santaclaws01

No. You take the damage, divide it by 2, then round up. That is how much damage you take. You don't take the damage, divide it by two, round that up then subtract the damage by that number. That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case.

Why wouldn't he indirectly gain it? Does Hoffman's empower go away when the child is activating or does Hoffman still benefit from it? If Hoffman still benefiting from it and the child isn't using the printed value of Hoffman's CA actions wouldn't the CA still be applied to Hoffman which the child copies when he uses Just Like You? Because Hoffman is gaining a bonus to his Ca. It's not increasing the Ca of his actions. If something increased the Ca of the action, then that would also benefit the Malifaux Child.

But Outcasts are practically ressers anyways with Levi and Daw.

Bete is unburied when a model is killed. Not when it is removed from play. Drawn to Death: ... When a Living or Undead model is killed, this model may unbury in base contact with the killed model before removing it from play. The only timing given is before removing it from play. It doesn't state that Bete is unburied when the model is killed, just that a model being killed is what prompts the ability to go off.

Bete doesn't get unburied until before a model leaves play. Models don't leave play until after the action is resolved, so I believe in the case of Bete, she won't get placed until after Whirlwhind is over but before the model that died is removed.

When you move off of terrain is when you fall. This is clearly defined. If any of your base is still on the terrain then you have not moved off the terrain.

Well, wow. Wanted to correct you on this one, since Heed My Voice's target considers friendly. But after rereading the action, it's the target, who considers Huggy (and only him?) friendly. Did I get it right? Yes. The model that considers only Huggy to be a friendly model.

Beckoners, Lynch and Depleted(when I bring them) are who I use to give out Brilliance. I find most things don't live that long against Huggy for his giving it to really matter and I've never been in a situation where I wouldn't rather charge with my Illuminated than shoot something giving the option. Though I have shot at Depleted in order to get a Brilliance Cloud on the ground next to them and used Doppleganger who Mimiced Head My Voice to walk people into it for my other Illuminated to get the and +2 damage on the target.

It's even easier than that, because if you break LoS from the Mage to Toni she drops the buff too. If a 40mm anything just steps between her and the mage it all but ensures they can't see each other, and that is even easier to do if they are really sitting back and preventing you from killing the mage. Granted Toni can basically teleport anywhere she wants (Unless a Resser brings Anna now, or anyone since she's a Merc) so she could avoid this, but if all you need to do is drop paralyze on her, it'll be too late anyways. I certainly think Toni is pretty damn cool when played right, but any master is going to be hell if you play directly into what they want to be doing. You just gotta figure out how to break the fidgety little parts that keep them together. Pretty much this. You can't just let the enemy crew do what they want to do, you gotta throw some stones into the works. And even at a max possible to her Df flip, it's still only a Df 5. Anything with a 7 against Df is going to give her issues, and targeting her Wp just completely wastes everything she put in to buffing up her Df. Also Chiaki gets special mention for just being able to remove her Adrenaline.

That's the reason why you have all of those abilities which make the condition not cause damage rather than being immune to the condition. A Rail Golem immune to Burning would never gain Burning. Likewise, if Shenlong was immune to Burning and Poison (instead of being immune to damage caused by conditions), he would never gain the Burning or Poison conditions and the Words on the River upgrade wouldn't do anything--there would be no condition to remove. Yes, but I was bringing up the possible distinction between "immune to damage" and "reduce all damage suffered by the Burning condition to 0". I understand that immunity to the condition would be antithetical to what the models do, but it had seemed like there was a distinction between immunity to the damage and reducing it to 0. Now it seems like they may have made the "reduce to 0" wording to future proof for if they ever same something that removes immunity to damage from conditions. This is the first you've mentioned that. Your first post was "immune to damage from Condition and not the Conditions themselves". Shang: Monk of the Low River: So the designers have managed to make models immune to the specific conditions, instead of not being immune to the condition and instead being immune to the damage from the condition or reducing it to 0. The point being that "immune to X" isn't "immune to damage from X" or "Reduces all damage from X to 0". No, it's not the first I've mentioned that, as my entire reason for posting it was because I was unaware of any models off the top of my head that were actually immune to the conditions and only knew of ones that were immune to damage from them and just reducing the damage to 0. That was the very first thing I brought up after others started answering. And I was then made aware of Monks of Low River and other instances where models are actually immune to conditions themselves.

I think you might have misread that FAQ entry, if you charge from outside Brewie's aura you don't have to test for declaring a charge, but you do have to test for declaring each of the two attacks from charge. (I would like to see one more clarification on Drinking Contest though, namely that you only have to test if you declare an action other than One on the House, cause purely RAW as of now you just have to keep testing until you pass since you declare One on the House as well.) That could be explained as retroactively changing the declared action, because it says you take On The House instead of the original action.

