Jump to content

solkan

Vote Enabled
  • Posts

    5,400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by solkan

  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.
  15. The first sentence of the paragraph you're referring to says: It then continues Then, if you return to the first paragraph discussing auras: and concerning triggers: So: Auras, whether generated by abilities or actions (and remember, the effects of triggers are considered part of their generating action) are not cumulative. Note also that "Hazardous Markers of the same type are not cumulative" is wrong. Multiple hazardous markers of the same type are treated as a single marker. As noted in the example in the rulebook, the effects of two different hazardous markers are cumulative. Also, the FAQ has as an important note about how Hazardous combines: In other words, multiples of the Hazardous(Damage 1) terrain trait on the same terrain piece is just Hazardous(Damage 1).
  16. The part that you're misunderstanding, or attempting to skip over, is the fact that the aura only does something to qualifying models. Look at the first Aura example, for Lynch's aura. What happens if a friendly model within 6 of Cheats Fate? That ability does specify anything to happen to friendly models, so nothing happens. Is the friendly model standing in the aura? Yes it is. Is the friendly model affected by the aura, as specified by the aura rules? Yes, it is. Does anything happen to that friendly model because of the aura? No, because the aura doesn't specify for anything to happen. More importantly, look at the Scamper example in the rules. The Scamper aura specifies an aura which will only ever do something to the model that is generating the aura.
  17. Short version: Yes, you can. Long version: Being incredibly literal with the rules text, you'd get this sequence: Resolve effects that happen when the model Activates (Step C originating paragraph) Resolve effects that happen at the start of the Activation (Step C, sub paragraph 1) That would put Faith in Flesh first, then Regeneration. The other interpretation, that you do both "Activation" and "Start of Activation" effects at the same time, would also let you do what you want, since you'd get to choose which effect was resolved first. If you wanted to use the overhealing move (use Regenerate first when fully healed), Goad Witchling is a "[other model]s that Activate ...". So that paragraph that says is apparently supposed to be read as So you can choose the order of 'start of activation' and 'when this model activates' effects. In case there are other models involved, remember the FAQ says that you can't add or remove effects from the list by moving around.
  18. All of your examples are correct, but your examples stop short of one of the important points of shadows: - A Sz 2 model standing in the shadow of the Ht1 wall, if people draw line of sight to the Sz 2 model across that wall, the Sz 2 model gets cover. ... unless either Parker or the Hound climbed on top of the terrain, then the model on top of the terrain would be able to use the "I'm standing on top of this terrain piece, so I can ignore 1" of it to draw line of sight to you, even though you're in the terrain piece's shadow." But until they got close enough to the edge, being taller (such as because you're standing on the building) isn't enough to let you see the model in the shadow zone.
  19. See, for instance: LucasMcCabe, Relic Hunter's Demise: "... Then, Attach all Upgrades on this model to the new model, which then ..." for other places on cards where effects don't bother to say to discard an upgrade in play before attaching the same upgrade to a model. And I'm pretty sure no one wants to say "Oh, well, we're not going to try to make that ability work..." "If one McCabe can do it during demise, why can't the other McCabe do it during an ability?" is what I'm saying.
  20. Nah, it should work. There's a little bit of potential fussiness due to the fact that the mechanics for attaching an upgrade already in play have to implicitly remove the upgrade first (compare the wording to Relic Hunter McCabe's Doling Out the Loot trigger). But Relic Hunter MCCabe's demise is guilty of the same attaching of an already in play upgrade to someone new, so you're apparently just supposed to make it work... 🙃 Edit: McCabe doing the "Me, myself and I" trick only gets Shield +1.
  21. I found this copy of the DeadOfWinter pdf file after some searching. Disclaimer: Downloaded off of a random archive site. Between Wyrd's various server migrations and forum changes, the various campaign documents have really ended being ephemeral things. DeadofWinter.pdf Edit: Previous thread discussing what happened after the PDF.
  22. I wonder how many times people will have to say "The damage from Love Hurts is separate from the irreducible damage" (the trigger is also on Showgirls, Doppleganger, and Lust on actions that don't otherwise cause damage...) 🤔
  23. Simple rundown: A push is a move in a straight line (horizontally). A place does not move through the intervening area. The only time a model is prohibited leaving engagement range is when it is resolving the movement for the Walk action. (And only Walk actions are allowed to climb up climbable surfaces.) So, yeah, Butterfly Jump can be used to leave engagement range. It's something to watch out for.
  24. Counter to this: Consider the phrases "for each man and woman in the crowd" vs. "for each man or woman in the crowd". If you're saying "everyone", "every man, woman, and child" or "every man, woman, or child" will do. But "You get a dollar for every man, woman and child in the crowd" vs. "You get a dollar for every man, woman, or child in the crowd", the common usage diverges--"and" tends to imply that you need groups while "or" doesn't. The developers attempt to write the rules using as clear language as possible, but also attempt to write in "natural" English where possible. Of course, there are specific phrases and phrase patterns that rules define to mean specific things instead of their common meanings, but those are more exceptions than common cases. And while formal logic class was fun in college, one of the continuing lessons from it is that there are enough different alternate ways of contracting a formal subset of English that you have to spend a lot of time defining things explicitly and you can't assume everyone will agree on which of many ways are more natural than the others. Thanks for supplying the specific examples, the search function in the card app doesn't really do search patterns. Both of your examples are examples of "inclusive or" lists--you have to choose between the items in the list, any or all of them are valid things to use.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information