LeperColony

One picture each from the nine games we had in our three round event. Thanks to everyone who made it out!

Malifaux going down tomorrow!

I'm interested in trying Wrath with Pandora. Anyone had any luck with it?

Can models like Archie be fixed in isolation? If you apply a slight nerf to him, will he still out class the other options?

I'm not so sure about that. I think the intent behind the Replace rules is that the model is the same entity. That's why conditions and scheme selections follow. If Shapechange said Once per Activation, I don't think anyone would argue that the fact that it's a new model would allow you to keep doing it. In fact, the very existence of Once Per Activation abilities is problematic for them, because the implication is that other abilities are not Once Per Activation (except where otherwise provided, like auras). So if "at the start" is not a single point, then you do need a new rule. With the Grave Golem situation, you have two separate abilities that just endlessly trigger off each other. Since neither is limited in terms of applications, there's an infinite loop. It's not that their argument completely lacks merit. But because the only mechanical framework they've asserted is "start of activation" means C1 (which is frankly nonsensical, as no effect is a phase), they're left with no alternative but numerous individual jury rigged solutions. Of course, as I've mentioned almost every time this comes up, I believe it's entirely possible that Wyrd was not as rigorous with this wording as we should have wished. And so different abilities may in fact have been intended in different ways.

If "at the start" is a single instant, then of course they are all only once-per because the opportunity to do them subsequently has elapsed. Otherwise, it requires a new rule. It's also against the way the duration side has been reading it, since their response to Vogel is "well, you run out of cards eventually." None of the arguments that it wouldn't trigger Demise are particularly persuasive either. You might be tempted to think the "removed from game" language in Bury is significant, but it's the exact same language as used in killed. The point is to draw the distinction that it wouldn't drop a marker. It's essentially an infinite loop.

Here's another: Grave Golem starts activation buried. It must unbury but there are no corpse markers. So it is killed. So its Demise occurs. So it is buried at the start of its activation. So it must unbury. But there are no corpse markers. So it is killed. So its Demise occurs. So it is buried at the start of its activation. So it must unbury. But there are no corpse markers. So it is killed. So it must unbury...

This is not correct. If "at the start" is a timing requirement, then any effect must meet that timing requirement. C1 is the phase in which it is resolved, that's it. There's no evidence that "at the start" is an indeterminate period either. That's what makes it ambiguous. What really gets me is your side is the only one claiming there's no ambiguity. Despite the fact that every discussion has shown a roughly even division of opinion (if anything, more people have expressed a belief its a single point in time). So are we just lying?

lol oh yeah...

Or Minako maybe?

Do you still take 2 Crooligans in Reckoning/Turf War or a non-scheme heavy pool? Also, what about Forgotten Marshal?

I personally would understand friendly to be a trait attached to the scheme marker. So I wouldn't think this would be allowed. However, if the "friendly" in "friendly scheme marker" refers to the model, then yes it would be legal because friendly and enemy designations are preserved even during loss of control. The reason I think "friendly" is a trait of the marker and not the model is because the sentence is about the scheme marker you're trying to set down.

Have they actually gone out? I know I submitted for one, but never heard back.

