Takibaki

I am not quite shure about this, since both Terrifying and Bribery seem to be effects of Malisaurus Rex, since Terrifying is directly written on its card and Flush with Cash grants him the Bribery effect. Page 34 PDF Rulebook "Simultanous Effects" states: 1. The Active player chooses one of their models with one or more unresolved effects and resolves those effects in whatever order they wish... 2. The non-Active player resolves any unresolved effects affecting their models, as described above. 3. ... The question here is the difference betweend "effected by" and "their effects". It seems, that both Terrifying and Bribery are effects of the Malisaurus, but only Terrifying effects the enemy Model in the first place, since they have to make the duel. That leads to different outcomes: 1.) Both effects are the effects of Malisaurus Rex: The non-Active player (controller of Malisaurus) decides in which order to resolve the effects. 2.) Both effects affect the attacking Model: The active player would decide and could therefore force the non-Active player to decide Bribery first. (Seems to me, to be the least probable/likely situation) 3.) The attacking Model is affected by Terrifying (Since it is required to make the WP-duel) and the Malisaurus Rex is the model, that has the effect of Bribery (Since the Malisaurus has to choose to spend a soulstone). In this example, the Terrifying must be resolved in the first place and the Bribery afterwards, since the Active player (Attacking model) must resolve all of his models effects first. I assume it is either 1 or 3, but option 1 would give the non-Active player the decision, which ability/effect to resolve first. Given that the outcome would almost allways be the same, i totally agree with you both, but regarding rules-understanding it would be very interesting to have that clarified. Best regards, Takibaki

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen! Unfortunately, this discussion wouldn´t leave me alone and started harassing my mind. To me, this post is already too long to seem of any help, since it is very difficult to remember all the standpoints and different arguments, so I decided to try and summarize some brought up views in addition to the corresponding rules! I try my best to keep it as short, as possible; therefore, I am going to put the relevant parts into different chapters. 1.) Main Topic – Ignoring Terrain There are two main passages in the PDF Rulebook and the FAQ that refer to “Ignoring Terrain”: Page 37 of PDF Rulebook: Page 3 of the FAQ, Section 3: Terrain, Paragraph 7: Additionally, the following passages also refer to the topic: Page 17 of PDF Rulebook: Page 3 of the FAQ, Section 3: Terrain, Paragraph 2: Conclusions/Summary: · To be unaffected by Terrain means, that that specific mentioned Terrain and it´s Terrain Traits are ignored by the model, that is unaffected. (Combination of Rulebook Page 37 and FAQ Page 3, Sec. 3 Paragraph 7) · To be unaffected by certain Terrain Traits mean, that the specific Terrain Traits are ignored by the model, that is unaffected. (Rulebook Page 37) · If two models want to check LoS: Intervening Models and Terrain with Ht. or Size that is lower than one of the models are ignored. (Rulebook Page 17) o That leads to the possible assumption, that Models and Terrain without Ht. or Size cannot be ignored, since they don´t have that Stat. o “with a Size ot Ht. that is…” · Being unaffected by Concealing Terrain allows the model to ignore the Concealing Trait (Page 3 FAQ, Sec. 3, Paragraph 2) – I put it here just for reasons of completeness. · I. e.: If two Models (Both Size 2) try to determine LoS and there is a Ht. 1 Concealing Terrain (also possible to be a Terrain Marker) in between, that Concealing Trait is ignored and neither of the models is affected. – Even if one of the mentioned Models is Ht. 1 it wouldn´t change anything, since one of the Models is taller, than the intervening Terrain. · If The intervening Terrain is as tall as the larger Model, it affects both models, because it cannot be ignored anymore. 2.) Line of Sight and Sightlines I put this here just for reasons of completeness. Page 16 of PDF Rulebook: Conclusion and Summary: · Sightlines are all Sightlines between two objects bases. They never cross a base, so they are the space between two objects. · Blocking of all Sightlines leads to the Models not having LoS to each other. So blocking only refers to the state of visibility of models and has nothing to do with actual Sightlines being drawn. · Only blocking Terrain may block Sightlines. (Passage: Blocked Line of Sight, PDF Rulebook Page 16) · The Status LoS occurs, if any one Sightline is unblocked (Last Paragraph of the Passage “Line of Sight” PDF Rulebook Page 16) · I.e.: If a Whiskey Golem (as mentioned before) would stand on top of a Concealing Lamp Marker in the way, as that the Marker is in the Center of the Golem, the Golem would not gain Concealment, since Sightlines are drawn from the Edges of Models bases and the Lamp Marker, being completely within the Golems Base would not intervene. 3.) Specific Traits of Markers Page 28 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Markers”: Conclusions and Summary: · Markers without HT. or Size do not have a vertical distance. · Markers do not block LoS, if they don´t have the Blocking Trait. · Only when drawing LoS to a Marker, that Marker is considered a Model with Size 0. 4.) Terrain Traits and Shadow – Additional Rules Page 18 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Shadow”: Page 36 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Cover and Concealment”: Page 37 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Terrain Traits”: Conclusions and Summary: · If a Model is within the shadow of a Terrain and the Terrain is at least as tall as the model, any of the Sightlines that pass through the Terrain, that generates the shadow are treated as being blocked, even if the “attacking” model ignores the Terrain. (Section Shadow of Page 18 PDF Rulebook) o That is a somehow weird wording. As a non-native English-speaker, the word “either” does give me some headaches, since to me, it may mean “one of” or “both”. o The Paragraph mentioned, just states, that Terrain at least as tall as the Target may never be ignored for purposes of Blocking (which somehow leads to, that shadow may also not be ignored – See Paragraph “Blocking”). o That means, Terrain smaller than the Target may still be ignored. My main question here is, if this is also true for the Shadow. · Additionally the last Passage states, that Models within a Terrains Shadow always gain Cover, if a Sight Line can be drawn through that Terrain. o It seems, that Shadow is generated by Terrains with the Ht. and Blocking Traits, even if the Terrains themselves are ignored, that one is a little bit tough though. Open Questions/ Important Knowledge: · Terrain smaller, than one of the Models that try to have LoS to each other is generally ignored. o That means, that Ht. 1 Concealing Bushes have no significant impact on the game, if they don´t have other Terrain Traits like Severe. o The Concealing Trait doesn´t make any sense on Ht. 1 Terrain at all. · A Terrain Piece with Blocking and Ht. generates a Shadow. It seems, that the Terrain generates the Shadow even, if it is ignored. Sorry for the long post, but since there were a lot of comments with different standpoints, I just wanted to try to summarize and clarify for myself. There remain still a lot of questions, but if I find insight, I will try to provide. Best regards, Takibaki

