benjoewoo

I think this will emphasize your point--can't the Necropunk do 10, in a theoretical setting? 5 required turns, Crooligan drops 2 scheme markers per turn, meaning 10 total max without other model interactions?

The quote button has been fairly workable for me--it helps me in referring to previous posts since the default view is by up/down vote. I can't remember exactly why I didn't respond earlier before the most recent post. I think I didn't because I agreed with the point--I realized there may have been some confusion so I posted a confirmation of that thought later. Similarly, others have not addressed all my thoughts, but that's just how online posting tends to work. I'm unsure about your point regarding "less interpretation." I may just not understand it, but where ambiguity exists, less interpretation tends to lend strength to the argument because it resolves the ambiguity with "fewer" steps. Not always true, because the easier interpretation may be wrong, as you're stating, but generally speaking Rube Goldberg machines are less favored. As far as wide interpretation I'm unsure. I'm the only player at my store who plays with Anna, much less purchased her. I also believe that for the next closest store that I go for games, I am also the only player who plays Anna. I tend not to take her very often, and when I do, I actually play with the stricter interpretation to conservatively play as I imagine most TOs would rule. Anna is a relatively recently released model in a single blister and competes for a henchmen slot, which is very crowded for almost every Resser master. I don't really play other factions, so I can't speak to them, but at least locally players haven't found her 10 SS merc cost to be worth it outside of ressers. I know there are multiple players who think she's good--I haven't had an at length discussion about it to clear to issue, so I'm asking the rules forum why the stricter interpretation is the one people use. You are correct, the re-worded ability would not operate exactly as the ability as written. The difference between the two is that you could not get out of the aura because you could not push/move while affected by the aura. That rewording was to address achieving the clarified "pushing/moving enemy models vs. enemy models causing the push/move." Your McM example is flawed, I think. McM's Abra Cadaver trigger literally only affects enemy models on reducing them to 0 Wds. There are no alternatives to how this could work, because given how triggers work in the context of opposed duels, the example is much more straight forward. While you've said Anna's ability is more widely interpreted in the stricter interpretation, I'm unsure how that metric is measured other than vocal posts on the forum; for this, I am excluding TO rulings, because if TOs are consistently ruling one way, discussion is irrelevant, and I haven't seen a measuring metric for TO rulings on this issue. In fact, the post with the most upvotes on Rob Lo's thread is the broader interpretation; I acknowledge it could just be due to lack of interest, but for those who posted and were interested, no further discussion was had. An example of why I exclude TO rulings above is Sybelle's Comply trigger on her Bleeding Tongue upgrade. The upgrade's text states the model damaged by a Bleeder Lash attack from Sybelle with the Comply trigger considers Sybelle as a friendly model for the duration of the action. Maybe I misunderstand exactly how, but I treat it as reading any enemy model damaged with that trigger cannot trigger a horror duel from Sybelle's Terrifying ability just as most people seem to describe on the forum. However, the text does not explicitly state Sybelle considers the enemy model friendly, which would be the key part of avoiding the Terrifying ability if the model were to target Sybelle with any action. Add to that the model only considers Sybelle as friendly for the duration of the action, and the enemy model could still in theory trigger Terrifying if it ended a walk action within Sybelle's engagement range, one of the possible pre-requisites to triggering the Terrifying ability. I might be missing something, but because this particular interaction is overwhelmingly discussed as though enemy models cannot trigger Sybelle's Terrifying ability, it doesn't make sense to question it. I know TOs will rule against me if I say complying an enemy model to attack Sybelle will trigger Terrifying, so I don't do it. For reference, Sybelle's upgrade reads: "Comply: After damaging, the target immediately takes a 1 AP Action controlled by this model. The model counts Sybelle as friendly for the duration of the Action." There have been no subsequent erratas of the upgrade and a search through the FAQ returns no results for "Sybelle," "Comply," or "Bleeding Tongue." Anna's ability is less clear, because it is a passive ability that affects models within the aura, and has to account for different categories of models in more situations than McM's Abra Cadaver, which only has to word itself regarding who is damaged--the trigger is only relevant once determining damage and faces a simpler categorization question. I'm unsure no one has been arguing the superfluous text point. Bengt's post literally includes the word and makes the point you're saying no one has--it also has the most upvotes. I may be misunderstanding, however. As for your rewording, a neutral model would be a counter example. The reworded ability would now affect neutral models being pushed/moved or causing pushes/movements, which with the "enemy" qualification would not affect. I think this discussion is more or less coming to an end, because we're starting to discuss rules philosophy in malifaux rather than following the sticky instructions: answering questions with citations to the rules. The last rules citation was to the definition of friendly and enemy models, which we know does not account for neutral models. Santaclaws01 and I have been discussing nuanced rules interpretations with examples, counter examples, and pointing out flaws in reasoning while Bengt's last post was IT support--which I need to listen to because I had written more, lost it, and didn't save a copy. Eventually, I think one of several things will happen: (1) people stop posting here, ending the conversation without resolution; (2) there's an explicit/implicit agreement to disagree, with the same result; (3) one or multiple sides explain flaws in each other's points, arguably coming to a resolution, but not one grounded in rules application but player driven thought process, which is mainstream home brew Malifaux; or (4) TOs and Henchmen set the meta by essentially electoral vote. In any case, I'm not trying to advocate to change the meta now at large, because regardless of whether the broader interpretation is more sound or the stricter interpretation is by definition correct, TOs will likely consistently rule for the latter, which matters more--that doesn't moot this question, but past actions, e.g. Mei Feng's infinite, show that the community will largely throw out or go against the rules if it wants to. I'm seeing if the broader interpretation is a correct interpretation because if it is by nature of ambiguity allowing multiple interpretations, it'll help me understand Malifaux text and interpret future text more easily, in addition to hopefully helping draft either more concise or explanatory text. There may be a noticeable gap of reasoning in my post or a lack of addressing something--I wrote it and posted, but the forum refreshed instead to an earlier version. Some words may also seem odd because I didn't proof in as much detail after losing some of my post.

