LeperColony

I think if they meant it as an absolute requirement, they probably would have been more clear.

If we go by a general principle that you should only have to take one Terrifying test, I think ultimately the person controlling the Terrifying models should get to choose. But what's the mechanical framework for it? Let's say Model A has a Terrifying 11 and Model B has Terrifying 12 and Take the Hit, so you'd rather B's Terrifying test applied. In that case, I think you could generate Take the Hit and resolve it as a simultaneous effect with A's Terrifying. If you choose to resolve TtH first, then A's Terrifying doesn't apply anymore (arguably). But if you prefer to have A's Terrifying instead of B, then you resolve A's Terrifying before TtH, then apply the hit to B? I think someone who believed there should be two Terrifying tests could find definite issues with this framework, but if we proceed along the assumption that you shouldn't have to take multiple, then I think it works well enough.

On Android, my Big Brain Brin card is showing the back side first, then you swipe to see the front side. It's exhibiting the opposite behavior in that regard to all other cards. Also, and this is so minor that I feel silly even bringing it up, but on the Home screen there's a section called Rules, but when you're actually in the app that same section is called "Reference." Any chance you'd consider a unified terminology on it?

I think that's a fair way to resolve it. I certainly don't think Terrifying needs to be any better...

The issue with this analysis is "At the start" is clearly only a single period in time. Namely, "at the start." There's no way to extend that window. The model can't have two starts of its activation (though it can have two activations to start, but that's not the same thing). Terrifying says "after." If an effect changes a target, the window for "after" the new model has been targeted is after the effect that changes it occurs, so far as I can see.

As a follow up question, could you wait to Take the Hit until you see the result of the Terrifying?

It's adding timing because you're inserting a conditional requirement into an unqualified statement. If you take an absolute effect and create conditions for it that aren't present, then it's no longer absolute. It's the exact same as claiming you'd need some inciting measuring event before you could generate the effects of an . The irony here is that a few posts ago, you claimed the text on page 22 was "descriptive," almost an afterthought or something that has no game effect. But now it's so critical that they have to use reminder text, that otherwise under your theory has no other effect, just to preserve your "measure only when told to" theory. I suppose in your games, constant effects like only exist when you check for range? What if they don't target? What if they're not an action, so you never even enter the steps? What if it's an ability? The reality that the game is constantly checking range for these effects seems manifestly clear, and must be the way you play them also, even if you currently don't want to describe them in those terms. But since they are constantly checking range, clearly range checks are not limited to when you're explicitly told to measure. Well, first, take note how the discussion has shifted. If you now accept that the text accepts both results, then this becomes a matter of interpretation and either way of playing it is textually valid (or, to be more correct, textually supported). Which was not at all how you and those with the position that you can't Scamper away have been describing it. So then the arrived consensus is that this is something you should probably discuss with your group and use the result that seems most amenable to your members.

Although it's very natural to think of Terrifying as a targeting qualification, it's actually not. Terrifying doesn't take place in the targeting restrictions step. It happens after you've targeted. This contrasts with an effect like Challenge, which is a targeting restriction. In fact, you'd have to discard for Challenge before taking a Terrifying test. Terrifying seems to happen between steps 3 and 4, because it only triggers after the model has been targeted. So the model is the target. and any other effects based on being targeted would occur. If Terrifying said "when an enemy model" instead of "after an enemy model," then the timing you propose would work. If you become the target, does that mean the enemy model "didn't target" you? I'm not sure about that, but it may be true. I worry that's much too fine a distinction, if some enemy effect forces you to target something, does that mean you "didn't target" the model, but instead an enemy forced you to? My main objection is I think it would be broken to require two Terrifying tests.

Suppose a non-ruthless model is attacking Archie. Archie is within 2" of a friendly Ashigaru with Grave Spirit's Touch (and so has Terrifying). Terrifying has "after an enemy model targets this model" timing. Take the Hit (on the Ashigaru) has "after an enemy model targets a friendly model within 2" timing. Both abilities have "after an enemy model targets" timing, so by rule they are simultaneous effects. Therefore, the controller should get to pick the order in which they're resolved? So is the following sequence legal? Enemy targets Archie. Archie's controller chooses to resolve Archie's terrifying. Enemy passes. Archie's controller chooses to resolve Ashigaru's Take the Hit. Ashigaru is now the target. Enemy has to take a terrifying?