Literally nobody has said that. Statements like this lead to just one of two conclusions. Either you fundamentally don't understand the concepts we're discussing, which given your continual misstatements of basically everything, may be true. Or else you're just trolling. Whichever it is (assuming it's not both), it is very clear this thread has run it's course. But because I think it's disrespectful of other people's efforts to not respond, I'll slog through the rest. C1 is the phase in which you resolve these effects. Just like C2 is the phase in which you resolve Actions. Whether or not "at the start" is an instant or a longer period, it takes place within C1, but it is not C1. If you don't understand the difference between effects and phases, there's really no frame of common reference for further discussion. Furthermore, you are correct that it would be any number of simultaneous effects. However, by the very definition of simultaneous, effects that are only legal as a result of previous effects are not simultaneous. Hamelin's aura can't be simultaneous with Colette's unbury, because it requires you fully resolve the unbury in order for her to be within it. Time passes within the game's frame-of-reference, because an action was resolved. Even if you believe it should happen, it would happen as a Sequential Effect. Even if "at the start" were a duration, the effects wouldn't be simultaneous. No, whether or not they resolved would depend on the individual timing step of the abilities. If it said "at the start" then, again, it would be a matter of interpretation due to the ambiguous meaning of "start." The more you say stuff like this, the more clear it becomes that you don't understand the difference between effects and phases. Yes, they do refer to different things. One refers to a single instant in time, the other to a duration which covers virtually the entire phase (it doesn't cover the entire phase because Until happens before During). As this is the entire point of contention, further elaboration would be useless. Another demonstration that you do not understand the difference between effects and phases. Whether or not you believe "at the start" is an instant or a duration, it is not C1. It happens in C1. Just like actions are not C2. They happen in C2. "During the end phase" effects are not End Phase A. They happen in A. The entire point of phases is to encapsulate a string of effect resolutions within a window. But none of those effects, even if they extend through the entire phase, are the phase itself. There is no more clear way to express this concept that I can think of. "Before it starts." So, by definition, not "at the start." Not only is not the same, it doesn't even take place in C1. This would happen in B. Effects with this timing would happen before "at the start," so before Colette unburies. This is yet another timing point, and another instance of Wyrd using singular language to identify a point in time, rather than duration language to represent a span. I'm truly baffled that you thought this helped you. This is painfully incorrect. By now, I have to think that the argument has become simply a matter of emotional entrenchment for you, as you've been reduced to clumsy strawmen and demonstrated at every turn a complete lack of command over the basic issues. Given this, further replies seem unwarranted unless you can show clearer understanding of the concepts or have new evidence in the text. Please do not take it as a disregard of your efforts if I decline to indulge this further. I expect a mod will close this thread soon, as it has clearly run it's course. But to summarize, in what should be clear to everyone except santaclaws01, the rules for "at the start" provide for two different interpretations. Both have some issues, so as a group, you're just going to have to decide which you think works more like how you see the game. If you're playing and you expect this might come up, you can always raise it at the start.

I think it says a lot about both. The point of the WW in that crew was specifically to summon the Stitched. He basically got all the Zoraida fun, then also because the Stitched's mechanic requires so little set up, he was able to get a ton of value from it for minimal investment. Not that this is to say the Stitched are necessarily broken. I personally don't have an opinion as I haven't seen it enough myself. But it does sound pretty mean.

Even if conditions gained during the end phase are still resolved, that wouldn't be pertinent here. "During the end phase" is a period in which subsequent events can occur, because the resolution of one effect in the "during the end phase period" still leaves us in the end phase. You can resolve an unlimited number of sequential effects during a period. An effect that says "During the end phase, models within 2 gain Burning" happen during the same phase as Burning (which is a "during the end phase" effect). If the effect said "at the start of the end phase, if this model has Burning it takes 1 damage" and then it gained Burning later during the end phase, it wouldn't take the damage from the previous effect. This is because "at the start" is a single instance, whereas "during the end phase" is some span of time. We actually see this in the card text itself. Using the app, I found many "during the end phase" effects. But not a single "during the start of a model's Activation" (there is "during the start phase," but that's entirely different). Instead, text that talks about the start of activation always does so without "during." Hamelin, for instance, says: "Enemy models that start their Activation within 6 gain a Blight token." That's a single point in time. Every other instance I could find was similarly worded. If it said: "During the start of an enemy model's Activation within 6, it gains a Blight token," then that would be analogous to the condition example. This is because after Colette unburies within 6, you're no longer at the start of her Activation, but you are in C1, when it's being resolved. I doubt there's an explicit definition as to when subphases end, but it seems reasonable to believe that all effects that are resolved during that phase end before the phase itself. This is significant because, if you think about it, suppose the devs wanted an ability that was restricted to a single point in time. What other language would you use other than "at the start?" Conversely, since they already use the "during" language to refer to periods of time, if they ever want to add an ability that would apply Hamelin's aura to an unburying Colette, all they need to do is change to "during."

Malifaux is on the schedule at Lost Planet Games in Torrance: Saturday, 1 pm Remember, the store has moved to a new location: 2711 Plaza Del Amo, Unit 511Torrance, 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. Hope to see you there!

I don't find the Replace rules are relevant at all. The entire point of the Replace rules is to ensure that the new model is seen as the same "entity" as the old model. It's also why it carries forward secret choices from schemes and the fact that it has activated. And aside from conceptual differences, mechanically the timing of Replace rules can't govern the rules for abilities, any more than it can for actions, triggers, conditions, etc. Different parts of the game have different timing rules on purpose.

