James Gus

Am I reading this correctly?

Charge says push and then take a melee action that doesn't count against your limits.  Engulf is a melee action.

Can I charge, swallow someone, and then, say, drop a scheme down?

Slam only affects impassable markers or destructible terrain.  The lamps are neither.

... and Gluttony ... I keep finding more darn it!

Not sure slam works though.

Definitely telegraphed, but the markers are not destructible.  The number of models that can just remove non-destructable markers is pretty small.  Jedza, Molly, Zoraida, Dashel, Corpse Curator or Wong.  I'm not sure what most folks can do about it.

Also, pretty hard not to telegraph Load 'em Up! 

Is taking all 3 Lamplighters going to make the first point for Load 'em Up all but unstoppable?  The lamps aren't destructible, right?  And nothing says you can't put them all on the opponent's side.  Only some rare anti-marker tech like Lost Knowledge is going to stop it, no?

Might get tricky in standard deployment but especially in flank or corner it should be easy to get them all down.

I'm just taking the dive into EVS and I'm thinking Hidden Agenda seems interesting on Calypso.  Anyone tried this?  If you have it in the thick of things it's survivable enough that it should proc "Backup Plan" with some regularity.  Plus, with Dr Beebe inside, your opponent can't be sure if you're cheating a throw away but reconfigured low card/9 or a severe.  With Armour 2, maybe you don't care!

Thoughts?

8 hours ago, Scoffer said:

I think cheap model are not worth the stones most of time. The only reason to hire somerting cheap (piglet, bayou gremlin, flying pig) for me is to get quick benefit from it turn one or maybe two.  I never build my game plan on such models - they are usualy killed with a single hit.

4 stones for a Piglet OOK are always better in cash. Or pay one more and hire a Gator. Gators are great.

I think the point of the OP is that you only need them for one turn or two if it is the right turn or two and you use them correctly.  The way schemes have changed a surprise reckless run from a hiding place at the right time can net you points even if the model is thrown away in the process.

Aha!  Somehow I read "may" as must.  So I can move all the fireteams into range, and then they can all fire.  That makes more sense!  Thanks yall!

Afternoon gang,

The Advance Order specifically says the unit takes an action, and then moves.  Am I correct that that timing is specific, or am I missing something that says the movement can come before or after the action?

In other words, all other things being equal, a generic "missile" unit can only target something that is in it's range at the start of it's activation, either with Advance or Focused Effort.  It has no way to move to get a target in range and then fire in the same activation (again, generic and all other things being equal.)  Is this correct?

15 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

The condition modifies actions sandeep takes, not the action itself.

Isn't this the exact same argument people had over Sonia and the malifaux child?

 If this is a settled issue, it makes it much easier for me!  Thanks yall!

2 hours ago, Nikodemus said:

Radiance is a condition on Sandeep. While other models can borrow his attacks, those models don't have the condition to force discards.

I agree that Radiance is a condition on Sandeep.  However, the wording of Radiance says "Models which are damaged by one of this model's _attack actions_ ..."  It doesn't say models which are damaged by this _model_.  That would have definitely settled it.  Technically speaking, Arcane Storm is Sandeep's attack action regardless of who uses it.

Afternoon gang,

Quick question for everyone.  Say your Arcane Effigy casts Arcane Radiance on Sandeep.  The wording of Arcane Radiance states "models which are damaged by one of this model's Attack Actions must discard ... blah blah."  Does that mean that if someone else copied Arcane Storm via Sandeep's Beacon ability, that the Radiance would still apply.  Because technically, it is Sandeep's Attack Action that is damaging the enemy model, even if it isn't Sandeep's AP that caused it.

What do yall think?

James.

Yeah, I think yall are right.  I mean, he could only feasibly heal himself 3 times unless I'm missing something for a max of 6 anyway (and that would be either really lucky or crazy resource dependent.)  If they meant only to stop that, they could have limited his "healing" trigger to twice per activation.

