solkan

On 3/12/2024 at 8:46 AM, inbrain said:

Should '"This or That" choices' section of the rulebook apply here, meaning that if opposing player already revealed both of his schemes, target model has to discard 2 cards?

"this or that" choices are organized literally in the form of "X or Y" (I don't think there are any three option choices in the cards) like the example given in the rules.  "Target may X.  If it does not, Y" is not a "this or that" choice.  The Take it All trigger on Greed's Unchecked Avarice action is thus not a "This or that" choice, either.

8 hours ago, Deathinabox said:

When the Leftovers dies, it turns into two Bisected. However, I'm reading through the replace rules and I'm not entirely sure what happens if you can't place the bisected (either by being buried or just crowded out). The first step of replacing reads:

1. "Place each new model into base contact with any of the original models. If any cannot be Placed or cannot be added due to model limits, the Replace effect is canceled."

My understanding of this is that if you can't place Both of the Bistected, then the replace does not occur. (not what I expected when I first looked into it.) However, when it says the Replace effect is canceled, does that mean the Demise is cancelled (no heal and leftovers dies immediately) or that you simply don't continue down the replace procedure (Leftovers heals 4 but can't replace so simply lives as Leftovers)?

Yeah, when it says "the replace is cancelled", it just cancels the replace effect (you skip it and continue)--the "replace effect" is "is replaced with two Bisected Models" not the ability containing the word "replace".

So if the Demise(Bisected) goes off and there's no room to replace, it just heals 4 (bringing it above 0 and thus no longer killed) and remains a Leftovers.

I see no reason why the two triggers would be different, and no support for choosing the same model twice.

On 1/25/2024 at 5:32 PM, Dynamite said:

I would appriciate some offical statement from Wyrd. Thank you.

Please be aware that the errata and FAQ documents are generally once or twice a year, and the developers do not make official rules statements outside of those documents.

On 1/11/2024 at 10:33 AM, Hollow said:

What happens if an enemy model draws multiple cards with one Action or Yokai gains multiple Flicker Tokens at onсe (activates a second time via Asami's Wrath of the Kimon Action)? Does it produce multiple Sin Tokens as well as multiple subsequent Places?

On 1/13/2024 at 3:19 AM, King of Draconis said:

I think so, yes. The card draw-> Sin token definitely, although the multiple Flicker tokens, I'm not so sure. The model resolves the Action, then places itself only once.

Unless an ability says "one or more" (or something similar), two or more of the same thing at once is going to trigger the effect multiple times.  Drawing 2 cards is "draw a card, resolve effects triggered by drawing a card, draw a card, resolve effects triggered by drawing a card" and gaining three tokens is "gain a token, resolve effects triggered by gaining that token, repeat twice more."

The words "after resolving the current Action (if any)" don't prevent the effect being resolved multiple times, they're there to reduce timing issues such as those that could be caused by a model moving while it's resolving a duel.

For example, if a Union Miner uses the False Claim action in Gluttony's Hunger Pains aura, the Union Miner gains a sin token as it drops each of the scheme markers.  That's the aura being triggered twice in sequence, not the aura stacking with itself.

4 hours ago, Wakkaah said:

Another question!

Should I consider getting Teddy for the synergy with Kade if I go for a Pandora list with Kade in it? 

Don't consider it, do it!  

6 hours ago, ShameOnMe said:

Let's say above example, when I first read it it was like super obvious to me that if enemy model was moved into multiple redchapel models it will gain +1 distracted token for each Redchapel model. My thought was that aura works all the time, and there is actually nothing in the rules (at least nothing i found) stating that aura is resolved just once instead auras have condition (trigger) to be met and effect that occure when condition is met, therefore in my interpretation such move would satisfy condition of the "Bump into the night" for 3 different redchapel models and enemy should receive +1 distracted 3 times.

Because you tried to explain your original thinking, I'll try to elaborate as well.

When you're resolving abilities because something happened, you look at each model with an ability on it that had its trigger condition satisfied and resolve the ability.

You have one copy of the aura on Madame Sybelle.  When the enemy model ends its movement, you check Madame Sybelle's instance of the ability, and you see that it has been satisfied, so you resolve it.  The fact that you ended up engaging three models instead of just one doesn't have any bearing on the situation--that's just excess beyond the minimum to satisfy the requirement.

