solkan

Auras are not cumulative. If two instances of an aura would do the same thing, only one of them does. The rules are explicit about the fact that doing X to two different models is two different things, but the first sentence “Auras are not cumulative” still applies to everything. You don’t have to struggle to find an “affected model” is there isn’t one. “This crew’s soulstone pool” is what’s being affected by the aura, and the effects of the two auras isn’t cumulative on that thing.

I suspect the “reasonable modifications” necessary for Pandora or Collette (or Hamelin, for the piper versions) would be close to “Did you put the models on a 50mm base?”…. 🤔

The reason why multiple models can be affected by Life Leech is that the effect is "this model Heals 1 and the enemy model suffers 1 damage"--that's two independent effects, as confirmed by the FAQ. The effect of Set Up the Kill is "[the model that suffered the qualifying damage] must either discard a card or a friendly Apex model may take an Attack Action targeting it, ignoring Friendly Fire." That's a This or That choice that [the model that suffered the qualifying damage] makes, so that's who the aura is affecting. You can't force that choice to be resolved multiple times off of a single occurance.

There are a few places that have 'a friendly model' followed later by 'the friendly model' that are known to be singular: * Dr. McMourning, untitled, and Dr. Meredith Stanley, untitled, Rancid Transplant. 'Target a model within 5" of another friendly model. ... This model may end one Condition of its choice on the friendly model.' * Mr. Mordrake's Demise (Silhouette): '... it may be Placed into base contact with a friendly English Ivan. ... and the friendly English Ivan suffers 2 irreducible damage.' That 'a X ... the X' structure appears to be fairly common, especially when dealing with the various totems when they refer to their master model. It's also fairly common in auras (for instance, Take the Hit: 'After an enemy model targets a friendly model ... this model may ... Place itself into base contact with the friendly model ...') But for each of those cases, the circumstances around the usage are what guarantees that the reference is singular.

@Muraki is right. You cannot use Shang to create a Katashiro because it's an italic cost--Corrupted Familiar prevents you from paying the cost (removing the marker), and because costs for actions aren't subject to the usual 'just try it and whatever happens is okay' method of resolution that get used for everything else the action fails in step 2.

Yes. "You must discard a card" and "draw a card" are two separate and individual effects, the "then" in the middle is essentially just a filler word, rather than making the second effect dependent on the first. (A rule saying "Draw a card and discard a card" has the same effect as "Draw a card. Discard a card" or "Draw a card, then discard a card.") If one effect is conditional on another effect successfully occurring, there needs to be language like "If it does so" like Kang's Wrker's Champion ability ("At the start of this model's Activation, it may discard a card or remove a Scrap Marker within 2". If it does so, friendly Foundry models within 4 gain Focused +1.").

I'm sorry. I can't manage to agree to the statement "The existence of the High River Style upgrade card makes taking Terrifying or Manipulative models against Shelling pointless," which appears to be the conclusion of your statement. Alternately, the existence of a "shell game" is what makes the various conditional upgrades pointless. That's the whole problem.

No, it doesn't mean that. Just the Mindless Zombie's Walking Dead ability causes the Mindless Zombie to be counted as a Corpse Marker instead of being a model. If you're having trouble getting your head around the idea, remember that the Mindless Zombie's Walking Dead ability says (emphasis added): "When declaring or resolving friendly Actions or Abilities, this model may count as Corpse Marker. If the Corpse Marker would be removed, this model is killed and does not Drop a Corpse Marker." The Mindless Zombie is the Corpse Marker and a model simultaneously. So is Shang. Wilting Tsubaki says: "This model's Actions ignore Concealment." The rule for Concealment is: The effect of the sentence "This model's Action ignores Concealment" in its variations (the crew builder shows 19 cards with the words "ignores Concealment"...) is negating that specific sentence of the rules. It doesn't change whether any particular model in the game actually has Concealment, in the same way that ignoring a terrain trait is actually ignoring specific effects of the terrain trait. Conveniently located Concealing terrain is going to grant Concealment due to line of sight like it always does.

Upgrades would have been a lot more useful if they were purchased and/or assigned after both crews were revealed. I think, just line in M2E, situational upgrades don't get taken because if you choose wrong and don't need the upgrade (or it doesn't apply because it's counter for something that wasn't hired) you're just wasting soul stones. So the safer (and better performing) approach is not to take the situational upgrades, or the models that would need the situational upgrades.

For each of the following situations (trying to cover the range between 'that's barely moving' to 'that has to be allowable'...): Move from base contact to overlapping 0.5mm and then move back to the starting point Move from base contact to overlapping and then to base contact, not ending at the starting point but not crossing the center point Move from base contact to overlapping, cross the entire model and end in base contact on the opposite side That's all one object moving through another, whether it's a hazardous marker being moved across a model's base, a model moving through severe terrain, or an Urami model with Incorporeal moving through another model.

My irrelevant point (because there’s a faq) was that Icy Winds calling out to only use one pillar implies that that’s not the case. And there’s the FAQ about Titania’s of Autumn ability where all of the models generate auras instead of being limited. where that’s also a “may draw range and line of sight” ability.

