Eyefink

I would think that the gamin "dies" and applies its effects, then the piglet is placed right before you remove the gamin model.

Also, I feel the piglet would not get a satisfactory meal out of the remains of a fire gamin. Take that as you will.

I can't give you the exact wording from the rule book right now, but basically the negative flip is considered a variable, and variables change with the condition. I can look up a page number for reference if you need, but it's in the Conditions section.

Yeah, it mentions on pg 51 that if an Action summons a model that exceeds its Rare limit, the effect that summons automatically fails. That should naturally go for unburying as well.

I edited because I realized everything you said as soon as I typed it, sorry.

That's just how Conditions are worded, since it can stack. Regardless, I can see the argument either way.

A model may never target itself with an Attack Action, unless specifically allowed to by another rule (pg 38).

1. Yes. Auras are only active when the models are within LOS and in range.

2. You actually don't need to be incorporeal to move around a wall with Hunpo Assault. Placing a model doesn't count as a move, so you may place a model anywhere within the given range. As well, you don't choose targets at the start of the action, so they need not be in LOS when you first declare Hunpo Assault's use

3. Yes. Models not within LOS are not valid targets (unless otherwise stated).

4. No, there doesn't need to be any valid targets in pulse range.

Don't think I screwed any of that up, hope it helps!

Edit: Ninja'd while consulting the rules and cards! At least it confirms everything.

Awesome. And my Death Marshall made it into the gallery!

There was a similar question recently asked about Rasputina's spells and Bite of Winter. My opinion is that, in the same way that stats that don't exist can't be enhanced, damage that doesn't exist can't be increased. As in, it's never assumed that Attack Actions without a damage value deal 0 Dg, they just don't deal damage.

Yeah, the upgrade system seems to make it pretty easy to grasp crews before they become crazy with everything you can add to them, especially if you play some Scraps or Dustups first. Having said that, if you can understand the concept of "hit people with your big ass sword," Lady Justice is nice and easy to understand.

I know there will be Arsenal Decks coming for Wave 2, but will there be any book? I enjoy having the reference when I look stuff up, plus more fluff is always welcome. Apologies if this is common knowledge to folks more in the know.

@Zfiend (quotes don't work?):

Good point, I was mixing up a couple things in my head.  Defensive Triggers need a Duel, defensive abilities do not. If from Wave 2 these models don't even have final cards yet, so all I have to go on are what's written (that's why I mentioned the terminology). Regardless, "this action may not declare triggers" only refers to the action you are making the model the take, and nothing else.

Are these wave 2 models? Some people (me!) aren't super familiar with how this is broken up...

I'm also not entirely sure if you're confusing Triggers with Abilities and Stat Triggers, which are different things for the purpose of Twist and Turn. What that's saying is that the Action you make the model take may not declare Triggers (of which Walk doesn't have any), not that you can't declare a defensive stat trigger in response to something else.

In short, if Walk had a Trigger associated with it you wouldn't be able to declare it's use, but Now You See Me (which is a stat trigger that activates in response to being harmed, not by performing an Action) will still pop and you may reduce the damage.

Just to add to the distinction of suffering extra damage, Misery says to suffer the damage "after resolving the current Action," which is why the damage isn't calculated together. However, something like Raspuntina's Shatter (Child of December upgrade) that declares the Demolish trigger would add all the damage into one lump sum.

Yeah, I was sure that I didn't want to play an Outcast crew till I saw that art for the Von Shill box. Now to play the waiting game.

I don't keep too in touch with releases so sorry if this is common knowledge, but is Hired Guns (the Von Shill set) supposed to be released any time soon? Very interested in picking it up when it is.

I'm glad to see I'm in agreement with Mako, even if he did say it infinitely better than I could have.

I think one of the things people are getting hung up on is markers being a "thing" when if fact all they are is something that is representative of an effect. The area of a blast would still be in base contact with a model, even if you happen to be holding the blast template above the area in order to not interfere with model placement. If you really wanted to, you could lift up the wagon, place the template, then set it back down to determine the area of effect; this is what would have to happen in the example on page 50 if you weren't holding the template.

I would say the intervening terrain would have no effect on the Blast Marker placement, if for no other reason than the 3" above/below rule exists (they have to be standing on something, right?). I assume the LOS requirement is meant to handle situations where a piece of terrain might "block" the effects of a blast. That may make some of the double/triple blast effects look funny, but those are pretty abstracted anyway.

In my opinion, any wall formation that is at different angles should be considered two separate instances of terrain for cover purposes. Assuming in the first picture that you are discounting the raised floor, there would be no cover available in any of those instances.

To address the Bonus Damage question: the rules are written for people to take a common sense approach; an attack that does no damage would continue to do no damage even if it got a modifier. However, pg 46 of the rulebook might make it more clear. First, "how much harm a model inflicts on another model as a result of an Attack or other Action or Ability is represented as the damage (Dg) value." Actions like Freeze Over simply don't have a Dg value to modify. Then a bit further down the page: "If damage is modified by a static value (such as the Armor ability, or a Trigger), the final damage after the damage flip is modified." If there's no damage flip, there's nothing to add +1 to.

@DOCT: I believe the answer is 10. It's one instance of damage calculated based on the number of upgrades, then you add +1 to the final total.

To be a little more clear, I was thinking in terms of valid targets, but you're likely right about it being to broad. FWIW, I think the official ruling will end up being you can target whomever even if the Action fizzles because it can't be carried out, regardless of what I think the original intent of that power was. If it's too far off base they'll just errata it anyway.

Personally, I fall on the side of "if you can't perform the effects of the action, it can't be attempted." But I will submit to the FAQ and am thankful for the designer's response. :fireball:

I don't understand what the OP's example was since it doesn't really apply to the question. "After succeeding" effects take place after the normal effects of the Action, but only if the duel was 'successful.' The example in the FAQ about Pandora has nothing to do with the question either, since Fading Memory isn't a Trigger and has it's own, specific wording that goes off after winning a Wp duel. "Resolving Step 5" includes applying the results of the Action.

As for a Beckoner with Addict, it wouldn't get the the first time it attacked and applied the trigger, but would on subsequent attacks that turn.

I think almost all those models/rules are currently still in beta for 2E, aren't they? Zoraida's Obey is the only one I can find in the new rulebook, and as The Godlyness points out, it's pretty well defined.

The language argument does make a lot of sense. Lilith really doesn't ignore LOS, she just doesn't need it. I suppose if Silent was meant to apply to something like Master of Malifaux, it would read "models always need," instead of saying "may not ignore."