Bump in the Night is a single aura centered on Madame Sybelle which has that complicated trigger condition.  It's not an ability which creates effects on the red chapel models in the aura range.

In that situation, if you had some Rotten Belles (they have the Pounce ability which gives them Fast in this sort of situation), each Rotten Belle's Pounce ability will trigger at the same time.  This happens because Pounce is an ability on each of the models.

12 hours ago, ShameOnMe said:

I wonder what is your interpretation of Lady Sybille aura "Bump into the night", lets take example that enemy modes is being moved outside of its activation into engagement range of 3 RedChapel models, does he receives:

• +1 Distracted
• +1 +1 +1 Distracted (this is my interpretation)
• +3 Distracted (couse move triggered 3 instances of +1 distracted which are cumulative and comes from the same ability, and are triggered in the same time)

Ending its movement engaging three enemy models is still just satisfying the condition "engaging an enemy model".  Like RegeIridderen wrote, in order for a single aura to grant Distracted +1 for each enemy model, it would have to say that. 

There are lots of cases where the rules are written with +'s in them where the reason is convention, rather than plausible stacking.  Also, "Distracted +1" is written with a "+1" because the condition stacks with pre-existing instances.

The distinction which matters, as far as I can tell, is whether the effect belongs to a model.

Per the Gluttony FAQ no model effect can do anything to a strategy marker which has not been specified in the strategy.

To quote the second paragraph of Strategy Markers again:

Quote

Strategy Markers cannot be affected by the effects of models (such as moving, removing, or targeting) except by those effects which are specifically called out in the Strategy.

All the Gluttony FAQ does is take parenthetical list of examples and specify additional things, including things that a person may feel don't have an active effect.

It is permitted for a scheme do all of those things because the prohibition in the rules is on "the effects of models"--and the effects of models are defined by the actions and abilities of models.

Well, no one among us can say whether your pleas will be granted, but the place to file them is the "Damaged/Mispacked Products" option on Wyrd's Contact Us page:

https://www.wyrd-games.net/contact

Do note the warning, though:  "Please note that we no longer support metal or resin miniatures. Please make sure your part requests are accurate and descriptive, we will not resend if you requested the wrong part."

I'm really shocked that that ability doesn't say "May discard a card a Twist Card to spend 2 AP to ..." to make it consistent with Rapid Fire.

Since Rapid Fire is what the old M2E Turakage had...

Ngaatoro's action is adding Abilities to friendly models.  The whole point of the action specifying that it's adding an Ability to the other models is so that neither the Haka Action nor Ngaatoro are responsible for the damage from the effects.

So I agree with SunTsu.  Damage from PeruPeru is not caused by the Haka action.  Peruperu is also not damage caused by an aura.

5 hours ago, MisterWerks said:

As you said, the model declares a Charge which Pushes up to its Mv stat.  Part II of the Charge is the optional Melee Attack, but you don't have to do it.  Unless the Charging model had some additional Melee Attack on an Upgrade Card, it wouldn't be able to take the Melee Attack part of the Charge.  It gets away with declaring the Charge only because Charge is a General Action and isn't printed on the model's card.

Even if Charge left out the "may", the rules for resolving rules conflicts would just let you say "It says I have to take a melee attack, but I can't declare any of the attacks, so I don't."  

And, just to "Me, three" the rule responses...

13 hours ago, inbrain said:

Or if to rephrase: do you first "declare" charge and then "declare" you're using an attack out of it, or attack part is not a "declaration"?

What matters is that you don't declare everything at once.  Declaring an action is the first step of taking an action:

Quote

Step 1: Declare the Action

Announce what Action the model is taking. Some Actions have Special Restrictions. If these restrictions aren’t met, the Action cannot be declared.

You don't go through the effects of the action and try to make any of the choices there yet.  When someone says "I'm going to charge you and hit you with my hammer", they're getting ahead of the model in the rules.

2 hours ago, SunTsu said:

 

I searched but found nothing.

Rules about models taking actions during an activation says:

"Most models can take two Actions. Models may take up to two Actions during their Activation. This is referred to as a model’s Action Limit. These Actions are resolved one at a time, with each Action fully resolving (including any Triggers) before the next Action begins (see Actions on pg. 22)."

 

I'm not entirely sure which paragraph of the rules you're quoting.