I'm not sure I see the significance of this at all. All of those actions would do the exact same thing with or without "within range." An Action with a RG of 8 that said "place a marker" would work identically to "place a marker within range." In fact, I recall asking about this in some other thread and we [the people who responded, not necessarily you and I] couldn't see any distinction. If you believe "within range" allows you to measure in Step 5 (because you think measuring is somehow related to text that includes no such qualification, and that you can only measure when the game specifically tells you to), are you saying that you wouldn't measure if the Action were just RG 8 "place a marker?" Because that seems odd and unlikely. It's not what I say, it's the actual text in the rulebook. Again, demonstrate any text that qualifies or limits: "the maximum distance the Action can affect." An argument from silence is another interpretive argument. I don't think we actually differ on our interpretation of their intentions. As I mentioned, I believe the text on page 22 is likely a result of their attempting to encompass all uses of range in one sentence. I'm not convinced their intention was to prevent applying an Action's effect beyond its range in all cases. But that's what it says. It's a simple, unqualified statement. Range in inches is the maximum distance the Action can affect. It doesn't say the "maximum distance you can affect while determining targeting." It doesn't say the "maximum distance you can affect while measuring." It doesn't say the "maximum distance you can affect in Step 3 or Step 5." To preserve the outcome you want, rather than simply say you're relying on an interpretation of their intent, you've attempted to: 1) Add timing requirements to the sentence that simply don't exist. 2) Try to equate "maximum distance the Action can affect" with "targeting," despite the fact that they're clearly not the same. 3) Claim that you're only allowed to check for range (and presumably other values like LoS) when you're specifically told to. Namely once, in Step 3. Although, to be fair, you're willing to grant that we sometimes have to check in Step 5. But this check regime you've constructed is unsupported in the rules, and it has no more foundation than an assertion that you constantly check. 4) Divine meaning from reminder text, or the absence thereof. The contention of which, I'll admit, are still somewhat unclear to me. Because I don't really know why you think "within range" is so significant, especially since I can see no difference in the resolution whether that language existed or not.

Ensuring the target is within the range in step 3 is necessary to fulfill page 22, but it's not sufficient. What you're doing is you're taking a statement that contains no qualifiers, and you're adding them. I have to admit to not fully understanding your sentence here, so maybe you could provide an example? I'm saying the reason they wrote the words on page 22 the way they did is, in my opinion, because they wanted to cover Actions that target and those that don't. What they actually mean is (I believe, at any rate): 1) Sometimes you're going to be targeting, and the action's target has to be within X, where X is the Action's range. 2) But other times, the action is going to be an effect that doesn't target. Like an or a , and in those cases, the range indicates how far the AoE extends. 3) And in yet some other occasions, you're going to be creating something, and that something has to be placed within the listed range. But they tried to use a single sentence to contain all the possible uses of range, and the way it's written, it comes out as a conditional restriction on the effects of Actions themselves. I agree with you that there are strong indications that that wasn't their intent. What I'm challenging is this contention from you and some others that the text of the rules leads to the outcomes you're endorsing.

Maybe The Whisper is more appealing on Archie now? Not that it was a bad pick before necessarily, but now you're wanting to secure those leaps.

Yup. But remember that unless the effect specifies otherwise, you need LoS to where you'd like the marker to go.

There's no wording about the target at all. It's not about targeting. It says: "which [range] is the maximum distance the Action can affect." Range is 8. Are you more than 8? Then you can't be affected by the action. There's no temporal qualification in the language, so I'm not sure where you're obtaining any justification for why it's limited to one specific window. It's telling that you're using targeting language, because as I've said, you're treating it as an appendage to targeting. But as written, it's not. It is a restriction on the action's effects. Range is a rule. Any description of range is going to be a rule. But in my opinion, the reason they used the language they did is because they meant to encompass in that one sentence a description that covers effects that both target and don't target (like ). I don't think the intention was necessarily to add a continuous condition to actions either.