Do you mean, that neither the Grave Golem, nor the other model suffer from concealment?? I am not quite sure about this. What you are refering to is "Line of Sight and Size" Page 17 of PDF Rulebook: "A model´s Size can impact LoS. When drawing LoS between to objects, any intervening models or terrain with a Size or Height that is lower than either of the two objects is ignored." I understand yout point, but I think that passage only referes to the process of drawing LoS. But I would asume, that Terrain, that is smaller than one of the models is still taken into consideration regarding Concealment or Cover. My main point here, is, that in Chapter "Line of Sight" beginning on Page 16 of PDF Rulebook, the only two attributes a Sightline can posses seem to be "blocked" and "unblocked". So the terrain, that is smaller is only ignored for the purpose of blocking LoS. At least thats how i played it all along XD. Some statements of Page 16: "A sight line is an imaginary straight line between two points on the edges of two objects bases. Sight lines are drawn from a top-down perspective." This indicates, that sight lines are drawn from the actual bases. I think, that, if a Ht 1 gremlin less than 1" away from a Ht. 1 Blocking crate would gain cover against a shooting Ht. 2 model from the other side of the crate. At least, thats how my imagination works. The same is true for me, if i would imagine a Ht 1 bush/shrub with Concealing. But I am looking forward to hear your opinion on this, maybe I am getting this false all along. But why would there be any necessitiy of having Ht 1 Terrain other than those with impassable? Best regards, Takibaki

I think this topic is, in some ways similiar to that post: Diving Charge onto terrain - Malifaux Rules Discussion - Wyrd Forums (themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com) I would assume the following happens: Beginn of Charge Action on one side of chasm Push until the model is no longer supported by the chasm, in which case it would fall into the river take falling damage? I assume it would take the falling damage, even if "climbing Gear" is active, since the Ability doesn´t prevent the model from taking the damage. Proceed its Charge-Push (Page 14 of PDF Rulebook), ignoring any Severe Terrain the River provides, if "Clibing Gear" is still active. When in b2b with the other side of Chasm, stop the Push, since the model cam into b2b contact with impassable terrain (That part seems like the same discussion as in the post i mentioned before) Page 14 of PDF Rulebook: "If a model is ever without any of its base supported by terrain or the table, that model falls and suffers damage equal to half the distance it fell in inches (rounded down). It then continues any remaining portion of its movement as normal." Best regards, Takibaki

I am absolutely with @Maniacal_cackle here. Since both Conditions are immediately removed from the model, it seems, as if the model must have gained the second condition in the first place, so all abilities triggering when the model gained the second condition trigger.

Maniacal_cackle, thats exactly what I was looking for and that explains a lot! (I must´ve overlooked it XD) Thank you for sharing, and sorry @Adran for the doubts in the first place... Thank you both for making it clear!

