LeperColony

I have a massive amount of them, acquired through 3-4 orders. The tokens themselves are beautiful. In my opinion, the best on the market. However... Shipping from Russia can be a serious issue depending on where you're located. I'm in the U.S., and for whatever reason every time it's two or even three months before I get my order. When I get other stuff from Russia, it doesn't take as long. So I suspect terracutter shares at least some of the blame for the lengthy shipping times. On one occasion my order was incorrect (I had wanted 10 scrap and 10 corpse, but they sent 20 scrap), but they made it right so in the end I just had to wait a bit longer and got some free scrap tokens from it. Personally, I am more than happy with my purchases, and intend to get more in the future if they make whatever markers the Explorer's Society will end up needing. But you will have to consider for yourself whether long shipping times are worth the wait (or maybe you live closer to Russia, or even in Russia).

I very much agree with this position. Removal is nice, but there are other tools that can be applied depending on the situation. Recently I played a game as the Viks against Raspy, and Battle Tempo was very effective at managing the risk of ice pillars. If all the factions had the same abilities, the game would lose a lot of its flavor.

Pine Box is also the only example of this wording I could find, which, to my mind, makes it more likely that the word choice wasn't specifically meant to have a clearly distinctive effect. So I guess I'm back with you guys!

Goad Witchling says "that Activate." That's really bad language because it's not even really timing language, it's conditional. "People that buy tickets can see the show." The reason they went with it, I suspect, is to make it clear that the model retains its movement throughout the Activation, even when it moves out of the range. The extra movement isn't from the aura, it's from Activating within the aura. "That Activate" could certainly have gone in B, and the fact that they assign it to C1 is not a bad inference that all such abilities should resolve in C1. The problem is "when" identifies a specific point in time, and according to the current rules (as I understand them), that time is in Step B. "When the clock strikes 12" happens at 12. Not 1.

Actually, on re-reading, I don't think this is true. Life leach says when an enemy model "starts its Activation." Pine Box says when a model "Activates." Models Activate in Step B. So I have to re-reverse myself. Pine Box does happen first, RAW, imo.

Goad Witchling wouldn't be helpful to resolving this, because it has different wording. But Life Leech does say "when," and it was included in the FAQ example you quoted. So I suppose "when" effects do happen in C1!

I believe the model would be allowed to use On the Move. Step B says: "The Active Player Activates a model that has not yet Activated this Turn." Since Pine Box's unbury effect is "when the target Activates," this takes place in Step B. On the Move is resolved in C1, during the subphase for "At the Start of Activation" effects. So you resolve Pine Box first, then move to Start of Activation effects. Note, this is one instance where the old "if I unbury in Hamelin's aura, do I get a token" would result in a yes. Because when you enter the Start of Activation, you're in his aura.

The very fact that Wyrd didn't make it work like some (we'll get to that below) of the other "after" is in fact a good indication they don't want it to operate in the same manner. But also, "after X" is not at all just stuck in cleaning steps. In fact, Wyrd uses this language quite a bit to refer to the period subsequent to a defined event. Terrifying is "after." Take the Hit is "after." Trump Cards is "after." Protected is "after." Primal Domain is "after." Etc. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of "afters" where the clear intent is to identify a timing window subsequent to a specific event. In all of these, you'd use "after' in the commonly understood manner. It's just here that you're trying to change what "after" means (or rather, you're trying to give it a specific meaning that other uses explicitly have defined, but this use was not). The issue with this is that there are interactions that seem odd in the game, because this is a game of corner cases. Telling someone they can't give Colette Blight when she activates and pops up into his aura because it's not the "start of Activation" doesn't feel great. Telling someone they can't target the scheme marker behind the wall because the sight lines are technically blocked regardless of the model's height doesn't feel great. Ricochet onto the original target feels bad. However you use Scamper, there's feel bad potential. Malifaux's rules, like most games with this degree of complexity, resolve easily and intuitively in the vast majority of cases. But there are going to be some specific examples where that isn't true. Now, actually at the table, I'm likely to agree with you. That's why my argument is about how I think the rules resolve as written. How I'd like them to work, or even how I play them at the table, are not the same thing. If we don't discuss RAW on the rules forum, I don't think we're helping Wyrd highlight issues as well as we could. None of my positions in these rules forums discussions are based on how I want it to be resolved. When I read the first posts here, it was simply asserted that A Por El was in Abuela's Activation. I pointed out reasons why I think that's not necessarily true, RAW. But I'm not advocating for how it "should" work. I think it really depends on what Wyrd's goal is with these kinds of abilities. If they want them to be subject to effects that key off the original model's Activation, then yes, making them work in C3 is probably the best way to do it. If they want them to be part of an Activation, but not the original model's Activation, then divorcing C4 from the original model's Activation and making these abilities count as a kind of Chain Activation could work. If they want them not to be part of any Activation, then they may need to make a new subphase that is excluded from any model's Activation. I'll be honest, I don't really have any clue what Wyrd's intent with these abilities are.