"Checking" at specific intervals is for effects that only have specific or temporary windows. Targeting happens at a specific point in the process, and once it's established, the targeting process is no longer relevant. But if something is always active, it's always being checked. Even if you aren't physically doing the checking at every instant. For instance, every continuous ability is actually constantly checking if models are in range, regardless as to whether or not you're actually physically measuring. In fact, your claim that we only check range at step 3 would invalidate the effectiveness of auras. Suppose, for instance, we didn't Scamper out of range, but we did Scamper such that the attacking model is now being impacted by an . Under your theory, since we already measured and you only measure when prompted, the doesn't do anything. The text on page 22 isn't qualified by any specific timing rules, you're trying to bake them in by treating the language as a kind of appendage to the targeting rules. But they're not. It's a simple, absolute statement about the limits of the action's effects. Put another way, can you identify the language that's adding timing restrictions to the requirement that an action's effects only extend up to its range? If you take a persistent qualification and claim you only need to make checks for it occasionally, it's no longer persistent. You're asking for justification as to when you measure the action range, which is trying to convert a persistent limit to a transitory limit. When and how often you have to check is based on the wording of the effect. As I said, you're trying to treat the text on page 22 as a kind of subclause of targeting. It's not related to targeting, RAW (in reality, its wording is probably a result of trying to cover both targeting and AoEs with a singular unified terminology). There's no temporal qualification. An Action's effects extend only up to its range. You're trying to treat range as a process. "Oh, I checked range in step 3 so I'm good forever." But for the page 22 text, range is a value that bounds an action's effects. If you're applying the action's effects, the model/object must be within that range or closer. I agree with you here. But it's not just what we work with, it's what we start from. That doesn't mean we have to end there. But when we deviate from the actual text, we need to be clear that's what we're doing.

I think you're confused here. I don't need to justify it, the text of the rules explicitly says it on page 22. It's in black-and-white. The range in inches is the maximum distance the action can affect. You can dodge it, you can prevaricate, you can even refuse to apply it. But you can't change that it's there. What we need is a framework for why it doesn't apply. You're simply pretending the text doesn't exist, which isn't a framework for why it doesn't apply. By contrast, as I mentioned, I wouldn't apply it because I don't think it's what they intended. But this is explicitly an intention-based argument, and if my opponent disagreed I'd be forced to concede it isn't what the text says, but that I don't think it should apply. Most significantly because I don't think there should be meaningless duels. So again, this is the heart of your confusion. I'm not making a reading, I'm pointing out explicit game text that you'd like to pretend doesn't exist. That's the basis of all your resolutions, you just pretend the text isn't in the rules. But it is. All the actions you're pointing to are still perfectly resolvable under either system. They just work differently. Not a single thing you've identified systemically becomes broken/impossible, they just don't do as much as they would if you pretend the text on page 22 doesn't exist. Now, might the wording on the abilities support an interpretation that the devs don't intend the text on page 22 to work like it says? Sure, that's a reasonable interpretation of some of these abilities/triggers. And as I said, I think the fact that potentially you'd have to flip a bunch of meaningless duels is good evidence that they intended a different resolution. But these are inference-based solutions. And you're trying to pretend that your inference based solution is the inevitable outcome of the text. But you can't do that while you ignore the explicit words of the text that you don't like. This is part of the issue with RAW. I think it's a reasonable assumption to believe that all these should work the same way, but by the text of the rules they do not.

Malifaux is on the schedule twice at Lost Planet Games in Torrance: Tuesday, 6:30 pm Saturday, 1 pm 2711 Plaza Del Amo, Unit 511 Torrance, California 90503 Anyone of any experience level is welcome! If you're an old pro, come by and play. If you're just through the breach, we can teach the game and provide all materials.

Oh, no what I meant was Trixie has Scamper so I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. Granted, she doesn't have terrifying so maybe nothing could have prompted a check like this before? I don't know.

We are told to in Step 5. It says any effect that cannot be resolved is ignored. We know on page 22 that a predicate to affecting a model is that it be within the action's range. If it's not within the range, the effect is not resolvable and ignored. How do we know if a model is within range unless we check range? I think that hypothetical computer is going to be checking at this point. Arguing from silence is, in my opinion, a questionable resolution to corner cases since, almost by definition, these corner cases are not going to fall within expectations. Can you quote the language for this? I looked and couldn't find it, but I may have missed it, or I may not realize the section you're using to support the assertion. First of all, you're not reading, you're editing. Because you're choosing not to apply the text on page 22 despite its clear injunction that effects don't apply outside the Action's range. The game makes sense either way. This is the problem with an argument based on intent that isn't stated as an argument based on intent. You're making an argument based on intent. Whether actions effects are bound by range or not (RAW they explicitly are. Let's just be clear about that), either method is playable so long as you apply them consistently. But is that what's intended? I have serious doubts that they intend the text on page 22 to work like it is written. Just to pick one issue, if you check at Step 5 for range, you've already flipped at step 4 and I don't think they intend a bunch of empty flips. And for this reason, I don't think I'd play Scamper to work that way. But if someone were arguing with me at the table about this and they took the opposite position, I'd have to admit that I am relying on an interpretation that ultimately waves away some of the rules text.

