LeperColony

While I agree with the outcome, I'm really not sure an ability is pending if it doesn't qualify. For instance, the mere fact that "Source of the Contagion" exists doesn't make every other "at the start" ability a simultaneous resolution (albeit a fast one, since Source doesn't trigger). Likewise, Colette's Showstopper doesn't make every other "at the start" ability simultaneous if she isn't buried. Because as you laid it out: I am at step 3. I choose to resolve Source first. Colette isn't in range, so no token. I now resolve Showstopper and go in radius. No token because I already resolve Source? That seems questionable as a resolution scheme, even if it leads to the same outcome as I believe would happen (i.e. no token).

It's also entirely possible (though horrifying to contemplate) that even though abilities have the same or very similar wording, they were actually meant to operate differently such that in some scenarios it works like I propose, and in others it's more like the contrary view. Of course, without an ability-specific level wording clarification, even if that were the intention, the most sane option is to treat them all the same.

The two abilities in question for the example (Colette's Showstopper and Hamelin's Source of the Contagion) use very similar wording. This isn't a dispute over semantics. Nobody is saying they work differently because of the wording within each ability. The question is what exactly is meant by the "start" of a model's activation.

The difference in definition is the entire bone of contention. I believe "start of activation" refers only to the instant at which the model becomes activated. That is, the moment step B changes to step C1. Only the conditions that exist at that instant, and only effects that would be legal under the situation as it stands right then happen. Anything else that is "start of activation" but not legally qualified under the conditions at that instant don't apply. The other position is that "start of activation" is a period beginning at the instant I described above and continuing up until the activated model takes an action. Therefore, any "start of activation" effect that wasn't originally legal, but becomes legal as a consequence of the resolution of a previous effect can occur. And the problem is the rules do not clearly determine which is correct, and both seem to have the potential to lead to results which may not have been intended.

Using M2E to draw inferences is entirely legitimate. As you've mentioned it isn't foolproof, and there are obviously going to be differences, but I do think all-in-all it's fair to say "X worked like this in M2E, Y in M3E is similar so I'm going to resolve them similarly." So if you're relying on how similar language worked in M2E, I think that's definitely an argument in your favor.

I specifically stated you check continuously. I don't know how to quote from a previous page, but it's there. The distinction is we're talking about two different periods of game time, and it's not clear whether "start of activation" encompasses both. I'm not looking for a passage of time, there is a passage of time. Note, this is the actual sequence. Events that are simultaneous are listed on the same line. 1. I elect not to pass (A) 2. I select Colette (B) 3. At the start of Colette's activation, she is buried. Therefore, Showstopper applies. 4. Showstopper resolves, placing her within 6" of Hamelin. 5. Now Colette is within the effects of the Source of the Contagion. No previous check could have returned this result. An entire ability has resolved before Source of the Contagion. These were not two simultaneous abilities "on the stack," to borrow Magic terminology, and we just happened to resolve Colette's first. Showstopper happens first in game time. It has to. Either effects are simultaneous or they're not. And if they're not, some time must have passed by definition. There's no way Showstopper and Source of the Contagion could be simultaneous because Source of the Contagion depends on the resolution of Showstopper to be applicable. If Colette went elsewhere, it wouldn't trigger. I'm really not sure how you escape the conclusion that time passed. The only question is if the span of "start of activation" is wide enough to cover the time. Under my theory, it isn't because the process is: 1. Declare model. 2. Model's activation starts. Check for any effects that have "start of activation" timing the model will be affect by. 3. Resolve such effects. Once you complete 3, you've completed the "start of activation" because "start," to me, means the effects that legally encompass the model at the beginning of its activation. The other theory holds that "start of activation" extends up until the model takes an action. I am not saying this is an invalid interpretation of "start." Start is often used metaphorically, such as "when I was starting out..." etc. But it's not inevitable, and when I interpret rules, in the absence of other guidance, I tend to give words their natural meaning. That's why I think "start of activation" effects are those effects that would apply given the game state at the time the model begins its activation, before any effects have been resolved.

I was asking for authority because some of the comments sounded like it was settled, so I thought perhaps I had missed something in the rules (not an unprecedented occurrence). I think we all more or less agree with that. The question concerns the width of the "at the start" of activation window. I believe it should only encompass those effects that are legally applicable at the time the model's activation begins. This may very well include multiple simultaneous effects which, for reasons related to the nature of time, have to be performed sequentially. But I do not believe it would necessarily include other "at the start of" effects that did not legally qualify when the model began, but would only potentially trigger based on the results of a previous effect. This opinion differs with some other people, who are advocating for essentially construing "at the start of" to mean any effects that could occur before the model takes actions, whether or not those effects applied at the beginning of the model's activation or came to apply as a result of an effect that happened at the beginning. To me, "start" means "start" in the absence of other guidance.