A quick thought for black blood and punk zombie pulses, since they can damage multiple enemy models per turn. The player who effects the damage, i.e. you as the controller of the punk zombie(s) and black blood models, chooses which models take damage first. This is important because pandora can punt damage to nearby woes, but she cannot punt damage if all her woes died first. This may be somewhat corner case, because higher Wd count woes won't fall over to this tactic, but chaffe/weak ones will. For example, if you're running sybelle, you can have her shriek into an engagement--assuming randomization lands on one of your own models, you can purposefully cheat to do moderate damage--4 damage is likely to kill the punk zombie unless pandora really bunched up, but you'll get 2 separate ticks of damage against any nearby chaffe woes pandy punts damage to, in 2 (blast) and 1 (black blood). Pandora can either eat the damage herself (at 1 Wd each instance) essentially or let them die, but then when you apply the damage to her, she can't punt it to another model.

Necropunks are strictly better at taking multiple interact actions a turn or dropping multiple scheme markers a turn. If neither of the above is necessary over a 5 Turn game, you pick the one that suits your crew the best, as in for hiring and combo purposes. Necropunks can flurry, making them one of the more deadly scheme runners--HtK and Re-attach also make them fairly durable. Crooligans have better defensive stats, a -1 Wp aura that combos nicely with some of Ressers favorite models and masters, have actions to mitigate shooting/amplify damage, and have superior mobility in terrain setups where you have high Ht terrain or a lot of enclosed terrain. Leap does not go into enclosed terrain, but Always on the Move does because it is a placement effect. Leap must factor terrain Ht in if you end the movement on terrain, whereas Always on the Move does not. Always on the Move also moves Crooligans further than Leap, though the difference is usually negligible. However, Leap allows Necropunks to take two interact actions per turn in different positions, while Always on the Move only allows Crooligans to take two interact actions from one position. Fortune cookie advice: depends on your strats, schemes, terrain, and crew needs. I usually take Crooligans over Necropunks because I generally prefer the extra SS for my pool or an upgrade, and I try to avoid taking two schemes that require dropping a ton of markers. In GG 2016, most marker schemes can be denied by enemy models being positioned too closely, making them difficult to score full points on if your opponent hires any long range fighters and you take two such schemes.

They could do that, but the amount of text required to write a singular ability to count both GW and CD's effects, i.e. affecting pushes, movements, and placements, would be enormous. To word both abilities as such probably uses more space. Using more general language would encompass both situations. Using more specific language would restrict the situations, and since such language has been previously used, I find Wyrd's decision not to include that language means after final release the abilities do apply more generally. I am looking forward to santaclaws01's explanation, however, because I don't think there would be a fatal flaw to the broader interpretation. That's what would get me to fully accept the more restrictive interpretation is the correct interpretation vs. a viable, competing one. I'm excluding any FAQ or erratas, because those change the discussion.

Happened to me earlier today too--I was a very sad panda.

Yes. It'd be great to point out why this is a fatal flaw to using the broader interpretation of CD. If it is, then at least the reasoning for CD and GW working in the more restrictive interpretation should be clear to at least myself. The broader interpretation should include the scenarios provided for in the more restrictive one, and I haven't actually said that, but I do mean that if CD works the way I've been describing, it should also function the same in scenarios that the more restrictive scenario would function since I'm saying it includes more, not treats differently to obtain different results in some scenarios.

