solkan

Keep in mind that there are models that explode upon death.

Throw an exploding model into a damage aura that someone else set up, and watch the explosion cause a chain reaction killing other models.

Why should the throwing model get the credit instead of the exploding model, or the model that setup the damage aura?

That's what makes "the active model" criteria an arbitrary standard.

At some point, it might be simpler to have a "Common Answers to Common Questions" thread stickied, and common questions that can be answered by simple rules quotes could go in there.

That would reduce the amount that needs to go in the official FAQ, and give everyone a more easily updated secondary document to make it easier for people to get up to speed on the rules.

Edit: For the sake of clarity, I had meant to suggest, there are unofficial fan-written FAQs for the rulebooks and various factions. The unofficial FAQ gets to be as long as it would like to be, and the official FAQ gets to remain the shorter, easier to maintain document that the game's developers put out.

I think the "It's too indirect, no one gets credit" approach is simpler.

You hit someone with poison, the poison kills them later. You throw the model off a cliff, the ground kills them.

I ordered the M2E edition of the Ten Thunders box a few weeks ago, and the box is sitting across the room from me right now. So I know it was in the store. Admittedly, that was back during the end-of-August GenCon preorder when I ordered by M2E rulebook.

But looking at the online shop, all of the M2E plastic seems to have gone missing from wyrd-games.net. But at "unnamed online merchant that I prefer using", The Thunder box set (the one with Misaki in it) and the other stuff that was supposed to come out by Sep 27 is shown as in stock.

That's certainly true. Maybe that sort of conflict could be part of the drama. Some sort of conflict between adopting Western dress versus the ways of the homeland. That may be less dramatic, since that's really more an Earth conflict and less a Malifaux conflict, but it's got potential.

On the one hand, an Arcanist from the Three Kingdoms area dressed in Western style formal wear would probably be entirely reasonable. Granted, it would be the sort of thing you could write political essays about, but it would be reasonable. Plenty of people were sent abroad to study and may or may not come back.

On the other hand, from what I know of the Ten Thunders background, if the Three Kingdoms are anything like China, Japan and Korea were like at the time, it would be an incredibly huge statement to have a model of that faction in Western formal wear.

If Mei Feng gets invited to a social dinner by the governer of the city, what style dress is she going to wear or is she going to wear a suit? It would be a big deal, even though her in game model is shown wearing pants.

A token model of someone wearing western formal wear probably isn't going to do that situation justice.

When you're from a country that has been around for longer than their countries have existed, and for centuries was the biggest deal around, sometimes you do actually want to show those Western suit-and-pants wearing barbarians what a real civilized person dresses like.

Pretty simple. Just make the next master a person of color without dressing them up in ethnic garb or giving them an ethnic weapon or having them cast ethnic spells or anything like that. It's really not that hard.

I mean, just look at May in Agents of SHIELD. She's Asian. They don't make a big deal about it. Nobody points it out. She's treated as an equal. Sure, she busts out the martial arts, but so do half of the other characters.

Again, I'm not asking for a stop to the crazy classical Chinese wear, martial arts, that kind of thing. I think that stuff looks pretty cool, and it's very in-genre. I'd be sad if it were removed. I just want other stuff too. I don't get what's so offensively PC about that.

The problem with that is that you would be ignoring the historical reality of the situation. In the modern era, it shouldn't be a big deal what the racial ancestory of a person is. But a non-European in Western attire was not politically neutral in that era.

Majority privilege, the unconscious racism, is thinking "Whatever the majority is is neutral." What the majority is doing isn't neutral.

If all the Western people are wearing suits, putting a non-Western person in a suit is not neutral. There's this unending production of Meji-era dramas in Japan where it matters a huge amount whether a character is wearing the traditional Japanese clothing or is adopting Western attire. Because at times they were fighting wars over those choices.

If the model measured movement on a flat plane, it would move on a flat plane, as far as I can tell. You're not exactly "ignoring terrain" otherwise.

Paging through the book looking for examples, here's one:

When this model declares an action, it may discard a card from its hand to add the suit of the discard card to the Action's final duel total.

Model's don't have hands. Which means that the rules are either complete nonsense, or that they're written in a formalized manner where jargon must be used to make sense of them.

Asking that the rules are consistent is reasonable (so that a model discarding a card means the same each time you see it), expecting that there's no jargon or bizarre phrasing isn't.

For example, clearly "its hand" has to mean the hand of cards of one of the players in the game. Which one? Probably the one controlling it.

This model may discard a card to remove one Condition from this model.

So we have multiple instances of models discarding cards, even though models don't have hands of cards. So we should expect that "discard a card" is going to be consistent for both abilities.

Obey says:

Target non-Leader model immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation.

My little copy of the previous edition was very explicit on this matter:

When the rules allow a player or model he controls to use a Soulstone, that player discards one Soulstone from his or her Soulstone Pool and resolves the effect.

Can you come up with a convincing argument why that would no longer be the intent?