benjoewoo

Thank goodness the FAQ made a ruling on this.

Hey it's been a while because of work, but finally getting to check back. In the first section where you post the example, that is a good example of where concealing would "only go one way" as a result of rules operations as we read the rules. I don't think we disagree on the result because Model A, which you have described as being able to draw an LoS through 1" or less of concealing terrain to Model B (re-stated to the rule--I assume you mean this instead of 1" inside terrain because that description alone would not necessarily mean you could ignore it)--has the rule book backing to choose whether Model A ignores the concealing terrain or not, which would grant or deny the concealment status and appropriately effectuate the penalties (if any) on Model B's actions targeting Model A. There are a number of situations you'd want this--a model friendly to Model A targeting Model A for crew utility, set up, etc. while denying enemy models straight flips on the duel. Where I disagree is the second section. Fae keyword models' abilities, though named differently for KJ, all provide there is no choice--the models with the respective abilities MUST ignore the concealment trait because they are unaffected by the same. There is no timing, there is no exception/exemption, they are simply unaffected by them at all. Thus there is no choice as in your first example with Models A and B provided that Model A was attempting to apply/not apply concealment solely via an Underbrush Marker. Model A must ignore the effects of concealment when targeting Model B and must ignore the effects of concealment when Model B targets Model A. Since concealment is defined and applied based on the model that would/would not have concealment, Model B would not have the concealment mechanics applied to its actions since Model A would ignore the concealment of the Underbrush Marker.

I'm unsure how to read the last sentence. I want to be accurate on it because some posts before may have been misdirected. I do have to ask how you bring up that 2 models draw sight lines and calculate their LoS differently. LoS is bi-lateral-it is the default state unless the rules provide otherwise because: (1) the game requires models draw LoS to each other and (2) the game does not specify LoS is drawn in a particular direction when referencing taking actions. If both of these are true, then when drawing sight lines, it cannot be wrong to draw from the model being targeted by an action to the model taking the action vs. the other way around. The part everyone disagrees is that in bi-lateral LoS, can a model treat it differently than the other model to which/from which LoS is drawn? I think this may be the focus of the question. I don't think it works that way because concealment's yes/no application, including the text on what it means to be unaffected by it, is written based on a model in the interaction ignoring it. I haven't posted in some time because I think that the rules are vague on this purposefully. Unfortunately I think a combination of perceived power of the Underbrush Markers has led to the Fae keyword not being particularly high powered and multiple people seem to agree that it works the way the majority says, but people do not necessarily agree in full on how you get there--maybe this second part is a misreading but in responding here I've felt I've responded to different concepts to address the same situation.

Updated to remove Hinamatsu from core, add in a Huckster. Typically you'll want to take upgrades, but core list doesn't include upgrades.

I often go for Parker in Reckoning or against guild. He answers the strategy and faction I don't like taking Tara in. I like to run: Parker (Outcasts) Size: 50 - Pool: 4 Leader: Parker Barrows Totem(s): Doc Mitchell Hires: Mad Dog Brackett Servant of Dark Powers Convict Gunslinger Servant of Dark Powers Convict Gunslinger 2 Barbaros Prospector Wanted Criminal It's essentially an alpha strike crew. With it you can get up to a 29" threat after Mad Dog runs and guns. There are 5 movements with max movements, with a push in there as well. Mad Dog goes wherever you need him to and he'll have fast via the last gunslinger so he'll get 3 shots off on his alpha strike. There'll also be a slinger nearby to help escape if someone tries to engage him, and the 2nd slinger can catch up pretty easily. If Mad Dog doesn't get all the kills needed, Parker can come clean up with potentially a stat 7 shot if Mad Dog's fistful of scrip dropped a couple scheme markers from easy kills. I've had a lot of success with the crew--it can scheme moderately well, but where it shines is anti-scheming between parker and barbaros, both very hardy anti-schemers, and then mad dog with 2x slingers to contest the main opposing fighting force with doc mitchell to provide an extra card, distraction, and possible heals. Prospector just gets me a soul stone every turn with potential for extra advantage if it drops an enemy scheme marker for parker to eat up for free.

To keep the explanation short, then. 1. Concealment is applied if sight lines for LoS are drawn through concealing terrain. Concealing terrain can be ignored if a model drawing sight lines is both (1) in the terrain and (2) draws at least one sight line through 1" or less of that concealing terrain. pg 37 of e-rule book. 2. Concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied in terms of and in reference to the model being attacked having concealment. pg. 36 of e-rule book. 3. Unaffected by Concealing Terrain--Models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS. 37. 4. LoS is drawn bi-laterally. There is no rule stating which way "direction" LoS is drawn. Because the rules are phrased so that LoS can be drawn from either direction to achieve the same effect, this seems the rule that the rules work with. The picture examples are drawn directionally, e.g. from Rasputina to a sorrow, but there is no actual reference to the direction drawn and the example makes more sense with how the example is phrased, i.e. from Rasputina to Sorrow. But, requiring LoS to be drawn specifically from one model to another is a more specific proposition because it is a more restrictive, specialized rule; there would need to be a rules citation for drawing LoS in this manner compared to drawing them from either of any models interacting. A model with Abundant Growth or similar ability, e.g. Killjoy, is unaffected by Underbrush Markers, which are 50mm, Ht 0, Severe, and Concealing Terrain markers. When drawing LoS normally, rule 1 would provide that the models drawing LoS through an Underbush Marker would have concealment, provided none of them are in the terrain drawing at least one sight line through 1" or less of that terrain. Rule 2 would then apply concealment to both, affecting any non-melee attack actions targeting models in such a position. But, models with Abundant Growth or similar ability (MAGs) would, per rule 3, ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS. Thus, per rule 4, MAGs and non-MAGs attacking each other through concealing terrain created by Underbrush Markers ignore the marker because the MAG(s) ignore the concealing trait.

"...concision is not a definitive virtue, on occasion one loses out by talking too much, it is true, but how much has also been gained by saying more than was strictly necessary." -José Saramago, The Stone Raft For the first point--when enemy models attack themselves for benefit is an example, and not an absurd one--nephilim crews currently can benefit off it to achieve set up later efficiency. It also protects any out of keyword models hired or ones in keyword without Abundant Growth, e.g. Killjoy., a a Fae without the ability but benefits greatly from not being blasted in the face. Your alternative as a re-statement could work--I haven't thought much about it. But that's not the issue here. I initially think the way you rephrase the rule eliminates the requirement that the model be in the concealing terrain to be able to ignore the terrain when any sight line passes through 1" or less of that terrain. But, at least your version saves 7 words as Microsoft Word counts it by eliminating that requirement. Do you have a citation for LoS being drawn directionally with reference to a specific model and then to another specific model? If you have one I'm probably wrong in my analysis. Your subsequent post relies on it if my understanding is correct. Also I disagree that enforcement and strict interpretation of rules is cut throat. If you enter a competition, especially one based on a leisure activity, you expect fair play based on an agreed to rule set and one that both of you can refer to. Where people decide to conduct their competitive events by different rules, that's their own decision and great fun for all participants who enjoy that and participate. If anyone holds out though that it's the legitimate way to play, they are definitively wrong. People want this game to be competitive in the sense that if you go to an event, you have something you can refer to as a win or great showing for what you do there--saying Malifaux is just played at the kitchen table level takes away from that because every win has an asterisk with caveats for any illegitimate rules interaction. Posed as an example instead and a TL;DR--if your opponent believes the melee action generated by the charge action is stopped by the Stealth ability because the charge action was initiated from further than 6" away and has played that way regularly with their local group of M3E players newly transitioned from M2E, which you are visiting in their tournament, which goes to your benefit in a game winning way, is it more cut throat to let it fly because you're not rules lawyering, or is it more cut throat to correct the opponent and let him/her resolve the melee attack action by rules lawyering? Your answer here guides how you should look at rules interactions because clean play is sportsmanlike play. I don't think Titania is particularly under powered in relation to your other options in NB, though I'm not particularly knowledgeable on NB models. I also think it's a little early to make that call as there may not be enough live testing to really show conclusive data. I'm here to play the game and see what crazy combos are out there while shooting the crap with friends. I play almost exclusively casually so that rules questions are less relevant because it removes any particular investment into winning a given game. I also want to confirm whether certain interactions work the way I think they do based on the rules because a crazy combo isn't fun if it involves cheating to achieve. I think a lot of players here are doing the same. There are a number of quoted to sections that are answering quoted things people have said, so the quoted section here doesn't display everything here unfortunately. Instead of going point to counter-point and back and forth, I'll just ask why is it that you think being unaffected by something can still yield a direct benefit from it when you obtain that benefit by interacting with that thing for its effect when you're unaffected by it? Maybe I misunderstood what you've said then. I actually think if I am, then I do not understand the point you're trying to make--could you please explain more? I am unfamiliar with other miniature games since I don't play them, but the question from OP at its core is how/why a model with Abundant Growth would get to effectively ignore concealment in one direction but not the other? I'm sorry if I lumped you together with people I've interpreted to be making RAI arguments, but there are multiple posts about it being pointless to have the ability, and I think I read your post that way as a background argument of it. I think when I was responding to your post I was thinking of Hans, whose ability specifically says the model's attack actions are unaffected by concealment. The unequivocal language tailored to the rules for concealment is known and used, so I don't have reason to think the design of Abundant Growth/Brambles wouldn't also have known it. If it's a clarity of language issue, then I think relying on what the rules say is important to interpretation. I don't think anyone has argued OP's "defending player" was inherently an unreasonable person, so reasonable minds disagreeing is possible. While I was reading, Maniacal posted that KJ has brambles, which has the unaffected text found on abundant growth verbatim. I'm wrong that KJ would have a different interaction compared to Titania or other MAGs.