I wonder if Anna would be good then. Or maybe it'd be too many stones spent on trying to get some value from it.

The problem with this claim is that all those other instances already fall into defined timing sequences. In fact, this only strengthens my position, because unlike "after resolving" or "after killing," which Wyrd did explicitly place into timing steps, "after this model ends its Activation" is not placed into one of the defined timing steps. You've both brought up these other instances of "after" as though you think it helps your case. Then, when I demonstrate the clear distinction, neither of you address it. The failure to treat this instance of "after" in the same pre-defined way as "after killing" or "after resolving" indicates, though certainly does not prove, that Wyrd did intend "after" in the English sense of being subsequent to another event. In this case, the end of the model's Activation. However, what is admittedly unclear is whether Wyrd intended the word "Activation" to be the entire sequence of the model's Activation (and so extend past C4, if C4 is part of the model's Activation), or if they want "Activation" to mean up to the point where the model counts as having been Activated. This is one area where the FAQ muddies the waters. Since they treat a model as having been "unactivated" (for instance, for Manipulative) up until C3, I have no clue whether they mean for C3 to simply turn off any abilities that require the model to be unactivated, or if they mean C3 to be the end of the model's Activation. It is entirely possible for a model's Activation to be longer than the period the model goes from unactivated to Activated. However, no matter where you put the end point of the Activation, "after this model ends its Activation" must come after it. Also, while I don't know exactly what the logical foundation of your position is, @Maniacal_cackle has stated he believes this issue is due to Wyrd being sloppy with wording, so the choice of "after" does not really have the significance to which I am attaching. To be clear, this could certainly be true. But it's a claim that I can't really evaluate. So absent some indication that Wyrd really was just imprecise, I have to look at what the implications of "after" are, since Wyrd could have used "at" if they wanted it to work the way you guys assert. C4 can be part of the model's Activation because that's the phase in which the model is Activating. Then you move on to C1 and resolve any "At the start" effects. So this language is good for you, because it does support the idea that C4 is in the original model's Activation. However, again, even if C4 is part of the original model's activation, all that does is push any "after this model ends its Activation" to after C4 since "after" the Activation must come, by definition, subsequent to whatever is the last thing in the model's Activation. To get the timing you want, Wyrd would need to define "after this model ends its Activation" to mean "after this model becomes/counts as Activated." This would make these effects happen after C3, but within the model's Activation, if the model's Activation extends to C4 (though even in this case, it's not clear what step these abilities would happen in, so it would still have the phase hole problem that could make Once per Activation's arguable). It is entirely possible that Wyrd intends this timing to exist. But currently there is no mechanical framework that establishes it.