Hello all! Join us Saturday, November 19, 2016 at Game Empire for our first tournament! See http://gameempirepasadena.com/ for store location. Welcome to “Friend or Faux." The Malifaux Knights community will be taking it up a notch by hosting their first tournament this November. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the tournament is BEING MOVED to Game Empire--please update your destination addresses appropriately. Test your grit against our friendly group of players and see how far you can go. This tournament promises to be a fun-going, friend-making, prize-winning experience. Tournament Details: $10 Entry Fee Please RSVP by marking yourself as attending on the event to allow us to get an accurate estimate of how many tables to set up. We will be capping our tournament to 16 players. Please see https://www.facebook.com/events/1796338640628014/ to RSVP and find tournament materials. Registration starts at 10am, with the tournament starting at 10:30am. 2016 Gaining Grounds Strategies and Schemes--the tournament packet is on the Facebook page and contains the strategy and scheme pools for each round! 50 Soulstones, 3 rounds, Fixed Faction, 1 hour 45 minute rounds (15 minutes designated as set up, 1 hour 30 minutes for game play) Models must be Primed See the facebook event page or here for updates, and we hope to see you there!

Even if Model A were a model hired in the same crew as Anna and Sybelle, making it friendly to both and in the same crew, the Lure action taken by the rotten belle enemy to all three would still fail.

For the first part, assume Anna and Sybelle with Bleeding Tongue are hired together, with Sybelle positioned fully within Anna's aura. Assume a rotten belle and Model A are hired opposing Anna and Sybelle, and are both fully within Anna's aura, positioned 2" away from Sybelle and 2" away from each other. Assume there is no terrain in Anna's aura. Sybelle uses Bleeder Lash against the rotten belle. She succeeds in the opposed duel, declaring her comply trigger. Sybelle deals damage without killing the rotten belle, forcing the rotten belle to take a 1 AP Lure action targeting Model A. Assume the Lure succeeds. Under the broad interpretation, the Lure would fail to actually move Model A because the rotten belle is the source of a push or movement effect, here a movement, and is an enemy model in reference to Anna ending a movement effect within the aura's area of effect. Even though the rotten belle and Sybelle treat each other as friendly models for the duration of the Lure action, the exception clause of CD reading "generated by...a model in this Crew" does not apply to allow the movement because Anna and the rotten belle do not treat each other as being in the same crew. Both portions of CD are given effect. To show what would happen if the exception text regarding "a model in this crew" wasn't there, if the rotten belle described was instead a model hired in the same crew as Anna and Sybelle, the movement would also fail because there would be no exception allowing for the rotten belle to actually move Model A within Anna's aura. As to your second point, I am unsure I understand what you're saying. In my previous post I stated the different portions of CD you quoted care about source of push/move effects for different reasons. I didn't say they mean the same thing, but I might be confused on your post.

I did not agree with your point in the first part of your post. For the second part, both phrases reference source--"Enemy models..." references enemy models generating the push/movement effect, and "effect generated by..." recognizes the exceptions to the prevention effect created by CD based on source.

Ok I think I see what you're saying. For the neutral model example, under both interpretations you are correct. That neutral models exist shows a need for classification in abilities, otherwise "friendly" and "non-friendly" would be mechanically simpler terms if there could only be two categories of such classifications. With a third classification, it matters that abilities and actions looking to specify source or target classifications include more specific references than implied reasoning. It's much easier to determine implied targeting when there are only two choices vs. three. As for the significance in looking at "generated by" vs. "effect," I never said "generated by" is not important--I'm unsure where I implied this. I actually talked about CD and GW caring about source, which gives effect to the exceptions, including the one regarding models in Anna's crew. If I implied that, please let me know where so I can address it, because I didn't mean to say that. The fact the abilities care about source is why I think that the first part of the sentence in CD means CD applies to effects generated by enemy models, which would include manipulation of friendly models or non-model targets. In plain English, subjects and objects are generally the reference points for causing effects when describing effects, with the predicate and verbs detailing how the effect was caused and what the effect is. Enemy models are the subject--I believe we all agree on that. Models being pushed or moved, for purposes of CD, are the objects. The question is whether models as the object refers to enemy models only or include any models. I say all models, since CD's second sentence does not include the term enemy before "Models...". Per the same rule reference made earlier, pg. 23 of the rules manual and I believe pg. 31 of the core rule book, where a reference to only "models" is made, it includes all models, friendly, enemy, or otherwise.

I may not fully understand your first point. In a game based on text, word choice is critical, especially if comparisons need to be drawn between different abilities. Unfortunately I don't have Nino's custom repeating rifle text on hand to compare to a Punk Zombie's Katanas text, but I believe it says something along the lines of "the attack flip receives a positive flip" while Katanas says something along the lines of "This Attack Action's attack flip receives a positive flip." I think my main confusion point is how to read your last sentence. As to the superfluous text argument, I addressed it in the original post and in my previous post. An example is that neutral models exist per Wyrd in special scenarios.