I believe the most recent version of the Activation Phase paragraph is:

Quote

Taking Actions: Models may take up to two Actions during their Activation. This is referred to as a model’s Action Limit. These Actions are resolved one at a time, with each Action fully resolving (including any Triggers) before the next Action begins (see Actions on pg. 22). If an Encounter’s Size (see pg. 42) is 50 Soulstones or higher, all Leaders and Master models treat their Action Limit as three instead of two.

The key is "may take up to two Actions".  0, 1 and 2 are all valid values for "up to two."

2 hours ago, SunTsu said:

The verb 'may' suggest that you can forfeit your actions doing 'nothing', but isn't explicitly defined what that 'nothing' exactly means.

There is no need to define that nothing in the rules, mathematics does that for us.

2 hours ago, SunTsu said:

You can skip the entire action as you would never do any actions? Or you can do nothing as part of your actions? 🤔

The shortest possible activation for a model would be:

• Activate
• Resolve start of activation effects
• Choose to resolve 0 actions
• End activation
• Resolve end of activation effects

16 hours ago, spydr261 said:

Say you are drawing LoS through a piece of concealing terrain (marker or otherwise) to target another non-marker piece of terrain.

As far as I know, that's not a mechanic currently in the game.  Targeting non-marker terrain would include targeting aura terrain, which is somewhat under defined.  (Being in an aura is easy to determine.  Trying to determine where the aura's base is, if you have nearby terrain, isn't...)

Personally, I don't think "When drawing LoS to a Marker, the Marker is treated as a model with Size 0, unless the Marker has the Height Terrain Trait, in which case its Size is equal to its Height." is supposed to mean, essentially "Draw line of sight to the marker as if it had Sz equal to its Ht (0, default)" without triggering side effects.  (We managed to beat almost all of the unnecessary uses of "model" out of the line of sight system during the beta, but it looks like this one was missed.)

Because leads to claiming that Take the Hit ("After an enemy model targets a friendly model within 2 ..." and someone targeted a friendly terrain marker) or having Challenge being used to prevent targeting a marker.

I'm sorry, I was distracted by the part in the original question where you appeared to be saying "The rules say that the auras generated by actions and abilities aren't cumulative, but these are triggers."  And the usual host of expected follow ups concerning models standing within two or more instances of those auras...  🤨

Can you use those two triggers to put two hazardous auras on the same marker(s)?  Sure.  Because they're not the same auras (they have different names).

Can you use those triggers to put the multiple of the same hazardous auras on those markers?  That won't do anything, because that's just multiples of the same aura.

5 hours ago, Hollow said:

The rulebook says that neither Auras caused by Abilities with the same name and Hazardous Markers of the same type are cumulative. But these Auras are provided by the Action's Effect and the Trigger, so I suppose they are cumulative even on the same Marker. Am I right?

The first sentence of the paragraph you're referring to says:

Quote

Auras are not cumulative. 

It then continues

Quote

If a model would be affected by multiple Auras of the same name (i.e., if the Aura would change its game state in some way), then it is only affected by one such Aura of its con- troller’s choice.

Then, if you return to the first paragraph discussing auras:

Quote

The Aura icon (a) means the Action or Ability affects an area around the object that has the Aura.

and concerning triggers:

Quote

5. If a model suffers damage from a Trigger, is that damage considered to also be from the Action that generated the Trigger?

a) Yes. Effects from Triggers are additional effects of the Action. Thus, Abilities such as Incorporeal that modify the effects of certain Actions would also modify the effects of their Triggers.

So:

• Auras, whether generated by abilities or actions (and remember, the effects of triggers are considered part of their generating action) are not cumulative.

Note also that "Hazardous Markers of the same type are not cumulative" is wrong.  Multiple hazardous markers of the same type are treated as a single marker.  As noted in the example in the rulebook, the effects of two different hazardous markers are cumulative.

Also, the FAQ has as an important note about how Hazardous combines:

Quote

7. Grave Goo – If the Grave Goo is within Hazardous (Damage 1) Terrain, will its Trail of Slime Ability make the Terrain Hazardous (Damage 2 and Poison +1)?
a) No. The damage of the Hazardous is not cumulative so the terrain would just be Hazardous (Damage 1 and Poison +1).

However, if it were standing in Hazardous (Poison +1) terrain, the effects would stack to Hazardous (Damage 1 and Poison +2).

In other words, multiples of the Hazardous(Damage 1) terrain trait on the same terrain piece is just Hazardous(Damage 1).