First paragraph: First sentence is stating a rules proposition without a citation or support for the conclusion. Second sentence is an opinion, also without a rules citation. Second paragraph: First sentence is incorrect--Killjoy at least doesn't have Abundant Growth (haven't checked for others, may be single example). Second and third sentences are reductions to absurdity arguments, a logical fallacy. I've posed an example where having the UMs provide benefit to a MAGs crew. Additionally you're creating severe terrain that could make leaving the deployment zone not only tricky, but very slow, allowing time to move up and set up a second line of brush markers to achieve the same to gain further advantage in positioning and alpha strike. UMs also provide benefit to a non-MAG that is also in keyword, again Killjoy, one of the hardest and sturdiest hitting beaters in NB and the game overall. This last thought goes for any out of keyword models hired into a MAGs crew as well. Additionally, considering UMs are not destructible, the opponent may not have options to deal with them without hiring a number of out of keyword models, as the opponent would only find out he/she's facing a MAGs crew after declaring a master that has no in keyword marker removal/manipulation. That's a significant advantage on top of the effects they have for the opponent's crew manipulating itself via attack actions, moving through severe, and attacking out of keyword hires in a MAGs crew. I disagree with your point as to what was "intended" because it's an intellectually dangerous argument in rules interpretation to first rely upon intent in drafting when reading what was actually written--your rules foundation is inherently weak because you require knowledge of events, thoughts, etc. that are not necessarily publicly available or easily accessible to interpret the publicly available and easily accessible authoritative sources. Intention in drafting can be useful in bringing up issues to think about, but they should be one of the last things used in interpreting what was actually written. I don't actually play other wargames, but I do play a number of board games and have played a number of competitive card games in multiple languages, all of which provide rulings/errata when the player base confirms via authoritative rules sets that an interaction doesn't work as the game designers "intended." Are they all fast responses? No, and sometimes the designers will even rule the wonky result plays to see how much effect there is before deciding on issuing an errata--if the wonky result doesn't greatly affect the field there isn't necessarily a need to further complicate the game with additional rules. Your last point is an example of how you can interact with a marker by targeting the marker, which is different than being affected by it. The UMs can only affect models via the concealing and severe traits, barring the release of models that are affected by the 50mm and/or Ht 0 characteristics of a marker. I actually originally thought Abundant Growth would grant concealment the way @Thimblesage's "defending player" argued, because Titania's Awakened Hunger attack action has italic rules for it that seem designed to factor UMs in. The action's italics read, "This Action ignores Concealment and receives a positive twist to its duel if the target is in Severe Terrain." Considering UMs have both of those traits, it initially seemed a good direction to think. But, the rules don't support that conclusion, so these italics only apply in full with reference to other terrain on the board and/or model's interactions (e.g. auras) that provide concealment. With reference to UMs, only the portion related to severe terrain is relevant. First sentence commits the same logical fallacy as Maniacal's argument, a reduction to absurdity. Second sentence is the same. Another example of why I'd run a MAGs crew is because of their ability to move my opponent's models around and dictate my opponent's path of movement. UMs, on creation, have to be at least 2" away from any other marker, per Abundant Growth the ability and the Germinate actions on various Fae models. Titania can move them so they're base to base with each other, literally creating walls of indestructible, severe terrain. Depending on your board layouts, this could make going through tighter areas on the board very slow or non-viable without inefficient play, like charging for movement. Citation to drawing line of sight, while stated differently, is largely the same as the rule previously cited by myself and @Thimblesage. Your statement that only acting models draw LoS to the target is not supported in the rules--I actually tried to find a rule for this thought because it would be the best explanation for why MAGs ignore concealing while attacking through UMs and why non-MAGs do not. However there is no reference to drawing LoS in a direction with rules impact--I could draw LoS from the target to the acting model in the typical scenario and drawing LoS correctly. Even if there is a rule that references how you draw the LoS lines between specific models, concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied based upon the target having concealment, so your argument that the model "targeting" another model is unaffected is irrelevant--the model being "targeted" must not be affected for your argument to apply. I had to think about how the MAG attacking the non-MAG interaction would work because of the lack of reference for how LoS lines are specifically drawn in actions. But, as LoS lines being drawn are what determine whether concealment applies, and the rule book specifically states models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the trait while drawing LoS, it meant the MAG had to be able to bypass that mechanic, meaning the non-MAG would not gain the benefit of concealment. LoS in this edition is not necessarily reciprocal between models, e.g. Scion of the Void, and without rules dictating directional drawing of LoS, if one model effectively ignores the trait, a model interacting with that model that would cause the trait to apply effectively ignores the trait. I agree with your citation--I am unsure what the second part of that sentence is supposed to mean. "Dense" is a terrain trait that models can be affected by when drawing LoS, but it's not listed. There are also no currently existing models that interact with or are unaffected by dense terrain specifically. There could be a model in the future that ignores dense terrain, but not models, when drawing LoS. If Wyrd, on releasing that model, could amend the rule book to account for this to keep the call out box exhaustive in practice, or it could rely on the call out box's general rule and it would still work. The rule book currently provides an exhaustive list of all the "unaffected by" interactions we currently can have in game. This can change, and the general rule of that call out box remains to answer for those situations. It'd be easier and possibly cost saving to print a shorter section to fit more text on the page or just have fewer rules by only including the specific instances if those are the only and will always ever be the only terrain traits a model can be "unaffected by." Detailed rules discussions will generally need to be long in order to full explain thoughts and provide citations. I think the above quoted posts provide ample reason considering the second thing I bring up most is that what has been said since my post has no rules support, the first being people are making arguments by simply stating I'm wrong because I'm crazy. I think it'd be more crazy to go to a competitive event, play competitively, and when a game winning play opportunity comes up I take it, execute correctly, and then have my win overturned and convert into a loss because a TO disagreed for non-rules reasons in a competitive environment when my opponent complained that's not how the rules were designed. Rules are only as useful as their application to the thing they govern. That goes doubly so for ostensibly competitive events where the explicit goal is to win. That doesn't mean be an ass or cheat. Consistently and correctly applying the rules is sportsmanlike conduct because it is how the game works and leads to clean play.

You could use non melee attack actions to target your own models, and provided they both ignored the underbrush markers' concealing traits, you'd get a straight flip, which could be important for TNs, triggers, etc. It would also be a balance factor since you're creating potentially a double digit number of 50mm areas of the map that are now severe and concealing, which could operate to make the opponent's models hitting themselves incredibly difficult in addition to just moving. E.g. Hayreddin has an attack action that pretty easily just pings a friendly black blood model for 1 on a trigger, but underbrush markers make that incredibly hard without a stone because of the negative twist from concealment. I feel that two weeks isn't necro-posting, but the defending player in @Thimblesage's situation indirectly brings up a good question: if you are unaffected by something, how do you gain a benefit from it that only comes from direct interaction with the thing you're unaffected by? Concealment as a mechanic is defined in reference to the model being targeted by the action. It reads on page 36 of the e-rule book, "[w]hen a model with Concealment is targeted by a non-melee Attack Action, the Action's duel gains a negative twist." The key part of that definition is that the model being targeted has concealment, not the model that is targeting that model. Abundant Growth from Titania's card (she's the first fae that pops up if you search "fae" in the dropbox of files) provides in relevant part, "[t]his model is unaffected by Underbrush Markers." Underbrush Markers are a special marker, and they do not exist and have no effect until created/dropped and given definition. Titania at the least creates a 50mm, Ht 0, concealing, severe Underbrush Marker after deployment--the traits of the Underbrush Marker Titania makes are uniform across all Fae models with the Abundant Growth ability. The term "unaffected" is not specifically defined in the rule book, but there is a call out box on page 37 of the e-rule book providing for at least the situation where a model is unaffected by concealing terrain. I won't quote it as @Thimblesage has already quoted it in his initial post. I'll refer to Underbrush Markers as UMs and models with abundant growth as MAGs because my fingers are tired. The questions to be answered to answer @Thimblesage's question, then are as follows: are MAGs and non-MAGs affected by the concealing trait of UMs? when drawing line of sight to each other? If yes, what effect, if any, does this have in practical model interactions? MAGs, per the quoted ability from Titania and observation all MAGs have the same text for Abundant Growth, are unaffected by UMs. MAGs do not deal with the severe trait and they are unaffected by the concealing trait, as these are the two effects UMs can have on models given the rules of the game. Now that we know that MAGs are unaffected by the concealing trait of UMs, so now we need to determine what application this rule has, because the ability is worded in reference only to the specific model with Abundant Growth, not any other MAGs. Assume Model A and B are MAGs, friendly to each other, and are both positioned outside and not in base to base contact with separate UMs such that all of their LoS lines pass through more than 1" of the UMs in order to see Model C, a model enemy to both Models A and B. Assume Model C is also positioned outside and not in base to base contact a UM such that Models A & B draw all of their sight lines through more than 1" of the UM Model C is positioned in. Assume that Model C has one attack action that has the range to target Models A or B if LoS is established and there are no targeting restrictions preventing Model C from taking that attack action. Assume that Model A has an attack action that can reach Model C with the same assumptions for Model C's qualifying attack action. I will not discuss the severe trait of the UMs further because it's not relevant here, and instead focus on only the concealing trait of the UMs. Per the rule quoted by @solkan, at least Model C has concealment in reference to Models A and B when temporarily discounting Abundant Growth because Models A, B, and C draw all of their sight lines through more than 1" of concealing terrain, so under the rules in the rule book, Model C has concealment in reference to Models A and B. Again temporarily discounting Abundant Growth, Models A & B have concealment with reference to Model C for the same reason. With Abundant Growth, Models A & B are unaffected by the three UMs in the assumed example, so they ignore the concealing trait of the UMs. We know this because MAGs are unaffected by UMs per the Abundant Growth ability and the rules specifically provide that models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS. Therefore, when Model C takes the attack action described above against Models A and/or B, Model C will be proceed to flip the appropriate cards without any negative twist applied from the UMs' concealing trait because the MAGs ignore the concealing trait for drawing LoS and the rules provide that the negative twist is applied when a model with concealment is targeted by an attack action. Models A and B cannot both be unaffected by the UMs and still gain the benefit of concealment from the UMs. It actually goes against the explicit wording of Abundant Growth (because the UMs are affecting Models A and B by providing concealment), is a self-contradicting application of an ability, and it doesn't work with the rule book's explicit rules that reference concealment's negative twist applying based on the target model having concealment. Now, if Model A wants to target Model C with the attack action referenced above, it continues to ignore the UMs because it is a MAG as assumed. The example plays out the same way, then, with Model A ignoring the concealing trait while drawing sight lines, so Model C does not gain concealment because of Model A's Abundant Growth. I believe the defending player in @Thimblesage's original post is incorrect as that player's argument is posed here, but that player brings up a good point that MAGs cannot be unaffected by something and still gain a direct benefit from the thing they are unaffected by--gaining a benefit that you can only get by virtue of interaction with the thing is being affected by the same thing the MAGs are unaffected by.

