DocSchlock

For sale, one LE Kaeris (Alternate Pose), assembled, no paint or basing. Comes with base and card. $20. Buyer pays shipping and any requested insurance. SOLD

So one of the entries in the new FAQ talks about creating hazardous auras and Markers. Cherubs can give targets a Condition that generates an Aura of Hazardous terrain around a target. The FAQ only addresses "If the model creates Hazardous terrain around itself with an Aura", not if a model gives an Aura to another model. Who gets credit when kills occur in the given-out Aura? I assume nobody since the aura is from a condition, but I'm not 100%.

Great changes all around. Thumbs up!

huh, my date didn't copy in. I'll update it.

Saturday, July 30th, 2016! Henchman-run 16-player Gaining Grounds tournament located in the Arbor Room of the Days Inn in downtown State College, PA! Standard GG2016 rules with the painting requirement waived. Players fielding at least one fully painted crew during the event are entered into a raffle for a Mystery Box at the end. We'll be using the new rotation, not classic. Buy-in: $20 at the door, covers entry and prizes. Factions are declared when you pay. You can also pre-pay through Paypal - please contact me for details. Pre-pay gets you into a raffle for a Mystery Box as well. Full 16-player prize box from Wyrd, along with misc other prizes depending on player count. Plenty of food within walking distance and venue is parking garage adjacent. Slots currently open - 11. Location: Days Inn Penn State 240 South Pugh Street, State College, Pennsylvania 16801 In the Arbor Room. Check-in starts at 10am and main event starts at 10:30.

Haven't seen this reported and it's not in the Errata, but Justice Unleashed for Lady J has been wrong since the Core rulebook. "Lady Justice gains the following Abilites" -> Abilities is misspelled. The card then proceeds to list Tactical Actions that are definitely not Abilities. Just reporting this so it can get corrected.

Updated for May!

Updated for April!

Quick question: do Destinies have to be resolved in sentence order (beginning, middle, end) or can they be resolved throughout the sentence as they appear?

You're trying to counter my argument by using the same thing that supports my argument? Justin already answered this in this month's FAQ - "after failing" and "after this model fails" have the same timing, meaning the rulebook should call out that "after failing" (or in fact all game-defined terms) can be written different ways, which it doesn't. It's a mild oversight that I've seen cause confusion time and again. But this specific question is done and buried.

I'm very glad to see Sloth's Trigger clarified. It was annoying our group to no end. At some point, there needs to be a discussion on how Malifaux actually defines rules terms and how saying "just use common sense" is a trap if the intent behind the rules isn't very obvious (ala Sloth where both considered timings were equally valid, if not for one being stronger than the other): "After this model fails" and "After failing" are not equal cases in terms of what the rules say, and to a lesser extent, where the intent is clear, things like Taelor's "after succeeding" triggers not going by any sense of the rules can lead people in the wrong direction.

Sub Zero's ruling does not apply here since it occurs "after this model suffers damage from a Ml Attack," which is already occurring after the damage flip of the action. My question is in relation to a trigger timing possibly going before Damage is flipped. Your response is actually the response I want - it's proving my point for me regarding the level of ambiguity. It shouldn't be like this and it can be improved, we just have to talk about it. Declare Action is the first Step in the Action Resolution steps, page 35 small rulebook.

Not to be smart (seriously, no insult is meant by these questions), but can you point me to where in the rulebook the game-defined term "after failing" (which means when this exact term appears in the rules, apply this effect) is equivalent to "after this model fails"? Or where the rulebook says I am allowed to redefine game-defined terms? The problem is, there are some rules where it's just a rewording and thus benign, and there are some where the intent is completely different, and there's not a uniform application of these two states. Look at Dreamer's Safe in My Bed - I had a lot of people telling me this was obviously an "after succeeding" effect just reworded against the Dreamer, but lo, new FAQ came out saying it's not, its timing is as written. In the card space argument, this makes no sense, since the actual game-defined term takes less space than what was written. The multiple authors is a valid reason, but should have been caught since there were fewer models in the last beta. Having game-defined terms and not using them is a confusing thing to do (esp without a note in the rulebook saying game-defined terms are actually not very well-defined or can be reworded), as evidenced by my play group, so we draw the conclusion that it was intentionally written this way, making Sloth have one of the strongest Df triggers in the game.

I'm putting this here in hopes of starting a strong enough discussion to be included in an upcoming FAQ. This is throwing my local player group for a loop with no good, solid answer being available. Sloth has a DF trigger that reads "After this model fails, the Attacker immediately ends its Activation." "After this model fails" is not the game-defined term for triggers "after failing," meaning we have to interpret in common language, so the trigger resolves at success / failure before the damage flip of the Action, meaning there is no damage flip or Action effects. That makes this trigger very, very powerful and we want to know if that was the intent, since writing it as "After failing, immediately end the Attacker's Activation." would adhere to the normal timing rules while still being clear. I am aware Malifaux is written to be read with common sense, but the intent here is not clear and if a game-defined term can be rewritten like that then defining a specific term or phrase in the context of the game means absolutely nothing.

Stash Markers in GG2016 are Impassable, so no.