I don't agree the abilities are worded the same because there is a difference between the two abilities' wording; the word "effects," present in CD and absent in Pounce. The lack of that word in Pounce has been interpreted almost universally to mean being pushed/moved for Pounce, an older ability in Malifaux's context. Anna came out after rotten belle, and the word "effects" was added to her text--that should change the ability since it's an intentional change from previous language. This also isn't some esoteric model reference--rotten belles are very popular in Ressers, and Anna was publicly beta tested, with the wording arriving at its current state after said testing. Anna was also created after Sidir's "Laugh Off" ability, which uses the "be pushed or moved" language I posted in my initial post. The past knowledge and practice was there, but that text was not intentionally used. This situation is different from the conflicting wordings for Hard to Kill, Cojo and other HtK models, because that was an inconsistency in wording for the same ability vs. different wordings here for different abilities that have different effects. I'm not trying to be hard headed about this--I see the lack of agreement is over whether "Enemy models may not end push or movement effects..." is describing enemy models being pushed or moved vs. enemy models generating such effects on friendly models or non-model targets, e.g. scheme markers. I don't think my counter points to previous posts are artificial or contain logical fallacies, and I agree that the previous iterations of the ability probably intended to mean the former meaning instead of the latter. However, I've addressed the point about intent vs. what is printed, and I don't think people would disagree with my point from a rules standpoint. If there isn't something from the rules, FAQ, or errata to point to the more restrictive interpretation, but instead "TOs will consistently rule Ability X to work in this way," then that is the official source reason. Gaining grounds 2016, the main tournament format, provides TOs' decisions are final, so if that's the reason, then this discussion is more or less over no matter who is "right." It's more or less what happened with Mei Feng's infinite combo pre-errata. Kirai and Lost Loves' abilities to summon Ikiryo also originally summoned Ikiryo out of LoS until the new FAQ/errata changed Malevolence's practical operation--the FAQ prefaces it is a clarification, and the Ikiryo entry is in the FAQ portion, while the summoning change is an errata; no one really questioned Malevolence worked as it did previously, but there was obviously some disagreement as to whether summoning was intended only to be in LoS.

Pounce in full reads: "Pounce: When an enemy model ends a Push or Move within this model's engagement range that is not part of a Walk or Charge Action, this model may immediately take a 1 AP Ml Attack Action against the model without spending AP." Pounce establishes three pre-requisites before the Rotten Belle in question can utilize the 1 AP Ml Attack Action: (1) enemy model is targeted by Pounce's 1 AP Ml Attack Action; (2) ends a Push or Move; and (3) is within the Rotten Belle's engagement range (1"). Bengt, I think you're referring to a situation in which an enemy model manipulates some other model into the belle's engagement range, because if you're referring to a model enemy to the belle pushing or moving itself within the belle's engagement range, Pounce's three requirements would be met. If the enemy model pushed or moved another model enemy to the belle into the belle's engagement distance, Pounce's three requirements would be met. If the enemy model pushed or moved another model friendly to the belle into the belle's engagement distance, Pounce's first requirement would not be met. The portion where you state "...unless the effect..." is a part I disagree with, as noted in the original post. It would not be superfluous because it lists an exception. It is possible for models friendly to Anna to copy abilities from models enemy to Anna and cause a movement or push effect--the source of the effect would be a model in Anna's crew, and the exception applies. It is also possible for models friendly to Anna to force an enemy model to take an Action or trigger an ability that would generate a push/move that would fail, which could lead to a follow up effect. Also, the current wording allows for future application in which a model friendly to Anna can use an ability, action, etc. that pushes/moves another model as though an enemy model took the action, used the ability, etc.--it would operate to actually restrict models friendly to Anna from doing so, which may be a balance factor in creating those abilities, actions, etc. The rules citation brings up an interesting thought, because I hadn't thought much about it when writing the post. While I understand that logic explained in the call out box, which I have reference to on pg. 23 of the small rule book, Wyrd has on multiple occasions utilized the status term "neutral" for models for various effects--e.g. the inquisitive child strategy from the first reporting period. Because the Witching Stalkers are specifically neutral, they could have pushed/moved within Anna's aura without being affected, since they aren't "enemies." They would also not qualify as targets for schemes like Hunting Party. If this interpretation of the term "neutral" is wrong because of the definition of "enemy," then there cannot be a conflict and you're right. But, if the term "neutral" has effect in creating a non-enemy and non-friendly status for purposes of abilities, actions, etc., then there is an oversight in how the rules categorize models, and the broader interpretation of CD still grants effect to all parts of its text, and by extension GW. As a note, if the above is true for granting effect to all parts of CD and GWs' texts, then they could in theory apply to non-model pushes and movement effects, e.g. Aionus placing a marker within the aura. I may not fully understand your argument, so I apologize if I've misunderstood, but that's how I see it right now and address it. I read the history of what you posted, and it seems that the intent was to limit enemy models that were placing, pushing, or moving themselves into the aura. Unfortunately, however, beta context as a practical matter cannot be binding after final release. An example would be Mei Feng's infinite combo--the intent was to give a free jump, but explicit wording allowed for infinite jumps to generate either legal slow play or achieve a near perfectly stacked deck. Assuming I understood your posts correctly, I think the strongest point is that enemy models are necessarily all models not in Anna's crew, but the game as currently played, provided for in Wyrd generated scenarios, and potential future application show there are currently necessary conflicts that go against the simplistic wording in that section of the rules. I could be wrong on this part--if I am, then you are right, but I would want to explore how the problematic issues are resolved then, e.g. Sybelle's comply trigger. If this is the case, then yes, the only interpretation of GW and CD would be that the two abilities can only prevent placements, pushes, and/or movements of enemy models within the aura. But, where is the source stating this is how that language is read? Malifaux uses plain language without strict game term language, e.g. the kind of language used in Magic: The Gathering. This is not to say Malifaux does not have game terminology, but Malifaux uses plain language to have game terms interact, without using program language such as "This model targets (adjective) model, effect occurs." The FAQ and Errata similarly used to explain they're limited by the foibles of the English language, and thus should be read narrowly. The current FAQ and Errata does not contain that language, but limits itself by stating the entries only clarify specific situations and cannot be read applicable to other situations. With that we have the current question of whether Ht 2, 40 mm base models can block LoS to a 30 mm marker from a Ht 3 model.

