solkan

The short version is: It's not an exclusive choice, it's an inclusive list. You don't choose. It's X and Y together You count up the number of things that are X or Y, and that's the damage. Disclaimer: It is easier to answer questions when you point to a specific model and ask "How does this work?" In particular because there are exclusive choices in the game, and it's possible that you're mistaking one for this.

Just to be clear, the phrase "non-Actions" means "Actions that are not ". Auras, pulses and blasts generated by actions are part of the action and thus are included in the prohibition. All of the things on the front of the card are Abilities. Those are not affected.

There's no concept of "secondary effect" vs. "root cause" for abilities and actions. If my model uses Obey to cause your model to make an attack on a model with Black Blood and you take damage from Black Blood which kills you, you were killed by Black Blood. You were not killed by your own attack or the obey, and the fact that those actions were necessary to create the situation which killed you has no bearing in determining who killed you. From the killed rules: From the FAQ: Note the crucial difference here is that falling damage is resolved as part of the movement effect. You don't have an separation between the movement and the damage during which you'd have to remember who caused the movement. For hazardous terrain, the FAQ says: Part of the reason for the difference is game balance. And part of the reason why end phase Condition damage isn't attributed is so that's not necessary to track who applied the condition, and adjudicate who gets credit if more than one player has applied the condition. Note that there's a distinction made: I bring that up because there's two points: There are models which don't take damage from the Burning or Poison conditions and may in fact heal instead (like Perverse Metabolism). When an effect says that damage is "from" one of those conditions, it's causing that damage to feed in to those abilities. Mentioning the condition doesn't turn it into uncredited damage. "Target suffers 2 damage from the Burning Condition" gets credit for a kill, while End Phase burning doesn't.

For what it's worth, the various situations where a scenario wants to create something that is enemy or friendly to all players have always spelled it explicitly as "enemy to all players". And things like the Drop it! trigger existed in the previous edition. In M2E the trigger said "place an enemy Scheme Marker within 3" of the target". That changed to "drop an Enemy Scheme Marker" in M3E with the introduction of drop and create as verbs that applied to markers. The M2E explanation was, naturally, even less explicit than M3E: and players were expected to work out from -that- how the term applied to markers. And because I brought it up previously, and found my M2E collection, here's how "neutral" was defined: (Tortoise and Hare encounter booklet, Amphibious Assault encounter booklet, and Creative Taxidermy encounter booklet): The University of Transmortis encounter booklet used similar wording for the scenario models In other words, in the situation where a model was an enemy to everyone, the rules say so. This is during the edition which introduced the Bandido's and that trigger. I think this is one of those situations where the rules get written to where the authors think things are spelled out intuitively, and then get to discover who in the audience disagrees with them. 😕

Compare the timing you're asking about to auras like Gravity Well: or Alpha Marcus's Wilds of Malifaux. You don't wait until after you enter the aura to apply the effect.

Please note the first three paragraphs of Friendly, Enemy & Control: Please read those three sentences, and apply those definitions to the phrase "Drop an enemy Scheme Marker". The result you are supposed to arrive at is "drop a scheme marker belonging to the opposing crew." Because the rulebook is written in its entirety on the assumption that there are two crews (note how "the opponent's Crew" is singular. (There's a list of about a half-dozen elements in the rulebook that a multi-player scenario has to address, including initiative, event resolution, choosing enemies or not, and so on. But that's getting off topic...) You drop an enemy Scheme marker instead of a friendly one. If they meant it to be "a scheme marker enemy to all players", they would say so (and have done so in the past using the term "neutral".)

Then, sure. You have to satisfy: and placing an existing marker is movement. Note that Reel In is a push, so there's one less factor to argue about. If the marker is not hazardous when it makes contact with the model, then it does't satisfy the bullet point in Hazardous. If it is, then it does satisfy that bullet point.

You don’t take damage from having a hazardous marker “Dropped” on you (specific game verb Drop). You take damage from having a hazardous marker moved across you. Do you have some way of applying a place effect to Tide Markers?

The one annoyance I can think of is that there are some multi-player formats like Bonanza Brawl, and the document that I'm looking at doesn't make it clear whether that "enemy" scheme marker should be "enemy to player X, friendly to everyone else" or "player X chooses one other player for the scheme marker to be friendly to". But that's an issue for the formats with more than two sides to work, I suppose.

From the rulebook: In other words, a model’s abilities will apply as soon as they’re hired and continue until they’re removed from the game. Note that when the ability references capital-D Deployment, that’s referring to Ecounter step 6, Deployment, it!snot referring to the first time you place the model on the table.

Yeah, all of the current Lost Technology upgrade cards are unique, so once all four are in play, that part of the action is going to be subject to the "You have attempted an impossible effect. Skip it and continue". Looking at the triggers on that action, it looks like the only point of declaring that action a fifth time would be if you haven't yet used the Rapid Divergence trigger. 🤔 All of the other triggers on that action do stuff that references the created marker, so they'd become impossible effects, so not much point to those.