Morning gang,

Archie's "He Dropped His Ice Cream Again" says he can only heal up to 4 wounds per activation, but doesn't specify his activation.  Does that mean that, for instance, a Nurse can't heal him completely in a turn with "Take Your Meds?"  Or do we assume "per activation" implies only per Archie's activations?

Thanks!

Progress I believe!

59 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

You still determine where you are moving, the disengaging strike just inserts itself in between the steps of determining where you are going to move and actually moving the model.

The movement rule says determine how far the model will be moving.  Disengaging strikes offers the possibility that the model will be moving 0" as they are resolved before the model moves.  Resolving it is part of determining how far the model will be moving by definition.

59 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

You're saying that if dying doesn't end the move, then lure could never kill a model because of the text "must end a move". "Must end a move" is not the full text though, as it is also has "as close as possible". Therefor, by your reasoning, lure could never kill a model at any point before the pre-determined end of the move, as anything before that would not be ending the move as close as possible.

I think I get what you're going for.

I'd state it like this: by my reasoning it is impossible to kill a model before the pre-determined end of the move, as anything before that would not be ending the move as close as possible unless something impossible to foresee happens.  That in no way implies that it is impossible to kill a model with lure.  A model on a Ht 15 unclimbable cliff will jump to it's death, because the base of the cliff is the closest possible point the model can reach with it's move before the move is ended.  That is determinable.  You can look at the board and determine that.  The pre-determined end of the move is at the base of the cliff because it is the closest possible ending point to the Belle.  By that same reasoning, a 6 wd, 5 wk  model on a Ht 7 tower will climb down 2", fall the remaining 5" and take 5 wounds, but then move the last remaining 1" closer to the Belle because just taking a suicidal jump off would only get you to the base of the tower, and therefore climbing and falling gets you 1" closer.  A 3 wd model will try to make it through hazardous terrain because it is _impossible_ to know if the damage flip will kill it and it is otherwise the shortest route that gets it closest to the Belle.  If it dies before hand, you still took the shortest route to get you the closest to the Belle that was possible, because it was impossible to know a crazy flip would kill you.

First off, my apologies as I'm still not sure I follow 100%.  My work can be rather mind numbing (I'm trying to do two things at once) and as is obvious from this thread to this point, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer to start with!  I suspect we may be missing each other like ships in the fog here, but I'm not sure!  I'm going to try and sort it out, so correct me if I'm wrong.

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

5 hours ago, James Gus said:

My assumption is that all the words in that sentence mean what they typically mean in standard conversation and no other layers are laid upon them. This quote from the rules seems pretty clear.  "Determine how far the model will be moving, and then move the model that distance."  Well, it moves from the top of the tower to the bottom and stops because the model dies.

If that were the case you wouldn't be able to announce when you intended to leave engagement range for for a disengaging strike, because it would be impossible to determine how far you are moving as that would require information that you have no way of knowing.

Disengaging strikes are not a problem.  Per the rules, you announce if you intend to leave the engagement range _before_ moving.  The entire process of disengaging strikes is based upon the intent to move, not the movement itself and is part of the process of determining how far you will be moving.  You announce that you intend to move, resolve the disengaging strikes and at that point, you either lose the AP or move to where you planned to move.  As part of the process, it isn't important to know where you will actually end, only that you intended to leave the engagement range.  That is your original post, I believe.

11 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

You said if it doesn't technically end the move because it dies, then no model that dies along the path could ever be lured because it says the "move must end". I added the full quote from the rules that was "the move must end as close as possible", meaning that by your interpretation of "the move must end", as meaning that the move absolutely 100% has to end then the move must also 100% have to end as close to the luring model, and as such any point along the path that causes the model to die would be breaking that rule.

To be clear, I think the death of a model does end the move.  As such, it is possible for a model to die en route to something, and to consider that move ended.  It's generally possible to determine the location of the end of that movement, and therefore determine the ending that gets the model as close to the belle as possible (for the sake of the original post.)  In the instance of Hazardous terrain, it's impossible to tell if moving through the hazardous terrain will kill you.  So you still choose the shortest route that gets you the closest to the belle, but die with a bad flip, as _knowing_ the other way would end up closer was impossible.  