@Myyrä I appreciate your candor in the conversation. I only ask for additional constructive criticism, such as basic instructions on how to format posts instead of effectively "figure it out." I'm following the rules forum guidelines and going beyond them by posting my thoughts preemptively and in detail instead of just asking "why and where's the rules reference?" to each question to put all of the thinking and research on people answering the questions. I could have run the thread like that and more or less achieved the same thing, and it would require significantly less effort while still complying with the rules. But, I am trying to actually get an answer because the issue has affected a game I played, which is why I posted question 2, and question 1 seems an obvious question to ask as GG 0 is the currently available competitive rule set document. It's also an interesting set of questions because I think the answer to one provides a great deal of rules infrastructure for the other. As you and at least another person have pointed out, Wyrd looks at the rules forum to see how they can change, improve, etc. the rules to better players' gaming experience. I think this conversation and how it is turning out can be informative on that issue. Also, in my prior post I referenced that a word was higher than an SAT level word, not considering that it is mostly a USA reference and that the person I was responding to is more likely in Finland. I'd like to see your examples of where I'm using words incorrectly and I can further explain, hopefully in shorter writing, what I intended to say in those posts. My SAT reference was that the word you used in that context is a higher level word for someone to know in the English language, likely in other languages as well when translated. Again, I don't think having rules open is a bad thing. We're talking about detailed readings of rules text, so having the exact text for reference is probably a requirement to understanding what anyone is saying. Grounding our thoughts in examples also helps write posts and give something solid to work with the prevent us going into arcane philosophy as the forum rules require, so I think reading the cards and rules other people reference is a better method than not doing so. Each example someone has given as a counter example for this thread has required I read the model's card and re-read a rules section before responding. I also have to do the same in order to provide examples that I think are as on point as possible. I originally was going to use Pandora's Misery ability instead of Accelerate Time, but the example didn't seem as on point because there is a rule specifically for Auras that might take the conversation in a different direction; rather than do that, I chose a model with a pulse action because the pulse rules seem to rely on the simultaneous effects section to resolve. I couldn't have responded to the example with the Alp the way I did (pointing out that it may not work, which Adran acknowledged and is going to double check) without referring to a model's card that had prior to that point never been brought up. It doesn't take a lot of text to provide an example, and I could just write, "Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action shows I'm right," but then we'd have multiple short posts on what I meant by that, whether it's wrong or right, etc. That wastes time and energy to check, and considering the posters here are more or less posting once a day, it seems more practical to further the conversation along when the thought comes to mind instead of revisiting it to "get back" the context each time. Again, apologies if walls of text are appearing--I'm trying to work on it by writing shorter posts, but I want to be complete in my posts so that when you consider my thoughts, you have more context to evaluate and bring up arguments/examples. Again, Adran referred to his critical example in a body of evidence via the Alps example in essentially a one liner. I pointed out after reading the card and re-reading the rule book on when actions resolve that the interaction may not resolve the way he posted, to which he is know double checking and will explain how it works or provide another similar example. If you don't want to respond because my posts are long, then I apologize for how I post and thank you for your time and input so far.

I don't know how viable it is in competitive play, but you could also try the following: (1) Hire Molly as a 2nd master to mitigate hand disadvantage. Essentially run a forgotten crew out of Kirai between Molly, Archie, and 1-2 crooligans. They score your VP on possibly the strategy and most of your schemes. Kirai summons effectively hardy chaffe to go in at the start of each turn to fight to buy them time to do so. You lose Lethe's Caress, but I think if you're playing at higher levels it tends to proc less often so it shouldn't be a major loss. (2) Hire Archie with 1-2 crooligans. Same idea for fewer stones but less utility. I know super friends lists aren't super popular, but I think Kirai is one of the few masters who can do it because she summons and those summons can be fairly hardy compared to other summoner's summons. She seems able to run with few in keyword options too, leaving a number of flex stones.

As far as Kirai specifically I don't know I can offer much advice on that end as I don't play Kirai myself. I have a general idea of the models available to her though, and I play Youko myself, so I'll offer more general thoughts. I'd recommend running slightly more mobile crews and going for higher activation counts. Youko's in keyword options are fairly slow in that there aren't many movement tricks in keyword; there's basically Lure on the models, requiring multiple activations to accomplish positioning to give you time to react, or she's using trained ninja on minions to give them from the shadows, typically to give Lure greater efficiency. Youko will typically want to hire more elite than swarm, and while you may give her some initial pass tokens, at the end of the day getting more activations with action(s) than getting passes scores VP. It also spreads her more thinly--you'll typically face Youko and her escort of 1-2 beaters, maybe a supporting geisha, and then the other 1-3 models are running schemes. Kill the scheme runners and she has to re-purpose one of her beaters, none of which are quick outside of Bill conditionally gaining Fast. She'll have trouble keeping up with you if you can be mobile. Stealth on Chiyo and models with trained ninja can be an issue, but your scheme runner hunters should be able to catch up fairly easily and take them out. While you've asked specifically for Kirai, you may find hiring Seamus useful as teleporting into Chiyo's face and blasting him is usually effective--if you go Seamus as the leader then you could potentially get a second shot on the gun in the same or the next activation as well. Youko's in keyword scheme runner options are also pretty terrible, so your scheme runners themselves could contest them, though I would not necessarily recommend it as her scheme runners tend to be more on the beater side than the runner side (e.g. crit strike trigger on bunraku). Also, Youko herself is squishy if you have built in positives. Her only guaranteed printed defensive ability is serene countenance, and she can conditionally mitigate the first flip you make. If you get adversary on her, she has no guaranteed defense. Focus is also a decent general alternative. Her in keyword options are also fairly squishy for the most part other than occasional armor, one of the relatively easy abilities to bypass. Going on the squishy part--if you can focus out the beater Youko is sending with Bill, you'll probably get a lot of mileage. Bill is more of a back up beater because his defensive ability is armor +1 and his conditional heal on you revealing your schemes. Youko should be sending him in as a back up beater to a model like Hinamatsu--if you focus out the main beater Bill spends his actions saving the main fighter by repositioning/healing. If Bill is running schemes or hunting scheme runners, Youko's frontline should be softer for not having him and/or there are fewer models in the crew because Youko has a 9 SS henchmen running schemes. Virtually every in keyword model also wants to be in your junk, so make use of auras, pulses, etc. that punish being close, like Jakuuna's hazardous aura. Onslaught is very painful on Hinamatsu in hazardous terrain because it effectively bypasses armor. Serene Countenance is also possibly a problem because in keyword options can only spend one pass token at a time meaning they only get to a straight flip provided they don't have focus or another source of positive flips. How much mileage are you getting from vengeance against Youko? Youko herself is rarely going to care about causing damage, but her in keyword options are all almost beaters, and pings for 1 effectively bypass armor, so again Jakuuna or even an onryo taking 1 damage from a min hit from HInamatsu pings back equally or comparably against an armor +2 model. Even if it's Bill, he's taking half the damage he deals at Vengeance +1 against an incorporeal model. I would avoid revealing schemes too early against Youko if discards are your issue--change your activation order first and see the mileage you get. Against a Youko led crew you're playing a 5 card hand vs. 6, and if you reveal too early you're effectively enabling her to maintain the 1-3 card advantage in card flips vs. actual discards; both drain your hand, but making her take actions presents a cost to her IMO--she's also going to make you discard anyway when she targets her patsy models to activate her own draw engine. Also, nothing sucks worse than Youko having initiative every turn starting turn 3 because she's generating 9+ pass tokens a turn and you can never take Bill down because he's healing 3 on turns 2 and 3. Youko doesn't have much healing to warrant anti-healing tech, but Bill heals up to 6 over two turns if you reveal schemes sequentially. If you're going to reveal, reveal both your schemes on the same turn if possible when Bill has 3 damage or less so you don't give him maximum output. I don't know if you feel you can, but try to run models with terrifying--many of Youko's in keyword options are average Wp, so terrifying tests are a real drain on Youko's hand unless she's using her pass tokens to help succeed those duels, likely costing her 2 pass tokens per attack action to get one positive flip to the actual attack duel. The only in keyword ruthless option is Bill, but that can be negated with The Grave Spirit's Touch. It may be worth putting that on a minion or two to basically put up chaffe while possibly getting you free focus from the pulse--Youko pretty much hires all living models with the exception of Hinamatsu/bunraku, and most of the versatile options she'll want are living as well, so it should have ample opportunity to help you. Maybe even put it on a non-minion just for anti-ruthless, but I don't know how well that works for Kirai. I'm sure you've thought of this, but I probably wouldn't run a summoner against Youko if I knew Youko was coming, because of the hand drain mechanics Youko has. Also because Charm Warders can execute summons regardless of damage dealt on their melee attacks, which combined with positive flips from pass tokens and +2 from Chi, can doom your summons' with relatively poor defensive stats. I don't think Kirai is auto-lose, but I think there are some major disadvantages going in because of how her summoning interacts with Youko's in keyword options and how they want to play. I think going with a hit and run type crew would be more effective, like Seamus, or a crew that can tactically play around with hand disadvantage, like Molly. If you're set on playing Kirai though, I hope the above can help.