On 9/25/2023 at 12:34 PM, TrenchFoot said:

Go Hog Wild: Other friendly pigs that start their activation within aura 6 receive + ram to their duals and +fate modifier to their damage flips until the end of their activation. 

Under the aura rules on Pg. 66, it states "All models inside the Aura's area, including what is generating the aura, are affected by the aura as long as they stay inside the aura and remain in LoS of the generating object."

 

The specific wording on the card makes it seem like only other models are affected, but the wording in the rules is straightforward. 

The part that you're misunderstanding, or attempting to skip over, is the fact that the aura only does something to qualifying models.

Look at the first Aura example, for Lynch's aura.  

Quote

Hold 'Em:  After an enemy model within 6 Cheats Fate, it suffers 1 damage after resolving the current Action or Ability.

What happens if a friendly model within 6 of Cheats Fate?  That ability does specify anything to happen to friendly models, so nothing happens.  Is the friendly model standing in the aura?  Yes it is.  Is the friendly model affected by the aura, as specified by the aura rules?  Yes, it is.  Does anything happen to that friendly model because of the aura?  No, because the aura doesn't specify for anything to happen.

More importantly, look at the Scamper example in the rules.  The Scamper aura specifies an aura which will only ever do something to the model that is generating the aura.  

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), 

Quote

18. If during Step 1 of a model’s Activation (pg. 21 – resolving Start of Activation effects) if it would be affected by a new Start of Activation effect (such as by moving into another friendly model’s Healing Draughts’ A) does it resolve the new effect?
a) No. Effects that resolve when a model Activates in Step 1 (such as On the Move, Life Leech, Goad Witchling, etc.) are generated

at the start of Step 1 before resolving any effects. If a model would generate another effect that would normally resolve during this step, the effect is not generated.

Goad Witchling is a "[other model]s that Activate ...".  So that paragraph that says

Quote

Start Activation: Resolve any effects that happen at the start of a model’s Activation.

is apparently supposed to be read as

Quote

Start Activation: Resolve any effects that happen at the start of a model’s Activation or when the model Activates.

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.

3 hours ago, Bad Fish said:

- a Sz 2 model shooting at a Sz 1 model over a Height 1 wall where the Sz 2 model is within 1” of the wall and the Sz 1 model is not can see the Sz 1 model (and be seen by it).

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.

3 hours ago, Bad Fish said:

- in the example on page 19, if Parker was close enough to the Sz 3 terrain to be in its shadow, he would not be able to draw LoS to the Sz 4 hound and vice versa, whether or not the hound was also in the shadow.

... 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.

On 9/11/2023 at 8:38 AM, Adran said:

This works if you are able to detach the upgrade before you check the validity of the target gaining the upgrade, but doesn't work if you check the validity of the target getting the upgrade before you detach the upgrade. I honestly don't know the answer, I don't think its specified anywhere.

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...)  🤔

30 minutes ago, Chaosgunrunner said:

 If so, could someone please explain to me about push vs. move?  Is it just the method of movement (straight line vs. one that can swerve)? 

Simple rundown:

• A push is a move in a straight line (horizontally).
• A place does not move through the intervening area.

34 minutes ago, Chaosgunrunner said:

Seeing how this ability said 'move', would I have been able to tie up the first mate with engagement, or is the first mate unable to be stopped in this way? 

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.

On 8/31/2023 at 6:44 PM, ezramantis said:

Thank you.

The question arose during a game with a Brocken Spectre who used it's envelop in shadow attack action which reads, "target suffers 1 damage for each friendly shadow marker or friendly umbra model within 2" of it".  We reasoned that, since most language in this game is quite specific and things are worded to mean exactly what they say, if the designers intended for us to tally shadow markers AND umbra models they would have used "and" as opposed to "or".

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.

On 8/31/2023 at 6:44 PM, ezramantis said:

I checked the rulebook under "this or that choices" but that only seemed to address the exclusive choices you alluded to. I likewise didn't see an answer in the faq (maybe i overlooked it)

Later when looking at The Kurgan's Avalanche attack action ( "...suffer 1 damage for each model or terrain piece moved through this way...") it made me question our previous reasoning.

Hopefully those examples provide appropriate specifics. I only worded my question in a more general way in an attempt to address all game effects that use this language once I recognized that there are several actions that use "each X or Y".  Sorry if that created a hurdle.

Thanks again

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.