Jump to content

solkan

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    4,977
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

solkan last won the day on December 4 2019

solkan had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About solkan

  • Birthday 02/23/1973

Recent Profile Visitors

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

solkan's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

2.5k

Reputation

3

Community Answers

  1. That's not what is being said. And, beside the point. For Careful Planning, "the suit of this Crew's Initiative flip" is a value that isn't determined until the end of the 'flip' process, after any cheating has taken place. For what it's worth, the Initiative Flip isn't an opposed duel, so anyone trying to quote the opposed duel rules for it is incorrectly generalizing. The Initiative Flip is written out as a three step process BECAUSE it is not a duel. Because it is not a duel, any abilities which modify the initiative flip (such as Ill Omens) apply continually. Which means that if Mah Tucket's player has a 4 of Masks in the conflict as the result of step 1, that player's Initiative flip is 5. If that 4 of Masks is replaced by a cheated 9 of Rams, the Initiative flip will be 10.
  2. No, I’m pretty sure the marker’s always going to be aligned with the table. 😛 One thing I forgot about earlier is that impassible prevents movement/placing even if you’re a marker. So your building walls being impassible will prevent pushing into the house.
  3. Your diagram doesn't have a scale, so it's difficult to see what the distance between those two objects are, and I don't want to put a piece of string next to my monitor to measure base sizes. So I'm going to give you a general answer instead of the specific one for that situation. Let's break it down to the separate issues... Issue 1: If the distance between the two points on the two objects is less than 4", does that count as "interrupted"? Per the latest FAQ, yes. Just remember that the "toward" rules were changed in the errata so that you choose a reference point on each of the objects to do the relevant measuring. And when you're pushing a marker towards a model, the difference between "I'm going to use the nearest possible reference points" and "I'm going to use the furthest possible reference points" is a couple of inches. In other words, if that shadow marker was a bit over 2" away from the Torakage, your potential reference points range from a bit over 4" apart to a bit over 2" apart, and the push is interrupted if you choose two points less than 4" apart. In other words, if you push the shadow marker 4" towards something else, and you choose two reference points that are less than 4" apart and no other rule causes the push to be interrupted, the FAQ says that the push is interrupted. Issue 2: Will contacting a model or something else cause the push to be interrupted according to the push rules? A moving marker is treated as if it were a moving model if the marker has the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits. And when -models- are pushed, the rules specify that the push is interrupted: Unless the terrain trait exception applies to the marker, the interruption rule in pushes won't apply to the pushed marker. And one of the thing we tried to be thorough about during the beta was to get Wyrd to properly use 'object', 'model' and 'marker' in the rules instead of the problem in M2E where a rule may use "model" when describing a mechanic that applies to models and markers.) Severe terrain applies to non-Place movement of models. The effect will apply to the same set of markers that the Push interruption clause will--markers with the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits (because those two traits cause the marker to be moved like a model). In other words, a pushed Shadow marker (lacks either the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits) won't be slowed by severe terrain and will pass through intervening models. A pushed Ice Pillar (possesses the Impassable terrain trait) will be slowed by severe terrain and will be interrupted by intervening models. Does that help?
  4. You wouldn’t object to “When an enemy model is hit by a friendly Urami model...” compared to “When a friendly Urami model hits an enemy model”, would you? This is just “When an enemy model is moved through by a friendly Urami model” vs. “When a friendly Urami model moves through an enemy model”. Note that one of the reasons it is “is moved through by” instead of “moves through” is probably to avoid arguments over Model X pushing/moving Model Y (the Urami) through Model Z (the enemy model).
  5. It's 'This or That' choice (rules PDF, page 33). More specifically, the choice is The 'This or That Choice' rules are what create the stipulation that the model can't choose an option that it can't successfully perform (unlike actions normally resolve, where the model just has to "try" and it doesn't matter whether the attempt cannot succeed.)
  6. For the historic record, Wyrd has in the past demonstrated this usage (in 2nd edition, quoting from the M2E FAQ): In other words, in M2E the Incorporeal ability said "reduce the damage by half" (which sounds like you would take the damage X, subtract X/2 (rounding this number up?)) but what was intended was "halve the damage" (straight out divide the damage by two, rounding the result up). But, Vendatta's current wording of or Assinate's The rules say that you do this, because it's not a distance: So if you need the number for "half of its Maximum Health" and the Maximum Health is 7, the number is 4. Note that neither of those say "below half" or to have lost half of its health, they say that the model has to have half of its maximum health or less. Trust me, it's a minor point that got plenty of arguing over, and the outcome was the plain one: What matters is how much you have left, not how much you lost (or how you got to half).
  7. You’re arguing that Flight allows a model to be placed anywhere on the table with that logic.
  8. Remember that this is a tactical action, and Dreamer is a Nightmare model. So he’s a friendly Nightmare model when looking for targets for the action. ”Other friendly model only” is a target restriction on the trigger. It prevents declaring the trigger when Dreamer targets himself with the action.
  9. It’s option 2. The previous edition was more explicit about pointing out that the two sides are going to end up performing different duels, but you don’t end up with the “Wp melee” duel for the attacker.
  10. Read Flight, and apply the same argument—a model is always within X” of itself after you place it. Or for that matter, Glimpse the Void (“unbury within 1” of an enemy model”). It’s an unwritten bias in the rules, but you have to validate the position you’re going to put the model before you put it there (allowing for itself to not get in its own way, if it’s moving to an overlapping position) before placing the model, not afterwards.
  11. When you get to an absurd conclusion--Mondrake's place effect allows him to be placed anywhere on the table--you're supposed to stop and reconsider your assumptions and see where you went wrong.
  12. The evidence that I've found suggests that ending the action should result in the model completing the resolution of the current action, and then ending its activation loop. Generated actions get resolved by iterating the activation loop, so those won't be resolved. From a practical stand point, because of the ordering of "after the action has been resolved" effects in M3E, I'm pretty sure the sequence of events is going to be: - All of the attacker's "after an action has been resolved" effects, including hazardous terrain - The defender's "after an action has been resolved" effect--the "when resolving" trigger that ends the activation so the only things that should be lost are any generated actions. If, for some reason a player wanted to attack their own models and create a situation where they resolved the 'end activation' effect before the other effects, I think that falls into the same sort of self-inflicted punishment as a player managing to discard their entire deck. 🤔
  13. You don't see how the same discussion about the same mechanics is relevant? Some of the details have changed from M2E to M3E. Not all of them, and certainly not the basic mechanic of a model activating, declaring actions, actions having triggers, parts of the action generating effects, etc. The two significant changes in the mechanics were: - Elimination of action points in favor of regular of bonus actions. - Adjustment of how actions are resolved to eliminate nested resolution of actions. Why would the rules for peeling apples apply to peeling oranges? None of that is relevant, because it doesn't tell you what to do if you're told to immediately end the activation. You may as well be trying to claim that that FAQ says that gaining Fast or Slow during an activation doesn't change how many actions a model can take. 🤷‍♀️
  14. Putting this in a separate post to avoid editing the previous one... Here’s one of the discussion threads which was the context of the M2E FAQ:
  15. Pause for a moment and forget about the part of the action where a model is being placed, and look at the part of the action where it generates a shockwave. The basic Shockwave rules explicitly include "in range and line of sight" as part of the shockwave process. Seems like you'd need a really good reason for a model with a range 18" shockwave attack (pretty much the longest range shockwave in the game) should get an exception that no one else does. 🤷‍♀️
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information