LeperColony

Gotcha! Because LoS is drawn top down, the base and the terrain are almost always going to be the same (unless you want to measure from an overhanging roof or something, which I suppose is arguable but I wouldn't). But how you treat multi-level buildings or other strange circumstances (which is what someone mentioned earlier, so it's why I thought in those terms) can mean there are multiple "levels" all requiring a top-down look. I also just want to emphasize a lot of these corner cases are judgment calls, but a lot of the analysis you'll see here sometimes fails to appreciate the ambiguities, when really things can be quite unclear RAW. The rules have several cases where it's best to just decide what works for your group. Until Wyrd comes out with a FAQ, there's quite a few issues with no consensus.

Unless it's just me (which it may be), I don't think the mark you made on the page survived to the image you uploaded.

Yes, but you claimed that "range" as a concept is an icon and a value. So however you're ignoring it, unless you now accept that in some circumstances type and range (distance, but the actual name is range) can be separated, type will always also get ignored. However, if you do now accept that type and range (distance) are not always going to pass together, then "within range" doesn't automatically include the type (and really, the expectation is that it shouldn't include the type). Additionally, your inability to define any standard means the rules are going to be what you say they are. Which works for you, sure, but as an analytical concept doesn't provide us a means for resolving ambiguities. That's a fair point, that they would just use the same language for consistency. But it underlines the fact that triggers that provide their own range rules do so specifically so that those rules, and not the action's govern. If they wanted Chiaki's trigger to not impact her, they could have worded it using a . Although, just to be clear, the failure to do so cannot be taken as proof that they meant to include her. Merely pointing out that they have a mechanic that would have made it explicit. And other triggers do reference the object creating the specifically. The Fire Golem's Burnt to a Crisp, for instance. But the trigger isn't a . That's the issue. If the trigger were a , there wouldn't need to be any discussion. What you're trying to do is port the rules into the trigger. Since I believe that very well may align with the intent, I'm not unsympathetic to the concept. But I'm asking what rules framework makes that happen, as opposed to "it's how I want it." RAW there's no reason to believe "within range" means anything other than what the rules have explicitly defined "within range" means. If you're X or closer, where X is the numerical value, you are within range. Period. Now, just because you are within range doesn't mean you are affected. That's why matters. The rules for specifically exclude models out of LoS, for instance. But a model out of LoS but within X is "within range" by the definition of the game, they're just not within the "Pulse's area." So even the rules for have language to distinguish between models within range and those that would be affected by the . In fact, with this "Pulse's area" language, it seems like it would have been trivially easy to exclude Chiaki if that's what they wanted. It's almost like they used the only language under the rules of the game that would have included her except for explicitly saying "including Chiaki." Uh, yeah. It's why you're backpeddling on "ignore." Remember, you're the one who asserts range is always type and range (distance). And for you, it's analogous to stat, which you believe is always value and modifier. I am agnostic as to whether "range" with no other qualifier includes type and range (distance), but I am saying that as the rules specifically define "within range," that definition excludes type. This is a position you have been unwilling to accept. The trigger is not the action. Why do I have to keep saying this? The action is a . So of course it cares about the . This is not an instance where I'm saying "within range" trumps the . I'm saying that as there is no on the trigger, 's rules do not apply. The trigger is not a . The only way it can be a , since it isn't by its own text, is if some other method passes the along. "within range" cannot be it RAW. So then you would have to either believe that every action type follows to a trigger (unless otherwise provided), which is possible but sight-unseen I wouldn't be surprised if that causes other issues.

Shadows do not extend from the base, they extend from "the terrain". Though this also may be a conceptual issue. I defaulted to thinking of a strange building rather than a pillar, on account of the previous posts about unusual terrain. For standard purposes, they're going to be the same thing. Yes, it is. In fact, it is only described as reciprocal. LoS is used "to see if two models can see each other." Reciprocal. "If at least one of the sight lines between the two objects is unblocked, the objects have LoS to each other." Reciprocal. "If all the sight lines are blocked, the two objects may not have LoS to each other." Reciprocal. If I have it, you have it too. That's literally what reciprocal means. LoS is not described singularly in the rules. Should it be? Maybe. Is it? No. To be honest, I don't know when LoS is evaluated and I'm not assuming it's instances or continuously. Though ironically, if it is continuous, B only has LoS to A because LoS is reciprocal, even though you mistakenly believe it is not. In @ShinChan's example, B does not have LoS to A unless A has it to B. The rules only allow the model on the terrain to ignore the terrain for drawing LoS. Thus, B cannot establish LoS on his own. A can. Since LoS is reciprocal, B has LoS on A if A does on B. The example on page 18 can naturally (though not inevitably) be read to say that Parker can draw LoS for his actions and Dashel cannot. However, they can also be read to mean that while Dashel can't draw LoS to Parker, Parker can to Dashel, so LoS exists for both because LoS is reciprocal. This is why I entered the discussion indicating it wasn't as obvious as was claimed. People have to decide how they want to play it.