Could you provide instructions then on how to do the cut and paste on the e-rule book? When I do it, these are my results for the first section of the "simultaneous effects" section: "Occasionallyaneffectwillgeneratemultipleeffectsthatoccuratthesametime§IfthishappenstheyareresolvedinthefollowingorderÄ" I'm not familiar with cutting and pasting from the e-rule book, so each time I've quoted the rules it's by typing out the section. If you could give me a step by step method for an easier way, I'd be happy to do it that way. Also, while you see it as a negative effect, I think it should be encouraged to have the rule book open while reading what people say, because we're talking about multiple pages worth of references and nuanced textual interpretation. It's a leisure game, so we're all doing this in our personal time, barring you're part of Wyrd, but that doesn't mean we should discuss rules without the rules in front of us. I definitely don't think anything I've referenced in the rule book is "obscure." Including pages without content, the e-rule book is 54 pages, so not particularly long as a text in general. It has some lay out and organization issues, but considering it's written in plain English with elements of programmer/defined gaming terminology, that's expected. Also I'm unsure how I'm reading it "creatively." I literally quoted the section and used an ellipses because again, I have to type out in full the quotes I want to use with my limited quoting capabilities. I then explained how I read it. I'd like to know more why you say that. I do find it funny though you reference me using "big" words, as though that should detract from the argument; I use these words because they're what come to mind and seem fitting given context, not because I like using big words--if I could I'd only write four letter words because it'd save me a lot of time and energy here and for daily life, but I can't get by like that T___T. Earlier you used the word "tautology," essentially a slightly higher than SAT level word. I accepted your statement because I know it to be true and you're right, no further justification was needed to show that particular statement was true. I later used a tautological statement, and it was argued my usage of such is a false dilemma argument. Regarding step 2, the way I read your post and @Adran's post was that the opening sentence and step 1 texts were ambiguous because of step 2's sentence. If I misinterpreted, I apologize and would like to see why you say it's ambiguous. At least to myself, the text seems to be all encompassing because of the general language, which makes sense for future proofing and as a method of writing that section. I did make the comment that not verbatim repeating step 1's text for step 2 in the context of the non-active player was likely the result of something other than a motivation to further define step 1. However, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, and I did explain why I think it provides some context in that section's interpretation. Also I think you have to have timing resolution for any two or more effects that share the same resolution window. If you don't, rules questions without solid answers are an inevitable result, never mind the choke on future possible models. I could not quickly think of an example that fit into the fairly subtle divide you and @Adran were pointing out, i.e. "[t]his can mean that the model has unresolved effects affecting it or it is generating unresolved effects. It seems like you read it as model generating the effects, but I actually believe it refers to effects affecting the model, because step 2 says (quoted section)." Both of you read that section in the sense that the rule only applies to simultaneous effects affecting the model that is activated instead of resolving it as the active vs. non-active player choosing which effects to resolve first. I could not then, and right now cannot either, so apologies, think of a currently existing on point example where this distinction currently comes into play. Both of you, based on the Misaki example, are saying it applies to the Misaki example, but I think applying it in that way effectively renders step 2 for the non-active player's choice meaningless. The way you resolve the Misaki example, provided @Myyrä is reading it the exact same way as @Adran, which I am assuming you are, so apologies if I am incorrect in that, the active player actually effectively makes the non-active player's choice for them in deciding which simultaneous effect the resolve as opposed to,"the active player resolved his/her unbury first, the non-active player then resolves his/her unbury, but because you cannot unbury, the effect fails." I'll put up an example I think that may be informative. I think it's a relatively easy ruling, but if anyone would like to say I'm wrong, please explain why with rules citations so we can continue the discussion. Nothing Beast uses is action Accelerate Time and succeeds the simple duel to generate the pulse (see the model's card). Assume at least two enemy models are affected by the pulse. Which player determines the order in which the models take the simple duel? With how I read the rules, I would answer the Nothing Beast because the active player is resolve an effect of his/her model (see simultaneous effects section, cited in earlier post). To quickly change the example, if the Nothing Beast was obeyed by a model enemy to it into using Accelerate Time, then the player that controlled the model that took the Obey action would do so (see simultaneous rules section again). Under @Myyrä and @Adrans' reading of the rules, though, regardless of which player caused the Nothing Beast to take the Accelerate Time action, the owner of the affected models would determine the order. I don't think that's how the interaction resolves because in the first iteration it renders step 1 inapplicable despite the active player being the player that generated the simultaneous effects with his/her own model. This seems more to break the game by rendering that step only applicable when such effects affect friendly models. If this was the intended resolution, the inclusion of the word "friendly" would resolve this particular discussion, but it isn't, so it is logical this step applies to friendly and enemy models. There is additionally the parenthetical at the end of step 1 providing support for this conclusion saying the active player resolves all of his/her effects before moving to the non-active player even if those effects affect models controlled by the non-active player. As a question to @Myyrä and @Adran, what do you guys think of Malifaux having an open resolution window, similar to Magic's "stack," vs. having a one check resolution where an effect generally cannot apply contingent upon another effect going off in the same timing window, e.g. Rotten Belle's melee attack vs. Gwyneth Maddox's Luck Thief? I don't want to get into it if you guys believe the rules follow a one check resolution effect, but if you look at it from an open resolution window, I think getting into that may be informative as well. I would use this as a second example, but it may not be relevant if we all agree it's the latter and not the former.

It's inclusive of both. I think you are discounting the sentences in step 1 providing, "Then, that player chooses another of their models with unresolved effects and resolves those effects the same way...(even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player)." Page 34 of e-rule book. Those two sentences together I don't think could be taken together without being inclusive of models generating unresolved effects (explicitly included in step 1, to which step 2 is a subsequent duplication from a different perspective,) Additionally the first sentence of that section unequivocally encompasses "effects that generate multiple effects that occur at the same time." There is no qualification that the effect must affect a model versus an effect that does/does not affect a model. Step 2 as you quote is in line with step 1 but does not repeat all the text and shortens to effects affecting their models. There is a logical disconnect in saying step 2 actually further defines step 1 and the opening sentences of the section--a shorter section of text is reading as changing multiple sections despite essentially just saying the non-active player then resolves their effects. Not as a stab at Wyrd, but it's a bit of lazy writing to avoid writing extra text and/or a combination of thinking that people will understand this section is to apply to any effects generated simultaneously to each other., seeing as though otherwise simultaneous effects that do not directly affect models belonging to the model(s) also in the same active vs. non-active player would be excluded and thus have no answer to timing priority for resolution, e.g. if there were multiple effects on models at start of activation a pulse was generated but no targets were factually in range at the time of activation, there would be no provision in the rules for which ones resolve first, important even if none of the pulses actually hit any other model since these types of abilities tend to be mandatory resolution. @Adran I think step 1's first sentence does factor source of effect because it specifically says, "The Active player...chooses one of their models with one or more unresolved effects..." Misaki's model has an unresolved unbury at the start of her activation. The unbury is the death marshal's unresolved effect. I think everyone accepts these two immediately preceding statements as true, because otherwise Planted Roots would never stop the unbury. I think it means Misaki's ability must resolve first because it's Misaki's unresolved effect vs. the death marshal's unresolved effect. I also agree these rules questions let Wyrd know of possible rules issues. I was asking if there was a more direct and final resolution via direct contact with Wyrd, similar to other games. If they do it, great. If they don't, it's how Wyrd runs the game and we'll have to see where reasoning takes the discussion.

With regards to catalyst and poison, you are correct the reference only refers to actions, so expunge (or the new name of it if it was changed) would be the example as opposed to catalyst. What did I get wrong on the Misaki example? Per the detailed timing diagram on page 35 of the e-rule book, start of activation effects occur in step C of the activation phase. Per page 34 of the e-rule book, the active player resolves his/her effects first provided there are multiple start of activation effects, i.e. simultaneous effects--the active player is defined on page 10 of the e-rule book as the owner of the model that is currently activated and taking/resolving actions. the portion I've discussed is that when Misaki starts her activation, if she is buried, she unburies to her own effect rather than resolving the unbury effect of the death marshal. Is that incorrect? Also source does matter because that's how you know which one resolves first--the unbury effect from Misaki's card being the source of that effect is the reason it resolves before the death marshal's unbury effect, unless I have read the rules wrong on that. @Maniacal_cackle I had a longer post written but unfortunately editor decided to delete my draft and revert to an older one when I went to check a reference in this thread. Essentially though, yes, Malifaux can at times be ambiguous and sometimes the only way to know for sure what's going on is to e-mail the head TO of an event and ask so you can make a more informed decision about the event--I never got a good answer to a question regarding M2E Sybelle other than "this was how it was played in the beta," but I played the interaction the way everyone said it was played because otherwise it'd be a massive "gotcha" and possible negative play experience. Same thing with playing M2E Kirai or Hamelin--you can play it and win, but you'll find yourself hard pressed to find games outside of tournaments fairly quickly unless everyone else you play is doing the same kind of thing; different strokes for different folks. That doesn't change though that pursuing rules discussions to their logical conclusion is ultimately better for the game, not just for stability of the game but also to bring up areas that could use touch up, be it through clarification such as an FAQ, or through power errata like the change to Kirai in M2E. I haven't found too many instances of random ambiguity in M3E that I couldn't resolve by reading over relevant/pointed out rules sections a few times. I thought rotten belles vs. gwyneth maddox was an infinitely recurring cycle, but re-reading the simultaneous effects section a couple times and finding there's no "stack" like in Magic via the detailed timing page resolved that question pretty easily. If anyone can point me to an easier way to get an authoritative answer, e.g. a way to contact Wyrd that gets an actual response and doesn't send an e-mail/message to the void, I'm all ears.