I don't think so. While terrain markers are (at least indirectly) included as a type of terrain piece (for example, the terrain markers rules say "All Markers with the same name (i.e., Pyre Markers, Pit Trap Markers, etc.) count as the same piece of terrain for the purposes of the Hazardous Terrain Trait", there end up being multiple types of terrain: terrain pieces terrain markers auras Terrain auras do interact with effects like Grave Goo's Trail of Slime which uses the term "terrain" and not "terrain piece". But I think this is one of those situations where you have to accept that not all terrain are terrain pieces, just like some markers are models.

So I dug out my own photos of the case, and that figure with the outstretched hands is standing surrounded by the seven figures shown for the "It's Alive" box. So that certainly looks like the title version.

A few different points: 1. You get to take the Charge action for free (without having to use an action on it) because of the words "this model may take the Charge action". That's all a rule needs to say to generate a charge action, and actions generated by actions and abilities are free. 2. The answer to 'What does "ignoring any special restrictions" mean?' Special Restrictions: In other words, they're part of the italics at the start of an action. Those two italic sentences at the start of Charge are special restrictions (written in italics, and limit when you can declare the action) so Sir Vantes gets to ignore them. Note that the "does not cost against its Action limit" bit in Charge is completely redundant, and just the rules author trying to be helpful. 3. "Can you use it to move out of melee engagement and so forth?" Walk is the only action in the game which can't leave melee engagement.

Just remember that those are all models from the one that has already been announced as coming up in a few months as Alt Transmortis. Edit: okay, I was wrong. That one on the left is the wrong pose to be what’s previewed on the box.

I assume you’re asking about cover. Yeah, shadows cut off at 3” max from the terrain, presumably to limit what might happen if you’ve got terrain stacked in piles, and nor need any shadow zone math. (2nd edition Infinity indirect fire calculating shadow areas…. 😵‍💫)

Putting aside the fact that your position could be mistaken for arguing in bad faith, I think you should consider a few points: 1. The game has a five turn limit. That means that there are a fixed number of activations available to the player to score points. This is one of the places where playing in a group setting like a tournament may help, because someone who decides to just kill the other player's models and not bother scoring many points won't do well in the relative rankings. 2. In many situations, a dead enemy model does not score any points. In a certain notable scheme, the objective of the scheme is to get a specific friendly model killed by the opposing player. In other schemes, points are only awarded for killing specific models in specific ways. Have you only seen the schemes and strategies in the main rulebook, or have you seen the rest of the published schemes and strategies in Gaining Grounds?

I*m seeing those listed as "Rotten Harvest", not "Dia De Los Muertos". Same situation for the Zoraid, except she's listed as "Rotten Harvest 2021". The Brines and Bones models appear to be listed under their individual aliases (Mary "Blacktongue" Bonnet under Molly Squidpiddge), etc. Checking Nekima, I see Adi Adara, and The Lagan. Again, not searchable using "Deepest Depths" but under the individual model names. But I'm not seeing the Easter stuff or the other recent alts.

Qualifying that I’m reading this during my lunch break, I think you got everything right. Although I’ll admit that I want to double check 4.1. I don’t remember how much ignoring and double-ignoring there is for the cover from the building top. Edit: Okay, got home and double checked the shadow rules. In 4.1, there's no cover for the Mecha Meemaw in that situation because both the terrain and its shadow are ignored:

Copy/paste: The strategy or scheme will ignore the mindless zombie or corpse candle, even if you have an ability which allows you to treat it like a scheme marker.

