Jump to content

solkan

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    5,400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

solkan last won the day on January 19

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

2.7k

Reputation

3

Community Answers

  1. "this or that" choices are organized literally in the form of "X or Y" (I don't think there are any three option choices in the cards) like the example given in the rules. "Target may X. If it does not, Y" is not a "this or that" choice. The Take it All trigger on Greed's Unchecked Avarice action is thus not a "This or that" choice, either.
  2. Yeah, when it says "the replace is cancelled", it just cancels the replace effect (you skip it and continue)--the "replace effect" is "is replaced with two Bisected Models" not the ability containing the word "replace". So if the Demise(Bisected) goes off and there's no room to replace, it just heals 4 (bringing it above 0 and thus no longer killed) and remains a Leftovers.
  3. I see no reason why the two triggers would be different, and no support for choosing the same model twice. Please be aware that the errata and FAQ documents are generally once or twice a year, and the developers do not make official rules statements outside of those documents.
  4. Unless an ability says "one or more" (or something similar), two or more of the same thing at once is going to trigger the effect multiple times. Drawing 2 cards is "draw a card, resolve effects triggered by drawing a card, draw a card, resolve effects triggered by drawing a card" and gaining three tokens is "gain a token, resolve effects triggered by gaining that token, repeat twice more." The words "after resolving the current Action (if any)" don't prevent the effect being resolved multiple times, they're there to reduce timing issues such as those that could be caused by a model moving while it's resolving a duel. For example, if a Union Miner uses the False Claim action in Gluttony's Hunger Pains aura, the Union Miner gains a sin token as it drops each of the scheme markers. That's the aura being triggered twice in sequence, not the aura stacking with itself.
  5. Because you tried to explain your original thinking, I'll try to elaborate as well. When you're resolving abilities because something happened, you look at each model with an ability on it that had its trigger condition satisfied and resolve the ability. You have one copy of the aura on Madame Sybelle. When the enemy model ends its movement, you check Madame Sybelle's instance of the ability, and you see that it has been satisfied, so you resolve it. The fact that you ended up engaging three models instead of just one doesn't have any bearing on the situation--that's just excess beyond the minimum to satisfy the requirement. Bump in the Night is a single aura centered on Madame Sybelle which has that complicated trigger condition. It's not an ability which creates effects on the red chapel models in the aura range. In that situation, if you had some Rotten Belles (they have the Pounce ability which gives them Fast in this sort of situation), each Rotten Belle's Pounce ability will trigger at the same time. This happens because Pounce is an ability on each of the models.
  6. Ending its movement engaging three enemy models is still just satisfying the condition "engaging an enemy model". Like RegeIridderen wrote, in order for a single aura to grant Distracted +1 for each enemy model, it would have to say that. There are lots of cases where the rules are written with +'s in them where the reason is convention, rather than plausible stacking. Also, "Distracted +1" is written with a "+1" because the condition stacks with pre-existing instances.
  7. The distinction which matters, as far as I can tell, is whether the effect belongs to a model. Per the Gluttony FAQ no model effect can do anything to a strategy marker which has not been specified in the strategy. To quote the second paragraph of Strategy Markers again: All the Gluttony FAQ does is take parenthetical list of examples and specify additional things, including things that a person may feel don't have an active effect. It is permitted for a scheme do all of those things because the prohibition in the rules is on "the effects of models"--and the effects of models are defined by the actions and abilities of models.
  8. Well, no one among us can say whether your pleas will be granted, but the place to file them is the "Damaged/Mispacked Products" option on Wyrd's Contact Us page: https://www.wyrd-games.net/contact Do note the warning, though: "Please note that we no longer support metal or resin miniatures. Please make sure your part requests are accurate and descriptive, we will not resend if you requested the wrong part."
  9. I'm really shocked that that ability doesn't say "May discard a card a Twist Card to spend 2 AP to ..." to make it consistent with Rapid Fire. Since Rapid Fire is what the old M2E Turakage had...
  10. Ngaatoro's action is adding Abilities to friendly models. The whole point of the action specifying that it's adding an Ability to the other models is so that neither the Haka Action nor Ngaatoro are responsible for the damage from the effects. So I agree with SunTsu. Damage from PeruPeru is not caused by the Haka action. Peruperu is also not damage caused by an aura.
  11. Even if Charge left out the "may", the rules for resolving rules conflicts would just let you say "It says I have to take a melee attack, but I can't declare any of the attacks, so I don't." And, just to "Me, three" the rule responses... What matters is that you don't declare everything at once. Declaring an action is the first step of taking an action: You don't go through the effects of the action and try to make any of the choices there yet. When someone says "I'm going to charge you and hit you with my hammer", they're getting ahead of the model in the rules.
  12. I'm not entirely sure which paragraph of the rules you're quoting. I believe the most recent version of the Activation Phase paragraph is: The key is "may take up to two Actions". 0, 1 and 2 are all valid values for "up to two." There is no need to define that nothing in the rules, mathematics does that for us. The shortest possible activation for a model would be: Activate Resolve start of activation effects Choose to resolve 0 actions End activation Resolve end of activation effects
  13. As far as I know, that's not a mechanic currently in the game. Targeting non-marker terrain would include targeting aura terrain, which is somewhat under defined. (Being in an aura is easy to determine. Trying to determine where the aura's base is, if you have nearby terrain, isn't...) Personally, I don't think "When drawing LoS to a Marker, the Marker is treated as a model with Size 0, unless the Marker has the Height Terrain Trait, in which case its Size is equal to its Height." is supposed to mean, essentially "Draw line of sight to the marker as if it had Sz equal to its Ht (0, default)" without triggering side effects. (We managed to beat almost all of the unnecessary uses of "model" out of the line of sight system during the beta, but it looks like this one was missed.) Because leads to claiming that Take the Hit ("After an enemy model targets a friendly model within 2 ..." and someone targeted a friendly terrain marker) or having Challenge being used to prevent targeting a marker.
  14. I'm sorry, I was distracted by the part in the original question where you appeared to be saying "The rules say that the auras generated by actions and abilities aren't cumulative, but these are triggers." And the usual host of expected follow ups concerning models standing within two or more instances of those auras... 🤨 Can you use those two triggers to put two hazardous auras on the same marker(s)? Sure. Because they're not the same auras (they have different names). Can you use those triggers to put the multiple of the same hazardous auras on those markers? That won't do anything, because that's just multiples of the same aura.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information