So, I've looked over some previous threads discussing Anna's Gravity Well (GW) and Clockwork Dress (CD) abilities, focusing on CD more, e.g. the thread linked below which focuses on GW interacting with Lust's Now Kiss! The question is: what rules citation provides for choosing any given interpretation of CD and its application to prevent push or movement effects by enemy models? The abilities read as follows verbatim except for the lack of aura icons, which are indicated with the actual word "aura." Gravity Well: Enemy models may not end placement effects within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a bury effect, summon effect, or a model in this Crew. Clockwork Dress: Enemy models may not end push or movement effects within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a Walk Action, Charge Action, or a model in this Crew. Models which would be illegally pushed or moved into the aura stop at its edge. GW seems fairly easy to read and apply initially. Enemy models may not end placement effects within the 8" aura. As there are no placement effects in the game that could interact oddly with this rule, there isn't much discussion I've found on its application. CD brings up some discussion though, and while more people posted their agreement in the above thread that CD does nothing to prevent enemy push or movement effects that affect friendly models, the interpretation with equal/greater upvotes is the one by Rob Lo, the original poster, stating it would prevent Lust or a Rotten Belle from manipulating friendly models within the aura. CD as written does not specify if the enemy push or movement effects are those that push or move enemy models--reading CD in plain language finds the ability's text is either ambiguous on the issue or allows for the broader interpretation that enemy models cannot push or move any models within the aura unless the push or movement would either push/move the model out of the aura or push/move it so that it is unaffected by the aura, i.e. the pushed/moved model is out of LoS. Another thread has discussed the LoS issue and there's no major argument against that. If the latter interpretation based on a plain reading is true, this isn't a discussion, so this question has to address whether CD's text is ambiguous. In other threads, I've posted about my interpretation, which aligns with Rob Lo's reading: CD stops enemy generated push/move effects on any model within the aura unless the push/move ultimately pushes/moves the manipulated model out of the aura or out of LoS. Others have voiced disagreement, stating there is no ambiguity. However, two reasons, barring a citation to the rules, FAQ, errata, or other official sources, indicate there may be ambiguity. (1) CD, if it was intended to only prevent enemy push/move effects on enemy models within the aura, could have been written as "Clockwork Dress: Enemy models may not be pushed or moved within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a Walk Action, Charge Action, or a model in this Crew. Enemy models which would be illegally pushed or moved into the aura stop at its edge." This version would textually require fewer words and speaks in the same activate voice as the original text. (2) All words have practical effect under the broader interpretation, and there is less interpretation required than in applying the more restrictive interpretation, rendering it a valid interpretation with greater likelihood of being effected in the game. This point will require a little more explanation, so it's in separate paragraphs. CD's first sentence provides enemy models, the subject, may not end push or movement effects, the verbs, within 8 aura..., the descriptive portion of the predicate excluding the verbs. The subject and verbs haven't been questioned to my knowledge, only the objects on which the sentence applies to, because they are not stated explicitly. The second sentence provides clarification on that object by stating "Models" as the first word and the clear object of the second sentence. In Malifaux's context, when models are to be specified, adjectives are generally used, e.g. "friendly" or "enemy". When just the term "models" is used, singular or plural, it allows for an ability to affect, trigger, etc. on any model in the game, including friendly, enemy, or neutral. Aionus, for example, has a trigger that specifically only takes effect if the attack ability damages an enemy model--I'm referring to the Shifting Sands trigger on his Bony Fingers attack action. CD's second sentence does not specify friendly or enemy models, and therefore applies to friendly and enemy models. This may seem odd, but CD's first sentence restricts the application to push/movement effects generated by models friendly to the aura generating Anna because it specifies the aura may only affect push or movement effects generated by enemy models. We know that CD's first sentence, and therefore the entire ability, cares about what model generates the push/movement effect because CD specifies that enemy models may not end push or movement effects within the aura. CD's first sentence additionally qualifies that enemy models may end push or movement effects as a result of a Walk Action, Charge Action, or as a result of a model in the same crew as the aura generating Anna. I don't think people really argue that CD does not care about the source of the push/movement effect, but I explain it because people advocating for a more restrictive interpretation of CD have argued that the broader interpretation ignores or invalidates portions of CD's text. At least based on my reading, this is not true, because if any portion of CD's first sentence was missing, it would change how it applied in game. For example, if the exception clause "or a model in this Crew" was deleted and all of the original text remained other than moving the "or" to be between "Walk Action" and "Charge Action," then Rotten Belles friendly to an Anna could not Lure enemy models within the aura, either to Lure them into the aura or within the aura. Lastly for (2) as well as I can think right now, the broader interpretation requires no inferences in applying CD in this way. It is literally reading that enemy models may not end push or movement effects within the aura except as a result of a Walk or Charge Action, or a model friendly to Anna generates the push/move effect. CD's second sentence qualifies that models that would be pushed/moved into the aura against that rule will end prematurely at the aura's edge. Because neither sentence specifies that enemy models cannot end push or movement effects on only enemy models, there is no such application under the broader interpretation. The more restrictive interpretation requires inferring CD's application, again barring a rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source stating the contrary. The inference is that CD's first sentence reading "Enemy models may not end push or movement effects..." specifies only push or movement effects on enemy models, as opposed to also preventing push or movement effects affecting models friendly to Anna. The more restrictive interpretation in fact involves an interpretation unless the game itself provides that text is supposed to be read this way. I can't find that in the small rules manual, but I have previously found the rules manual is not as complete as the core rule book, which I don't own, so I could be wrong on this--a citation to an on point provision would disprove me completely. Because the more restrictive interpretation requires an inference in applying CD's ability while, imo, the broader one does not, the broader interpretation is preferable in resolving ambiguous language. In the linked thread, Myyrä states the more restrictive interpretation, in the thread applied to GW in the same fashion as would be applied to CD, but did not cite a rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source. I can't really address his post because I would have to assume he assumes that interpretation is true, which would be a circular argument. solkan explains that in looking at other miniatures games there have been issues, justifying the ambiguous language. However, I disagree that the language creates such an issue for GW, and by extension CD, since Malifaux simply uses the term "deploy" for deployment in the rules manual, and GW, the ability related to placement effects, specifies it only affects placement effects. The rules manual does not state that deploying a crew is a placement effect, so unless the core rule book states deploying a crew is a placement effect, not just "placement" as a non-game term or just the word placement, GW wouldn't apply. solkan also brings up that in writing the ability, unubury effects and regular placement effects could be affected. Well, GW specifically excepts unbury effects in addition to summons and placement effects generated by models in the same crew as Anna or neutral to Anna, so the only effects left to be prevented would be those generated by enemy models, which are the intended effects of GW given the "Enemy" restriction in GW and to give GW actual in game effect. There are multiple other people who posted, but for relative brevity and because only Rob Lo, Myyrä, and solkan have upvotes on their posts, I only addressed their post contents. If someone reposts reasoning from the linked thread I'll follow up with questions or be wrong by virtue of the explanation, but I don't want to make this initial post too much longer. I just put up a wall of text, so for those looking for a simplistic tl;dr--what rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source supports the interpretation of CD, and GW by extension, as only affecting push or movement effects that pushed or moved enemy models only? Is there something in the rules, FAQ, errata, or other official source saying that the phrase "Enemy models may not end X" means that X effect has to have been on an enemy model vs. generated by the enemy model?

