Jump to content

solkan

Members
  • Content Count

    4,872
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

solkan last won the day on December 4 2019

solkan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,486 Excellent Walrus

2 Followers

About solkan

  • Rank
    Tyrant
  • Birthday 02/23/1973

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're wrong, because you're misremembering what Disengage says. Disengage doesn't say "treat the distance flip like a damage flip" or something else. It only says specifically: In other words, that 2/4/6 is a variable flip that gets subject to the accuracy modifier for the simple reason that the action says so. It's an error to conclude "Oh, the Accuracy Modifier is a modifier for damage flips, so that variable flip must be a damage flip." The most important thing is that the even though the Damage Flip rules introduce the Accuracy Fate Modifier rules, the first paragraph of Accur
  2. The rules reference, for the difference: So, on the card it would have to be VERSATILE (in caps) to be a keyword. The keywords like Living, Undead, and Versatile are defined by their effects in the various rules where they're relevant, instead of being defined all in one place (or a few places) like the previous edition. But, it's called the Versatile Characteristic as referenced in the crew hiring rules.
  3. First things first: There are no painting rules in the war-game. Any painting requirements are those established by the people running the tournament or event, and they're who you should be having this discussion with. On the other hand... I want to say from personal experience--painting a Teddy model to color match a day glow Pandora box set--that it's actually pretty to color match day glow plastic. (Dayglow green Pandora's plastic is slightly translucent, so there's some nice subtle shading that you end up needing to replicate to match the coloring...) The teddy
  4. Warmachine/Hordes tried to define away this problem, and got themselves into a huge mess because of it. What it boils down to is this: If you're zero inches away from something, there are several possibilities, depending on your physical position and whether you and the other object are allowed to overlap: You're just 0" away (you could be floating above the object) You're physically touching the object (in base contact) but not overlapping. You're physically overlapping the object. In order to figure out which of those three cases you're in, you need to supply more
  5. Am I correct in thinking that the picture of the components is really underselling the size of the race track? Because I thought that the figures that we had seen previewed at previous Gen Cons for this game were on 50mm bases...
  6. Mandatory schemes have been around for a while:
  7. There's an exception for generated actions, it's the last paragraph of Detailed Timing: The action or actions generated by Deputy were generated before the action generated by Onslaught. If the player controlling the Frontiersman models has several in range, and the cards to burn, the order in which they discard cards is going to fix their generated actions in order, as well.
  8. I'll agree that the rulebook doesn't explicitly state a principle for this sort of delayed effects, but I think there are some principles that can be agreed upon. The biggest one is probably: Decisions for an effect get made when the effect "goes off" (get's resolved), not when it's triggered. You don't make decisions for an effect just because you're reading the text. There's no general rule stating that 'after resolving' effects of the same name get combined, or otherwise limit how many times they can be resolved once they've been set off. There's a specific rule (If there are
  9. No, because the errata says that you ignore the effect that would prevent the unburying. While I listed the unburying process as two steps, that's only for sake of trying to explain how you figure out where the model will be unburied. In effect, the unbury rules say: A model that's unburied is placed back on the table. If possible to do so, it is placed as specified in the unbury effect. If there's no valid position that meets the specification of the unbury effect, ignore that specification and use "in the model's deployment zone" instead. You don't play "Mother, may unbury the
  10. For the references... From the Hazardous Markers callout, PDF page 36: And, as Touchdown points out, it's "once per Action or Ability": So, if you move through any number of Pyre Markers (just one, or even a dozen) during the resolution of an Action, you'd suffer the effects defined for Pyre Markers once at the end of that Action. But, say the Action you took was a Walk that ended standing in a Pyre Marker. The action or ability that moves you is going to set off the Pyre Marker effects again.
  11. Concerning the "as above" part of :"If a model would be unburied but cannot because of an effect such as [list], it may still be Unburied as above, ignoring the effect"... as Adran wrote, the reason for the errata is that Place effects are movement in this edition, and Unburying a model states that the model is "placed" on the table. So you still follow the process of: Attempt to place the model constrained by both the parameters of the unbury effect ("unbury within 1" of ..."), physical reality ("Can that base really fit on the table there?"), and effects like Gravity Well. I
  12. For what it's worth, Wyrd's providing the app with the cards as complete images (one image per side of the card). The upside of that approach is that the cards in the app appear exactly as Wyrd wants them to look, instead of trying to have the app trying to replicate the card layout dynamically from a graphic plus text. The downside of that is that the size of the card images are constrained by 'Is the text starting to look pixelated yet?; and the burden of producing a card for a model (alternate sculpt or not) falls entirely on Wyrd's side of the bargain. Just sayin'.
  13. The strongest foreshadowing of it is the story "The Portrait". But the end of second edition was a two part story "Shifting Loyalties" (it's presented as four parts in the Breachside Broadcast, Tales of Malifaux 85 to 88) and you can follow that up with "Return of the Queen" (Tales of Malifaux 95 and 96). That's probably a good start for answering the question "How does Lucius feel about the other masters?" as well.
  14. For what it's worth, "I'm going to activate this model, and it's just going to double walk to -there-" is perfectly fine to say in a lot of situations. Because a lot of the time it doesn't matter where the first move ended and the second began. The fact that it doesn't matter a lot of the time, and then really matters in a few cases, is why it's a big deal. 😇
  15. I'm pretty sure people have been making the "I want to move twice, so I will and I'm just going to ignore the fact that it doesn't exist in the rulebook" mistake since first edition. It sure as hell was a common enough mistake during M2E that -very briefly- it was discussed during the M3E beta along the lines of "Since a large number of people keep thinking you can do this, why not just put it into the rules?" The proposal did not live long. 🧐 If someone says "I'm going to walk to here (point A) and then to there (point B) using two actions", it's fine as long as the model stops at poi
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information