solkan

Your diagram doesn't have a scale, so it's difficult to see what the distance between those two objects are, and I don't want to put a piece of string next to my monitor to measure base sizes. So I'm going to give you a general answer instead of the specific one for that situation. Let's break it down to the separate issues... Issue 1: If the distance between the two points on the two objects is less than 4", does that count as "interrupted"? Per the latest FAQ, yes. Just remember that the "toward" rules were changed in the errata so that you choose a reference point on each of the objects to do the relevant measuring. And when you're pushing a marker towards a model, the difference between "I'm going to use the nearest possible reference points" and "I'm going to use the furthest possible reference points" is a couple of inches. In other words, if that shadow marker was a bit over 2" away from the Torakage, your potential reference points range from a bit over 4" apart to a bit over 2" apart, and the push is interrupted if you choose two points less than 4" apart. In other words, if you push the shadow marker 4" towards something else, and you choose two reference points that are less than 4" apart and no other rule causes the push to be interrupted, the FAQ says that the push is interrupted. Issue 2: Will contacting a model or something else cause the push to be interrupted according to the push rules? A moving marker is treated as if it were a moving model if the marker has the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits. And when -models- are pushed, the rules specify that the push is interrupted: Unless the terrain trait exception applies to the marker, the interruption rule in pushes won't apply to the pushed marker. And one of the thing we tried to be thorough about during the beta was to get Wyrd to properly use 'object', 'model' and 'marker' in the rules instead of the problem in M2E where a rule may use "model" when describing a mechanic that applies to models and markers.) Severe terrain applies to non-Place movement of models. The effect will apply to the same set of markers that the Push interruption clause will--markers with the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits (because those two traits cause the marker to be moved like a model). In other words, a pushed Shadow marker (lacks either the Impassable or Climbable terrain traits) won't be slowed by severe terrain and will pass through intervening models. A pushed Ice Pillar (possesses the Impassable terrain trait) will be slowed by severe terrain and will be interrupted by intervening models. Does that help?

You wouldn’t object to “When an enemy model is hit by a friendly Urami model...” compared to “When a friendly Urami model hits an enemy model”, would you? This is just “When an enemy model is moved through by a friendly Urami model” vs. “When a friendly Urami model moves through an enemy model”. Note that one of the reasons it is “is moved through by” instead of “moves through” is probably to avoid arguments over Model X pushing/moving Model Y (the Urami) through Model Z (the enemy model).

It's 'This or That' choice (rules PDF, page 33). More specifically, the choice is The 'This or That Choice' rules are what create the stipulation that the model can't choose an option that it can't successfully perform (unlike actions normally resolve, where the model just has to "try" and it doesn't matter whether the attempt cannot succeed.)

For the historic record, Wyrd has in the past demonstrated this usage (in 2nd edition, quoting from the M2E FAQ): In other words, in M2E the Incorporeal ability said "reduce the damage by half" (which sounds like you would take the damage X, subtract X/2 (rounding this number up?)) but what was intended was "halve the damage" (straight out divide the damage by two, rounding the result up). But, Vendatta's current wording of or Assinate's The rules say that you do this, because it's not a distance: So if you need the number for "half of its Maximum Health" and the Maximum Health is 7, the number is 4. Note that neither of those say "below half" or to have lost half of its health, they say that the model has to have half of its maximum health or less. Trust me, it's a minor point that got plenty of arguing over, and the outcome was the plain one: What matters is how much you have left, not how much you lost (or how you got to half).

You’re arguing that Flight allows a model to be placed anywhere on the table with that logic.

Remember that this is a tactical action, and Dreamer is a Nightmare model. So he’s a friendly Nightmare model when looking for targets for the action. ”Other friendly model only” is a target restriction on the trigger. It prevents declaring the trigger when Dreamer targets himself with the action.

It’s option 2. The previous edition was more explicit about pointing out that the two sides are going to end up performing different duels, but you don’t end up with the “Wp melee” duel for the attacker.

Read Flight, and apply the same argument—a model is always within X” of itself after you place it. Or for that matter, Glimpse the Void (“unbury within 1” of an enemy model”). It’s an unwritten bias in the rules, but you have to validate the position you’re going to put the model before you put it there (allowing for itself to not get in its own way, if it’s moving to an overlapping position) before placing the model, not afterwards.

When you get to an absurd conclusion--Mondrake's place effect allows him to be placed anywhere on the table--you're supposed to stop and reconsider your assumptions and see where you went wrong.

The evidence that I've found suggests that ending the action should result in the model completing the resolution of the current action, and then ending its activation loop. Generated actions get resolved by iterating the activation loop, so those won't be resolved. From a practical stand point, because of the ordering of "after the action has been resolved" effects in M3E, I'm pretty sure the sequence of events is going to be: - All of the attacker's "after an action has been resolved" effects, including hazardous terrain - The defender's "after an action has been resolved" effect--the "when resolving" trigger that ends the activation so the only things that should be lost are any generated actions. If, for some reason a player wanted to attack their own models and create a situation where they resolved the 'end activation' effect before the other effects, I think that falls into the same sort of self-inflicted punishment as a player managing to discard their entire deck. 🤔

You don't see how the same discussion about the same mechanics is relevant? Some of the details have changed from M2E to M3E. Not all of them, and certainly not the basic mechanic of a model activating, declaring actions, actions having triggers, parts of the action generating effects, etc. The two significant changes in the mechanics were: - Elimination of action points in favor of regular of bonus actions. - Adjustment of how actions are resolved to eliminate nested resolution of actions. Why would the rules for peeling apples apply to peeling oranges? None of that is relevant, because it doesn't tell you what to do if you're told to immediately end the activation. You may as well be trying to claim that that FAQ says that gaining Fast or Slow during an activation doesn't change how many actions a model can take. 🤷‍♀️

