on the other side of them for instance. Or to stay engaged with that on model, but move out of engagement with another model?

That is my interpretation as well. It says "remove this condition" I assume that means the entire condition. Also pg 52 talks about stacking conditions and says "... the values are added together and the two Conditions become one."

Yep, I was wrong. I'm a bit annoyed that the wording so so different for Diving Charge and Augmented Jump, but they are identical in function.

I agree that this is what the rules intend and how the game should be played, but I see why some would disagree. pg 38 in the Actions Causing Actions section says "The original action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved. So a fourth step needs to be added. You see the original Action is still in the background while the two new actions are performed, does it have any effect on the "new" actions? I say no. Notice in the same sentence it refers to "the original Action" and the "new Actions". That suggests to me that they are separate and distinct actions, and an effect on one action does NOT effect other actions. step 4. Resolve the charge action (end of 1st action)

Agreed it could have been worded to be more clear.

Who is Mako? Mod? Wyrd staff? Their word seems to carry a lot of weight.