solkan

In order that everyone gets to walk away with what they want, there have already been fan-edits to produce the updated version of the old card: same cards linked in this other thread: http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/100444-resurrectionist-summoning-cards/?do=findComment&comment=968697 That version doesn't have the intrinsic models marked, but it does give you your unified list that you can just scan down. And then you can just use one or the other of the official cards as the "Hans Shot First" emergency backup card.

As far as I can tell, the following is consistent both with the accepted semantics for English and the observed semantics for Rules English (Edit: See below): non-Peon means "does not have the Peon Characteristic" Peon means "has the Peon Characteristic" The meaning of those two statements does not change if the model has more than one Characteristic. After all, a is clearly a Peon, the presence of other Characteristics does not stop it being a Peon. There's no reason why those statements would change if a model was So a model that is "Peon, Enforcer, ..." does not qualify as "non-Peon". Concerning Collect the Bounty, because the action says "as having the Peon Characteristic in addition to any other Station Characteristic they have", it doesn't prevent an 'Enforcer, Peon' model being scored as both Enforcer and Peon for Collect the Bounty. I wouldn't be surprised if the future wording (for Gaining Grounds 2017) was changed to specify choosing the one which awards the most points. Edit: From the Rules Manual, page 64: The example isn't for a Station Characteristic, but the result is going to be the same. And rules referencing "non-Construct" models have been in the game since book one. Like Joss's Open Current Upgrade: or the Young Nephilim ability: So the semantics for "non-X" when X is a Characteristic must be considered well defined.

The issue that Clement was pointing out is that the menu in the forum for the Community links are mostly relative links, so "Community -> Resources" points to the relative URL "resources" instead of the absolute URL http://www.wyrd-games.net/resources That wasn't a problem when the forum and the main website had the same domain name, but now that they're different, most of the items in the Community menu no longer work: Community -> Media Community -> Resources Community -> Where to Buy & Promotions Community -> For Retailers Community -> Guilders Community -> Job Opportunities Those don't work from the forum page.

For what it's worth, I think the change was made so that all of the summoning reference cards would be consistent with how the Dreamer's card was arranged. The major downside of the old Molly cards was that was nothing on the cards indicated which one was which, other than a file name which didn't actually mention either the name of the ability or the name of the upgrade card. I mean, take a completely inexperienced Molly player, hand them both of the old reference cards, unless they recognize the types of the models on the card and know what their upgrade does, they wouldn't have any idea which card to use. And then if Molly loses the upgrade during the game (while it might be rare, I believe Hans can still shoot Molly's upgrades off), the old card becomes useless because it doesn't say which are intrinsicly enabled. So the lists on the cards really do need to be marked to differentiate, somehow. Disclaimer: I vaguely remember early versions of the cards being posted in the forums, and the old layout being praised, but I'm willing to call those vaguely remembered people wrong.

Well, Widow Weaver, Lelus and Lilutus are each Rare 1, so you're only going to need one of those each, either way. Unless you went out of your way to get metal, or split a box, you probably end up with more than one Madness and Stitched. One box of each is probably enough. If you're just starting out, you get permission to order a second box when you hit that moment in a game where you're about to declare your summoning and go "Gosh, I wish I had a fourth one of those models." You're probably more likely to want an extra box of Alps if you're just looking for stuff to summon after everything else. If a person likes Teddy, two Teddy's are fun. And then you start collecting all of the different Teddy sculpts, get the Pandora box for Baby Kade, and spiral out of control.

Specifically, it was the observation that if you're trying to do everything, Ryle is one of the "least bad across all criteria" choices, if you weigh all of the criteria equally. And being immune to Horror Duels and having a heal isn't bad. After that, it was pretty good demonstration of the problem of asking a mathematician or similar individual the question, "What's the best model?" That is, either someone tells you (see above) or else they make you think about what you mean and how you're going to compare models. Are there any suggestions on specific criteria that should be favored for a McMourning crew? If there are, that might indicate other choices.

It is possible for a system to have no choices that are Paleto efficient. It is also possible for a system to have all of the choices be Paleto efficient. Paleto efficiency is only one of the possible definitions of "best overall choice" when dealing with multiple criteria at once. Personally, it's not a particularly useful definition if you're looking for things that excell in the various categories, but it exists for the same reasons median, mode and average do--each different definition has a different use. It's also, as far as I can tell, sort of silly to have an argument about Pareto efficiency without bothering to discuss or agree upon the criteria being used. Agreeing on the criteria and metrics is sort of the point--identify your choices, identify your criteria and metrics, score each choice if not inherent, and then the Paleto efficient choices become defined. Otherwise you just have a running argument with shifting goal posts, or each party declares themselves right by their own definitions. Howard Langston has no ranged attack, so isn't a Paleto improvement over Ryle. And the Peacekeeper is more expensive than Ryle, so it's not a Paleto improvement over Ryle. Whether any of the three are Paleto efficient depends on the criteria employed.