Boo. This is in the FAQ: So it’s A.

Kaltgeist’s Icy Winds action’s wording implies that it’s C. Edit: But this was FAQ’d.

Look, it's a game with premeasuring. If the game didn't have premeasuring, then it would be implausible for models to arrange in perfect lines, or exact distances from other objects. But since the game does have it... When you can measure and pre-measure movement, the question of "Is it possible to line up models in some particular formation?" becomes a question of "What standard of accuracy are you using?" How do you line up three models perfectly? You position Model A and Model B, and then use two straight edges to determine where Model C has to be. That's not difficult to do, and you really have to be contrarian to claim, given pre-measuring and two straight edges, that the model's position due to accidentally bumping the model while removing the straight edges should be favored over the legally determined position. And, again, it's a game with pre-measuring. You say you're going to move a model 2", measuring that 2", and the other player looks at your measurement and says "Yeah, that's two inches." If the reality turns out that's actually 2 1/32", why wouldn't you nudge the model's position to where it was supposed to be, rather than playing with game state that's in error? Disclaimer: There's a very fun play style where you deliberately avoid moving exact distances. "I can move this model 3 inches? Okay, I move it to here (pointing to a spot that's somewhere between two and three inches away)..." Or, likewise, measuring out deployment zones and then positioning models by putting them on the edge and nudging them back without measuring so they're not an exact distance from anything. But that doesn't make the other game style less valid.

I think the issue is that you’ve a fundamental disagreement on the definition of tangents and crossing, and the rulebook says you’re using the wrong definition. The “one base perfectly overlapping another” situation is: the line ends at the base edge, and does not continue. Thus the line does not cross the base. The tangent situation is: the line touches the base at one point, and then continues. Thus the line DOES cross the base.

Being the crew’s leader is just as much a lasting game effect as “being summoned this turn”. It’s an effect that applies to the model that got replaced, and wasn’t covered by any of the previous steps, so it swapped over to the new model.

Yes. More specifically, "ignoring terrain" doesn't mean that you completely ignore the terrain piece, you ignore specific parts of its rules. From the FAQ: (There's also the "Unaffected by Terrain" callout on page 37 of the rules PDF for how ignoring the other terrain traits works...) Likewise, for models: So the Incorporeal model moves through the impassable terrain and other models, contacting each object and then continuing its movement.

If you need something to point to, or if someone asks, basically it’s the first paragraph of the “Breaking the Rules” callout (page three of the PDF rules/booklet for the direct contradiction bit, and the “No model may...” sentence is in the middle of the ‘Step B: Select Model” paragraph in the Activation Phase outline on page 21.

It’s a legal target for the scheme, but it’ll be ignored by it as well. About the only relevance would be if the insignificant was temporary (does that still happen this edition?) or if the model replaces again later (extreme rat cycle?)...

The "may" in "The Target may Activate a second time this Turn." is stating that the model is given permission for a second activation. It uses the word 'may' in order to provide the contradiction for the statement "No model may Activate more than once in a Turn." to allow the event to happen, not to make anything optional. If you're on Step B of the activation phase and you have a model that is able to activate (whether it's because it hasn't activated yet, or it has been affected by Wrath of Kimon or some similar ability), you have to select one.

But they do use the word “cross” to say that you’re not supposed to draw line of sight from the far side of the base to an object. I think it’s pretty plainly just a case that wasn’t getting considered when the line of sight rules were being banged on—line of sight to something you’re completely overlapping. I can’t think of a good reason that the rules would want to prevent it, but the rules don’t have the relevant extra bit to deal with the exception. And “walking across the field” around here includes the case that you just wander around in the field.

Mei Feng having a combination of Vent Steam, Constant Motion, and movement effects 😱 is why a moving hazardous aura doesn't act the same way as a moving hazardous marker. "Oh, look. Mei Feng just shoved Howard Langston around a bit, and now everyone nearby is dead." 😷

I’m pretty sure the headaches involved with the M2E faction packs are the main reason why all of the card PDFs are available for free or on print on demand. You’d have to ask someone at Wyrd to find out for sure how many print batches they purchased, but it was likely more than people think. (With the problem being that the cards sell out when they arrive, and then everyone waits for the next print run...) Basically, it doesn’t work to get people the cards that way.

As far as combat goes, I know there were certainly some of the changes from M2E to M3E that were motivated by one of the designers saying (paraphrasing) "Killing the other player's models should sometimes be a mistake." And, for what it's worth, my experience with people who play less frequently than I do is that there's a really straight split: The most up to date models cards is seen as really important to use. It's much less important which scenario set is used (whether it's the book scenarios, or a Gaining Grounds season). which seems to be that people expect their goals to change frequently, but prefer for their tools (and the other player's tools) to change less frequently--a new model is a new tool. An old tool shouldn't change unless there was a problem.

Exactly. The developers noted that the change was to give players more flexibility. Note that you can also choose points inside the bases, if you want partial overlap.