Jump to content

solkan

Members
  • Content Count

    3,502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

solkan last won the day on July 22 2018

solkan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,845 Grand Vizier

3 Followers

About solkan

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Summary for really long post: The model that controls the Unbury effect isn't necessarily the model that controlled the Bury effect. Really long post: There's an important distinction to be made. In the normal case, the rules are: and The controller of the Unbury effect is not necessarily the controller of the Bury effect. When it would be different includes situations where the model that's buried has its own ability to Unbury itself unrelated to the effect that buried it. For instance, for Pine Box and Glimpse the Void: For those Unbury effects, the controller of the effect is whoever performed the action that Buried the model. But for models that have an Action or Ability like From Nothing: or The Earth Beneath Your Feet: the model with the Ability or Action is going to control the Unbury effect. (The 'Unbury myself' actions aren't relevant in this situation because Glimpse the Void's Unbury effect is automatic at the start of the model's activation. I'm just pointing out that they exist.) On top of all of that, the controller of the Unbury effect is completely irrelevant in the "So you couldn't be placed" clause in Unbury: If the model buried by Glimpse the Void doesn't have its own Unbury ability, the sequence is: 1. If the Unbury effect of Glimpse the Void is resolved, the controller of that model controls the Unbury effect and chooses where to place the model. So the Tara player is placing the enemy model. (Enemy relative to the model with Glimpse the Void.) 2. If it can't be placed according to the first step, then the model's owner places it anywhere in their deployment zone. No one gets ditched in the corner of their deployment zone unless they want to be. If a model with From Nothing or one of the similar abilities is Buried by Pine Box or Glimpse the Void, then the simultaneous effects rules create a choice for the buried model: Option A: Resolve From Nothing first. Because the model's own ability is responsible for the Unbury effect, the model's controller will control the Unbury effect that ability generates. If it's still Buried (because there was no Fast Condition to end somewhere that would be favorable to the model), go to Option B. Option B: Resolve the remaining part of Pine Box/Glimpse the Void first. The controller of that Unbury effect (whoever applied it) will control the Unbury effect. In either case, if placement isn't possible, if the "cannot be Placed" clause in Unbury gets invoked, the model's owner places the model, regardless of who controlled the Unbury effect. If a Tara player uses Glimpse the Void on Colette Du Bois, Ms. Du Bois is almost certainly going to use Show Stopper to Unbury instead of Glimpse the Void's Unbury effect. Edit: And to actually answer the question: Q: Can you choose to end the fast condition and unbury the model in your deployment zone? A: You only get to use the "place in your deployment zone" clause of the Unbury rules if you can't be placed by the Unbury effect. For From Nothing, that means that you would have to end Fast on a model and then not be able to place in base contact with that model for some reason. That would require there to not be enough room for the model's base, or a placement prevention effect like Gravity Well, or something, giving you no legal position to place the model. If there's someplace you can legally place the model, you would have to choose the legal place instead of using the fallback clause. You're not forced to end Fast on a model that you can place next to instead of a model with Fast that you can't. But once you've chosen the model with Fast, you essentially have to try to do legal placement before going to the fallback clause.
  2. solkan

    Chemical Foggers

    To be fair, that even applies to war-games written in English by native English speakers living in countries adjacent to large bodies of water.
  3. solkan

    Chemical Foggers

    Yes it can be attached as such, and yes, the Walker can take the action. The Walker is a "fireteam in this unit". It isn't a Squad Fireteam in the Unit (for the three or four rules where that distinction matters). Edit: Obligatory: Hoist the rocket launcher up to the driver.
  4. solkan

    Chemical Foggers

    I think the more diplomatic description is "an abstract mechanism representing a combination of morale effects, and the opportunity for non-fatal casualties to recover to functional status." Maybe it's a bit strange to treat the wounded as invisible abstractions, but according to the Reinforce mechanics they're at least following along with the "surviving" fireteams since that's where they reappear.
  5. solkan