@Adran I think something you have tried to avoid is making super long posts like I've been doing. It makes responding to what you say incredibly easy to read, but I think for clarity's sake you may need to post a little more in your explanations. Please see below for examples of why I say this. Not a point of contention because I think you've provided reasoning each time and citations to examples/rules, but it may help further the conversation possibly more at each step if you post a little more explanation. If it is a false premise and effects do not retain core information from the initial effect, what, if any, information, is retained, to what extent, and how do we know that? I would like to ask you what part(s) are false and what is the statement that exists in its place? If nothing, please explain why Evasive would stop the damage from Accelerate Time, provided the model with Evasive fails the Wp duel caused by the pulse? I will address your examples below. I'm not very familiar with the forum tools so I don't know how to section off the quotes--I tried quoting a special section and my draft post just blew up on me, so forgive the basic copy-pasting. 1."Bring it Target moves its Mv +2" toward this model. Then, the target must take a Action that cannot declare Triggers targeting this model, if able. Any damage flips from the generated Action suffer a -. (ironsides) The Target controls the attack action. even though the effect that caused the action was an enemy effect, the attack action would be a friendly effect." I'm not disagreeing your example works as you describe it. I also do not disagree that the target, provided it's an enemy, would control the action. That is the default state based on how the rules are written, which is why changes to that are explicitly written on a number of actions such as Obey or At Gunpoint, which change the default state by letting the model taking the action that generated the action to control the subsequent action. The action you've cited further changes the default accuracy modifier by adding a negative twist. I do not see how it supports your position however regarding changing the nature, retention of information, etc. about which model did what and what model controlled what. The model with Bring it controls and takes the initial action, targeting (based on your example) an enemy model. This tells us the action is friendly to the model with Bring It and enemy to the model being targeted. In effecting the effect of the action, the target moves, which is a friendly move effect affecting an enemy model per the prior statement, and the enemy model (the target) is being moved by an enemy move effect. The target model then takes a melee action as dictated by the model enemy to it, which cannot declare triggers (per explicit change to rules by the card), and provided that melee action succeeds, applies an additional negative twist (per the explicit change to rules by the card). 2. "Made to Kill Once per Activation. After this model is placed, it may take a Action after resolving the current Action. (Alp) This is probably the critical example. If an Alp is unburied from a death marshals coffin, who would control the attack. I don't think you would find anyone that would expect it to be the death marshal. " I have quick question regarding this because you aren't specifying how the Alp unburies--the Alp is in the unique position of being a model that can unbury to a separate friendly effect once buried, assuming certain conditions are met, though I'll address both cases on the point you're making with the example. Provided a Death marshal successfully buries the Alp, the action resolves once the Alp is buried, provided it failed the Wp test. Per the Death Marshal's pine box ability, the model would unbury on its activation provided it passes the Wp simple duel. My question is whether the Alp can take the melee action assuming it unburies per the text of the Death Marshal card (as opposed to the Waking Dreams upgrade) because the requirements per Made to Kill specify after resolving the current action? There is no current action being resolved at the time of the unbury, i.e. the place effect, so Made to Kill's second requirement for the melee action is not met. Assuming you resolve the question as the Alp can take the melee attack, I will have to assume, based on my understanding, the reasoning is that the game either (1) considers the pine box action not resolved until the model buried by it is unburied, or (2) the game kept track of the information of the pine box action's resolution for purposes of made to kill and then once the was placed, fulfilling the first and last outstanding requirement, it was allowed to resolve. Regardless of whether you choose (1) or (2), I think you have to reason that the game kept track of information about the pine box action in order to make your example work. At the very least the game had to keep track of the pine box action for purposes of determining whether there was an "at the start of activation" effect when the Alp next activates (we are assuming it does activate after), because regardless of whether you call it a lasting effect or something else, the game retains that core information about the action. On the assumption you resolve the question as the Alp gets to take the melee action, the Alp controls it, because the rules provide that when models take actions their controller, by default the owner of the crew hiring/summoning the model, per page 26 of the e-rule book. I actually am unsure if the Alp gets to make the attack because I'm unsure of the reasoning that Made to Kill can proc after unburying to the simple duel at the start of its activation--there's no action being resolved at the time of the place, and duels in and of themselves are not actions as defined in the rule book on page 4 of the e-rule book or the page it references for general actions. Regarding your link to the Waldo's Weekly, it describes the safety latch measure in the rule book using the verbatim language we've been discussing. Ironically I think the Colette example and the way the post is written supports that the rules change what happens as opposed to replacing the effect because Colette's unbury mechanic does not provide for a way for her to unbury if the ability's requirements are not met at that time. That post, which is publicly available information, pretty clearly shows the poster was thinking of that rule in the context of saving models from being perma-buried by way of not having a physical place to re-enter the board on. I do not think the poster was thinking this was there to guard against strategic play to attempt to perma-bury, again especially since Killjoy was explicitly designed to perma-bury himself--an advantage at times vs. others. @Ogid, I'll go premise by premise instead of quoting because again, I'm terrible with the forum formatting. Premise 1. Page 25 of the e-rule book specifies models killed by conditions such as Poison are not killed by a particular model for purposes of kill credit. Page 29 of the e-rule book tells us that models killed by their condition as a result of a model's action/ability are considered killed by the model generating the action/ability, regardless of the fact it references the condition. Because both the model's action/ability require the killed model to suffer X damage due to the condition, the effect that kills the model, page 25 results in no credit, but page 29 says there is credit as the more specialized rule. This is why catalyst works to give McMourning kills vs. Jakuuna's hazardous aura not giving her credit for killing models by way of the aura. Premise 2. I'm unsure of the point your making. Tautologies are necessarily true statements. If you would like to contest that proposition, I don't have much to say. With regards to your point that tracing can be applied in X situation but not in Y situation, please cite rules support for that because you're making a statement on how the rules work without a citation; this is additionally needed because you're saying that there are situations in which the game acts differently compared to others, which players would need information to know when such behavior changes. I've cited the rules for why I think tracing exists and explained why as a matter of logic if there is tracing, then it must be applied consistently in order to maintain game stability. Premise 3. See points on premises 1 and 2. That you label someone's thoughts fantasy despite providing rules citations, examples, answering counter-examples, etc. leads me to believe you may be bringing emotion into the analysis. If my thoughts are bringing out such, I apologize. It's why I've prefaced multiple times I don't mean to be abrasive in my posts because rules discussions, as I see them anyway, are supposed to bring out the "correct' ruling, not achieve a particular result. GG provides by default that if a particular result is desired in a ruling, the TO may make such ruling and there's no ifs ands or buts, no matter the validity or soundness of the counter argument--it can even go against the rules and GG provides the ruling stands. I do wish it was a more common practice to be able to e-mail Wyrd for rules questions--if there is such a thing please let me know and I'll just get the answer straight from them each time I have a question rather than go through this process. Premise 4-7. We agree. Conclusion. Your Misaki example was addressed as an order of operations question because I thought it was attempting to say that the safety latch could not apply for some reason or Misaki's unbury effect was ultimately an enemy one. I didn't see how it was on point and addressed it generally because I did not want to necessarily put words in your mouth, but I'll go over why I don't think your example applies. Misaki's front of card ability provides an unbury effect. It is necessarily friendly to her because it's printed on her model's card, and her model is friendly to herself as part of the crew she was hired in. This means when the ability goes off, it is a friendly effect. Provided a death marshal buries Misaki, the bury effect is an enemy effect. When Misaki activates, order of operations require that the unbury effect of Misaki's model goes off first. MIsaki's unbury effect is a friendly effect. If her effect fails at the time of the unbury by its text, the rule book applies the safety latch text that provides Misaki's owner, also the controller of the original unbury effect, places Misaki in Misaki's original deployment zone. The example does not care about tracing. If you wanted to discuss how tracing is used, Misaki would have to remove the unbury effect on her card, or some other model would have to do so. At that point, the game would trace the unbury effect as an enemy one because an effect is affecting Misaki, and there may be possible interaction with such status, e.g. Gravity Well (which I don't believe exists in Guild but I don't know off hand). But, because Misaki has that unbury effect and it must resolve first, she resolves a friendly unbury effect, which is important for the same sort of model interaction. Again, if you have a contested issue to bring up, I have no problem discussing it. If you feel I'm fantasizing about how the rules work, then I apologize for the presentation and ask you either refer me to the rules for why I'm wrong or some other authoritative source on the issue so I can become informed. If there's a better way to find such information and/or rulings, e.g. e-mailing Wyrd, let me know because I'd love to do that instead of essentially being called a hack. You essentially disagree tracing is a concept in the game. I'll ask again because I don't believe you did when I originally asked: how would you rule on whether Willie, a model with Evasive, interacts with Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action? Would Willie take the damage from the action provided he failed the Wp duel?