I'll start a discussion in the rules thread RE Anna--don't want to side track. Has anyone found an effective strategy for getting either a larger heal onto the trickster marker or multiple heals on the trickster marker? I haven't had a chance to play the strategy and nothing jumps out to me as being particularly effective for heals specifically. My thoughts have been that Carrion Emissary walling off the Trickster marker would be effective, but that option seems too terrain dependent. The "strategy" that comes to my mind, though likely not effective, is running 3x shield bearers, choosing the 3 of them as the Painkiller token carriers, and giving them fast so they can double walk up to the Trickster Marker and each push it up to 2" towards the deployment zone. This is heavily terrain dependent, because the interact for the strategy is a push whereas heals generate a move, but it could potentially push the Trickster 6" towards the friendly deployment zone. Datsue-ba with MLH into 2x Seishin could in theory generate 2-4" of extra movement for a maximum of 10" Turn 1, for the cost of an SS, four 8+ cards and some lucky flips (moderate/severe for the actual healing flips or cheat them in as appropriate. Seamus might be a good master to do this with--Sybelle comply on a SS to trigger Vigor and force Seamus to back alley near the marker to defend it, draw fire, etc. while the shield bearers run in to get it moving and prevent enemy models from doing the same. That's 27 SS between Sybelle, Bleeding Tongue, and 3x Shield Bearers. If the SBs can successfully move the Trickster Marker, they essentially form a defensive line against enemy models interacting with the Trickster marker and could maneuver to make it impossible for the Trickster Marker to move back to the enemy half of the board. A lot of position specific and terrain dependent set up though, so I don't think this is a particularly effective strategy. Reva may be an OK candidate to help with Blood Mark--push SBs closer to the Trickster Marker and they may not even need fast--but this adds three TNs to hit. It could allow Datsue-ba to summon 3x Seishin Turn 1 though, for 3-6 points of healing on three 8s for the healing TN. Has anyone found something more effective?

