solkan

13 hours ago, MisterWerks said:

So you're saying the Shadow extends across the top of the Terrain and since Gwyll isn't on top of the Blocking terrain, he doesn't get to ignore the 1" of it, and his Projectile Attack sight lines are Blocked?  

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.

3 hours ago, MisterWerks said:

2) Is there LoS because the Scout is technically higher than the Terrain (letting him ignore its Blocking trait) and Athorak has Cover because of the Shadow?

This option is incorrect because of the following (highlight added)

Quote

When drawing sight lines from one model to another, if either model is in the Shadow of terrain with Height equal to or greater than the Size of that model (even partially), any sight lines that pass through the terrain generating that Shadow are blocked (even if the terrain is being ignored due to its Height, as per the Line of Sight and Size rules on pg. 17).

The Scout does NOT get to ignore the blocking and shadow, in spite of being taller than the terrain.

The reason why that same paragraph doesn't apply to the model on the east side of the building is the next paragraph of the rules

Quote

When drawing sight lines, a model standing on terrain that is casting a Shadow ignores that terrain (and its Shadow) if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1" or less of that terrain.

In short:

If you are standing on top of the building, you can only draw line of sight through 1" of the building (regardless of how tall you yourself are) to something in the building's shadow (or, rather, something in the building's shadow that is shorter than the building).

It's very much "board game" style line of sight, rather than trying to do some sort of "true line of sight" or peeking over railings.

On 6/18/2023 at 4:58 AM, kiark said:

Hi there.

I had a clampetts game yesterday and i was wondering about the "use em as bait" ability. When exactly does it trigger? The text says "comes into base contact". So if i drop a tide marker in base contact with an enemy model, it triggers, right?

 

Yes.  Note that this isn’t the same as how hazardous markers work, and that’s likely to surprise people.

On 6/18/2023 at 4:58 AM, kiark said:

If i drop it between two enemy models, it can only trigger once, because it does only once per activation, right?

Correct.  You have satisfied the ability’s precondition, but you have to choose at most one to resolve.
 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:58 AM, kiark said:

And what if the enemy model starts its activation in bade contact with a tide marker, does ist trigger? Or does the enemy model have to "come" into base contact, like through movement oder a charge, push, etc?

Starting in base contact isn’t “coming into base contact”, so nothing happens.  Again, this isn’t at all like hazardous markers work.

On 6/18/2023 at 4:58 AM, kiark said:

Thanks in advance

By the same principle that you can draw line of sight to the edge of a marker perfectly overlapped by a model of the same size without the blocking rule applying:

Quote

Any sight lines that cross over a model’s base might be blocked, depending upon that model’s Size (see “Line of Sight and Size,” pg. 17).

if the edge of the marker is placed on the edge of the zone, you’ll have a point that you can draw line of sight to without going “through” the zone.  Because all of the markers involved are the same size, that would let you have two points on the opposite flat sides of the zone, or a hemisphere if you placed perfectly overlapping the defining markers.

🤩

For what it’s worth, you’ve posted the day before a three day weekend, and the discussion of the game on the Discord server is much more active.

I’m posting while snacking on break, so I won’t have time to offer a better answer until about ten hours from now.

It's very important to note the specific phrases involved, because "Breaking the Rules" cares about the direct contradictions.

Cursed Object says

Quote

When a model is Summoned, the opposing player may place a Curse Token on it.

The summoning rules currently say

Quote

On the turn they are Summoned, Summoned models cannot take the Interact Action and are ignored for friendly Schemes and Strategies.

Additionally, Summoned models cannot take the Interact Action to affect Strategy Markers in any way for the entire encounter.

and the definition of Insignificant is

Quote

models with the Insignificant Ability are ignored for the purposes of Strategies and Schemes in every way.

The limitations placed on summoned models by the summoning rules is very similar to the effect of being Insignificant, the rules DO NOT MAKE THEM Insignificant for a turn.  "Summoned models are insignificant the turn they are summoned" is a false and misleading statement.

If you summon a model that does not have the Insignificant ability, the direct statement in the Strategy will allows the opposing player to place a Curse Token on it.  Note that summoning rules state that summoned models are ignored for "friendly Schemes and Strategies" on the turn in which they are summoned, and that Cursed Object is specifying a situation involving enemy models ("the opposing player may ..."), so there is no contradiction between the strategy and summoning rules.

If you summon a model that DOES have the Insignificant ability, Cursed Object says nothing about Insignificant and thus does not directly contradict it.  (See also previous paragraph.)  Because Insignificant is not contradicted, and the specified interaction in strategy does not mention Insignificant, the Insignificant rule applies and the summoned Insignificant model gets ignored--the opposing player cannot place Cursed Token on the model that the strategy is ignoring.

