SunTsu

News for February 2017! Abbiamo anche una nuova sede ed un nuovo gruppo di gioco ora. Le cose sono ancora work in progress, ma in prospettiva è molto interessante! Come al solito, se siete interessati a provare il gioco o anche solo a fare quattro chiacchiere contattatemi e veniteci a trovare.

@McPigish, it gives me link not valid....

News for Jenuary 2017! Novità di inizio anno! La prima settimana di gennaio sarò a Salerno in ferie. Mi sono reso disponibile ad organizzare demo per chi volesse provare Malifaux. Maggiori info qui: Dal 9 gennaio invece di nuovo a Piacenza con la nuova sede di gioco e diversi interessati a provare Malifaux. Il 22 gennaio, probabilmente ci sarà un evento in provincia di Brescia, nel quale mi hanno chiesto di organizzare qualcosa di Malifaux. Prossimamente info.

Nella prima settimana di Gennaio 2017 sarò a Salerno in ferie. So che ci sono interessati a provare Malifaux, per cui a chi vuole posso organizzare una demo a Salerno, o anche in altre zone della Campania previo accordi. Per info chiedete via PM.

News for December! Novità per il mese di dicembre! Continua la possibilità di fare demo. Avremo anche una nuova sede dal 18 di questo mese. Per info via PM. Dalla fine del mese di dicembre 2016 fino alla metà del mese di gennaio sarò A Salerno. Volendo posso organizzare qualche demo in associazioni ludiche e club in buona parte della Campania. Info sempre via PM.

We're going to end the campaign in this month. We will organize something new at the begining of 2017. Andiamo a concludere la campagna in questo mese. Si organizzerà qualcosa di nuovo dall'inizio del 2017.

Ciao a tutti! A Piacenza siamo in corsa con una campagna di Shifting Loyalties utilizzando anche gli scenari di Divergent Paths! Siamo a metà campagna, ma se vi interessa potete sempre partecipare... Giochiamo in diverse sedi, la più utilizzata è: Games Academy Piacenza (http://www.gamesacademy.it/piacenza/ ) Piazza Cittadella, 2 Piacenza piacenza@gamesacademy.it Non abbiamo un giorno fisso (quindi contattatemi in PVT per info più precise), solitamente al pomeriggio dalle 14.30 alle 19.30 o la sera dopo le 21. Siete benvenuti anche solo per fare 4 chiacchiere! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi everybody! In Piacenza we're running a Shifting Loyalties campaign using also Divergent Paths scenarios! We play in several places, the most used is: Games Academy Piacenza (http://www.gamesacademy.it/piacenza/ ) Piazza Cittadella, 2 Piacenza piacenza@gamesacademy.it You're all welcome, also just to chat a bit...!

[updated on August 2019] Ciao a tutti! Volete fare una partita dimostrativa a Malifaux 3e in zona Piacenza??? Oppure siete interessati a partecipare ad una campagna od un torneo??? Contattatemi!!! La nostra associazione: Legio Placentia 3D (https://m.facebook.com/groups/LegioPlacentia3D/) Stradone Farnese, 16 · Piacenza · 29121 PC Non abbiamo un giorno fisso di apertura, ma apriamo su richiesta (basta metterci d'accordo). Anche gli orari sono flessibili, ma solitamente ci si incontra la sera dopo le 21 oppure (più raramente) al pomeriggio. Ad oggi abbiamo una piccola comunità che conta alcuni giocatori attivi e qualche interessato. Se vi va, siete i benvenuti! Anche solo per fare 4 chiacchiere! Grazie per il tempo e la pazienza di leggere questo post...!!! __________________ - LINK LEGIO PLACENTIA- Forum della Legio Placentia 3D - Pagina FB Legio Placentia 3D - Gruppo FB Legio Placentia 3D MALIFAUX: Sezione Malifaux del forum Legio Placentia 3D - http://legioplacentia.forumfree.it/?f=64854127 Gruppo FB campagna Placentia Breach 2017 - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1952460691633369/ Pagina FB campagna Placentia Breach 2017 - https://www.facebook.com/CampagnaMalifauxPiacenza/?ref=br_rs

Ok. What about reporting this principle in the next faqs? It would help a lot. The problem about the Seamus and Sandeep interaction question was that the general timing flow chart rule directly contradict this principle, so making it explicit in the faqs would be great IMVVHO. ;-)

It's a new one. If it would be an existing one, the ability would be written something like: "target/choose a scheme marker in play" etc.

If you read my posts, you surely will see that I'm not a RAW only supporter. But in this situation I can't see a clear intention in this rule as you claim. If you want to explain from where you extract a so clear clue about the intention of this rule I can also change my mind. At the moment, since the intention is unclear and unreadable as I can see, we should go with raw, since this rule works well as written without any problem.