C3 is part of the model's activation. I've said that already. It's when you resolve effects that happen "at the end of the model's Activation." So the model's activation is not complete until those are resolved, then "the model counts as having Activated this turn." C4 is not part of the model's Activation, because it happens after the model has Activated. It is, however, part of the player's Activation step. The player's Activation step is a subphase (actually a collection of subphases) of the Activation Phase. A model's Activation occurs during this Activation subphase, but it is not co-terminal with it, because there is an additional window for effects the player generates before passing play to the opponent. This is C4. Note however, even if you were to stretch C4 as part of the original model's Activation, all that would happen is "after this model ends its Activation" would get put after C4 rather than after C3 (where I currently think it belongs). This is because no matter what step you assign as the "end" of the Activation, A Por El and similarly worded abilities happen after that point. Again, this is a natural, if not quite inevitable, implication from the word "after" in "after this model ends its Activation." Actually, it says "a model's Activation," not "the model's Activation" as you're asserting. This is because C4, "Chain Activation" covers Activating another model. This makes C4 part of a model's Activation. So, for instance, if a model with Accomplice were to activate in C4 within Levi's Ruinous Repairs ability, he would get to trigger it. EDIT: Not a good example, since that would happen in C1 of the new model's activation. However, something like Reva's Spirit in the Flames is a possible example, or Misery, Following Orders or anything else like it. Though in practice, I think very few (if any) Once Per Activation abilities are relevant in C4. If another model chain activates, C4 is the first step in its Activation, essentially replacing step B. The newly activated model now proceeds through the C steps until they are all completed. Now, a complicating factor in all of this is, as @solkan mentioned in another thread, A Por El and similar abilities (like Strike Team) seem to happen in between C3 and C4. Holes of these kinds in timing steps make me nervous, because it is unclear how you're supposed to apply effects that otherwise have reasonably well defined resolutions. Unless these abilities count as a kind of Chain Activation, which would put them firmly in C4. But I don't think they do, absent an errata. To me, the cleanest way for Wyrd to resolve these is to either: 1) Get rid of "after" and just use "at." This would place them all in C3. The downside to this is if Wyrd wants the actions taken from these abilities to be outside the original model's Activation, then removing "after" gets rid of the only timing mechanism they have to do so. 2) Create a new step (which would be C4, making what is now C4 into C5) to handle "after" to clearly exclude the previously activated model, but not yet advance to Chain Activations. Though an issue here is that this new C4 would be in a kind of Activation void, so Once per Activation effects wouldn't be usable unless the ruling that made the new step also provided for it. 3) Rule the actions taken through these abilities count as, or are resolved in, Chain Activation's C4. If Wyrd wants to exclude the original model's Activation from the new effect, this is probably the cleanest solution. Since C4 is already defined as within the Once Per Activation window, those abilities would also apply (though it would be a little unclear as to whose activation it is. Maybe nobody's, but the window itself permits the use of Once Pers).

The model has been killed. After that happens, do something. There's no conflict. Also, the game has a designated timing step that covers "after killing" effects and effects that would Heal. These only begin after an effect that would kill the model. I'm at a loss as to why you think this is helpful to your interpretation. So what your example does is change the duration of the event, not the meaning of after. You're just saying that the way we define "movie" doesn't include the credits. I don't know if there's any official definition of "movie." But in the Malifaux example, there is a defintion of when activations end. It's C3, subsequent to resolving any At the end effects. Anything that then occurs later is, by definition, "after" the Activation.

The issue is the rules unambiguously state that the range is an absolute limit on the reach of the action's effects. This is like saying "nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but as long as there's nobody with a speedometer, we can go warp speed." Also, as we did discuss last time, some actions do tell you to check again during Step 5. If the action's effect says "within range." Both actually result in sort of absurd interactions. 5 or 6" against models you're not engaged with, or ranged attacks against models you can't see are also ridiculous. Does Scampering into The Captain's aura reduce damage? Etc. I actually think this is one of those RAW produces an odd result that really isn't desirable and I think the easiest way to fix it is to errata away the line in the rules saying that an action's effects can't extend past its range, as a general ruling. Then, also, a clarification on how they want Scamper to work.