I'm asking this as a polite third party. What definition of Pareto efficiency or Pareto improvement are you using? Because it doesn't appear to be the standard one. Here's a definition which appears to be standard: So for Ryle to be the "Pareto efficient" choice, it DOES NOT mean that Ryle is the best in any category, or even that Ryle is better than the worst possible value in any category. It just means that all of the alternatives happen to be worse than Ryle in at least one category. In other words, if a model performs better than Ryle in some category, that model also performs worse than Ryle in some other category. The definition does not require or expect the "efficient" choice to be a compromise in all of the criteria. It's just "All of the other choices are situationally worse in some way, while possibly being situationally better in others."

From the Rules Manual, page 23: Note the first paragraph. That's how "friend" and "enemy" are defined. So if a model has an action that says "heal friendly model", that action only heals models on the same crew, as specified by the second paragraph. There are a very few number of actions or abilities that specifically override this. For example, Hungering Darkness has this action: The part in red is overruling "Friendly and Enemy" specifically concerning Hungering Darkness and the target model. So Hungering Darkness could use Heed My Voice to cause an enemy model to use an action that specified "Target friendly model heals 2 wounds" because Heed My Voice makes the model consider Hungering Darkness friendly temporarily.

That sequence of events requires an additional stipulation: 0. The assumption that the model suffers 1 damage from Poison and then adds two damage from Induction, instead of Induction changing the amount of damage caused by Poison from 1 damage to 3.

If by "summons his entire army in front of it" you mean that the Dreamer is on side of the blocking terrain, and the summoned models arrive on the other side outside of line of sight, that's no longer permitted due to the September errata: That requirement for line of sight is not overridden by the text of the Dreamer's action "Summon the named model within range and deal damage to it equal to its Wd minus one, which may not be reduced." because Kirai uses the same sort of language that doesn't mention line of sight to summon her models, and the instructions are: In other words, to summon a model outside of line of sight, the action or ability would have to explicitly say it could do so. And if the Dreamer is only "hiding" behind a Ht1 wall, that's not actually hiding from Ht2+ models. In other words, a Ht2 model can see the Dreamer (Ht1) if the intervening blocking object (the wall) is only Ht1. If the intervening wall is Ht2, then the only thing that could see the Dreamer (and the only things he could summon on the other side) would be Ht3 or greater models.

Are you referring about the beta process from 1.5E to 2E for Hamelin? Because the errata list for Outcasts: suggests that you'd have to be.

From the FAQ: Just getting that out of the way, it's not directly relevant. Otherwise, it's one block of damage, not two blocks of damage. In order for it to be two blocks of damage, the second block would be caused by Induction.

I don't think it's based on anything more than the information released at GenCon. On the other hand... "... additional Allegiances - such as the corruptive influence of the Cult of the Burning Man" Even if the Burning Man is just floating there in the sky, being a really impressive night light and figure head, it would be a massive drop in influence to have it show up in a 50SS Malifaux game. At best, you'd be talking about avatars of the Burning Man, and then you're already settling for a shadow of what you want.

Being able to do X as Y is not permission to do X. It means, instead, that if the model can do X, then it can do it as a Y instead. Quoting part of the Distract Scheme: As a Peon, a Mannequin does not have permission to take that Scheme specific Interact Action. In order for a Mannequin to take that action, it would have to change to a different station characteristic (and it would have to find some way of losing Insignificant). No amount of taking Actions as other Action types is going to permit the model to take the Action is doesn't have permission to take in the first place. Rehearsed does not overrule Insignificant. Rehearsed does not overrule the Schemes defining which models can take their Interact Actions.

Huh. The last time I played 40k, which admittedly was at least two editions ago, I was pretty sure the designers at the time were quite firmly in "box" interpretation of the board, and not in the interpretation where models were able to fall off the edge. As in, in order to cross the edge of the table in any way, a model needed to be told to do so explicitly by a rule, such as the Fallback rules or arriving from deployment rules. Because the alternative involves shooting at or charging the opponent's army tray, carrying case, or reserves if they happen to by physically near a unit near the edge of the board. So I don't really want to dispute your interpretation of 40k's game mechanics, but I would be interested in where you got the idea that it's possible to fall off the table in 40k.

Please point out other models in the game balanced according to that metric, which do so without a Rare limit or interacting with anything else in the game. Over the course of a 5 turn game, a Pathfinder with your proposed change summons 10SS worth of models. Guaranteed, with no chance of failure, no interactions with other models, and consuming no resources other than the activation of a minion model. A 6SS model with no Rare limit more than doubling its value through produced models over the course of game. Edit: And, frankly, "at the cost of not being able to place it wherever you want it immediately" is a joke. The Pathfinder has From the Shadows. That means that if you've hired it, it's because you're deploying it where you would want those traps to be in the first place.