Agreed that it is a contested point, but I bring it up based on my interpretation--local rulings to the opposite will negate the point but if it's available then something to consider--especially since efficient healing options are somewhat few and far between for Ressers.

Ah ok, missed his post. MLH some seishin, have them get to the Trickster and go go? On an interesting note, the strategy for Trickster can only score 4VP, since there's no clause stating players can score more than 4VP.

Anna Lovelace stops the Trickster marker from moving based on Painkiller Tokens. Can't stop the healing based movements though, so not particularly useful in that regard. While I would assume the general consensus disagrees, wouldn't the Nurse heal just move the trickster to the back of the deployment zone instantly? It heals infinitely many Wds to bring a model to full Wds. Heals for 0 do not count as heals, just as movements for 0 are not considered actual moves for purposes of pounce, hazardous terrain, etc. But, the trickster is considered a target for heals and any points that "would" be healed move the trickster marker instead. At the time of targeting, nurse heal operates to provide infinite heals, because it would get past any limitations on healing effects, if there were any, other than those that stopped healing. But on a more conventional side, run Hanna with Librarian/Chiaki for extra heals while having some potential for fighting. There's also Datsue-ba with Spirit Whispers and MLH, Turn 1 summon 2 seishin. Turn 2 move the Trickster 5" essentially.

I made a poor typo on the reduction ignoring trigger requiring a corpse--whoops. Ignoring damage reduction is a crow trigger that competes with the other crow only trigger Reva has for +1 damage for a corpse discarded within 3" of the target. As to Sandeep, yes, totally misread/mis-remembered how the tome trigger works--it's once per turn. But, the trigger is built in on one of the actions, and other models can copy, with some restrictions, his other actions, including 0s. So, while an oxfordian mage can't furiously cast 3x of any given spell, it can ensure any given Ca action has the tome to trigger for Sandeep. Also, while Sandeep can't trigger several times for himself to cast, all non-peons within range and LoS have the ability to cast his stuff--different than what I said by far, I admit, but numerically can result in the same number of Master level AP with a slight debuff (-1 Ca). And yes, I greatly misunderstood how Nellie worked in cheating damage only for herself. I think I mistook the ability for the defensive push Nellie can give friendly journalists or the defensive trigger one of Nellie's box upgrades gives journalists--I cannot remember if the upgrade goes on Phiona or Nellie. I also rushed my post in just whole sale listing some of the things she can do, mistakenly stating they all applied to each other. However, they do all apply. Nellie can cheat damage regardless of jokers against herself. Field Reporters have Manipulative and Disguised. Nellie can aid her journalists by giving them/enemy models pushes based on who fails the attack action. One of her upgrades allows her to choose from a selection of bonus, positive effects based on her Evidence +X value, ranging form healing damage to summoning a model. With the exception that Sandeep cannot use the tome trigger multiple times a turn--instead all other minions have to use them at a -1Ca, I don't think I too majorly misstated some basics of the masters. I didn't mistake the number of times Sandeep's master level moves could be used--albeit at a negative penalty--and other than who Nellie could cheat damage for, I didn't make a mistake in stating basic other mechanics she has access to out of her crew box. Math, you pointed out I made a bad argument regarding corpse marker tech. I may not have been clear in how I said it, but I was trying to state that the unavailability of good anti-corpse marker tech for all factions should not be a reason Reva is considered overpowered--I think the argument was originally that providing examples of anti-corpse marker tech was fruitless because gremlins don't have access to great anti-corpse marker tech. Anti-corpse marker is a specific kind of tech that supplements other in game choices that should help players beat Reva or hinder her to achieve a victory--that there are options indicates Reva is less powerful than initially described by some. I phrased it originally in more words and significantly less clearly.