1 hour ago, Mortarion said:

It says "enemy models that resolve", not "after an enemy model resolves".

Compare Stand and fire with Perdita's Finger on the trigger. Finger on the trigger states that the effect happens after the Charge move. Another comparison would be with Scamper, which states "after resolving the current Action or Ability". There are quite a lot of examples of similiar wordings. But Stand and fire uses a different wording. It says "that resolve". Present. When it is resolved.

1 hour ago, Mortarion said:

It says "enemy models that resolve", not "after an enemy model resolves".

Compare Stand and fire with Perdita's Finger on the trigger. Finger on the trigger states that the effect happens after the Charge move. Another comparison would be with Scamper, which states "after resolving the current Action or Ability". There are quite a lot of examples of similiar wordings. But Stand and fire uses a different wording. It says "that resolve". Present. When it is resolved.

For the record, please specify the result of this situation as you understand the rules (where does the model suffer the wound):

A model with one wound remaining declares a Charge action within the Stand and Fire aura.

First thing to point out is that Shang counts as a Shadow Marker, so it will satisfy the condition for that ability.

Edit:  To spell out it entirely...

If Misaki uses Twisting Paths targeting Shang, placing Shang within 8" qualifies as "After a Shadow Marker is Placed within 8"".  Moving Shang from one Shadow Marker to another would be one setup for this.

4 hours ago, Clement said:

If a model passes the Wp test to get out of the coffin, where does it pop up exactly?  The wording is specifically "If it passes, Unbury it into base contact with a friendly Marshal or Coffin Marker within 3" of this model."

It parses as "If it passes, Unbury it into base contact with (a friendly Marshal or Coffin Marker) within 3" of this model." so the second option:  The object you unbury into base contact with is within 3".

I think the confusion comes from comparing with effects like Unionized:

While within [aura] 3 of another model with this ability, this model receives a [positive flip] to its Df and Wp duels.

But I think it’s right to read Menacing as Mortarion says and have the “while within” clause modify the first available topic in the main clause.  For Unionized, that’s “this model”.  For Menacing, that’s the enemy models.

There's a recent addition to the FAQ to cover this sort of situation:

Quote

33. *If an effect would allow a model to look at or reveal the top card(s) of a Fate Deck, and there are not enough cards left in the Fate Deck, is the Fate Deck shuffled?
a) Yes. For example, if Sonnia Criid, Unmasked uses Confiscated Lore, but the opponent only has three cards left in their Fate Deck,

set those cards aside, shuffle the Fate Deck, and then draw two more cards for Sonnia to look at.

The reason why this applies is the bit about discarding multiple cards at once:

Quote

Whenever a card is discarded, it is placed on top of the owner’s Discard Pile. If multiple cards are placed into a Discard Pile at once, they are revealed to all players before being placed in the Discard Pile in any order the discarding player chooses.

So, "Discard the top ten cards of the fate deck" is actually "Take ten cards off of the fate deck, reveal them to everyone, and then place those ten cards in any order in the discard pile."

So option three:  set aside 8 cards, shuffle the new deck set aside 2 more, than discard all 10 cards and choose my cards from those 10 cards

On 3/13/2023 at 1:19 AM, M33kall said:

Can Banasuva throw Sandeep in this case? If so, why? 

If you, or the people you're playing with have played Warmachine/Hordes, the critical difference is that Malifaux doesn't have a notion of "point of origin".  The prohibition for attack actions is simply "A model may not target itself with an Attack Action."

In Warmachine/Hordes, last I checked, the corresponding prohibition was "An attack cannot target its point of origin."  (I forget if the prohibition is on spells specifically, or attacks in general, but either way it applies to the corresponding situation in Warmachine...)  That's what stops a spell caster channelling a spell through an arc node and targeting that same arc node.

It's fair play in Malifaux because that prohibition doesn't exist.  Even though the attack is being measured and line of sight is being drawn from the other model, the rules don't grant any special status to that model, or say to treat that model as the one making the attack.  As a result, you can target the model you're drawing line of sight and measuring range from.  And the line of the sight and range rules state that a model has line of sight to itself and that a model is always in range of itself.

Too many stupid things happen when an upgrade that was attached to a replaced model resolves its "When this Upgrade is attached" effects on the replacement model.  Note that you're not even talking about how much Shielded that model would have built up.  🤕

If an effect specifies 'after X' without additional specification, then the effect is resolved is resolved right away after X is resolved.  The various effects which specify 'after resolving the current action or ability' do so because those effects are adding a delay to avoid pre-empting whatever else was going to happen next.