I'm on Bengt's side here: it's too great a leap of logic to think "and then discard a card" is anything but an effect of the rule itself. It's telling you to do something in plain language, so do it. There are plenty of other Actions and Abilities that draw and discard with the same basic wording, so why would we play this ability like it has a reminder in it all of a sudden? On the other hand, if you want to look closer, the Draw phase appears to be broken into "Draw up to Max Hand Size" - "Stone for additional Cards" - "Draw other additional cards" per "Once the players have drawn up to the maximum Hand Size and then drawn any additional cards, the players must discard cards down to the maximum Hand Size. " This tells us additional card draw is after drawing to max hand size. Stoning occurs right "after drawing up to [maxiumum] hand size" and Rush is not part of a Max-Hand-Size-changing rule (drawing an extra card is not changing your maximum hand size) and does not have any timing to interrupt the normal order of the Draw Phase, so it appears Rush occurs after Stoning based on the wording of the section.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

Quick question because I may be missing something: Say I cast a Teleport Magia with a Genus Immuto of Location on a building in front of me, targeting to put the building in a field to my side. Do all the people inside auto-pass the resistance check and if so, are they just hanging in air as the house disappears? Does the house as an object count as being in possession of the people inside the building? What's preventing me mechanically from solving all of my problems by teleporting houses all the time aside from suits and a high TN (both of which can be mitigated)?

Thanks for the clarification!

So this came up in character creation: Characters are (mostly) from Earth. Is there still a public school system on Guild-run Earth that teaches reading and writing? Is Literacy required to read and write a language, or is a character assumed to be able to read and write by default in their languages and Literacy just controls how well they read and write? The Fated Almanac doesn't address it at all and the Literacy skill is just ambiguous enough to be read either way. I'm assuming everyone can read and write, simply because it's convenient and there are other skills that rely on the ability to do so without taking Literacy, but it's surprising the book doesn't spare even a sentence on the topic.

Malifaux at Pop's Culture Shoppe 25 Main St, Wellsboro, PA 16901 - (570) 723-4263 August 2018 August 18th - We don't have the event type determined yet, but there will be one! 11am to 4pm, all players welcome.

It's clear from the Lightning Jump FAQ that Malevolence is not the same timing as 'After Damaging' on Whirlwind, which makes sense because the rulebook doesn't tell us it is. There's a common thought on the forums that 'after <insert anything>' somehow means after step 5. No idea how that got started - not faulting anyone for it, the timing system can be confusing. The only definition of 'After X' occurring after Step 5 in the rulebook is in regards to Triggers, and that's only for 'resolving / failing / succeeding / damaging'. A piece of support from Safe in My Bed FAQ (Note, this is for triggers, but can help illustrate the timing intention): Safe In My Bed does not use any of the keywords which have a specific timing in the book, so it must be applied when it says, which is “after an Attack Action succeeds against this model" To answer your question, Malevolence would occur after your target suffers damage, period - so during Step 5. So yes, you can Whirlwind against a model summoned by Malevolence since after resolving the attack against that target, you can target the newly placed model with the Whirlwind. You can even target a model summoned by Malevolence from damage from a Whirlwind Attack with a Whirlwind Attack.

From the FAQ - emphasis mine: Q: Wong’s Lightning Jump Attack can cause damage multiple times, first with the initial damage to the target, then with blasts, and finally with the pulse. How is the timing on this Action handled in regards to Abilities which react to damage, for example Black Blood and Malevolence? Can those Abilities be used multiple times in response to a single Attack? A: Each portion of Lightning Jump which deals damage must be resolved separately. First the actual damage track is resolved, which involves Blast Markers (remember that in the case that the order in which resolving damage from Blasts matters, the Attacker decides the order in which models suffer damage, Core Rulebook pg. 50). Once that is complete, resolve the Pulse portion of Lightning Jump. Models with Abilities such as Black Blood or Malevolence may resolve them multiple times if the relevant models suffer damage multiple times, and they must be resolved in the order the damage is suffered. Malevolence is not using a defined game rule timing, so it must occur at the earliest possible opportunity. "After" has nothing to do with Step 5 or beyond by itself - the rulebook does not tell us that at all. Instead, it defines how specific timings interact with the Steps. How can you resolve Malevolence multiple times on a single model if it triggers once after Step 5 completes? If someone argues Malevolence stacks multiple times past Step 5, that makes no sense when you read the last sentence - why would they be resolved in order of the damage suffered if that all occurs at the same timing? For Malevolence, after the damage is suffered, you perform Malevolence immediately. If there would be a time were Malevolence and Black Blood would interact, Black Blood would go first since 'when' effects go before 'after' effects (FAQ), then Malevolence would occur.

I'm putting this up here in hopes it gets seen for November's errata.

A friendly model A is base to base with enemy model B. A fails a horror duel caused by an effect outside of its activation, becoming Paralyzed, reducing the range of its attacks to 0 and "not engaging" per the rulebook definition of Paralyzed. A gets Obeyed to attack B with a Attack, since the requirement to make the attack is in fact being in range of the attack, not being in engagement. Base to base is 0", so the model is still in range for the Close Attack, but will obviously not make disengaging strikes since it is prohibited from engaging. Is there a flaw in this logic I'm missing or is this valid / intended?