Well, let's be clear about something here. Because there is no "measurement step" in the resolution process, we're inferring measurement occurrences based on when we encounter game effects based on distance. There's nothing wrong with this approach. It's entirely reasonable and, in fact, necessary because the alternative is much more literal and complete wording. However, what that means is it's entirely possible to infer other measurement requirements. You're asserting the only time the action steps call for measuring is step 3, in targeting. But that's not necessarily true. Step 5 says that effects that cannot be resolved are ignored. If you're beyond the range of the action, then you can't be affected (again, assuming the text on pg 22). That's just as valid a measurement opportunity as step 3. You're also assuming that measurement is only a single process and not continuous, and that's not exactly clear. For instance, there have been discussions about when you "check" for things, for instance if you're continually drawing sight lines for LoS or if those sight lines only exist when you have to check for it. The distinction is if the sight lines always exist, an argument can be made that you can Scamper into cover you didn't have at Step 3, because when you resolve at Step 5, you then apply cover. It's not what I'm saying *should* happen. It's what I'm saying the RAW resolves to as I currently understand the text. If you feed the Malifaux rulebook into a computer, it's going to say there's a rule on page 22 that says actions can't affect anything beyond its range and it's not going to find another section in the rulebook that clarifies or expands on that. If I'm wrong, and there is another section, please kindly identify it. You and some others keep talking about targeting, but the text on page 22 isn't related to targeting and that's part of the issue. Targeting resolutions are irrelevant to that text. As for what I think *should* happen, I don't think range should be part of triggers at all (excpet, obviously, for triggers that include range information). We were forced into that unfortunate conclusion because the game defines "within range" in an unhelpful manner. Not for nothing, but issues like these were exactly the sort of concerns I meant when I said I was worried about the implications of passing range info to triggers by rule. If it were up to me: 1) "within range" would not be tied solely to distance, but would include all the range and type information of the action. Hence, you wouldn't need to port in the action's for the Chiaki example by rule, but rather the fact that the trigger says "within range" would cover the . 2) Range information wouldn't pass to triggers automatically (it's not necessary anymore), so purification wouldn't be bound by range. It would just happen to the target after the action. 3) Terrifying would be part of the targeting process, and not something that happens after you select a target. Because it would then occur during the targeting process, failing Terrifying is a kind of targeting failure, so in essence the model is never targeted at all. 4) The text on page 22 is deleted/clarified and a more comprehensive measurement process is detailed during the Resolving Actions step. I'm sort of surprised this hasn't come up before, since Scamper did exist previous to the Inhuman Reflexes change. But I guess not enough people take Trixiebelle? At any rate, the nested hierarchy that Solkan describes is not supported by the text of Scamper. It may exist, and it may be a better way to resolve it, but it's not what the ability says. I'd like to point out that a resolution system based on "well, this is how I think it's intended" is entirely valid. I'm not disputing that at all. An intention based process even trumps RAW, because it's entirely possible that the intent and the language are not in perfect accord. But at a certain point, when your position is "here's what I think they intend, that's how I'm doing it," you need to own up to that. "Yes, maybe RAW leads to a different conclusion, or maybe not even a conclusion just ambiguity or conflict, so I'm going with my gut." That's an almost unassailable position, and I don't mean to suggest the contrary. But it's important that other people understand that's your position, because then we can save arguing what the text says because it's no longer about the actual text but the inferences you've made about the intent.