I'll take that bet. I think asami may be top--summoners have uncapped potential with future model designs. As of now though, I'd say it's probably Sandeep (paper knowledge on my part), Nellie (fewer restrictions than asami, significantly reduces opponent's viable scheme pool), asami (full health summons, has very threatening printed attacks--jorogumo can be beastly). After that I'd probably say Titania and Reva, with no clear winne between the two--Titania is really good for some schemes on paper, but terrible for others-she's actually better in core rule book than gg 2016 I think. Reva has range and somewhat more flexibility, but is primarily an elite crew killer so she faces similar issues, just different schemes--also better suited for core rule book than gg 2016. Last would be zipp and Parker barrows. I haven't played against zipp, so maybe his placement should be higher, but his mechanics just don't really impress me as undeniably effective. They can be very much so, but I think there are more major vulnerabilities than Titania and Reva--primarily due to my interpretation of how Clockwork dress operates. Last is parker barrow, not because he's bad, but he requires keyword thematic crew members and his model heavily stresses the control hand and SS pool with multiple target numbers and suit requirements for fake instinctual, upgrade exchanges, uses, actual attacks, etc.

Was this in the FAQ/errata? I don't want to keep discussing a rules discussion topic, but if my interpretation is necessarily wrong then it furthers this thread's discussion as a non suggestion for anti-Titania tech or very good anti-Titania tech. I may have missed it since I'm on my phone, but I don't think there's an official interpretation yet. Also the topic in the rules thread discussing this shows a lack of consensus based on the posts I see. Not sure if I looked at the right one though.

I'm writing at an airport without my book, and I misremembered revisionist history isn't part of her aura of denial. It did remind me Nellie gives journalists defensive pushes, however, so she can disngaging her journalists relatively easily--not that she necessarily needs to since engagements don't stop them from doing too much.

Perdita 8" push plus base plus 14" range = 23.1811". Perdita is actually moving some of that distance, but that's her threat range on activation provided any of her crew has moved generally toward the enemy models. Perditas track is comparable to Revas, being the same on moderate and severe but minus one on weak. Reva can ignore SS prevention and all reduction on trigger at the cost of a corpse, relatively limited resource in some matches but plentiful in others. Perdita ignores the most common problems ranged attack models face. Reva requires some form of set up or can set herself up at the cost of a card, an upgrade, and 1 AP--if you don't run blood mark revas self set up reaches 12.1811" vs 17.1811". Perdita for a card alone achieves her 23.1811" provided a friendly model has moved up previously, otherwise she has just 14". Reva has Df/Wp 7, often both at 9 with positive to damage flips via Francisco and papa loco. Reva has Wp 7 but can heal when non-peons die within 8 of her or on a ram trigger for her attack. Perdita has 10 wounds I think? Reva has 13. The list goes on, but the idea is with set up Perdita is not strictly inferior for using a ranged attack Sh action vs Revas Ca melee. The same comparison applies to Raspy and to an extent other far reaching masters like Sonnia. The previous posts provided some options for anti corpse tech specifically. Following that there was a post or so saying that for gremlins specifically the models are terrible--I think the comment on Leve was addressing just the summoning but acknowledging the ability to simply hire many counters from revas own faction. It would be intellectually dishonest for pro status quo Reva players to say all the corpse counters are good-they are not all equal. But, it's significantly worse for anti status quo Reva players to say that because they're not equal, there's no credence to the argument anti corpse marker tech is available, which supports the conclusion that Reva needs a cuddle--we're talking about tech that is used almost entirely to counter one faction. Reva is part of said faction as well. The anti corpse marker tech supplements the strength of your crew to fight Reva. It supplements your tricks to gimp her as well. A question I have, if 2-5 attacks from Reva herself between her various potential upgrades is giving you trouble, how do you deal with Sandeep? He allows friendly models to use his attacks and trigger him to attack out of activation. He can easily generate 6 AP of attacks outside of his own activation--5 SS, 7 Wd, essentially armored oxfordian mages can cast Sandeep's spells once each, and on a tome trigger--which I think they can get from being near each other--sandeep gets to cast one of his spells out of activation. This is in addition to being able to summon his totem twice a turn without slow. Nellie cheats your damage REGARDLESS OF RJ against her vulnerable models, herself, the press, and Phiona. She punishes you for taking interact actions in a massive area, and operates a control crew remniscient of Magic the Gathering control decks--gives you only pain options or straight denies you after you used resources to accomplish something. It's not even expensive with field reporters costing 4, the press costing 4, and Nellie with upgrades costing 5. After she fills in 17 SS of upgrades and models (2x field reporters plus press), she just needs beaters to support the control models, who can't be charged, have manipulative, and can cheat your damage or let you flip with fake impossible to wound. The above tech happens for a condition based ability she gets essentially for free, and can be used for negative effects for opponents. Even if not used, at the end of each Turn Nellie can essentially go shopping, including to get SS. But, Reva does theoretically more damage as a single model at greater range than those guys above, and needs to be toned down. Reva is probably middle of the pack for the new masters, but voices here are some of the most vocal for toning her back. That leads me to think the issue is really a lack of comprehensive tactics to play against Reva rather than strict inability to. She has weaknesses, just need to identify them. Need to wait on thinking about toning Reva back because I think some of the other masters will be larger concerns, possibly in competitive play and almost certainly in casual play once casual level players are able to execute the tricks.