I can't speak as to designer commentary--I don't know about it. I do agree an instance of one of these phrases would probably make it more clear--hard to say if it'd be absolutely but probably clear enough there'd be little question of the answer. I'd rather pay +$5 for a a rule book that was more clear than save the $5 and have head scratching situations fairly commonly; the quality of life difference isn't worth it if I can help it. Funnily the rules section for burying does use the word "instead," but in a spot that I read as referring to the player controlling the place because the instead modifies that the controller of the place is the owner of the model instead of the controller of the enemy effect. This moves into Adran's points regarding how I apply tracking--I also want to take a moment, @Adran, to thank you for going into depth on an analysis. I think your tracking for question 1 is both what is intended and what is worded, though you refer to the concept as the chain as opposed to tracking. Both terms are somewhat nebulous because they're essentially pronouns for a concept that is definitely used but not explicitly labeled as far as I can tell in the authoritative documents. I do want to ask for more clarification on your thoughts for how I read the rules incorrectly for premise 6. Referring to premise 6, it was based on a prior rules thread or FAQ/Errata entry (I can't remember at the moment) that when abilities/actions conflict, the more specific one controls, and at the same level of specification, the restrictive one controls. That's why the effects of abilities like Gravity Well operate to stop qualifying enemy placement effects because they're at the same level of specification but are restrictive compared to the enemy placement effect which is permissive (in that it's attempting to change the game state subject to rule book limitations barring an interaction with Gravity Well). Why do you say that reading that section of the rules regarding unburying being controlled by the owner of the model is no longer an enemy unbury effect? I maintain this is at least one of the crux issues (the other being whether the game tracks, based on prior discussions) because the game uses a permissive rule set, by which I mean you cannot take actions barring something explicitly allows you to do so. The game also tracks--we both agree on this @Adran--for a variety of purposes. The game thus tracks that the initial unbury effect is an enemy unbury effect. For this, we assume the initial unbury fails, which brings the rule book text related to the owner placing the model in the deployment zone into play. By the time you start reading and applying that sentence, nothing in the rule book or other authoritative source has changed whether the enemy unbury effect is now a rule book effect by explicit text. The main takeaway from the above paragraph is I don't know where you find the authority in the rules to conclude your reading is the legitimate reading and that how I'm reading it is a misreading. I think your example with vengeance and bullet proof is another example illustrating how models/rules will change the defining characteristic of an interaction for clarity of models' interactions. I'm not good with inserting the icons, so the gun icon is labelled "projectile attack," the claw symbol is labelled "melee attack," and damage without either indicator has no label. Vengeance +1 reads: "After resolving an Action that targeted and damages this model, the Attacking model suffers +1 damage." I can't find an example of Vengeance +2 or more, but I think having Vengeance +1 only is fine even without the comparison. Vengeance actually is the source of the damage on the model that attacked it--normally the attacking model does not suffer damage for landing or missing attacks on a model, as the rules don't provide for it. Vengeance as an ability changes that and says you suffer +X damage, where X is the +X on the ability number (this is where having Vengeance +2 would be nice for confirmation, but based on how +X conditions work, this seems to be the format for this and similar abilities) and that damage has no label characteristic (as a projectile or melee). Bullet proof provides damage reduction against projectile type attacks only, and thus Vengeance bypasses it. Through the inclusion/exclusion of text/symbols, the models in that interaction define not only source (the vengeance damage from the attacked model) but also applicable/inapplicable damage (bullet proof not applying). The game tracks that the attack action was a projectile attack and that vengeance is a separate source of damage, otherwise there would be a possible argument that bulletproof worked the way you described. I will preemptively answer the concern that this is possibly an arbitrary differentiation of tracking. I do not think so because in the bad juju example, the rule book does not allow you to unbury by default at all. Only models can unbury. That means the game tracks that initially until something changes that nature. The rule book uses the word instead as read in plain English that the owner instead of the controller of the unbury effect then controls the place in the specified area, i.e. the deployment zone. I imagine that decision was based on the idea the opposing player's decision would be relatively automatic--far back as possible to maximize required time/actions to return to game relevancy--whereas the owner of the model would have possibly real decision making in placing the model in various possible locations for tactical advantage or alternative plays, which the opposing player then has to interact with; one decision results in effectively killing the model possibly or irrelevancy for 20%+ of the game, the other in interactive play. The rules though do not inform on why the decision was made, just that the owner instead of the controller of the unbury effect places the model. I am not particularly familiar with Kaeris, so I might be reading how her action works incorrectly, but I do not believe that sequence of events you described would occur because Demise specifies a source of damage, namely itself. To count for purposes of Conflagaration would be to say the damage is cumulatively collecting traits, which goes against how you seem to answer whether you could take a melee action generated by a charge that was generated by a trigger; I use this example because I think referring to how you answered question 1 would still conclude yes regardless of whether you cumulatively collect traits or not. I think the conclusion that the existence of text in the rule book means it replaces model text is not correct because models override the rules by default. Viktoria Chambers for example overrides the rule book for giving credit on kills, which may be relevant for scoring purposes and is always relevant for her own healing ability. The rule book in fact goes against what that model does, but models override rules. Any effect the rules have upon that would be a modification so long as they did not conflict. If the rules were to replace the effect for some reason (e.g. a strategy/scheme that scored off the master getting a kill), it would have to explicitly state so and designate it as either a modification or replacement; we see this primarily as modification or nullification (model still gets credit for kill, but you just don't get to score off it). E.g. Vendetta, where the selected Viktoria Chambers is given a "free" attack by the other Viktoria Chambers, you can't score the reveal VP because it was not during the chosen Viktoria Chambers' activation; the scheme does not override what the model says (because it can't) but instead modifies scoring so that the scheme cannot score by using that "free" attack (because it's not during the chosen Viktoria Chambers' activation). This was an example on hand because I figured a killy scheme would be easier to discuss, but on trying to think of a better example I came up short on time and there are only three schemes that want you to actually kill a model, two of which do not care who killed the model in a way you can achieve now that would really bring it into question. My other example I thought of using was Zoraida obeying Mad Dog Brackett into shooting the Take Prisoner target for Zoraida, but that seemed to be inviting a somewhat unrelated rulings question; I think it's a more clear example, provided you rule Mad Dog Brackett was the model that killed the Take Prisoner target, but didn't want to invite possible tit for tat on that specific example. @Adran If you can provide a more clear example of how the way I read tracking would result in an obviously wrong conclusion, I would love to read it. I think your vengeance example actually highlights a nuance of how the way I read tracking works because it shows a difference in modification vs. a new source. To complete the trifecta with an example of replacement, there is at least one ability that I can't name off hand (I think it's called "take the hit," and you can find the ability on the Ten Thunder's upgrade that lets a model with the upgrade become the target of an action that targeted another friendly model within a 2" aura) that replaces the target originally chosen by the action--Model A chose to attack Model B, and Model C, which is friendly to Model B, replaces Model B in the interaction for purposes of defending Model's attack, ignoring restrictions Model A would normally face in doing so. Also @Ogid, I have cited the rules. I cited the rules on page one and I've been citing to the same bury section people have referred to multiple times in this thread. As for some of the examples, e.g. poison, I've cited to the pages where I found the relevant text, e.g. where it says that dying via poison does not give credit to a model but if a model causes another model to die due to poison condition, e.g. Catalyst, it is counted as obtaining the kill. I don't think I've been just saying the rule book says X without citing a reference or supporting is as what I see as a logical inference. If you believe that to be the case, please refer me to a rules reference I have not at one point cited and I will get the citation. If it is a logical inference, I will show where I explained how I got there. I'm not creating a logical fallacy by stating a tautology--tautologies by definition cannot create false dilemmas. I stated it that way instead of the longer, qualified sentence of "the game either has tracking as an element within the game to maintain consistency of models interactions or it does not track as an inherent element of the game, leaving any such instances where it is needed to models specifically, which is not inherent to the game itself but self-contained references on models' cards." Just as @Myyrä used the same phrasing for whether unburying is a movement effect or it isn't, the statement is necessarily true--I just chose to mirror his phrasing because it saves me time and effort in typing. Your third option fits within the tautology provided there is rules support for it. Leading into your thoughts that questions must provide rules references and that the same will be explicit, not hinted at--I don't think I've avoided or tried to circumvent it. I have cited the rules that I refer to, explained what I think are logical inferences from those rules and/or grounded them in how people have ruled current edition examples with how rulings were conducted in second edition. I am not trying to avoid supporting my position, rather asking that if you reject my answer to question 2, because so far pretty much everyone agrees question 1 is Zoraida takes the damage, please explain with rule references why you see my interpretation, conclusions, etc. are incorrect based upon them. I've explained a few times that there is a jump in logic I don't see in how people seem to read the rule book section on unburying replaces the enemy-sourced unbury effect, and to that I am essentially receiving a "that's the way you read it" with no rules references for why. I asked for counter-examples, to which most responses were "to conclude your way would be absurd" despite there being an existing example of how you could achieve it now anyway. Adran has been so far one of the only people to provide a counter example other than yourself, him with Vengeance and Bullet Proof and yourself with Misaki--I've addressed how I see the first resolving the way people see it now with detailed explanation for how my logic reaches that result without any logical stretching, and for your own example that I think it's off point because it's more of an order of operations question that, provided Misaki had Planted Roots/Laugh Off/etc., it wouldn't be relevant because her friendly unbury effect would have to resolve first. I've followed the rules forum requirements, and am simply asking that if someone is trying to help resolve the discussion with an answer, that in their explanation they use the same authoritative sources available to everyone so that I can inform myself, and possibly other players inform themselves, of how we get there and why the method is the way it is. For your citation to the shockwave rules, I don't think what you're referring to is on the same point that I'm referring to. That being said, I agree the ruling would be Evasive stops damage from a shockwave action that causes a simple duel that could result in damage--I think tracking is how we get there and I don't see how we disagree on the method. Reckoning does care because as it's written you cannot kill your own models to score it. I didn't make it clear that the strategy example doesn't care who killed the model and only references that the enemy crew counts its value towards possibly scoring the strategy, so it was my mistake for being lazy in typing. It doesn't care about who killed the model--if you kill your own entire crew, your opponent can potentially score the full 4 VP for the strategy--but the game tracks that enemy models were killed. Take Prisoner actually cares which reference is in place for the model that actually kills the target. I was just lazy in how I typed it because the reckoning text is very short. Your second example of a false dilemma, which is inherently based on my point about the game tracking or not tracking, is also not actually a false dilemma in that if you track, the infrastructure of the rules as I've read them, which in that specific point I don't believe you were directly contesting, would necessarily result in your concluding the way I said I believed you had to. The opposing view I said would have to conclude otherwise as an inference because (1) why would you take that position if not to avoid the result; and (2) if you only look one step backwards by default, then that becomes the logical conclusion based upon that methodology. You can perma-bury KIlljoy on turn 1 provided you killed the 1-2 bearers of the upgrade and then "randomly" buried Killjoy, provided the crew hiring Killjoy attached that many upgrades. They could in theory attach 0 such upgrades and Killjoy is effectively killed until the end of the game with just a bury action, at which point he'll actually be killed. Until then he gets to be a punching bag for models that interact with buried models. The turn 1 set up could be more difficult or relatively easy depending on which non-insignificant models were given the upgrade; if the crew chose the leader and a hardy henchmen, not likely, but if they chose two terror tots, it's relatively easy. Even if it Killjoy was only buried turn 2, that's still 80% of the game he's down. I'm pretty sure I've explained how I think that the unbury effect is an enemy one. In this game, models override the rules per page 3 of the e-rule book. The game does not provide for a way to bury or unbury by default--there is no page reference because reading every page will yield this result. This game operates on a permissive basis in that you are only allowed to take actions the rules or models grant you, so by default you cannot bury and/or unbury because absence of such action/ability is denial of such; the basis for this conclusion is logical inference based on existing examples such as the Walk and Interact actions as well as how the rules are phrased, which encompasses the rule book. Thus, models must be the source of any bury and/or unbury effects. Logical inference based on foregoing. In the example of death marshal vs. bad juju, death marshal can bury another model using his pine box action, which also provides a source of an unbury effect--that model's card is the reference for such. Bad juju provides the reference for Planted Roots per his card. The rule book on page 33 of the e-rule book provides the default rules infrastructure for burying, unburying, and buried status models when effecting the interactions of the same. When death marshal effects its action to bury bad juju, the card provides the source of bury. For purposes of this discussion we have to assume the attack succeeds in all ways necessary to effect the bury, which then buries bad juju. Per the same section on burying models (pg. 33 of the e-rule book), burying is not a movement effect. Unburying models, per the same page, is a movement effect because it involves placing the model, which is a movement effect per page 15 of the e-rule book. Planted Roots, per the text of bad juju's card, prevents any enemy effect from moving it, which would include the placement from an enemy unbury effect. Thus, the initial placement via the unbury effect specified on the death marshal's card fails--we must assume at this point bad juju fulfills all the conditions, here a simple Wp duel, to cause the unbury effect text to be applicable. At this point, the rules on the same page 33 modify the placement to be under the control of the owner of the model. We can conclude this because models override the rules (page 3), thus applying by default (logical inference based on page 3) that at the initial unbury step, the unbury effect is an enemy one based on the definition of enemy/friendly on page 26 of the e-rule book and its application on the reference context of the death marshal vs. bad juju. Because the initial unbury effect is rejected by another model's card ability effect (see bad juju, page 26, and page 33), the rule book text (page 33) applies, modifies the enemy effect to be under the control of the owner of the model in the owner's deployment zone (pg. 33). This is a logical inference because models override rules, so rules overriding models, a logically necessary logistics act to replace the original effect, which is what some seem to be proposing, must require explicit text, which is not present on page 33 as far as label in action; therefore, a rule must support this case because models take precedence, and where the model was creating the source of the bury/unbury effect, it is that model's effect as modified by the rules until otherwise stated. The proposition that the existence of the text itself is replacement needs support because models override rules, so to do the opposite requires explicitly overruling that rule; it can be a special rule to override the general, per the same page 3 reference, or in another form, but it needs to be explicit because there is a general rule that models override rules, so rules do not override models. Inverting the statement here is not a logical fallacy because it is a re-statement of the same proposition. Thus, the rule book modifies the unbury effect only to the extent explicitly stated. Pg. 33 specifically states "the owner of the model instead places") in a different area than originally specified, i.e. the owner of the model's deployment zone, per page 33. Planted Roots, per the text of bad juju's card, continues to prevent the placement because the rules only modified who controls the placement and where the model is ultimately placed, but not the source of the unbury effect. There are additional rules references/model cards to cite for the supporting examples, e.g. Willie's card for Evasive and Nothing Beast's card for Accelerate Time, but the above is the quicker version of the thought process for question 2. I explained my thoughts more in the initial post in case a particular nuance was to be discussed. With reference to why I used the examples I did, it was because they are commonly "ruled this way" rulings to highlight what I thought/think are the likely contested points in the discussion--the existence of "tracking" and the rules being modification/replacement text interactions. Again, I labeled the premises "premises" to make it easier to read and streamline reference. If I had just written them in plain text without paragraph organizations it'd be intolerable to read in format. To be more formal and precise, I should have labelled them "rules text source 1," "logical inference 1 based on rules text source X," and so forth, but I was lazy and hoped that after the first few times of going over several points that it was clear I was citing rules authority(s), drawing what I see as logical inferences, and then applying them to real life examples.