Sorry for the double post, but when you added your diagram it complicated things. B cannot actually target A, because all his sight lines are blocked. B is within the shadow of terrain with a Ht equal to or greater than his own. Thus, any of B's sight lines that cross the terrain are blocked. A, however, can target B. When A does so, they each have LoS to each other. Thus, if B can somehow manage a (like maybe but not definitely with a defensive trigger), A would have cover. But, suppose for instance that A was targeted by C, which is a model outside the building's shadow. A gets cover from C. Or, if only part of A's base were on the terrain such that B can draw a sight line that doesn't cross the terrain, then B can see A, but A gets cover.

Dang, caught me while I was editing. For clarity, I removed "(which they obviously would have to)" since it's actually possible they wouldn't, for instance if the model on terrain had part of its base off the terrain somehow. But in answer to your question: Yes, by my understanding of the rules. Now, a curious effect of the LoS rules is that LoS is always reciprocal. Thus, using the example on page 18, while Parker has LoS on Dashel, Dashel has LoS on Parker. Some other people have used that rule to claim you can establish LoS by drawing it from either the acting model or the target, but I don't agree with that. I believe that while Parker is acting, they both have LoS to each other. But when Dashel is acting, he can't draw LoS to Parker, so unless he would be affected by some ability of Parker's that required LoS (like an ability ), he can't establish LoS.

This actually came up previously with some people I played with and we weren't as clear. The ability to ignore terrain when drawing sight lines only belongs to the model on the terrain. Page 18 says: The text of the rules seems to state that the ability to ignore the shadow belongs only to the model standing on the terrain, it's not a two-way street. So the model standing on top does receive cover if any sight lines cross the blocking terrain.

Then I'm not sure what your position is anymore. You had stated Since you reject the contention that "range" in card text can refer solely to distance, then under your theory, any time "range" is mentioned it must also include any types. Thus, any "range" that is ignored also ignores any types. Perhaps you can help me to understand your position more clearly? --- So far as I can tell, there are four possibilities to Chiaki's trigger (and similar effects): 1. Triggers always just carry the "type" over from the action, unless another type is provided. I have no idea what the implications of this would be over the entire game, but I would not be surprised to learn it's significant. It's also, by implication but not explicitly, contrasted by the wording of the trigger effects in the game. Sometimes triggers of will themselves be explicitly defined as (see Adze's Firefly action). Why would that be necessary if it were always just a by default? 2. The object generating a action is, by rule, never considered to be "within range" for the action's triggers. This sounds like #1, but rather than a general assumption that all triggers share the action's type, it is a specific ruling regarding the way triggers work on a model generating a action. Note that this is not what the rules to say, so this would be a ruling or errata. I know it's tempting to think because the does not affect the generating object that you can believe the action's triggers work the same way, but that's not a given at all, and it certainly doesn't say this in the rules despite @solkan's claim. 3. The use of the word "range" in game text always refers to both the type and "range" (distance) together, such that it is impossible to divorce these unless the effect specifically replaces/alters/removes one or the other. However, I've already demonstrated this leads to many potential issues. 4. "within range" has the effect described in the rulebook on page 13: Any use of "within range" cares only about whether the distance between two objects in question is equal to or less than the numerical value supplied in the effect's RG value or any other value the effect may provide. I'll be honest here and say that I actually do not understand the purpose of "within range" text in action effects, where the action itself has a range listed. 4 would seem to me sufficient to declare it's area of effect. Would a 4 action that said "enemy models take 1 damage" Be different than: 4 "enemy models within range take 1 damage" I can't see any distinction myself.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis that a value includes both numbers and modifiers (more on this on your second point). However, a range is not always distance and a type. The game's definition of range uses that same word in two different ways. As a Value with two components, and then again specifically as the terminology governing distance. "Range...may have an icon denoting type (is melee, is projectile, is pulse and is aura) and the range in inches, which is the maximum distance the Action can effect." Thus, by the literal words of the game, the distance the action can effect is called range. If you ignore range, it's possible that means you ignore both the type and the range (distance), or it's possible that means you only ignore the range (distance). Although I haven't really analyzed it much, my gut feeling is that stat should cover value and modifiers too. But that was before I really poured into this range stuff, and now I'm unsure what the most consistent reading is or should be. But as I mentioned earlier, I never even considered all the range type icons as being the same (I thought of and as categories of actions, while were area of effect indicators). Just to be clear, since you believe range can only refer to both the type and distance, any time an effect ignores range, it loses the type? So you believe that when Aeslin is in Severe terrain, her Tangling Roots action is not a ? So she can't do it on a charge. Cassandra doesn't affect it with her Finesse, etc). And if a can ignore range, then it can be used while engaged, doesn't suffer from friendly fire, etc. Obviously I can't know for sure how other people play, but I'd be willing to bet money at heavy odds that most people treat "ignore range" as dealing only with the distance ("range") and not any type icons.