I have a simple yes or no question for you. You're going to be resistant to answer because you think if you do it'll mean "I'm right" or whatever, but it's not a trap. It just illustrates my position: 1. I declare I activate Colette. 2. Colette is buried. 3. Yes or No: Is Colette within 6" or Hamelin? I believe "start" means "start," as in at the beginning. So every effect that would qualify at step 1 of the process I outlined above is resolved. But not any effect that would come about after resolving them, because these subsequent effects are no longer at the start. The start has happened. I don't know why this concept has captivated you so. "Check" is no more than to describe the mental action of attempting to discern if an effect applies or not. I asked this earlier, but you didn't reply. So I'll ask it again: If you don't check to see if Colette is buried, how do you know to unbury her? If you want to use another word than "check," go crazy. If for whatever reason it bothers you to think of it as an intentional process, don't. But clearly something has to be happening in order to determine if you do something or not.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying you don't resolve start activation abilities during the start activation subphase. I'm saying abilities that wouldn't apply when you start the model's activation do not qualify. That's a correct statement of my position. Completely agree here too. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right. I'm saying the interpretation that the start phase extends as far as other people are claiming is unsupported by the text of the rules.

I have no clue how you got that. I'm saying we differ over the definition of "start of activation." To me, "start" means when the model begins its activation. Any effects that would be legal at that moment occur and are resolved in the order specified under the rules. You're saying that "start" doesn't just mean the conditions that exist at the beginning of the model's activation, but all effects that happen subsequent and consequent to resolving any effects that were legal as of the beginning of activation. Here's a really simple chart showing our differences: 1. Colette is buried. 2. Player A declares he is activating Colette. 3. Colette "starts" her activation. Any effects that would be legal as of that instant are resolved. --- The difference --- 4. You believe the "start of activation" extends to encompass conditions that exist subsequent and consequent to the resolution of an effect we already know happened "at the start." I'm asking how you're deriving your belief in #4, and as I think we all can acknowledge now, there's no direct authority, you simply choose to interpret it in that manner. Which indeed may be the correct interpretation. But it's neither clear nor inevitable, and in fact the actual meaning of "start" leads to an entirely different and consistent result.

How do you know what to resolve if you don't check? The need to check and see which effects to apply is implicit in applying effects. I mean, honest question: How do you know which effects to apply if you don't check to see if they apply? Why does Colette unbury if you never check to see if she's buried? Checking to apply is a continuous process. My point is if an effect applies only subsequent and consequent to others, it is no longer happening "at the start." Yes, we know that. But we don't know how long it lasts. At the actual, literal start of Colette's activation, if she's buried, is she within 6" of Hamelin? No. The question then becomes if the start activation step encompasses effects that were not legal at the beginning of the model's activation. You say it does. You may be right. But I'm asking what that interpretation is based on. If it has any kind of authority, like a FAQ or an example of play that uses the same timing. Heck, even an M2E reference would be useful (though of course not everything is the same between editions, even with the same name). The only guidance we have for how long this timing step is is that it's the "start." We already covered that the actual definition of start favors me, so you must be relying on a different definition of start. Just to be clear, it's possible Malifaux does use "start" in the way you're claiming (specific words often are used in various ways, especially as terms of art). But you haven't yet provided any evidence that it does, you've just constructed an interpretation of what would happen if it did. C1 is a subphase. But that's not the issue. The question is what the duration of the "start" of a model's activation is. You're saying the "start" is a period that begins at the actual start of its activation and includes any effect that would be legal at inception, and then it also includes any effect that would be legal subsequently. I'm denying that the subsequent period necessary follows, and I'm asking what you're basing this extension on.

No, I'm questioning your definition of "start." As it varies from the actual definition of start, I'm asking if there's some reason to believe that the Malifaux rules are using the word "start" to describe the expansive period you're describing. The irony is, you're the one adding subphases. I'm saying when you select a model to activate, that's the "start" of its activation. And any effect that would be legal at that instant occurs.