@Ogid I'll avoid massive quoting and go in order again. The tracking for Evasive isn't with regards to friendly/enemy, but rather whether the damage was caused by the pulse or the simple duel. The game either tracks or it doesn't. If it tracks, then Evasive stops damage from the accelerate time's pulse, friendly or enemy status being irrelevant. If it doesn't track, then Evasive does not stop damage from accelerate time because the damage is caused by a simple duel, not the pulse directly. I actually do not believe Misaki can choose whether she unburies or not. Her ability is not a may--she will attempt to unbury on her activation and cannot choose to avoid unburying to her own ability. Order of operations demand the active player resolve any "at the start of activation" abilities first, so Misaki's ability would resolve first. I don't think I have the "burden" so to speak at this point on showing the rule book is NOT modifying the effect as my position is exemplified in the game already via other more "easy" rulings. I've also provided the rules citations and examples multiple times over. There are multiple instances where the game tracks, and my thought process relies upon that being consistent in the game's application of the rules and how models interact. I think arguing the rule book replaces the effect requires support as you are stating something is now no longer the effect of a model after a model initiated the effect--this replacement of an effect in its entirety requires support because at least so far, there are no other "easy" examples provided or rules cited for that proposition. To make the above a little more clear though--@Ogid, would you rule that Evasive prevents the damage from Nothing Beast's accelerate time? If you say yes, you necessarily acknowledge the game tracks because if it didn't, it would only look to the simple duel causing the damage and apply it. If you say no, you can argue the game does not track, but I do not think people would agree that is how Evasive works, intended or as worded on the ability and with how the rule book operates. The game tracks over the course of multiple turns who killed particular models--this is how reckoning scores each turn and ultimately whether take prisoner determines if the end of game VP is granted or not--and it tracks how models died--e.g. Catalyst vs. the Poison condition--so non-stat tracking is a thing. NB's growth mechanic for nephilim crews explicitly relies on the rule book and individual models interacting for non-stat tracking, i.e. the growth tokens and credit for kills, in order to work intuitively. I don't think the argument that "current state doesn't allow unbury, therefore it must be ruled this way to account for that" is a good argument. It is always possible to release models with unbury tech in a faction, and much easier to do so if the situation calls for it than to release the answer in an online only document (FAQ/Errata document); doing the former avoids coordination issues and player base confusion more so than the latter because the former acknowledges a wonky result that followed consistency vs. changing rules or models to achieve a result (e.g. M2E's Kirai summon mechanic for Ikiryo and Mei Feng's infinite jump with the Arcane Emissary). Again, the right ruling may be distasteful in a particular circumstance, but if it's right then it should be ruled that way to maintain consistency and stability in the game. If people started playing more bury tech, which is fairly rare outside of Tara and Lady J led crews (by rare I mean only 1-2 models may have it compared to 3+ in the crew) currently, then Wyrd would have a guiding direction to design more models given how players are playing. I'd prefer models released to present play and counter play than random abilities/actions that just seem cool but are not necessarily designed for a purpose other than providing "more options"--e.g. kabuki warriors for Qi and Gong, a keyword in desperate need of a good in keyword scheme runner but the unreleased model is a "self-sufficient" melee beater minion to complement the already full line up of henchmen beaters already released at comparable costs. I appreciate more options, because the game is expanding, but I want options that I can strongly consider for higher level of play at times. Additionally, I think Waldgeists and Bad Juju punch above their weight in a number of situations, the former for cost and having a silver bullet ability found typically on more expensive models like bad juju itself or models with the similar ability Laugh Off like Fuhatsu. Bad Juju will often be in Zoraida's crew, and she gives him action efficiency via obey (w/ or w/o trigger) to get more oomph from his attacks, which are nothing to sneeze at. He also has above par defensive abilities (both for count and strength of the same) and an excellent Wp 7 which should make most of the bury mechanics easy to get by--as far as I've seen most bury mechanics require failing a Wp 14 duel, meaning Bad Juju only has to flip minimally above average to pass. Actually, if the crew with Waldgeist/Bad Juju are trying to score outflank, pretty much the only ways of denying the points are (1) killing both, which isn't easy given their other defensive abilities, or (2) burying them. If I tech to counter their ability, I should get a big payoff for it--that's interactive play and counter play. If my only real hopes are just to go forward and smash them, I have less control of my fate and my investment into my results will lessen for it. If you chose another model without such an ability, now I can counter with movement manipulation. Interaction--why we play the game (in theory). I don't think having a way to silver bullet bad juju or similar models that can punch above their weight is absurd, as @santaclaws01 puts it. There is literally a model in Guild, the Jury, who silver bullets Tara's entire main crew mechanic and her play style. It's not a new thing to happen, not only in M3E but M2E as well (I didn't play M1E or M1.5E), and it's not absurd that after getting by the terrifying test and getting off the attack that can attempt to bury him, which bad juju then fails the subsequent relatively easy simple duel for, that there is a high pay off. It's the same as an execute trigger except bad juju isn't even dead until the end of game. It's weaker than an execute even because you can always flip well and the plan fails, compared to the execute that I can set up so it's guaranteed, and if it becomes a problem, Wyrd can always release a model in NB/Bayou that unburies and voila, issue solved. It would even go a long way to helping differentiate playing Zoraida out of Bayou vs. NB, as you could make it a NB only model so NB gets a faction buff only vs. Bayou or vice versa as the situation calls for. Perma-bury is already achievable--Killjoy is an example. If Killjoy gets killed and the other model(s) with the blood sacrifice upgrade are also killed before they can unbury Killjoy, Killjoy is perma-buried. That situation exists now. Does that make Killjoy unplayable and an absurd model because the situation exists? I don't think anyone has argued that should this situation arise, Killjoy simply unburies in his own deployment zone because his unbury mechanic failed. It was a designed risk-reward of hiring him and I think calling similar situations absurd detracts from the game's stability. Again, I have cited the rules and provided examples of why I think the rules work the way they do. I don't think anyone here can really contest that I haven't--asking me to continue to do so will simply repeat the examples I'm presenting along with the same rules citations. I've asked for rules citations or examples, and for rules citations I've primarily seen one to where TO rulings are final and to the same section I referred to in my initial post. The former provides what is likely the practical answer as opposed to the theoretical "right answer," and the latter citation is followed by a conclusion that isn't otherwise supported by examples or explicit text in a game that only enables game state change by inclusion. However, the examples provided have been off point--Misaki being an order of operations question and Killjoy being an example of how perma-bury is already an achievable game state. I don't think saying I need to continuously provide new citations and examples is going to progress the discussion--I think presenting a counter-argument based in the rules, even if it's the same rules section as previously cited, with solid examples will help move it forward. Finally, I don't think "rules as intended (RAI)" is a good argument--RAI not only cuts both ways in that reasonable minds can differ, but it explicitly overrides the actual authoritative sources in solving rules questions; a number of posts have been about how ruling bad juju/planted roots models could be perma-buried essentially goes against RAI, but considering there is already at least one model that can cause itself to be perma-buried, I don't think RAI should be applied here.