The Lamp Markers are Ht 4 Concealing. That means, as trikk already mentioned, that they are not impassable. The only Terrain Traits they posses are Concealing and Ht 4. I think they have the Ht-Trait only for reasons of completeness, since every Terrain has some Height to clarify its ingame effects. Rocks, Crates, Houses and even Forests have a Height. It think of those markers as burning/shining beacons, which suits the idea of Lamp Markers and therefor a Height seems relevent to illustrate their Characteristics. Additionally Jedza, the Master of the Seeker Crew has an Action called "Life of the Earth" which depends on terrain-types. Thats why I think it would be an overkill to have those Markers gain impassable too. It seems to be clear, when I think of the design standpoint. To your last question: Since the Markers are also not Blocking, you can easily see through. And LoS is allways measured from a models base. That given, your question might be the correct answer. Maybe it should be very hard to get around the concealing trait and therefore the Ht of 4. Best regards, Takibaki

Oh man, thats a complicated one... after a long research I wanted to share my insights, which leave me even more confused. If Adran has a proof of his standpoint within the Rulesbook/Erratam it would be very nice, if you would share it. I must confess I am even more confused. I wanted to be on the same side as you Adran, but the more I dived into this topic, the more it seemed confusing and complicated... So here is, what I found... I looked up the correct passages in the Rulebook PDF page 37. 1.) It is correct, that Height is a Terrain Trait. This can be found on the above mentioned page and i think it needs no further explanation. 2.) On page 37 Bottom, there is a passage referring to the problem. It is called "Unaffacted by Terrain". It states: "Some models are unaffacted by certain types of terrain or terrain Markers. If a model is unaffacted by a terrain trait, it ignores that trait for game purposes: Severe: The model does not suffer the movement penalty of Severe Terrain. Hazardous: The model does not suffer the effects of Hazardous Terrain. Concealing: This model ignores the Concealing Trait, when drawing LoS." This passage seems but an explanation referring only to the 3 types Severe, Hazardous and Concealing. What is interessting here, is, that both Impassable and Height are not mentioned in this section. Of those both, we agree, that impassable may be ignored (and moved through), but Height may not? So I assume we have to dive a little deeper. Lets look up the Terrain Trait Climbable, also on Page 37 at the Rulebook: Climbable: "Models may not move through Climbable Terrain, but they may move across its top (often a roof) and may move vertically up and down along its sides. Other than its top, all other portions of Climbable Terrain are treated as Impassable. If a model ignores this terrain trait, it may still move vertically up and down along the sides of this terrain." In addition Page 14 of the PDF Rulebook states, that only during a Walk-Action it is possible to climb atop of Terrain, that has the Climbable Trait. So the following seems true: Everything, but the Top of Climbable Terrain is Impassable (So you cannot move through it). You can move along its sides via the Walk-Action, which is considered climbing. Well that didn´t lead to an answer right yet. But what it does, is, it shows, that Terrain with Height greater than 0" without the Climbable Trait may not be stood upon, since this is the only logical exception. The only other Terrain-Types with Height greater than 0 mentioned in the Rulebook and GG1 are Impassable Terrain So the correct question would be, to ask ourselves, what the ignorance of certain Terrain Types would gain us and how we imagine it playing out on the Table. Climbable: If we would ignore the Climbable Trait, it would only take away the opurtunity to climb up the sides of Climbable Terrain. Height: If we would be able to ignore this Terrain Trait, I assume we would treat the Terrain piece, as if it had Height 0. which would allow us, to move in a straight horizontal line and stop atop that Terrain piece... Since Impassable and the other Terrain Traits are somehow allready mentioned in the book, i don´t need to cover them any further. Man, that kind of standpoint doesn´t satisfy me yet, so I want to bring the example of the ability "Climbing Gear" found on the Expl. Society model "Alpinist". Climbing Gear: "Friendly models within Aura 4 ignore models, terrain, and vertical distance while moving." This would lead to the assumption, that vertical distance is something different then terrain. I assume, that every movement except the Walk Action Movement must be done in a horizontal way, since the Walk Action is the only one allowed to be used for climbing. But I couldn´t find the corresponding Page in the Rulebook, that states, that movements are only horizontally. What supports this theory is a passage in the section "place" on Page 15 of the PDF Rulebook, which explicitly allows models to not take into account certical distance during a place. Summery of my insights: There are two ways to see the above mentioned discussion Height is a Terrain Trait. (Page 37 of PDF Rulebook) Since it is a Terrain Trait, it should be possible to be ignored. I.e. treated, as if it were 0. If the Terrain is also Climbable, it would be allowed to stand on its Top. Thus allowing a model with diving charge to place on the Terrain. What speaks against this, is the wording of climbing gear, which suggests, that vertical distans is somewhat different from terrain. The other way: The ability to ignore terrain while moving might effect the terrain piece as a whole. I.e. You ignore the Terrain piece, but not its individual traits. There are seperate rules for situations that happen, when you just ignore single terrain traits. Which would lead to the assumption, that Height cannot be ignored. Therefore you couldnt just diving charge atop a higher terrain. Sorry for the long post, i wanted to find a potatoe, to make it up for you. I hope it is somewhat clear, but the rules leave a lot for interpretation. Finally I must confess, that I am on the side of Adran, even if I am not shure, if we found the proof right yet. I will argue, that only placements and the ability climbing gear may take you somehow atop those kinds of terrain. With best regards, Takibaki