Where is Colette at the start of her activation? Nowhere (she's buried) When her activation actually begins, is she within 6" of Hamelin? No. So clearly, in order for your interpretation to be correct, "start of activation" has to be longer than the actual start of her activation, because you believe it encompasses abilities that qualify only after subsequent effects have resolved. But what authority is there that "start of activation" is a kind of subphase as you assert, as opposed to the instant in which the model is activated? Since your assertion defies the actual definition of "start," I'm just asking if there's some authority to base it on. Maybe an example of play or FAQ or M2E precedent or some such.

Why not? Again, this is the question. You're asserting that the "start of activation" step encompasses any number of effects, even if those effects would not have been legal at the literal start of the activation. Which makes it a kind of subphase. I'm saying it's just as possible that "start" means what start actually means: "the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning." (from a google search of "start definition") At the actual start of Colette's activation, she isn't within 6". There's no disputing that. So she resolves all effects that are legal at the "start" of her activation, which is unburying. Any effect subsequent to those that are legal at the actual inception of her activation aren't at the "start," so if they require "start of activation" timing they fail and you can proceed to take actions. That's the section we're talking about. It doesn't state what you're asserting. It may, however, be the correct interpretation. I'm just asking if that interpretation has any actual authority to it.

That citation doesn't establish what you're claiming. Here's the uncontested fact: When Colette begins her activation, she isn't within 6" (she's nowhere). Thus, the only way she can trigger the aura is if a subsequent effect puts her within it. For instance, if she unburies with it. The question is, how long is the "start of activation" period? No rule establishes it. You're working off a definition that must necessary mean something like "anything that can happen before taking an action," and so it encompasses any number of effects whether or not those effects would have been legal when the model began its activation. I'm asking what authority do you have for that definition? Because it's just as possible that "start of activation" refers to the incipient act of activating, and so any effects that are legal at that stage occur, but effects that come subsequent to those are no longer happening "at the start." Note, I don't know which is true. I'm just asking what you're pointing at that establishes it's the way you're claiming.

Do any of you have a citation for how many subsequent effects the "start of activation" can encompass? In the Colette example, when her controller announces her activation and she is buried, at the "start" of her activation, she's clearly not within 6" (since she is nowhere). Then, at the "start" of her activation, she unburies, resolving an effect. However, unburying placed her within 6", which prompts a subsequent effect. This effect happens after (and because) of the resolution of a "start of activation" effect. Therefore, in order for any subsequent and consequent effect to occur, it must also lie within the timing of the "start." But how long is that? For instance, suppose Colette unburies within someone with the ability: "When an enemy model starts its activation within 2", this model may take a action targeting the enemy model." Model X therefore attacks Colette because it's still "start of activation." Colette triggers Fade Away and buries. Then, because it's still the "start of activation" she can unbury again? And this can happen an arbitrary number of times under your timing theory?

Then how long does the "start of activation" last? Because you're only within 6after you resolve an effect. So why doesn't completing that effect move you out of "start of activation" and into "taking actions?" And do you have a citation for this? Finally, suppose an ability: "At the start of this model's activation, place this model anywhere within 6"." And you place it within 6" of Hamelin. You get a blight token? That doesn't seem right, though it may be true.

If you have simultaneous effects pending, the active player decides the order of resolution for their models. For the circumstance you described, it's my understanding that Colette would not receive a Blight token because she didn't start her activation within 6. She started it buried.

How is the rider in a Molly crew? I've never played her before, but with the Nightmare version on its way (eventually, I presume), I'll need to try it out.

Yes, that's how I believe it works.

I vote Sonia since you say you need her eventually. May as well check the box.

I don't believe that's correct. My understanding of the rules is that blocking terrain or other models prevent drawing line-of-sight up to their height. However, if any sight line crosses blocking terrain of any height, and if the target is within the shadow of the terrain, then it gets cover. Even if the terrain is not sufficiently large to block LoS.

Unless I'm mistaken, it should count as cover to a model of height 2 as long as one of the sight lines passes through the tombstone and the target is within the shadow (1").

I don't know if "object" is ever defined, but by rule Shockwave markers are "dropped" and Impassable terrain prohibits dropping or creating on it. I understand your question is predicated on the idea that some class of thing may exist that does not fall within "object," especially since the term is undefined. And that gap in definition opens the window to the hypothetical entity evading the behavioral restriction. But in the absence of an "object" definition, I'd look at the behavior restrictions as examples of the kinds of things that are "objects." Namely, the rule is meant to cover anything dropped or created.

I agree that some non-impassible concealing terrain would be a good addition/replacement for some of the blocking buildings.