Another poster had suggested that perhaps dying while moving means you never end your move.  I argued semantically that by the letter of the rules, that would imply that Belles could never kill a model as they could never end the move if the model died.  I don't accept that that is the case.  It is certainly not my understanding of the rules.

I think I addressed your points.  I have a neurotic need to be understood and understand which makes me terrible at forums!

Just now, santaclaws01 said:

You determine how far you are moving before starting the move. The rules for disengaging strikes say that a model taking a walk action must declare if it is leaving engagement range before it starts actually moving. If determining how far you moved means that you know you are going to end your move there, there would be no way of determining how far you will move in this situation, because you don't know if you will succeed for fail the disengaging strike, giving you two potential points where you could end your move.

 

Technically, the rules state that you declare you wish to disengage and then disengaging strikes are taken.  The movement itself has nothing to do with it.  As soon as you declare you wish to disengage, the opposing player gets to make disengaging strikes.  

2 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Additionally, I'll throw in an example for hazardous terrain, a model with 4 wd is lured by a belle with hazardous terrain in the middle. If it survives, going through the hazardous terrain would get it closer than going around, but if it doesn't then going around will get it closer. So the model takes the path through hazardous terrain, and takes severe damage from it killing it as soon as its base enters the hazardous terrain. Is this now an illegal move, as you seem to think so based on your use of this: 

Because strictly speaking it didn't end it's move as close as possible.

Yes, but knowing that you WOULD die because of the hazardous terrain is impossible, and therefore moving through it is still the shortest route and closest move _possible_.  This is different from the tower because you know exactly how much damage you will take falling off the building.  You know, for instance, that climbing 2" and falling 5 will get you closer than simply falling directly off the top.  You don't know that from flipping damage for hazardous terrain.

6 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

If that were the case you wouldn't be able to announce when you intended to leave engagement range for for a disengaging strike, because it would be impossible to determine how far you are moving as that would require information that you have no way of knowing.

This one I don't follow.  I'm afraid I need a little more clarification.

6 hours ago, Ludvig said:

I know some people want the one line of rules text to make complete sense for everyone at a glance but the truth is that the rules aren't always that clear, especially with the insanely complicated interactions that sometimes arise. I choose to see this game as a social activity, rules should preferrably be taught by experienced players so that ambiguous rules are interpreted by the more senior player who has a wide background knowledge of why certain rules are sometimes interpreted in a not so obvious way. I have also run across rules were different playgroups simply can't reach a concensus and keep playing their own way, that is also fine since the main purpose of this game isto provide enjoyment in the form of games, not lengthy rules debates (although I'll be the first to agree that rules debate should be made into a new recognized aspect of the surrounding hobby and have it's own events). 

I completely agree, which really is the main point of continuing the conversation.  This was a very situational case (that I believe through the course of the conversation has actually been solved/discredited) and the rules devs certainly can't be expected to nail down specifics on every possible scenario.  However, through the conversation several helpful folks have pointed out things I missed and rules I was misinterpreting.  So the conversation has been fruitful for me at least.

I reckon if I can't be playing with folks, talking about playing with folks is an interesting diversion until I can be playing with folks again!

14 hours ago, Clement said:

While they're researching, I have a question for you about the underpinning of your assumption.   Why is it that if you were to die mid movement, that the location where you died count as "ending the move"?  I'd argue that a model that dies while moving never actually gets to ending it's move action.  From the book:

There is no line about "if you happen to die due to hazardous terrain, falling, etc. end your move there".  As such, if you die en route, as your hypothetical trapper will, I don't think you ever actually *end* the move action, the trapper died on the way.

Well, I don't think you necessarily want to take that route, because if killing the model means "never ending it's move" then by the rule as written you could never kill a model with lure as it specifies the model "must end it's move."  