I'm sympathetic to the position that RAW cannot always lead to the correct result. After all, no set of rules, no matter how large or detailed, could possibly cover every single interaction in a game with Malifaux's complexity. I frequently want resolutions that aren't RAW, and occasionally use them as well. But when I'm analyzing my position on a rules question, I have to start with how I think the text of the rules resolves the matter. Thus far, nobody has demonstrated any textual rebuttal to the language on page 22 that the listed range is the maximum distance that the Action can effect. Various claims like you only measure (by which they mean you only check for range) in certain steps are unsupported by the rules, though not disproven by them either it must be said. The rules do not address what happens in an action if the target, once selected, subsequently enters a condition that would otherwise prevent resolution. Note, the reason the language on page 22 would stop the action after Scamper is because it is a specific limitation on the effect of the Action to extend beyond a certain distance. It has nothing to do with targeting. If you Scamper out of LoS but within range, since LoS matters for targeting, the language on page 22 doesn't apply. So if you Scamper behind blocking terrain after the Terrifying, when targeting has already been established, the RAW wouldn't require the action to fail. Would you get cover in such a situation? Again, not entirely clear. Some people seem to be claiming that since you only check for targeting once, that might lock in things like cover. But that's not certain. Also, none of the things you listed would be broken. They'd just work differently than how you'd currently resovle them. For instance, there's no reason to necessarily believe you're entitled to a 6" push with shieldbreaker. They're too different effects. They could have, for instance, worded the trigger to just modify the action's push range if all they wanted on that trigger was to increase the push to 6". Just like some triggers add to damage (critical strike) and some are their own damage source (smoulder), the distinction produces different outcomes in The resolution isn't based on the "within range" wording. It can't be, because "within range" has a specific definition in the text. On page 13, it's defined as being within a distance in inches equal to the numerical value in the Action's RG line (that numerical value, the number in inches, it itself called "range"). The fact that the specific definition of "within range" excludes (or the other types) is what caused the contention. It wasn't until @Adran was willing to assert that type always passes (unless superseded) that a resolution emerged.

This was hashed out in a super long thread about another ability. The consensus seemed to be that range and type (these are not the same) does pass to the trigger under the rule that the action's rules govern the trigger. Though @Adran was the only one (or the first) to state so explicitly. This is actually the entire question, so it can't simply be assumed one way or the other. The rules talk about range limitations in two different ways: 1) On page 22 under "Actions" it states that range is the "maximum distance the Action can affect." Action effects are a more expansive category than just targeting, though it may encompass targeting. 2) On page 23, range is referenced on Step 3, that says when declaring the target, the target must be within range and LoS "unless otherwise specified" which can include ignoring range or LoS, but can also include occasions when the trigger pre-defines a target (like Onslaught). 3) Also on page 23, during Step 5 you apply the Action's effects. If they cannot be resolved, they are ignored. Since we know on page 22 that you can't resolve the effect on objects beyond the range, those effects are ignored (arguably, but this is the point of contention). --- Importantly, in order to claim RAW Scamper doesn't stop the attack (by moving out of range), you need to establish that the language on page 22 refers only to targeting despite its more expansive verbiage.

That really is the only way to get a definitive answer. I can't really tell which result the devs intend. To me, either resolution seems reasonable. But the rules for Action are written in such a way as to currently lead to an ambiguous situation at best.

I would see this as being analogous to other Actions that are movement effects that risk pushing people outside the range of triggers. To me, RAW, if you want maximum distance, you'd have the shieldbearers push the target as far as possible but still within range, then push 4" with the trigger. Again though, this is my current best understanding based on the text of the rules. My preferred method of resolution would be to treat Terrifying as part of the targeting process. So you actually haven't targeted a model until you successfully pass Terrifying. However, that interpretation conflicts with the explicit text of the rules. Remember, the formal resolution theory of triggers on the forum is that the range information passes to the trigger automatically. So Knock Aside when on Shield Slam is a 1 effect.

Once again, the specific controls the general. The trigger Ricochet and Shockwaves provide their own range information. That overrides the action's range. Also "unable to change anything that is not within that Rg" is the very the failure to understand the difference between "the maximum distance the action can affect" and "the maximum distance the Action's effects extend." Since I've gone down these rabbit holes with you before to no avail, if you continue to demonstrate no understanding of the distinction, I'll just leave that thread alone for both of our sakes. I almost certainly lead the league in grammar, spelling and homophone correction edits. It usually takes like 50 of them to fix all my various grammatical errors. I'm saying that's what I believe would happen RAW. You don't apply the effects of the Action until Step 5. We already know range is the maximum distance the Action can affect. So if you get to Step 5 and the target is not within that distance, I don't currently see a textual framework that explains why the target should be affected.