Jump to content

solkan

Members
  • Content Count

    3,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by solkan

  1. Old threads wouldn't really give you the wording you're looking for. If old versions of the rules PDFs existed, they would presumably still be under NDA. But, after going back and checking, in good faith I am going to quote the open beta announcement: (emphasis added). I believe that's permission to not beat around the bush concerning the former Nested Effects rules. If the lifting of the beta NDAs was rescinded, would a moderator please delete this post? According to my records, the Nested Effects were in the rules up to the 9.19 Core Rules (I can't confirm when they appeared originally), and then removed from the text from 10.13 and later. (Disclaimer: This is according to my records.) Damage Timing in something resembling its current form (where 'after killing' effects are resolved before the model is removed from the game) appears shortly after that. In any event, that rule existed for part of the closed beta and then went away.
  2. Looking at the timing, as far as I can tell there's only one (or two) duels performed in Step 4, depending on whether the Action uses a Simple Duel or an Opposed Duel. And that what Inhuman Physiology would apply to. The duel caused by Terrifying happens during Step 3, because Terrifying is specified: "After an enemy model targets this model with an Attack Action, the enemy model must pass a TN11 Wp duel or the Action fails." The M2E rulebook contains a nice reminder that that's the step during which Terror Duels are resolved, but the combat example with Basse thankfully confirms that the Terrifying duel still happens immediately upon declaration. Why does Step 4 say "Duels", plural? And that's also why Combat Finesse says "the Attacking model's duel". In the opposed duel, the attacker doesn't get to cheat fate. It's not stopping the defender cheating its duel.
  3. The "Only Masters, No Men" lists don't seem to have quite caught on yet. For example: Leader: Molly Squidpidge Necrotic Machine Reva Cortinas Corpse Candle x2 Kirai Ankoku Ikiryo Just sayin'. 🤷‍♀️
  4. What game state is there to differentiate between the two Rocket Launcher upgrades, or prove that the Rocket Launcher upgrade you removed from the model is a different Rocket Launcher upgrade than the one you detached from the model? You started with an upgrade with the name Rocket Launcher attached to a given model, and you're ending with an upgrade of the same name attached to the same model. Prove that it's a different upgrade. Two models with the same name constitute different models because they occupy different positions, have distinct game states (wounds, activation status, etc). And effects such as summoning specify things such as this:
  5. I’m not quite sure what’s supposed to happen next, here. 👻 I think either I or @santaclaws01 are supposed to visit you on the eve of a tournament, dragging chains forged out of 1st and 2nd edition Malifaux cards, and tell you that you will be visited by three ghosts. Are the ghosts of playtesters past, future and present good, because I think the developer ghosts are in convention season? 👻 Because attaching an identical upgrade to the one that you just discarded is what that statement is prohibiting, using the obscure meaning of the word “different” meaning “not identical”. Edit: On a slightly more serious note, please consider the wording in the Upgrade Cards rules: Note the meaning of the word "same" in that sentence. When the rules refer to "the same Upgrade" or "a different Upgrade", that's the sort of context that's being used.
  6. And it specifies a limit even on the models that can’t do those things because they use the same wording on all of the copies of that trigger.
  7. If they want to expend that much Chi acting out a scene from a Kung Fu movie, I guess that has to be okay.
  8. Yeah, the split Red Joker results... There's part one: and there's part two: For what it's worth, the answer in the previous edition (when the red joker was severe+light damage) was this: For context, Nix's Weakness ability reduced Severe damage to Moderate. In other words, reducing it to Moderate removed the the bonus damage. Edit: Looking at the Variable Flips chart, where it lists 14 as Severe, it looks like that reasoning still applies. So it's Severe damage that happens to be 1 point higher than normal; and that would get reduced to unmodified Moderate.
  9. Just keep in mind the two big catches on that: 1. Targeting happens after you've done the move. 2. When you get to the targeting, and you only have one valid model (or only friendly models) in range that you can target, the rules don't care whether you want to target that model. If you've got valid targets in range, you have to pick one. So don't use that cost-granted move to get within 1" of a friendly model with no one else you'd rather kick around, unless you don't mind kicking your own model.
  10. Agree with @santaclaws01. The rules say: If you have to move toward or away from something, usually there's only one direction for the movement which satisfies that requirement. But when they're perfectly co-positioned, any direction will satisfy the requirement initially, and then because it's a push, you're locked in to moving straight in that direction.