Yeah. I mean, he just fundamentally does not understand the difference. It's why he continues to try to ascribe the distinction to things like the phase or checking. It's not like you can't scroll up and see the history of him claiming to understand perfectly and then asserting positions that demonstrate a complete lack of command over it. His latest post when he's asking me what phase they happen in. It's gotten to the point where it's frankly bizarre. Not only is this assertion untrue, but just for convenience (though I know I'll have to repeat it like nine more times), they resolve in C1. You select a model for activation. Then, any effects that are "start of activation" and legal at that instant are resolved. This is C1. I am honestly at a loss here as to what can be confusing you. I feel you're trying to prove this isn't a matter of interpretation, despite the failure of the rules to provide for this, by manufacturing qualities entirely inconsistent with our interpretation.

The question is not which phase are we in. It's what does the timing indicator "start of activation" mean. C1 literally says "Resolve effects that happen at the start of a model's Activation." So it's providing a resolution window for "start of activation" effects. But it doesn't tell us how long a model's "start of activation" is. And it's that distinction which you continue to fail to understand, as shown by the shifting explanations you've offered over the course of this thread. Which, by the way, is another good indication of why we believe the "point" process is cleaner. I've only ever needed one justification, and nobody disputes that I've properly identified the contrary position. You, on the other hand, just in the course of the last six posts have claimed two frameworks that weren't anything like our position. With your first mistated summary of our position, you tried to claim we don't "check" with no undertanding of the fact that checks is why we believe the subsequent effects fail. With your second mistated summary of our position, what you've done is confused the resolution period with the timing requirement. Christmas is in December, but December is not Christmas. First of all, this argument again displays your inability to grasp our position, because under our framework, the subsequent abilities are not "applicable" because they were not legal at actual start of the model's activation. Thus, they failed the timing requirement built into it. Second, the failure of the rules to directly address this is precisely what makes it a matter of interpretation. The rules do not say that the "start of activation" isn't the actual start either.

No we're not. So again, and I don't say this to be rude, but it appears you have an erroneous understanding of the distinction. They both happen in C(1). The question is what the timing requirement "start of activation" means. If it means only a single point in time, when the model actually begins its activation, then only the effects that are legal as of that instant occur. Any others with that timing that are implicated subsequent to, and because of, the resolution of those effects are no longer happening at the "start of activation." If it means the period of time between starting activation and taking an action, then effects that were not legal at the model's actual start, but become legal thereafter, are resolved. Whether or not it is a point or a period, effects are resolved in C(1). When an effect in the game says "at the start of the model's activation" do X, we take "start of activation" as a timing requirement that the effect must meet. Just like it might have to meet range or LoS or some other predicate condition. This is why we do not believe subsequent effects can happen, because they are no longer at the "start of activation."

I don't argue that it breaks it. Even though I don't agree with the claim that Colette takes damage when unburying in Hamelin's aura, if it did, I wouldn't say it breaks the game either. It's not about one breaking the game and the other doesn't. It's a question as to what does a particular term used on the cards mean. Although, I would say that if a game breaking interaction is possible, it's much more likely under a system that allows unlimited stacking of subsequent effects (despite those effects not being legal at the start), than one that limits the effects to those that exist only at a single point in time. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our position, and it makes me wonder to what extent you actually grasp the distinction. The question is not do you continually check. In fact, I was the first one to state you continually check in the last thread, then the word "check" bothered some of you. The point is, under our interpretation, when you check you find in fact that Colette is within the radius of the aura, but (again to us) it is no longer the "start of activation" for her, so the effect doesn't qualify. If the aura lacked that timing requirement, which is how we see it, as a timing requirement, then she'd take the damage. What new rule does our interpretation require? Name it. The distinction between the two questions is how long the span of time designated as the "start of activation" is. The rules do not define it. Thus, it is a matter of interpretation, and the two main positions that have emerged are: 1) It is a single point in time. 2) It is the period between selecting a model for activation and taking the model's first action. That's it. Neither interpretation magics in new rules. It's just about what a particular timing step means.

This very much depends on your definition of "break," and further more, "start of activation being a phase" isn't a "rule," it's an interpretation. This can be argued until you're blue in the face, but the reality is the wording is ambiguous, so you have to decide which resolution procedure you and your group prefer.

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. Hope to see you there!

Oh, thanks. I forget that forums exists...