I don't really understand why you think this is helpful to you. "After" does not create some impenetrable black box. All it does is identify a timing window which is subsequent to something else. Then you perform whatever else it is telling you to do. Demise says after the model is killed. Then you do something. Just because there is a triggering event, it doesn't mean the resulting effect that change it. Scamper is not helpful to your cause because "after resolving" effects (not triggers, which happen at a different time) have a defined step in the action resolution sequence (C2f). In fact, Scamper can be used to draw an inference (but not establish conclusively) that Wyrd did mean "after" instead of "at" for Al Por El, because if they wanted it to fall within the Activation, they could have used the unambiguously defined term that would keep us there. The "after" in A Por El is after the activation has ended. So we are now in a state where the model's activation is complete. Another model may then do something. Yeah, exactly... And in this case, the specific time is after Abuela has ended her Activation. I mean, if I said to you, "after the movie ends, I'm going to dinner," would you believe I was eating dinner during the movie? Of course not. Well, yes, but the reason is that your position is not one that can be subject to logical determination. You've decided to interpret this as a consequence of Wyrd being sloppy with their wording, and that despite using "after" what you're doing is treating it as "at." And so long as your position is based on an interpretation of Wyrd's actual intent, there's no frame of reference in which the matter can be resolved.

Start of Activation didn't have different wordings, as far as I could remember. That example is actually pertinent here, because many of the people who thought SoA effects extended past the actual "start" of the Activation ignored the meaning of the word "start," and they conflated the Start of Activation timing step with the C1 subphase. A subphase is a window in which effects occur. C3 is the subphase in which activations end. Anything "after" a model's activation ends happens after C3. This is our fundamental difference. I agree it is possible Wyrd was not always as precise with their wording as may be desired. But I'm not willing to ignore the plain meaning of the word "after" based on the possibility that they meant "at" and just didn't write at. Your conclusion entirely ignores the word "after," and so it makes it impossible to really discuss the issue with a common frame of reference. Because at the most basic level, I think "after" has to mean the preceding thing has occurred, and you think Wyrd didn't mean to say what it said. I don't in any way mean that summation to be flippant or reductive. Just that our positions, because of the nature of their construction, are not really resolvable through debate because their underlying assumptions are not in any way compatible. Ultimately, this is just going to be another one of those "we need a FAQ" questions.

The rules say in black and white that the model's Activation ends in step 3. Anything after the end is, by definition, subsequent to the thing that ended. By your logic, the original model's Activation even continues into the Chain Activated model, because that's step 4, and it's during Step 4 that you "go back to the start of Step C." The issue is you're conflating the Activation window with the model's Activation. The Activation window extends past the model's Activation in order to provide a timing opportunity for effects that occur after a model has finished its Activation, but before the opponent has an opportunity to act. I've asked these a few times now, and I still don't really understand your position regarding the following: 1) "At the end" wording already exists. How does your interpretation of "after" differ from "At the end"? Put another way, why even have "after" if it doesn't happen after the model has Activated. 2) How would you word an effect that happens after the completion of the model's Activation, but before the opponent gets to act?

That's not what page 21 says. The model's activation ends in C3. It specifically says: "End Activation: Resolve any effects that happen at the end of a model's Activation. The model is considered to have Activated this turn." (emphasis mine) This completes the model's Activation. C4 occurs after the model has completed its activation, but before play passes to the opposing player. Correct, Misery wouldn't apply. And although that might seem strange at first blush, it's an interaction that already exists in the game. Battle Tempo wouldn't trigger Misery. Deadly Pursuit wouldn't. Herald wouldn't. Etc.

At this point, Abuela's activation has ended. If A Por El said "at," then you'd still be in her activation. But it doesn't, it says "after." Explain to me another use of the word "after" that doesn't require the preceding step to have ended. Also, note, Abuela isn't doing anything. Another model that is within her aura can discard a card to do something. It's that other model that is discarding the card. Abuela's end of activation isn't generating anything. Another model is generating an effect within the timing window that exists after Abuela has finished, but before another model can act. A Por El isn't the only ability with this timing. Anyone with Accomplice has it. Kin has it. Frontier has it. The idea that all of the Pathfinder's traps are taking their walk during his activation seems odd. The fact that this wording exists in multiple instances undermines the idea that it's stray or sloppy wording (though doesn't disprove it, to be sure). While it may be unusual for actions to happen outside activations, I don't know of any rule that prohibits it. And in fact, there are actions that happen in the start and end phase, so the rules in fact do provide for it. Out of curiosity, if you don't believe "after this model ends its activation" takes place after its activation, what language would you use to mean after the model's activation has ended?