The very fact that the range includes distinct items (type and distance) indicates it may be possible to separate them. Not that it's inevitable that they will be, but they could be. In fact, we see this frequently in effects that increase or decrease the distance or remove/change types. I'm looking at it as analogous, yes. If the consensus is correct on stat it's still possible that range works differently. I'm just asking why. If the consensus isn't correct (or if my understanding of it is incorrect), then that means I've been doing stat wrong. Which is possible. ---- But if type always follows trigger range (unless another type is provided in the trigger), here are some curious questions: Adze: Firefly (if the trigger should also beby default, why does it say 3 rather than "within range?") Aeslin: Tangling Roots (if you ignore range, is it a anymore) There may be others, I just looked through the A's during the superbowl half-time show.

I'm not referring to any other range, I'm asking if "range" means the type and the distance, or just the distance in triggers when no other type is provided. It's clear that in the action itself, the pulse type governs. But does the pulse (or any other type) automatically pass to the trigger? Part of my confusion here is that it was my understanding that the consensus regarding STAT was that the stat was just the value, not any fate modifiers or suits. But the language used in Range and Stat is very similar (both under Actions on page 22), and so if people felt that effects that reference a Stat don't cover the other icons, why range effects would cover the type.

That's a really good distinction.

Repeating that require LoS misses the point of the question, and so isn't useful in the resolution analysis. The trigger does not include any explicit indication that it itself is a . The conditions given for the trigger are "Choose a model within range." If the trigger isn't a , then I don't think LoS matters and I think Chiaki is a valid choice (can't say target, because the action doesn't target. Another potential implication for LoS). If the trigger is a , or resolved like one, that would be done under the rules that say game effects that effect the action effect the trigger. But first, I don't know if that means the range, and even if it does, if the "range" refers to the distance in inches only, or also to the "type." The reading I've always used previously (and reflexively) was that the type followed the trigger. So for instance, Jack Daw's Denial trigger on Whispered Truths was also a pulse. But if the type always follows the range, then that means any trigger with a range that doesn't provide a type has the type of the action. Does it matter that all triggers on a that have range are also ? To be honest, I don't know. I never thought that were all the same category of effect. Previous to this question, I had always thought of and as categories of actions and and as areas of effect. I certainly never thought of and as being range effects. I also didn't really think of and as being separate from the inches value in the ranged category. But a fair reading of the Range rules could be that Range is only the inches value, in the same manner as many people believe Stat is only the numerical value and not suits, fate modifiers, etc.

I think this is actually fairly clear. Both models would have to be within range (it's 4") at the time of resolving the trigger. But again, the rules for within range care only about physical distance, so unless the rules for carry over, which isn't clear, things like LoS may not matter.

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.

This question regards a specific interaction concerning Chiaki, but it also has a larger implication in terms of whether "within range" is just the number in inches, or if it is also subject to any of the range icon rules (). Reference rules attached. The specific situation: In a game yesterday, I used the trigger on Chiaki's spirit flute to give her Izamu's Reliquary. This was not discussed during the game, we both just accepted it without question. Later, when thinking about the game, I became concerned I may have inadvertently cheated because since Chiaki isn't affected by the of the original action, I figured the same restriction would keep her from being involved in the trigger. But then I read the rules on range and "within range" and it became less clear to me, so I thought I'd ask the hive mind. --- Obviously Chiaki isn't part of the since she generates it. But the rules for "within range" only refers to the physical distance between the models. While checking if one model is "within range" of another, do we still have to carry the range's icon type? In another example, suppose I wanted to use the trigger on two models, one of whom is out of LoS (so wouldn't have been affected by the of the original action). does require LoS, but "within range" may only be about the distance in inches. --- I seem to recall previously, when discussing Stat, the consensus was that icons (fate modifiers, suits, etc) weren't part of the stat. It was just the numerical value, so any ability that copied or referenced it meant the number. If that is true for stat (again, if), is it also true for range?