    Chemical Foggers

    I was trying to make an indirect point. None of the words you typed correspond to actual rules in the rulebook. If you could attach assets to those models, all of those rules would have to be added to the rulebook. Additionally, the force construction mechanism only attaches Assets to Units. The statement "Combined Arms cannot attach Assets to their special Unit Card" is essentially redundant, at best trying to point out that "special Unit Card" being used isn't some strange Unit-within-a-unit, it's just a bizarre fireteam belonging to the unit. If you were able to attach Restricted(Titan) assets to those fireteams, the assets would be (according to the existing rules) attached to unit itself, not the Cutter or Walker. Again, more rules that would have to exist in the game to explain what happens and how assets attached to a specific fireteam work. More importantly, if those assets were attached to the "special Unit Card" or the unit itself, then there aren't any rules in the game which would cause those assets to be discarded when the titan fireteam is killed. And the Reinforcement Token rules wouldn't really work right if you tried to attach assets to the fireteam or "special Unit Card", since they address the "unit's activation" and "an attached Asset".
  6. The effect in question was “Target suffers X/Y/Z, ignoring Q” where there’s a blast in there somewhere. The previous poster’s claim was that the “ignoring Q” clause only applies to the target, and not the resolution of the blast. So you resolve the damage flip, find out that it has a blast and turn to those rules. You then resolve the Blasts rules. The whole time, the “ignoring Q” clause still applies because you’re resolving an aspect of that damage flip. At this point it has to be pointed out that “Target suffers X/Y/Z” is a template using English letters. Because you have stuff like the Burst Damage trigger on the Samurai’s Gatling Gun: which you have to translate into “Add a Blast to the result of the damage flip.” That’s how disconnected the words “target suffers X/Y/Z” are from their literal meaning, especially when Blasts get involved. Edit: All of the instances of “Models damaged ...” rules that I’m seeing are used for effects that apply Conditions. The M2E “This attack ignores ...” phrasing isn’t used any more.
  7. solkan

    Chemical Foggers

    I think Walkers and Cutters have the Combined Arms mechanics working against them for customizing. The fact that you can bring them back using reinforcements is probably why they can’t have assets. Because the associated complications for the alternative: If you return a model with attached assets, what state are the assets in? Can you get any of the discarded assets back when you return the model? When you remove the model and it still has assets attached, what happens to those assets?
  8. It's still a bit of a shock to see people actually want to take that model, after how negative the response to the interaction with Governor's Influence and Obey was for the Governor's Proxy. I wonder if it's too late to put in a request to get the standard action list presented in card format. Doing that would help to settle questions like this. Is Assist supposed to be: ? Because the alternate result is that Assist's 2" isn't changed by Smouldering Flames because that 2" isn't the Action's range. According to page 22, Actions have a Rg stat which indicates the action's range. The derived conclusion from this is that other distances described in the text of the action are ranges, but aren't the action's range. The current wording leans to Assist not having a range because so far you don't need to target (and thus don't need to have line of sight) to the assisted model. No one's complained about Assist through walls, I guess.
  9. From page 284: So, yeah. Probably more importantly, when the rules talk about fate modifiers to a challenge, mechanically that means that you apply the fate modifiers to the duels used to resolve that challenge. It's a "+2 bonus to hit" vs. "+2 to attacks" sort of thing, where you get the same result using different words. Elemental Weapon has a resist because it can be cast on characters (as described in the second sentence of the first paragraph) and it's mechanically possible for the target character to not want the effect applied.*. If you're casting it on weapon, or the target character relents, you just need to deal with TN to cast the spell. Once you've cast the spell, you just automatically apply the effects of the chosen Elemental Immuto to characters damaged by weapon/character's Grappling/Martial Artials/Pugilism attacks. If you cast Elemental Weapon with one Fire Immuto that will mean that characters damaged by the sword automatically gain Burning +1. (You can cast Elemental Weapon with multiple copies of the same Elemental Immuto or different Elemental Immutos, so you could get Burning +2 or more on each attack; but the last sentence of Elemental Weapon's effects stops you from casting it multiple times to build up bigger effects using lower target numbers.) [* One plausible scenario I can think of for why you'd cast Elemental Weapon on someone that's going to resist is if you wanted to "turn off" a particularly nasty effect on an enemy's enchanted weapon/person. If you don't have armor or hard to wound, Elemental Weapon (Spirit) is pretty harmless to put on the enemy. Elemental Weapon (Water) is even more safe to use to overwrite an opponent's enchantment.]
  10. I don't have a horse in this race (pun unavoidable), but the Kentauri have been Minion(2) for essentially the whole beta. And the limit for almost all models got drawn as "What's in one box?" with exceptions needing a lot of good reasons. That could be anything, really. There've been enough packaging mishaps related to sprue clipping that I think we just have to accept that sometimes there are some very very random sprue combinations used to make full mold. (Too much space used to just double up to fill the mold, but enough open space to fit another model.) I mean, there was an issue at Adepticon where one of the Basse crew models is one the same sprue as the Transmortis crew models.
  11. If by “nothing” you mean “It will cost you a tactics token to get out of this situation, even if you already had your card in your hand”, then, sure.
  12. I thought that was a packaging error, and those things were originally supposed to be two to a box.
  13. Between the time that I posted, and now, the Errata was released: The default is 3.
  14. "no crew box" isn't accurate. Crew box is: Youko Hamasaki, Chiyo Hamasaki, Bill Algren, and 3 Geisha. The purple ** is fair, but the crew box is settled.
  15. One other important thing that's not on your list: The M2E FAQ. I don't think a person could take the 1st edition rulebooks and recreate a game of 1st edition Malifaux as it was understood at the time, without knowledge contained in the 1st edition FAQ. If you're trying to collect 2nd edition in its current state, you need an archived copy of the FAQ as well.
×
×
  • Create New...