To spell it out explicitly...  The action rules tell you that if an action says something like "X.  Y." you resolve X and then resolve Y.  If there are effects that are specified as "after X" effects (that don't specify something like 'after resolving the current action or ability), then the sequence becomes

• Resolve X
• Resolve all effects that are specified as 'After X'
• Resolve Y
• Resolve all effects that are specified as 'After Y'

If Candy performs the Glimpse of Insanity action, and gets the On Your Heels trigger, and wins the duel, the sequence of events is:

• Resolve the effects of Glimpse of Insanity
  • Target gains Stunned
  • Misery, and the choice of moving the enemy model or having it suffer 1 damage
• The 'After an Action has been resolved step'
  • On Your Heels resolves

So, yes, would push the target before placing Candy. 

As awful as the situation (where the rules apply the results of drawn lines of sight even though they are blocked) appears at first glance, I think this is being done to avoid the creation of inconsistent or exploitable situations.  And being able to arrange other models or terrain markers to block lines of sight and eliminate concealment would definitely be something that would be exploited.

In other words:  Because you shouldn't be able to eliminate the effects of concealing terrain by making sure that you can't see the forest, it doesn't matter whether or not you can see through the forest for ignoring it.  

On 2/12/2023 at 6:20 PM, Poxo said:

Does Make Way! on Buckaroo (after resolving an action in which this model moves through...) come into effect if they Butterfly Jump (After an action targets this model move) through a target?

There's a simpler reason why this isn't the case:  Abilities which are specified as 'After resolving an action' are not considered to part of the action, so their resolution cannot be used to satisfy any clauses.  In other words, the effects of Butterfly Jump cannot make any difference when trying to determine whether the action was 'an action in which this model moves through ...'.

Triggers are defined to be part of the action, so a trigger which resolved in the 'After resolving an action' step would be able to make a difference.  No such definition exists for Abilities, even those with the 'After resolving an action' timing.

As far as opinions go, I am biased towards their definition of “contact” where an object in base contact contacts the object in question only if it would have moved towards the object again.  If you were in base contact at the start of a move and either did not move or moved away, you do not contact the thing under that definition.

But if “contact” is just being used to mean “entered or was in base contact”, then the original poster’s scenario would work.

On 1/17/2023 at 10:39 PM, MisterWerks said:

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight now:

1) Malifaux Rats have a Tangle Together Tactical Action that allows four or more to be Replaced by a Rat King model.  If one of the Rats takes this Action during its Activation, then the Rat King will continue and complete that Rat’s Activation.  If Hamelin, during his Activation, were to use his Unclean Influence Bonus Action that says a Friendly Vermin model can take a non-Bonus Action, the player would have to check if any of the Rats involved had already completed an Activation.  If any of the Rats had already Activated, the Rat King would count as having Activated and would not be able to go until the following Turn.  If all the Rats involved had not Activated, then the Rat King would be able to Activate this Turn, all in accordance with the first part of step seven.

2) One Coryphee Activates and uses its Dance Together Bonus Action to merge with the other Coryphee.  Even if one of the two original models had already completed an Activation, this Replace effect occurs during the Activation of the other original model.  The Coryphee Duet is allowed to finish the original model’s Activation with two Actions remaining, but no Bonus Action since the original model already used it.

3) Later, the Coryphee Duet uses its Dance Apart Bonus Action to Replace itself with the two Coryphees again.  Since this Replace effect occurs during the Duet’s Activation, one of the two new Coryphee models continues the Duet’s Activation with two Actions remaining.  The other Coryphee may still Activate later.  If the second Coryphee were to use its Bonus Action when it Activates, it would be able to Replace both Coryphees with the Duet again and finish its Activation with two Actions as the Coryphee Duet.  Both of these situations assume the Bonus Action is the first Action taken by the player.  If the Bonus Action that merges or separates the Coryphees were the final Action taken during the Activation, the new model would be placed on the table only to end the Activation.

4) If another model were to successfully kill the Coryphee Duet after it had completed its Activation, the two new Mannequin models would be considered to have Activated and would have to wait until next Turn before they could do anything.  If the Coryphee Duet were killed by another model before it Activated, the two Mannequins that Replace it would both be allowed to Activate that Turn.

Right?

That all appears to be correct.  But reading through your points, it seems to be easy to miss the fact that both the rats and the coryphee are in the same situations.  The only difference is that the rats combine using a non-bonus action and the coryphee combine using a bonus action.  If a rat king could turn itself into multiple rats, it'd have have the same scenarios.

[spoiler]

The rat life cycle can get "free" activations on its own because you can Swarm Together to form a Rat King and then make the activated Rat King perform Rat Problems to summon a Rat Catcher.  