What about upgrades? In my two games, all I did was put GST on Arrrrchie once. Usually when I run Ressers, I take at least one, sometimes two Whispers. But I didn't feel they were as useful for Molly.

Because I'm sort of a sloppy player, a model's defenses/heals loom larger in my assessment of their value. Of course, I could always just get better...

Would 2x crooligan and 2x night terror be too much spent on scheme runners?

That makes sense. I guess I just like those enforcers that summon in the minions. I'm a fan of Death Marshal Recruiters too, at least from a "seems cool" point of view. What about the Rogue Necro? Do you not find it worth taking in killey strats/schemes?

I've noticed not a lot of interest in the Forgotten Marshal. Is he not a good choice?

To have as a normative goal that people should finish what they start seems neither unrealistic nor uncharitable. Exceptions are going to exist, and they're going to fall on a continuum of appropriateness depending on the specific circumstances and the code of conduct used to evaluate those circumstances. But I don't think there's anything unreasonable about having a general expectation that people are going to honor their commitments. Are deviations from that norm going to happen? Yes, and for all sorts of reasons. Are they the end of the world? No, even if by some strange circumstance they were to result in something "drastic" like the cancellation of the event. But that doesn't mean skipping out suddenly becomes commendable. This is a matter of etiquette, and as such standards are going to vary. In my estimation, someone does suffer a harm if they sit around doing nothing for 2+ hours because I decided to quit. Maybe you don't think that's a harm, or maybe you don't think it's harm enough to require any additional calculation on your part. But I do. Ultimately it's a matter of perspective. I personally would be embarrassed to discover that I'd wasted two hours of someone else's time. Obviously, since I'm not a saint I don't value their time as highly as my own, but I don't think it's a trivial matter. So again, this goes to the point that if your measure of enjoyment is based on victory or defeat, unless you have solid grounds for thinking you're going to be winning, maybe multi-day, multi-round events aren't for you. Dropping from an event isn't the most terrible thing possible. Nobody died. And it's going to happen, especially in a larger field, with other options, and in a multi-day event. But just because a behavior isn't the worst transgression of all time doesn't mean it can't be discourteous. And just because the consequences aren't the downfall of Western civilization, it doesn't mean they don't matter to anyone.

I had my first two games with Molly on Tuesday, and I have to admit I found it difficult to use Nani and the Voice properly. I probably need to take more advantage of her ability to copy Fading. Anyone have any tips on how they use her?

Curious interpretation since the part you quoted literally says: "Obviously people have to rank their own priorities, and there's no stopping someone from dropping." It's almost like you don't bother to read the things you quote. If people want to drop, that's their right. There are innumerable rights that can be exercised in rude, childish, petty, inconsiderate or otherwise suboptimal means, and nothing I've said has ever denied people are free to drop from events. In fact, to the contrary, I've explicitly stated they're free to do so several times. I'm just pointing out that if your enjoyment is solely derived from winning, then unless you're the Serena Williams of Malifaux, it's unlikely to reasonably expect you're going to sail through, so you may be better off doing something other than a multi-day, multi-round event. You and/or some others may think it's not at all inconsiderate to walk out of an event. You and/or some others may believe that YOLO and your rights makes it not merely justifiable but in fact proper, correct and maybe even laudable to quit in the middle of an event (or even the middle of the game. I flipped Black Joker, YOLO going to see Cher). But I personally think that TOs go through efforts to put on events, to set up tables, to organize the players, to create the scenarios, to obtain the space from the event (which is itself a limited commodity in many cases and represents a commitment by the event based on the TO's representations of likely attendance) that is entitled to respect. I also think the other players who show up and want to play the game with their fellow players who are there for the same reason deserve respect, and by dropping I may be forcing another on the sidelines. It's of course anyone's right to not feel this way. It's a matter of judgment. But in my judgment, which I am entitled to render, it's rude. If you believe it's behaving foolishly, I'm not even sure where we disagree. I didn't even go as far as foolish, I just said it was rude. Nowhere did I claim we should strap people to chairs.

Her reliquary is nice, and she makes a decent scheme runner. But it can be hard to fit her in to Yan Lo. I'm surprised to hear she makes it into Red Chapel. Do you use her the same way as you would in a Yan Lo crew?