Hey ladies and gentlemen! Very interesting topic again! So I looked for further rules and came across this! This is from Page 36 of the PDF Rulebook and adresses the question directly, hope its informative and helpful! Best regards, Takibaki Edit: Sorry! Just saw, that Maniacal_cackle allready posted the answer! Thanks Maniacal_cackle!!!

Hi! Just wanted to give my opinion too, since i found the topic very interesting! So i looked up the GG1 PDF again and found something interesting! GG1 PDF Page 11 "Strategy Markers" states: "When playing a Gaining Grounds event, if a Strategy Marker would be Dropped by a Strategy and cannot be Dropped in the indicated location, the Player with Initiative must instead Drop the Strategy Marker as close as possible to the indicated position and in a way so that it both players or a judge agree has no additional beneficial effects for either player. If the Marker cannot be dropped in such a way, it is not Dropped." I would interpret this text in the way, as the player with Initiative would have to place the "forbidden" marker. He should place him, I assume, in a space, where the "least" overlap of areas combined with the most distance to the other markers could be granted. Sounds very mathematical though... Sorry if I confused you, but for reasons of game fluidity and ease I would stick to the opinion/suggestion of "Adran", since it seems pretty complicated to find a perfect/right spot for the marker in your mentioned case! With best regards, Takibaki!

I think Maniacal_cackle is right and you are both on the right way. PDF-Rulebook Page 26 states "Certain Actions and Abilities allow a player to control a model in an enemy´s Crew. When this happens, the controlling player makes all decisions for the model, including flipping cards, Cheating Fate, declaring Actions and so on." Since you (user of the obey-effect) would be the controlling player, you would get to choose whether to discard the upgrade and therefore summon a model, or to leave the upgrade on the controlled model. But in my opinion the choice must be made, because the Ability triggers/resolves after killing an enemy model. Summoning in PDF-Rulebook Page 32 states "The Summoned model is considered a part of the Crew of the model that Summoned it and is treated as a normal model in the Crew for the rest of the game." Another paragraph on Page 26 states: "Control changes who makes the decisions; it does not change the Crew to which the model belongs." Therefore, if you summon a model using the mentioned process, the model is summoned into the crew of the model, that had the upgrade (i. e. your opponents model). Just wanted to place the rulestext here, since i found Maniacal_cackles explanation very good and looked it up myself afterwards! Best regards, Takibaki

You both have been super helpful! Since we are a small meta and the pandemic kept us from attending international tournaments, our exchange with other communities is somewhat limited! The way I understand it now, is, that the term "special requirements" may be a subsumption of the terms "costs in italics" and "special restrictions in italics". And Seamus is allowed to ignore both of them. Thanks for your time!

Thanks to both of you! The issue regarding Shenlong is clear! Also the same for Cassandra! What lead to the question was, if, when a specific Action would allow a model to take another action, if that action could surpass further restrictions (As "Once per Activation" as in "Upstage", or in " Bonus Action"). We interpreted the "may take an Action"-text as an indirect allowance to bypass those restrictions the same way as it allows to bypass the Action-Limit restriction! You have clarified that clearly! Referring to "A Cause for Celebration" it was just unclear to me, if there is a difference between "special restrictions" and "special requirements". I will treat them both synonymosly from now on! Bets regards, Takibaki!

For further clarification of my question: Rulebook PDF Page 12 (Triggers) lists two kinds of "italics" - costs and special restrictions. Those seem to be exactly the same as those mentioned in the Chapter referring to Actions and Abilities later on (Page 23 following).

What irritates me, is, that the designers made a differentiation between the term "special restriction" and the term "special requirement". The first one can be found in the Rulebook, whereas I couldn´t find the second term anywhere else than Seamus´ card. Regarding the second question, i need to specify the cause of our initial discussion (between me and my opponent). He interpreted the rules in such way, as if the "Cause for Celebration" would specifically allow you to take an Action (which also could be a Bonus Action). Since that would allow you a certain game state, which otherwise would be frobidden due rules, it has occured to us, that maybe Page 3 of PDF rulebook comes into consideration (special rules on model´s cards take precedent over standard rules from the book). Thank you nonetheless for you fast reply!!!!