  11. "this model may take the Charge Action" are the magic words to generate a Charge Action that doesn't count against the model's Action Limit, but it isn't the magic words required to get around Charge's "Once per Activation" restriction. So in the situation "charge, use a trigger to bury it and then use the tactical action to unbury and take the charge action" the second Charge Action would not be allowed. You're still allowed to take the Rise Again tactical action, you just can't take the Charge. By "Breaking the Rules", the effect would have to explicitly say something like I cannot at the moment find any Actions that say something like "may take the Charge Action, even if it has already done so" or something similar, but that's essentially the alternative that would be required.
  12. That's what the italics at the start of actions are for. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but it's an action that takes a Condition off a model. The Draw Off Flame Action on the Fire Golem (Arcanists model). It starts off in italics: and then describes placing the golem and moving Burning around.
  13. Yep. It's worth noting that in 2nd edition, you explicitly suffered no damage for falls of 2" or less. In this edition, it works out about the same, if you climb down a fraction of an inch to get below 2" when you fall.
  14. The implied convention between things like the Execute trigger (which says "ignoring Demise Abilities") and Ruthless ("ignores the Terrifying and Manipulative Abilities of other models") is that there could be variations of the Terrifying Ability or Manipulative Ability, and they would all be covered as long as they were Terrifying (Variation) or something similar. Disclaimer: The next few sentences are technically coincidence. Wyrd could put Terrifying with no (X) on a card with an effect completely unlike any other Terrifying ability, and it would still get ignored by Ruthless because it's only the name of the Ability that matters. There are a bunch of different Demise abilities that have different effects. All of the instances of Manipulative are the same. The various instances of Terrifying differ in the numeric value for the TN. but so far it appears that the undocumented convention is that if there are multiple different versions of an Ability, the Ability will be named Some Name followed by parentheses and something to tell the abilities apart in the parentheses.
  15. Viktoria Chambers is her own totem (effectively), because trying to keep Viktoria of Ashes and Viktoria of Blood straight was too confusing. And I think, on the contrary, that what the small keyword pool means is that you're more likely to see variety in that crew because it's forced by necessity to hire versatile and out-of-keyword models more often.
  16. No, you're reading it wrong. The second sentence says that you can't hire both The Beast Within and Ferdinand Vogel into the same crew, you have to choose one or the other. And then later in the game the model you hired can Replace itself with the other. The first sentence of the Slumbering Beast is there to prevent Myranda (or some other model with a similar effect) from using Shapechange to become The Beast Within.
  17. There's pretty much no other way to resolve effects like Pride's Solo Action's non-Condition other than to have them negate each other. Note that the Mouner's Mourn the Dead is the opposite of a precedent, because the result that it describes isn't cancelling the effects out.
  18. It's impossible to get to a lot of positions with a Push, yes. There's going to be a lot of situations in this edition where you're going to need to talk a Walk Action instead of Charging. Note that falling during a Push is fine, it's simply that trying to move up a Climbable surface is reserved to the Walk action (Move, page 14, PDF):
  19. The thing about Reckoning is that the first paragraph doesn't care how, or why, the model was killed. Half of the models in the crew could die to friendly Burning effects and it wouldn't matter. So the big difference as far as I can tell is: If an Insignificant model is killed, that's ignored, as specified by the rules. If a significant model is killed, it doesn't matter what killed it. "Mysterious natural causes" is just fine. And as far as I can tell, if the only thing left in a crew is Insignificant models, that satisfies the "if there are no more enemy models in play" clause.
  20. In the holiday sale where they had the alt-Stitched Together, they had Crossroads 7 boxed sets. https://www.wyrd-games.net/news/2019/4/10/easter-2019-newsletter What I think they discontinued was the Story Encounter box, because all of those printed story encounters need to be examined and revised to the M3E style.
  21. Unless they can be cute and steal some other faction’s effigy. I wonder what our odds of a pith hat are... Thematically, it’s probably a simple enough story addition for Zoraida to have crafted other effigies. I mean, they had that whole game about escaped voodoo dolls and everything, presumably Z keeps busy. Or, we’re getting effigies continually transforming into emissaries now, which kind of demonstrates that whatever Z did that got out of her control is still out of her control and still going. It’s not too much revisionism for that.