[/spoiler]

If there was an effect that made the coryphee take Dance Together outside of their activation, then they would be subject to the same activation checks that the rats being replaced to form the rat king are going though.

It all boils down to two points:

• If the replace happens outside of the activation of all of the models being replaced, if anyone has activated the end result has activated.
• If the replace happens during the activation of the model being replaced, it doesn't matter if anyone else has activated.  You just choose one of the new model(s) to continue the activation and the rest of the new models haven't activated.

On 1/12/2023 at 11:48 AM, Clement said:

Could use some help with this.

Rogue necromancy shoots some vomit at a model perched at the edge of a ht 3 cliff.  At the base of same cliff is Kaeris (who is ht 2).  Do the blasts from the vomit hit Kaeris?  Since the rules say the blasts go "up and down one inch" we assumed yes, but I got kind of stuck on placing the blasts "in base contact" but hovering in space.

Even though you see people holding blast markers above models when they resolve attacks, that's just a convenience (and partially based on how blast markers worked in the previous edition, where essentially the top-down perspective was all that mattered...)  There's also the important point that being within zero inches of something doesn't make you in base contact with something.  (There's a diagram in the measuring rules which has an example where two models are within 0" and not in base contact...)

In the previous edition, that blast would hit Kaeris because the blast is overlapping her base and she's not more that 3" above or below the target's base.

In the current edition, that blast doesn't hit Kaeris because she's not in base contact with it.  The blast's rule:

Quote

A  is assumed to extend 1" vertically above and below the target’s base (and thus may come into base contact with models that are slightly above or below the target).

mean that the blast's markers are essentially treated as cylinders that extend one inch down and one inch above the marker being used to show the blast's position in the game.   So in this situation, the marker that the Rogue Necromancy places in base contact with the model on top of the cliff is not in base contact with Kaeris at the base of the cliff.  Kaeris's base is not a 2" thick cylinder extending from the ground upward, it's that piece of plastic three inches below the top of the cliff, and that's not being touched by the blast.

On 1/18/2023 at 11:14 AM, SteampunkCake said:

As long as the blast is touching the base of the model it is sourced from, there is nothing that says the blast has to be touching the ground.

I think the two of you have somehow gotten the idea that just put the blast marker in base contact from a top-down perspective but don't actually have to have the blast marker touching the thing that it's in base contact with, or that Malifaux uses the "magic cylinder" approach for models.  Neither of those things are the case.

Kaeris's base is three inches below the model on top of the Ht3 cliff.  The blast has to touch her base, and it doesn't because it only extends down one inch from where it is.

3 hours ago, retnab said:

you technically have a four-sided shape you could be drawing an area from because RAW it just says it's the area "between this unit's Fireteams."

You want to argue RAW when you're trying to ignore the fact that you don't have a triangular area when there are four fireteams?  🥶

There are all sorts of ways that the card could be rewritten so that it will function when the unit has four fireteams.  All of them require changing words on the card.

There are also various abilities and effects that allow models to draw line of sight from other places on the table (from markers or from other models).  Those will also create non-reciprocal line of sight situations.

18 hours ago, Sbaraff said:

I guess yes.. Dr.Beebe can take this action while buried and is not targeting himself. He just take Los and range from Calypso and every model should be in Los and range of himself, right?

Yes.  The current version of the sentence in the rules which explicitly states this is:

Quote

Models always have LoS to themselves (even while Buried) and always have LoS to any object or terrain they are in base contact with or overlapping

And every model is going to be within X" of itself unless it's buried.  (That's why the pilot upgrade card includes the ability specifying how to draw range and line of sight to the pilot for friendly models...)

In other words: Yes, Dr. Bebe can take the Modified Welder action and target the Calypso while he has the Pilot upgrade card attached.  

Yes, the vertical distance clause in the measuring rules does apply to auras and pulses.  If you're dealing with vertical elements, you're going to be dealing with a stack of diminishing circles.

This is probably one of the easy changes between the previous edition and the current edition to miss.

11 hours ago, KID55 said:

Like this

No.  From the most recent errata (with the reorganized falling rules):

Quote

If a model ever has less than 50% of its base supported by terrain or the table, that model falls and then con-tinues any remaining portion of its movement as normal.

When a model falls, its base is moved straight down (this does not expend any movement) until it is flat on terrain or the table, the model then suffers dam-age equal to half the distance it fell in inches (rounded down).

Granted, that first paragraph would probably read better if it said "and then continues any remaining portion of its movement as normal (if it fell during a move)."  But your picture is still going to be covered by the "if a model ever has less than 50% of its base supported" and the reorganized falling rules mean that even if you deployed a model in an unsupported position, the falling rules would cause it to fall into a supported position.