It's 100% accurate to say the rules don't provide a clear answer. The problem with your "after resolving" analogy is that "after resolving" is specifically included in the Action resolution sequence (C2f). Additionally, "after resolving" is trigger timing. Triggers need to tell us at what point in the action you apply their effects, because they can modify the action itself. They are not analogous to abilities, and their timing shouldn't really be used as a template for resolving abilities. These interactions are not weird. They may even be intentional. Wyrd has language that would have made A Por El in Abuela's activation unambiguously. They didn't use it. Your analysis pretends that's irrelevant. I'm not so convinced it is.

I'm not sure it's anyone's activation. A Por El happens "after this model ends its activation," so it can't be Abuela's activation anymore (it has ended). C3 is for abilities like Viktoria's Synchronized. Treating A Por El as being part of Abuela's activation is erasing the distinction between "after" a model's activation ends, and "at" the end of the model's activation. These are not the same thing, and if you treat "after" as meaning "at" then what other term are you going to use to cover effects you want to happen subsequent to the model's activation, but before another activation? Now, admittedly, Wyrd may not have written the abilities with such specificity. But absent an indication we should disregard the plain meaning of "after," I think the most natural reading is that it is no longer Abuela's activation. And if it's not hers, and not another model's, then it isn't anyone's.

I really liked it! A few things: 1) You can't use Focus on Terrifying checks. I know it seems like you should be able to, but Focus is only for Opposed duels (page 29). 2) It was mentioned that if you use Scamper when someone cheats Terrifying, you can avoid the ensuing melee attack by moving out of range. This is actually disputed. Some people think you can, some think you can't. I go back and forth.

Does Sonnia's Smothering Flames affect triggers like Ricochet? I know triggers are generally subject to the same rules as actions, but are the distance values provided in triggers (including or ) ranges within the meaning of the rules?

Yeah, it's a product they keep selling as many as they make, and people ask for more. Why would they continue to offer it?

I've only played a single game with Spawn Mother, and I really struggled to get more value out of her than I would a Silurid. I want to emphasize that I'm not blaming her, but every activation she just ended up running schemes. The single egg I laid, I never even hatched.

I actually think his aura is why you take him. Can he do other things? Sure. But as you've pointed out, there are other options for those things. The only capability he brings that can't be replicated is the aura, and it's a fantastic defense tech with virtually no answer. The ideal use is to send attacks to enemy models, but even just the ability to distribute them to your own people can be the difference between the original target living and dying. I haven't played him against the Nekima alpha strike list yet (since I've never played against it at all), but the ability to spread subsequent attacks to other models seems like a possible counter. Wrath has become essentially an auto pick for me in Pandora. His aura stacks great with the rest of the bubble, and his lure is fantastic since neither Pandora nor Candy (the two principle friendly targets) have . I use him as sort of a Candy shuttle service, since she wants to stay unactivated but often needs a reposition to remain relevant. I've taken him in Lucius before, but he didn't really prove effective. That was probably more my fault than his, and ultimately I think he could have a place there. I think he has maximum value with Pandora, but I could see him in almost any other Neverborn if you're worried about alpha strikes or leapy beaters, though as I mentioned I don't really think he'd be great in Euripides. He's not Swampfiend, so he may be a bit of a harder sell in Zoraida. If the strat or scheme pool require models to be in certain places, so like Corrupted Ley Lines or Claim Jump/Leave Your Mark, it's easier to make use of his aura. And those would also maximize his lure. Of course, I should add that I'm a pretty mediocre player, so I can't claim any great insight!