Not quite. "If a single line of sight crosses the terrain casting the shadow, the target has cover." You've two Ht2 riflemen, and you've got some Ht1 blocking shrubbery on the table. Put the shrubbery half an inch from one of the rifleman and put the other rifleman 6" away with the shrubbery between them. The shrubbery doesn't block line of sight, but it does grant the one rifleman cover from the other one. Likewise, if you put a Ht2 wall or a Ht3 building on the table, put that Sz2 rifleman about an inch or two away from the terrain piece, and put the shooter somewhere where some line of the lines of sight are getting blocked by wall. The rifleman near the building gets cover because it's in the shadow area. Shadow Zone Exception) If the terrain is the same height or Taller than the model in the shadow, and all lines of sight from the attacker cross the terrain, there is no line of sight. (If the terrain is the same height or taller than the attacker, there's no line of sight due to #2. So the shadow zone exception applies when the attacker is taller than the intervening terrain.) Continuing on with the saga of that Sz2 rifleman standing next to a wall that we'll specify as Ht2. Along comes Sz3 Peacekeeper, and it's standing around the corner from the rifleman. Some of the lines of sight cross the wall and some don't, so the rifleman gets cover. But when the Peacekeeper moves away around the corner (so that all of the lines of sight cross the wall), the shadow rule kicks in. Because the rifleman is not taller than the wall the rifleman is within the shadow zone of the wall any lines of sight involving the rifleman which cross the wall get blocked. The Sz2 model hides from the Sz3 model by being positioned near the Ht2 terrain piece. If the rifleman moves further away from the wall, so that it's no longer standing in the shadow area, then you go back to the normal rule, and the intervening Ht2 terrain piece gets ignored because the Sz3 Peacekeeper is taller than it is. This is part of what the diagram in the book is trying to illustrate. This should be: If the Attacking model is on top of the terrain casting the shadow, it gets to ignore the Shadow Zone Exception if its line of sight passes through 1" or less of that terrain. The hair's width of distance gets split in favor of the attacker. It's the opposite. The Shadow rule is there to change the "I'm ignoring all of the intervening terrain because I'm taller than it is" situation to give models somewhere to hide, and to give people cover for the single line of sight crossing the nearby terrain whether or not the terrain is blocking that line of sight. Main reason why the shadow zone rules exist is that without them, you'd have a situation where a model on a very tall piece of terrain on the table would be able to draw line of sight to everything, because it's simply taller than every piece of intervening blocking terrain. But, with the shadow zone rules, if you've got a few of H3 or Ht4 buildings that you can stand, and some H2 wall segments scattered around, a Sz2 model can hide on the other side of a Ht2 wall from some rifleman standing on the Ht4 building. The idea was that it would let people stick to being able to determine line of sight just looking down at the table (without trying to get out a laser pointer or crouch down for a model's view perspective) for the 36" by 36" table. Then again, the comprises are also part of the reason why there's the "No buildings that you can stand on should be taller than 4"" statement in the rulebook.

Line of sight is blocked because the Friekorps Scout is Ht2 and in the shadow of a Ht2 blocking terrain piece, and all of the lines of sight cross that terrain piece. The only way Kastore could draw line of sight to the Friekorps model would be to get on top of the wall, or move to a position where not all lines of sight cross the wall. Simply being taller than the wall (either because you're standing on some other terrain piece and your relative Ht2 is taller than the wall, or your basic Ht is greater than the wall's Ht) doesn't let you draw line of sight across the wall to the scout (or let it draw line of sight back). The type of the action (or or neither of those symbols) doesn't matter concerning line of sight. If the action has a target, you need line of sight unless otherwise specified. This isn't Infinity where you don't need LoS to make a melee attack. This is true. If the scout moved to one end of the wall, so that it was still in the shadow but not every line of sight between the scout and Kastore crossed the wall (but some lines of sight still do), then they'd both get cover from the wall (a line of sight crossing the wall and the target being in the shadow area = cover). Remember that cover only specifies an effect for actions, so Kastore using Dominate won't care whether the scout has cover, but the scout using Clockwork Rifle will. (This game being the sort of game that it is, it's possible that some model has a rule stating "If this model has cover, something wonderful happens." That rule wouldn't care what the type of the attack was. But that's pretty much the only reason having cover would matter for a or unmarked attack.) This is true. If they're both outside of the wall's shadow area, because one of the two models is taller than the wall, the wall gets ignored completely. ------------- This is the story of why the Cover rules are defined in terms of the shadow area. Back in second edition, the rule for cover was expressed like so: and hard vs. soft cover was a matter of which parts of the attack got penalized. One of the questions that happened during the development of the new edition was "Why is it one inch, shouldn't it matter how big the intervening terrain piece is?" and "Do you measure that 1" along the line of sight (like Warmachine does) or is just 1" between the model and the terrain?" So that got changed to - The hard cover and soft cover traits got eliminated. All blocking terrain will provide cover. - When they tried to make "How far can I stand from the terrain and still get cover?" a function of the height of that terrain, they realized that they were using the same wording as the shadow area specification. The end result was - If you're standing in the shadow area of blocking terrain and any lines of sight cross that terrain, you get cover. and then made it a feature of that Cover has an effect.

Maybe I’m weird, but I think it’s easier to think of shadows in two cases: If you’re not taller than the terrain casting the shadow, you’re “shadowed”. Shadowed models can’t draw line of sight across that terrain piece. And if you’re standing on that terrain piece, you can’t draw line of sight to a “shadowed” model if you cross more than 1” of the shadowing terrain.

This is right. The terrain’s shadow extends outward to surround it, but does not cover it. So two models on the same terrain piece won’t be in that terrain piece’s shadow. (They would each be effectively taller than the shadow area anyway, so it wouldn’t matter if they overlapped the shadow partially (by overhanging an edge or something…).

No. If Gwyll is standing in the shadow, and tries to draw line of sight across the building (such as to someone on top of the building), that line of sight is blocked by the first paragraph I quoted. The shadow doesn’t extend across the top of the building to do that. The “if either model is…” sentence does that—Gwyll standing in the shadow of a building can’t draw line of sight across that building at all.