Jump to content

santaclaws01

Members
  • Content Count

    2,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

santaclaws01 last won the day on June 29

santaclaws01 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,188 Walking Simulator

About santaclaws01

  • Rank
    Tyrant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,235 profile views
  1. Yeah,it just means buying the single mini from someone else instead of in a box. I haven't met anyone that would be that much of a stickler.
  2. I'm just not sure what this means at all. How is buying a single model second hand a "hack" or something a player will get in trouble for at an event? As for my solution to the first mate thing, I'm just gonna find a sailor's hat and maybe an anchor and stick them on a Silurid.
  3. No, the Jury just makes it harder for Tara to play normally. It doesn't make any models literally useless. That requires 2 other models also being killed and KJ potentially being killed 3 times over. This isn't just KJ fails 1 simple duel or gets hit once is and now out of the game.
  4. Vengeance doesn't stack with each other. Each model resolves their own damage sequence separately. Model A will get to step 5, resolve Vengeance, finish step 5, then Model B will start step 5. The +1 is purely for future proofing a Vengeance +2 or more model, or a model that can give out Vengeance +X.
  5. Neverborn and Bayou don't have any models that can unbury other models. I don't think any crew does that isn't Tara. However burying is significantly more common, and you're basically saying that Bad Juju(and the Emissary and Waldgeists) just can't be played into most factions and that that is an absurd position to take.
  6. A discard pile is still a part of the fact deck. And the allowance of a player to look through their own is also an implicit ban on your opponent looking through yours.
  7. That's fair, but that still falls into personal preferences rather than a general rule of no touching your opponents stuff ever.
  8. If I'm obeying a model to walk and don't have just a general direction I want to move it in I'm not going to try and spend 10 minutes telling my opponent the exact position I want to move it it.
  9. But you do pick up your opponents models and cards to look at/move them, so that argument doesn't hold water. Also including that the fate deck is upside as an example of explicitly privite info is an odd choice because who is it private to?
  10. This is about what the rules actually say. Not what they should say or how they should work. If your entire argument here is "I recognize the rules say that X should happen, but it should really be Y that happens" then just stop. That isn't a rules argument, that's an argument for errata. So then you would be able to point to a page in the rulebook where ignore is explicitly defined? If not, then it's not a game term.
  11. Walk and charge would be friendly movement effects.
  12. That's what I've been doing this whole thread. I literally don't know how much clearer I can make it. No, it doesn't. Because the whole point of that is that there is a rule that states that damage suffered is referring to damage after reduction. That is why even though overkill damage is ignored it is still suffered. The only reason is because there is a rule explicitly defining damage suffered in such a way that the ignore rule never once comes into play for determining how much damage the model suffered. As far as the rule for determining damage suffered is concerned, the only rule for damage that is relevant to resolving it is the first sentence of the damage rule. Everything past the first period of the paragraph might as well not exist as far as determining how much damage a model suffered is concerned. THIS RULE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE HEALING RULES There is nothing modifying healing. There is nothing telling us to look at some different value so we all we are doing is looking at the value of the heal effect. This is where the ignore in the healing rules come into place because it is telling us explicitly that any healing over a models maximum health never happened as far as the game is concerned. A model at full health with regenerate never had a heal effect resolve on them. Any other effects that look at the model after the fact to determine if and how much a model healed will not think the model healed, or will think that the heal effect was however much weaker than what the printed value of the heal effect was. No, that's not what game term means. Game term means a word or phrase that has an explicit definition within the confines of the rules. Ignore has no such set definition within the confines of the rules.
  13. That's just the body, not actually raising the Judge.
  14. It doesn't matter that there's no such thing as healing reduction. Damage and Healing are not the same. They are different mechanics with different rules and different interactions with other game effects. The very fact that you're highlighting a difference should be enough tell you that they will not always have the same interactions with similar looking effects. Again, they don't have the same structure. At the core yes, taking damage is the inverse of healing and vice versa. You take the value and add/subtract it to the models health depending on if it's a heal or damage. This is not relevant. The relevant things to this comparison is determining how much damage a model suffered or healed. And to do that we need to look at more rules for damage, which change how it works. Healing does not have that rule. Trying to apply the rule for how determining how much damage a model suffered to how much a model healed simply because both damage and healing have the word ignore in regards to dealing with going over is wrong. Healing does not have any rule like damage does, so the only things to take into consideration for how much a model healed is to look at A) how much the heal effect was for initially, and B) if that went over the models max health and by how much, because the rules for healing tell us that overhealing is treated as having not occurred. is equivalent to this other part in the Damage rules, which are more extended than the healing ones: Both are saying if the damage or healing gets reduced to 0, that model doesn't consider to have gotten damage/healing for any effect. And it also clarifies what ignores means. Ignores shouldn't mean something different in one rule and in the other. Those are not equivalent. At all. One rule is telling you how to deal with a model being healed over maximum. The other tells you how damage being reduced to 0 interacts with effects that require a model to have suffered damage. I really don't see how you came to the conclusion that those 2 rules are at all mirrored. As an aside, ignore is not a game term. It is using the plain English definition. That means that depending on context it can have different meanings for the rules. Which is, again, irrelevant, because the ignore portion for damage literally never gets taken into account for determining how much damage a model suffered.
  15. You're gonna need to rephrase this, because I don't know what you're saying. My argument was always only ever been that damage suffered has a specific definition in the rulebook. That's just it, they aren't using the same words and structure. If they did then either there wouldn't be a sentence about what damage suffered means, or the healing rules would have a similar type of call out for what it means for how much a model healed. Instead healing has the "as if it didn't happen" which tells us that a model can't be overhealed and that as far as the game is concerned nothing even tried to overheal the model.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information