solkan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...) 🤔

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.

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.

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?