That's the reason why you have all of those abilities which make the condition not cause damage rather than being immune to the condition. A Rail Golem immune to Burning would never gain Burning. Likewise, if Shenlong was immune to Burning and Poison (instead of being immune to damage caused by conditions), he would never gain the Burning or Poison conditions and the Words on the River upgrade wouldn't do anything--there would be no condition to remove. Yes, but I was bringing up the possible distinction between "immune to damage" and "reduce all damage suffered by the Burning condition to 0". I understand that immunity to the condition would be antithetical to what the models do, but it had seemed like there was a distinction between immunity to the damage and reducing it to 0. Now it seems like they may have made the "reduce to 0" wording to future proof for if they ever same something that removes immunity to damage from conditions.

I believe that the point here is that he Channels once and gets the bonus to everything that happens during the Charge (so any targeting duels as well as for both attacks) at the cost of 2 Wounds The discussion was channeling for the charge and each attack, for a total of 3 channels.

Alright then, forgot about them. Not sure how I didn't remember Blood Ward+Warding runes as my last 2 games involved them.

Same for me. Spent awhile looking at all the crew boxes available at Origins and the Dreamer's box stood out to me the most. Mostly Lord Chompy Bits also played a large role in that decision.

That is my thought as well, but I don't know of any models off the top of my head that are actually immune to Burning or Poison, and models like the Rail Golem and Fire Gaiman say they take 0 damage from burning, which seems like a way to get around things that remove immunity to Burning.

One takes action (a) and then action (b), in the declared action Charge. But you need to declare which action you are taking. Taelor for example has two possible actions she can take when she charges. After the she charges you declare which action will be taken. The very act of saying you're taking action (a) instead of action (b) is declaring action (a).

None taken, but I'm going to have to disagree that he's dismantled that, as currently his only support of models not declaring the attack actions from charge is that it says take instead of declare. Also, as Asterlla just refrenced, the FAQ on Drinking Contest pretty definitively states that you declare the attack actions you take from charge.

This we agree on. Lets look at charge. (2) Charge: Target model within LoS. Move this model up to its Cg in a straight line. This model must end the move with the target model within its engagement range or this action may not be taken. This model then takes two Range y Attack Actions against the target model. Each of these Actions must have an AP cost of 1. Charge doesn't state that two action are declare, rather they are taken (as a part of the whole declared tactical action Charge). That is, the only action being declared is the charge actions. Thus, my reasoning for Leve only being able to Channel once while declaring a charge, and models not taking damage while taking the two subsequent actions while having Firing Squad Injustice attached. If you don't declare the action you are taking then how do you take any action? There are models that have more than one possible attack action they can take after charging. When you go to take an action you have to declare which action you are taking.

Is there any ruling on how the interaction between models that remove immunity to Burning/Poison work with Shenlong who is immune to damage from Condition and not the Conditions themselves?

Tossing in my agreement with the others. It was probably just an oversight in editing.

Yes. You can channel before declaring any action. Declaring an action is part of taking the action. If you do not declare it it is unable to be taken. It's just a foregone conclusion that the attack is being declared and what model it is targeting with things like Charge because they have to be on the same target. As for your example about Firing Squad Injustice, the models will take 2 damage per attack action from the charge. I am not convinced. The declare/taken distinction seems pretty intact to me still. Nevertheless, if you are correct, I am would be a very happy Jack Daw player, and less happy Leveticus player (since Channel on every taken action seems b-s good to me). I'm curious what you mean by it was ruled that way for the sake of the game? I think he meant that it would lessen the negative effects of Dumb Luck, which would be a power boost for all models with Dumb Luck. Per the rule book the first step of taking an action is declaring the action and spending AP. As for the Dumb Luck thing, it definitely is the worse of the two options for models with Dumb Luck, but to say it was ruled that way in favor the game seems to imply that Wyrd just forgot about something as prolific as damage reduction and prevention while making the ability. I find it hard to believe that that wasn't the intent when it was made.

I'm curious what you mean by it was ruled that way for the sake of the game?

Yes. You can channel before declaring any action. Declaring an action is part of taking the action. If you do not declare it it is unable to be taken. It's just a foregone conclusion that the attack is being declared and what model it is targeting with things like Charge because they have to be on the same target. As for your example about Firing Squad Injustice, the models will take 2 damage per attack action from the charge.

Now I'm just imagining Dashel yelling so loudly and angrily that it tears open a breach to some random guild guard that's slacking off somewhere and pulls them through it into the middle of the fight and he's just looking around all confusedly.