14 hours ago, Clement said:

To move a model measure from the point of its base closest to the direction it will
be moving. Determine how far the model will be moving, and then move the model
that distance, ensuring no part of the model moves further than that distance.

My assumption is that all the words in that sentence mean what they typically mean in standard conversation and no other layers are laid upon them. This quote from the rules seems pretty clear.  "Determine how far the model will be moving, and then move the model that distance."  Well, it moves from the top of the tower to the bottom and stops because the model dies.  By definition of all the words there, the model only moves to the bottom of the tower.  It doesn't say "if you happen to die, end your move there" because (models without special rules aside) dying ends that model's participation in the game.  It is the end of it's movement, the end of it's AP, the end of being there at all!

1 minute ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Because it doesn't work that way. Think of it more as a programed route, when you are affected by lure you consider what is the absolute closest point you can get to the belle in one move, all other considerations aside. In general there is precisely one spot on the table that correlates to that calculation. The model then executes what it must do to reach that point in one move. You don't consider, well, this is the closest I can get without dying, because the rules don't tell you to consider that. 

I'm going to need some sort of citation for that then.  Based on what are you "programming routes" and why?  The rule says "move the target ... the target must end the move as close to this model as possible."  It seems pretty clear to me that the model is going to move to the closest possible point it's movement allows.  If one route causes the model to die further away than it could have reached going another way without dying, then it has failed to "end it's move as close as possible."  

All this programming talk seems added from somewhere, I'm just not sure where!  What am I missing?

1 minute ago, Ergonomic Cat said:

 

The main question is how ironclad the "end as close as possible" bit is.  Can the Belle choose a path that results in a death, and isn't closer, because it would have gotten them closer, ignoring the death?  Or does the Belle have to evaluate every option and then choose from among those that all provide equal distance from her?

I suspect the intent was totally not - the Belle chooses a spot for the model to end up, and if it happens to die on the way, oops!  But I'm intrigued.

The rule as written is the model must end it's move as close to the Belle as possible.  I don't know how you don't consider death the end of the move.  As such, I don't understand how the Belle can choose to kill the model when a path exists that gets it closer without death.

15 hours ago, solkan said:

Who is the rule talking to?  It's the player controlling the Rotten Belle.

So the player controlling the Rotten Belle specifies what the path among equal paths the model takes, not the model that was lured.

 

This is actually an excellent point, which I admittedly hadn't considered.  The Belle is the one who controls the movement.  Given equal paths, she would certainly kill the trapper.

Quote

Where do you see being able to survive the fall specified as a concern concerning the cliff?  If it's not a concern for the cliff, why do you think it's a concern for falling off the Climbable surface?  The fact that the path is could kill the model doesn't change what the shortest path over the cliff is.  Go back and read over the FAQ on being lured over the cliff says--the model is moving along the shortest path to the luring model--even though you've calculated that the fall will kill it.

In light of Ergonomic Cat's point about climbing and the point of surviving a fall, however, the Belle can't suicide the model, because climbing down still results in the model being closer, no?   Because the rule isn't just "take the shortest route" but also "end up as close as possible."  So by climbing down and still having a fraction of movement left the model gets closer than he would if he just died.

16 hours ago, Ergonomic Cat said:

See, this is really compelling to me.  Personally, I would say that each of them ends up in the same spot, so the model's controller can determine it.  

My related question - isn't there a middle point that maximizes the distance?  I don't know his wounds and walk, but isn't there a point where he can climb a bit, fall and survive, then have movement left to use?  He'll take enough damage to be at 1 wound, but alive, and then can stagger > 0"?  Because if we're accepting you can choose the path, that's the path he'll choose to get as close as possible....

Yeah, I actually think you're exactly right.  You start to get into some grey area, because movement is measured by fractions of inches, but terrain is not, right?  So yes, with a move 5 on a Ht7 building, he would be able to climb down 2" (using 4 movement) drop 5 inches but survive with 1 wound left, and then stagger forward his remaining 1" of movement.  Really solves the entire issue, to be honest!