The examples you give are specified by the rule book not to give credit to anyone, e.g. poison. @Myyrä When I copy-pasted your text I couldn't find it. @Ogid to prevent a massive quote I'll address your points in order. Again I'm not trying to be confrontational--I want to get to the heart of why you say my points are not supported by the rules text. Each time someone has brought up a point, I refer to the rules text in some way or to existing models to ground my thoughts, because Malifaux rules shouldn't be arcane theory crafting or philosophizing as the rules forum dictates--this has an in game application that matters when a player hires models that could be affected by this interaction or could affect players who believe they're going against such models. With regards to source I'm concluding that's the case because currently the game is played that way. Without going into the details of the example again, Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time vs. the Evasive ability is such an example. If you don't track source, then Evasive does not prevent the damage from it. If you do track source, Evasive does prevent the damage. I don't think anyone disagrees Evasive is supposed to prevent the damage from the simple duel caused by the pulse because no one has said such, but I think this is a necessary conclusion if you argue tracking does not exist. It also necessitates the answer to Question 1 as the Bandido takes damage instead of Zoraida. Ruling as such would make Evasive weaker (also one of those abilities that has a list of caveats) and make the new text of Idols relatively avoidable. With regards to your misaki example, it would resolve as follows: (1) active player resolves their at start of activation effects; (2) non-active player resolves their at start of activation effects. (1) would resolve first because the Misaki model, on activation, would unbury within range of a smoke marker, provided at least one was in play. (2) would become non-relevant by result of that. Provided that no shadow marker was in play, Misaki would be placed by its owner in the owner's deployment zone, barring something prevented such from happening. If something doesn't, then Misaki places as such according to the rules on her card because as described, the resolving action was (1), a friendly effect. Provided she can't, for some reason, she would stay buried--I can't think of how you'd accomplish this but it may somehow be possible. It's essentially order of operations here and tracking keeps it tied to the source of the model. Damage caused by the rule book, e.g. falling as you cited and conditions as more than one person has referenced, have rules stating they do not give credit, e.g. poison. Even if they did, the GG 0 and rule book strategies and schemes are worded so you generally could not score off that. The one exception I can think of is Take Prisoner, which could potentially have the end of game VP denied by saddling the model with poison to kill it, thus avoiding the "killed by a friendly model" requirement for that situation. I don't believe the rule book exhaustively states for each source of damage caused by "neutral" sources, e.g. fall damage, does not give credit, but the rule book states that for at least conditions per page 25 of the E-rule book under the definitions for "Killed Models," models do not count for killing the model. The exception to this rule is on the conditions section on page 29 of the E-rule book where the rule book provides that if something dies to a condition caused by another model, e.g. Catalyst on McMourning, then the model generating that ability/action would count as killing the model. The interactions of these definitions and exception require tracking--if you can't track, these sections don't affect the game state. If you read my "assumptions," they are not all "just" assumed for purposes of argument--how you have to read the rules, as noted before, is attempting to put an "ideal" reading methodology on the games, but I don't think they're conceptually wrong or anyone disagrees you should read rules for consistency. As for how to read the rule book a certain way, those thoughts each have examples/reasoning to support them--if you take issue with it, please explain why for a specific point(s) as opposed to blanket saying they're incorrect by way of "you're assuming wrong." A couple posts have done this and it may be this discussion has to dive into the nitty gritty of the premises in order to find that no, you can't effectively perma-bury juju. As to the break the game comment, I think you're taking the look at the very end of the interaction, after the counter-play and pro-active choices have been made. If you choose to hire models that can have this done to them, you did it knowing your opponent has chosen not only a faction, but specific leader with access to those mechanics. If you choose to hire a model that could be perma-buried anyway, you accept the risk of counter play because you want the benefits that model(s) can bring. M2E has a number of examples--a number of the old schemes and strategies, including the always available scheme Claim Jump, were literally unable to be scored if your opponent picked a particular master, e.g. Hamelin, and you had less knowledge then, but it was part of the risk of planning your games and hiring the crews you did to play into that/counter play it. Additionally the security check is an alternative likely originally thought in case the initial placement was illegal for physical placement, e.g. juju being 50mm is potentially much more restricted in where he can place, especially given the clarified terrain set ups GG 0 brings up. As that's not explicit in the rules though, the rule book covers those situations an situations where model interactions prevent each other from being buried with a blanket modification of the original ability. The check just doesn't matter unless a model is attempting to unbury a model, and this game doesn't generate its own unbury effect by default, so it changes an existing one--I don't think anyone is disagreeing as to the first part, but we are getting hung up on whether it's a modification or a new effect. It's kind of a "the rules activate at this point in time" argument, but that seems an artificial and arbitrary divide because for a game like Malifaux, the rules are always in effect. You can't take walk actions without the rules telling you that you can--the models just tell you how far to prevent you from walking an unlimited distance in one action. Another note is even if this interaction may seem distasteful, if it is the right conclusion to maintain stability of the game, similar to M2E's true infinite combo with Mei Feng, it should be ruled as such until it is changed or clarified via FAQ/Errata. Otherwise players undermine the usefulness of the same and the authoritative sources and we're back at playing kitchen gaming Malifaux instead of a one rule set game. I generally don't post much on the weekend, so sorry for taking so long to reply. GTFO alpha was up over the weekend so wanted to play some metal gear whack-a-mole.

Got it. Thanks! I was expecting the verbatim wording you had posted so didn't see it and was pulling at my hair a little bit because it was eluding me. @ogid I agree with your citation of the text as far as where you located them--but where is the change in characteristic from enemy unbury effect to rule book unbury effect? The rule you cite for placing in the deployment zone is a modification of any given unbury effect. I don't see how you get from the death marshal text, which I think we both agree is an enemy unbury effect (in reference to bad juju), to a neutral effect that is not friendly or enemy. As far as I know, with the exception of designed scenario schemes and strategy markers, nothing in the game is neutral--everything, even terrain, is defined in terms of friendly or enemy. Even the strategy markers are defined partially in reference to friendly and enemy by virtue of who controls their placement (idols), or where they are moved or manipulated (plant, turf war). Reckoning also specifies friendly/enemy for scoring VP. I think the game necessarily tracks the enemy/friendly status of the unbury effect, even while providing the modified placement, and I'm having trouble seeing how you get by that given the game's fairly constant reference to friendly/enemy statuses. As a side note, someone cited that where a rules interpretation would break the game, that interpretation should be disfavored. I don't think resolving question 2 to say that bad juju is perma-buried effectively is a "break the game" resolution. The player hiring bad juju could also hire a model that unburies. Alternatively, the player must weigh opportunity costs in hiring bad juju once the opponent declares not only a faction, but a master who will have access to bury mechanics. There's also an element of balance in that models with Laugh Off, which seems strictly better than Planted Roots, are balanced to be able to dodge this issue while models with Planted Roots cannot, so crew composition becomes more relevant. I don't think it's game breaking to have players consider these elements in tactical play if the ruling logically favors this particular bury interaction.

@ogid What is the support for your thought that the enemy unbury effect stops being an unbury effect when you fail to complete the initial bury?

@Ogid I'll address your third point because I think it's more direct of a discussion--I'm unsure how to read the other two in that the first isn't a rules reference based explanation and the second one sounds like you more or less agree with myself, at least on a reasonable/possible interpretation level. With regards to your third point, why is what I said an assumption as opposed to a logical inference based on how the rule book works? Yourself and Myrra have indicated I'm making assumptions, but each "premise" and similar thoughts in this discussion are based on examples that indicate something is the case (making them logical inferences) or a methodology that should be more favorable to take than the alternative for consistent rules interpretation? I'm not saying I don't make assumptions--rules interpretation methodology is a set of assumptions on how you interpret rules--but the particular point you bring up is not an assumption as each step I bring up is based on something that exists or doesn't exist in the rule book, leading to what I think is a logical conclusion based upon the presence or absence of something. As for the unbury text you're referring to, the rule book changes the enemy unbury effect to the extent the owner of the model places the model in the owner's deployment zone. There are two definite explicit changes: (1) owner of model controls the place; and (2) location of the place. You're saying there's an additional change in the source of the unbury effect, but there's no rule citation in your post to support that--please tell me how you get to that step because I think we agree the rule book does not by default provide a method to unbury, meaning if you unbury it's currently a model generating the unbury effect--which must be the case until otherwise changed.

Could you please refer me to its location in the GG document? I was unable to find it searching "arbitrator," "ruling," "rules questions," "rules qu," and similar. The GG Season 0 document is searchable so it should show up, but maybe I'm just being dumb in how I search. I'm not trying to be facetious here, I actually want to find the reference if that rule is still in the GG Season 0 document--it essentially just answers both questions with, "if there is no clear definitive rules argument, ask TO before an event." @Myyrä The section you refer to in the rulebook is part of the issue Maniacal and Ogid pointed out earlier, namely whether what the rulebook provides the "security check," as Ogid puts it, in the game as an entirely new rule book effect or is a modification of the original effect that caused that rule to be applicable. Myyrä, I think your post indicates you view the rule book security check as the rule book generating a new effect by implication. The rule book does not have a default unbury effect that players or models can cause/enact in play to unbury their own models. This means models must provide a source of an unbury mechanic for any model to unbury after it is buried. The rule book, then, can only modify model(s)' unbury effects, and must do so by explicit text because otherwise there's either no (1) rule to guide play; or (2) no reference for change to the interaction as initially indicated by the models. The rule book only provides that if the model cannot be initially be placed by the unbury effect, be it for any reason such as no legal location to physically place the model or for another model's interaction such as Planted Roots, then the owner then controls the placement in the owner's deployment zone. This only changes where the player can place the model, but not that the effect is still being generated by an enemy model--such a change would require explicit text stating the effect is now from the rule book instead of the model because we know the rule book does not by default provide a way for players/models to unbury models. We can think this because the game must keep track of source, otherwise relatively easy rulings like Evasive applying to prevent damage from the Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action (simple duel that causes a pulse that subsequently generates a simple duel for enemy models that causes damage on failing the duel) would not work. As an extension to how Ogid answered question 1, if the game only looks at one step, then the game would have to result in Evasive not applying to prevent damage from Accelerate Time as it would look directly to what caused the damage, which would have been a simple duel and not the pulse that generated the simple duel--looking to the originating pulse would be a 2nd step and to see it otherwise is an arbitrary cut in causality unless supported by a rules citation. @Ogid Could you please provide a rules citation for how we know the game only tracks 1 step for purposes of control for Question 1? If there is such a rule then Question 1 may be answered very easily. Specifically I'd like to review the citation to see what is considered a "step" for purposes of tracking, because abilities like Evasive could be more complex depending on what is defined as a "step" for tracking purposes. As much as I'd like to find the "right" answer for RAW (rules as worded), the answer to 1 is likely dependent on the TO and the probable answer to 2 from TOs at any events is likely "place in deployment zone," even if the arguments otherwise cannot be contested via rules citation(s). If these rulings are wrong, though, by logic, it is informative, especially to newer players, on a mechanic that's relatively easily accessible in some factions. Until a FAQ entry that clarifies the interaction comes out, I'd like to figure out how the RAW works because it furthers competitive nature of tournaments and higher levels of play to find what "should" be the consistent ruling. It also encourages people to understand more on how to read the rule book (like myself, who did not actively participate in the beta testing).

A quick correction to one of my earlier posts--TO golden rule is no longer in the game, so the dialogues here and other venues where similar discussions are had are very important for being informative on how niche rulings should/may go.

I agree with the result but am unsure as to that reasoning because there's no citation to the rules.