Putting this in a separate post to avoid editing the previous one... Here’s one of the discussion threads which was the context of the M2E FAQ:

Pause for a moment and forget about the part of the action where a model is being placed, and look at the part of the action where it generates a shockwave. The basic Shockwave rules explicitly include "in range and line of sight" as part of the shockwave process. Seems like you'd need a really good reason for a model with a range 18" shockwave attack (pretty much the longest range shockwave in the game) should get an exception that no one else does. 🤷‍♀️

This same sort of situation came up during M2E (in particular for Rasputina's defensive trigger), and during M2E the FAQ result was this: So just sayin' that the previous interpretation was that you really are skipping from 2.e (or wherever in the action steps) to 3 (End Activation)--you're done with both the action and the activation.

As far as spell casting outside of dramatic time goes, I’m fine with it. The thing to keep in mind is that you’re basically looking at “I takes you X minutes of exertion comparable to jogging to cast this spell.” And then make sure they realize that the player realizes that that will eventually make a difference. I say this as someone who currently has a job with a pretty fixed schedule and has discovered all sorts of important things like “how long does it take to patch up that old pair of boots each morning.” “Hold on, I ain’t got my leg on yet” is the downside to continually casting animate limb.

So you’re going to ignore the inconvenient facts like: * Model sizes are 30mm, 40mm, and 50mm. None of those are even multiples of an inch, so won’t fit in an “inch based” grid. * Movement and measurement on grids always ends up with messy rules for diagonal measuring, or “free” distance. Whistling about thirty years of table top wargaming.... At least you weren’t complaining about pre-measuring or not pre-measuring.

The full band is seven 7SS models. And it’s going to be a henchman led crew. How many more arms do you want tied behind a person’s back? Mei Feng says “Hi.” 🤷‍♀️ Seriously, the first few Malifaux tournaments I played in were “Declare your faction and master at the start of the game, and write it down, like the rulebook says” tournaments. All this stuff ‘bout fixed-faction or fixed-master lists has always sounded like an exercise in making things more complicated while trying to pack less figures in a figure case.

I'm pretty sure Molly was one of those characters that got promoted from "supporting character" status to "main cast" in the transition from M1E to M2E. I mean, in the M1E stories, Molly is only present as part of a Seamus story. Then, during M2E, I can think of the Molly and Kirai story (Girls Night Out, or something?), probably a vignette, and I can't remember whether Molly had an action scene during the Avatar/Effigy/Emissary story sequence. And I think she's got a story in the M3E Resser book.

More important for the basic question, by definition you cannot move through impassible terrain. It’s the very start of the impassible terrain rules:

But that's almost how it works already. Unlike the previous edition's versions, they're all equally henchman and they're equally valid choices for leader. There's some dispute about whether a free effigy and a third action is an adequate bonus compared to a master led crew, but otherwise... And unlike the previous edition's version, you're free to only take some of the seven. If you're not playing a fixed faction tournament...

That’s pretty good. But definitely move the “Optional cheated cards” label for “Duel - Conflict” so that it’s not overlapping the thick grey arrow.

It seems more likely to me that you would discard the asset as soon as you flip it, so you wouldn’t have a chance to scrap it after disabling it. If you had three assets that you wanted to disable, you wouldn’t wait until the damage was resolved to discard them.

Feedback on the diagrams: The labels in the black bars across the top of the diagram don't correspond to the duel steps. If you change "Modify Duel" to something talking about initial conditions, the cover box needs to be in that area. "Calculate Duel Totals" should really be something like "Turn Over Cards" and stretch over to include the "Cheat in a Card" box. Scrunch "Calculate Cheated Duel Total" down and rename it to something like "Calculate (Intermediate) Duel Total". You need to find room to create another step "Final Duel Total" and put the "Final Duel Total" box in that column. You can probably just use the space you have for "Calculate Accuracy Modifier" for that. There really, really, should be black bar section for success or failure. The diagram on page two appears to be mislabeled. It should say "Resolve a damage flip." The process flow for the damage flip is wrong. What you should have is Arrow from "Flip card(s)" to "Select card", and then a card next to "Select card" labeled "Cheat card". Then arrow from those two cards to a box "result of damage flip". From that box and the "triggers and abilities" box (damage modifiers) you'd go to "Damage" (you've got the modified damage total before damage reduction) about where you've put it on the right side of "Calculate Cheated Damage". Aside: If you're diagraming something like this, you want the diagram to show that the first dual process is different than the damage flip process. Because it is--one is an opposed duel (two flips), the other's a simple flip. Why is the arrow drawn from "Damage" to "Abilities"? It should be drawn from "Damage" to "Reduced Damage". There's a line going from "Reduced Damage" to "Soulstone" that needs to be removed.

Well, yeah, the distinction is that "being targeted" is an event that various abilities and effects react to, while "being the target" is an ongoing status. But it's just like talking about damage--'suffers damage' is a process of reducing the wounds on a model, even though in casual English you might say that a model that has been damaged is suffering damage. What it circles back around to, though, is stuff like this in the rules: "Unless otherwise mentioned, every Action with a target must target a single model." In the context where each action has a single target, it more sense to read "Targeting a different model" as "Target a model other than the current target."

That's part of how you know the conclusion is wrong. The acting model does not dictate where the marker is placed for Drop It, the target does.