  22. Some minor defects in the Replace rules handling of multiple models made it into publication. Models that replace multiple models with one: Affected by Step 3 defect for Tokens and/or Summoning Upgrades. Abominations (three replaced by one) Dust Storm (two replaced by one) Malifaux Rat (Potentially many replaced by one) Steam Arachnids (three replaced by one) Coryphee (two replaced by one) Sandeep's summoned gamin (two or more replaced by one) Affected by Step 7 defect not what happens if already activated, and making a mess of if already activating. Coryphee Duet demise (one replaced by two, either during activation or outside of it) ----- Step 3 Oversight The rules for replacing multiple models with one model specifies this: That covers approximately a third of the material specified in Step 3: The end result is that no action is specified for Summoning Upgrades or Tokens. Because Step 3 specifies "Original Model" singular. Do the Summoning Upgrades get left on the original models, along with the tokens, or do they transfer over? Significantly, for the replacing multiple models wording: the previous mechanic was to choose one of the models (so that all of the tokens, summoning upgrades and conditions are transferred over from only one of the original models). But note that even in the published version of the rules, not all of the Burning (for instance) Condition on the replaced models gets transferred over to the final model. Presumably that's to limit how easy it is to build up a huge amount of Focused on the final model, but it makes it completely unclear whether the rules omit Token and Summoning Upgrade transfer by accident or by design. --- The rules for replacing one model with multiple models says, concerning Step 7: Step 7 says: So, a Coryphee Duet gets killed and as a result of its Demise effect, and two new models get put on the table. Their controlling player has not yet the words "I'm going to activate this model" concerning either of those two models yet. And there is no statement in the rules that says that they are considered to have Activated already. -- I'm pretty sure there's no way to make a Steam Arcachnid take the Swarm Together action outside of its own activation because the action names models by name and every Obey-like effect is careful to exclude such actions. But the combining actions demonstrate that it's possible to the seven steps and say "Apply all of these rules as if they were plural." For instance: Coryphee A activates and walks into position. Coryphee B gets pushed into position. One of the two Coryphee takes Dance Together, replacing a model that has activated, and another that has not, with one model. If that were ever possible (because the guard words get left off), anyone reading Step 7 would be left asking "Which original model?" Instead, there's only the current case where it goes Coryphee A activates and walks into position Coryphee B activates and takes Dance Together. The multiple-replace statement specifies the interaction, the single model version of Step 7 doesn't apply. ==== Disclaimer: Anyone have the form so I can submit this three months ago?
  23. If you push all of that terrain together, does it actually cover one third of the table? (It sounds like a silly or unnecessary way of checking, but it's the simplest way of checking coverage, and it's really easy to over estimate how much area your terrain covers if you don't.) I could be wrong, but it looks like it wouldn't. I'll grant that that's a lot of individual terrain pieces, but that's also a lot of relatively small terrain pieces.
  24. I'm simply to ignore the rest of your post, because from here on out you're just complaining that the rules weren't written how you wanted them to be written. "Markers that count as terrain will have one or more Terrain Traits (such as a Concealing, Severe Dust Cloud Marker)." An Ice Pillar Marker, for example, is species as "a Ht 4, Blocking, Impassible, and Destructible Ice Pillar Marker". Ice Pillar Markers are common to the December keyword (Rasputina and friends) and the Savage keyword (Euripedes and friends). Note the definition of the Destructible terrain trait: In order for the rules to work, each Ice Pillar Marker is a piece of destructible terrain. Additionally, there's are various passages in the rules like this one in "Terrain With Height" below the diagram.
  25. I believe Theory #2 is impossible to uphold because doing so makes it impossible to apply abilities that modify other effects. As far Crooligans go, I believe the two theory model is barking up the wrong tree. Because the issue there is the claim that gets resolved as [Do X] [Do Y] [After X] [After Y] because you'd rather it happen in that order instead of [Do X] [After X] [Do Y] [After Y] on the claim that "Do X to Do Y" is an uninterruptible single effect instead of two effects. The really big issue with Theory #2 is that it leaves out the big issues: There are effects that apply when something happens and effects that apply after something happens. The definition of Sequential Effects is there to deal with 'After' effects. "Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved." It would take at least an additional paragraph or two of rules to define the proper way of resolving effects under the No Nesting Effects theory. As opposed to the "depth first" event resolution model that was pretty well accepted during M2E which pretty much just happens when you try to resolve effects that cause other effects as they happen. The big problem Theory #2 is that it would be even more unwieldy than the No Nested Actions rule, but come up way way more often than No Nested Actions does. How could a rule like that be true and not in the rules (or at least evidenced in an example in the rules) to explain itself?
×
×
  • Create New...