Upon further reflection, I am forced to reverse my position on the result on the ground that the phrase "before removing" does not refer to timing. What that phrase means, in context is "even though/if you're removing the model." And that phrase is present is that most wicked and misguided sentence in the rulebook: This sentence ends up being the least true or least accurate sentence in the rulebook. I'll refer to this as the Misguided Model Killing Rule. To start with, if an "after damaging" trigger is in effect, then the model's removal is delayed until the trigger resolution step. So there end up being triggers like this one: or or the Consuming Flame trigger: or the Desolate Warping trigger: Look at the Condemned trigger. It's a trigger that goes in to effect when it kills an enemy model, and the instruction without the words "before removing it" would essentially be completely the same without the Misguided Model Killing Rule, and the resulting "But I already removed the model, how can I place anything in base contact with it?" Because there are actions like Spirit Whispers: In any reasonable context, outside of a rules forum slap fight, those last three words are redundant. Because in order for the rest of the effect to be sensible, of course the Scheme Marker is going to be placed there. Otherwise, you'd have to mark where the model was, or otherwise go to ludicrous measures to follow the instructions. What really reinforces this is the After Damaging trigger rules: Reinforced by FAQ entries, those words "before the damaged model is removed" don't result in the After Damaging trigger's effects being resolved early. What they result in is delaying removal of the killed model until the After Damaging trigger is resolved. In other words, the phrase "before removing it" isn't specifying timing. What it's doing is emphasizing that if the effect is still resolved even though the target could otherwise have been removed (or even though the object in question is obviously going to get removed first if you just followed the instruction in the order specified). All because of the Misguided Model Killing Rule. So, back to the original poster's question, what happens for Desolate Warping being applied to a Shield Bearer that doesn't have a Soulbound upgrade? The model gets reduced to 0 wounds, satisfying the trigger. So an Abomination is summoned. The clause in Desolate Warping overrules the clause about placing a Corpse Marker, so no Corpse Marker is placed. The Shieldbearer ends not killed, and attaches a Soulbound upgrade to itself. And, due to General Timing, the Abomination is summoned before the Shieldbearer attaches the upgrade.

Please explain when the summoning would take place in the sequence of events, since you believe it would happen. The player controlling the Shield Bearer is looking at their upgrades, and the placement of the summoned model may influence their choice of upgrades. In other words, when does "before removing" happen when no model is being removed? Edit: Upon further reflection, my opinion on this matter was opinion is incorrect, and I disavow this post. Which is unfortunate because it got voted up a point.

From the last paragraph of Push: You can now point out why you think the edge of the table would be anything other than impassible.

Tournament players going to each game in their "crutch" bodies, registering with their "crutch" identities, driving their "crutch" cars, using their "crutch" carrying cases. It's just so darned lazy. Why aren't they willing to change it up? Disclaimer: Attempting to be competitive in the tournament scene, and get ahead of the complaint curve.

My honest thoughts? When did you fall to the dark side and decide that it would be reasonable to try to justify a retroactive satisfying of triggers using an abomination of all that wargamers hold dear. Here's (one of) the problem(s) with your example: The Wp duel has to occur outside of Phiona Gage's activation. Let me highlight that for you: The duel has to be failed outside of her activation. And the duel has to be failed while engaged.

Colette's Death Defying causes the same sort of problem with Desolate Soul. and likewise for Bete Noir surviving getting reduced to 0 wounds because of healing. Bad Juju's Eternal is a different sort of problem: So after Bad Juju gets reduced to 0 wounds, it's not getting to the same "removed" either. The 'removed' in question, after all, is this one: So multiple ways to survive getting reduced to 0 wounds, it seems like they'd all have to not work for the same reason: "before removing [the model]" never happens.

Look at the summoning abilities on the masters, and consider what happens if you don't use a soul stone or otherwise arrange for the summoning to succeed. You get a random, inconsistent summoning ability. Especially if no markers are consumed. Because that's how summoning abilities are balanced in this game--summoning consumes limited resources. That's what's keeps it in check, whether or not the summoning is the model's "signature ability". Focused +2 isn't a meaningfully limited resource on a model of Minion status that's going to be using its (0) Action to perform the summoning. Let me repeat that. A 6SS minion spending its two AP to perform Focus isn't a meaningful limitation on summoning. You may as well write the words "I wish summoning a trap was a (2) Tactical Action that automatically succeeds." Because that's effectively what it becomes, except for all of the cases where other models are going to be able to generate the Focused condition on the model. If you want to talk about making that summon more reliable, it needs to have an actual cost in limited resources. That means that it's either going to have to require discarding markers, or it's going to require discarding cards. On a historical note: Once upon a time, in 1.5E, the Pathfinder was 6SS Rare 2 model which came with two (2) Clockwork Traps (2SS Rare 3) that it summoned for free automatically when it wanted to during the game. Granted, once a model had placed its two traps it was done and didn't get any more. I wasn't around for the beta, I don't know what various iterations the Pathfinder went through to end up with the Pathfinder no longer Rare and the Clockwork Trap increased to Rare 4. But that "two free traps per pathfinder" is what got turned in to it's current "6+ to summon".

It's a model summoning ability on a minion. If you don't want it to be "random" or "inconsistent" then it's going to cost Scrap Markers to do anything. It currently doesn't cost Scrap Markers to use, so it requires either trusting to fate or card management. Card management is why the models have Scavenge Supplies, as far as I can tell. If the model has situational uses, it's not broken.