You can't take the answer you like, even if it's not the most voted and supported one, and use it as "the official" answer. Overmore this position is unsupported by the wording in the rule, as @Ludvig very well pointed out: It is very clear, not just to me but to everyone speaks even a basic English, that ALL means, really, ALL... And at least, even if someone may think that the intent would be different and the rule was written badly (but it would be only a personal interpretation, the rule stays always written the same), for a precautional principle we should however play it in the less powerful way, as wisely suggested by @Kadeton: at the very start of this discussion:

You have to consider that the bases of models as the markers are not intended to be in a different position but parallel to the terrain. So, even if the terrain is shaped in a way that the marker/model is phisically inclined and in an unconventional position, you have always consider that it is really flat and parallel to the ground. Someone uses proxy bases or some dices to let the markes/models stay in the right position. However, even if you don't use it, the important is that you are aware about how the base is oriented in the space. Models that climb a wall don't do so putting the base in vertical...

Excuse me Sir.... You just said you don't agree with me. But... in the very same sentence also said that "not having the AP [...cut...] lead to no models being a legal target for the charge action". So, if the piglet in question does walk + walk means it runned out of AP, so according to you cannot have any legal target to charge* because it have no AP, and so it can make a (0)action ignoring Set'er Off ability, and so you agree with me.... So, am I missing something??? (Exept the fact on how you can agree and disagree with me at the same time, obviously...) [ *= I think that targets are legal but the model simply cannot choose the action. However it's a semantic and meaningless question for this scenario.]

I don't like very much the aggressive tone you sometimes use. I'm here not to litigate, but to speaking about rules. Here the question is: So, about 3, do you think that charges of Set'er Off are free charges without AP spending or not? If you think yes, then you have to admit the model will charge 3 times without AP costs. It's this the way you play it? If you think instead that Set'er Off just require to spend AP in a charge if the model can, than the model can make walk + walk + (0)action even if there is a legal target for a charge, because the action itself cannot be taken. Do you agree with this?

Obviously yes. The area around the model count exactly as a terrain that provides soft cover if any model will be elegible to gain it against an attack. So you have to take in count the los and the relative position ot attacker and defender, so if not los pass through the soft cover area no benefits is gained. But it works as you said. Note that this area doesn't block los, since it lacks both blocking or dense trait. Pratically in Malifaux every rules do just what is written. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In the charge description it says at the first "target a model". Then says that if the target cannot end engaged the actions cannot be taken. That an action cannot be taken, doesn't mean that targeting a specific model is illegal. This is never defined in the rules. Cannot take an action means just that action itself cannot be performed. There could be several reasons about why a model cannot perform an action: lacking AP points, special rules that prevent that action, and so on. These doesn't mean that the target is illegal. Mean simply that, according with the rules, a model cannot execute that task and so cannot committing in that action. It's different. Set'er Off don't says "If a charge can be taken", it says "If there are legal targets". We can analize further. Since the charge description don't simply say "if the target is in range" meaning Cg+rng, but says that "This model must end the move with the target model within its engagement range or this Action may not be taken." And it's not the same. Because as the rules are written you have to consider if there are a way to move charging model so that he can fullfill the charge requirements or not. It account for movement penalies, severe terrain, climbing, obstruction, incorporeal/flying, bonus movements and so on. It's not simply "measure if you are in range". To commit in this and to establish that the charge is legal or cannot be taken, sometimes you have to consider much more factors than simply a plain straight distance.

Ok, so what's the intent in say "Dumb Luck trigger that states it inflict half the damage the target SUFFERS is based on the damage flip and not the effectively damage applied to the model"? I mean, in a case if you reduce the damage to zero a model suffers no damage, in the other one that same model suffered damage... There are conflicting and opposite intents in the wyrd faqs, and no one can say which is the "real" one... All we have are rules, and rules says it works different from how you think it would. I agree that Malifaux is much more intent-oriented then other wargames, but if we will base everything on intents we can put rules in a trash and simply play without... Ok, this is what we call "common sense". Now, in Malifaux, common sense is useful much more than many others wargames, since the ruleset in our game is less structured and more common-sense oriented than others. BUT... this doesn't mean that common sense have to overule everything. In this situation we are experiencing the lack of a time flow chart with multi steps and checks to let the cross-interactions between abilities and similia smooth and easy. So, if the rules would have defined the terms "before damaging", "while damaging" and "after damaging" we would have experienced much less incertainty than this. So, your reasoning essentially is "If I cancel the damage suffered, the damage really never happened". This is backed by the faq "Suffers zero damage is not suffers damage". This is common sense, and it's normal that your brain struggle with something that try to modify this point of view. But, a game like Malifuax cannot be only based on common sense. There are arguments in a game that can be view from a perspective or another, it depends just from game design considerations and arbitrary decisions. So, the precisation that if a model suffers 0 damage it don't suffers damage is a choice of game design. But the opposite would be also legit. Finally there are many games in which suffering zero damage ISN'T the same of DON'T suffers damage at all. The same with push/move 0" is considered to be moved or not. Now, here we have a problem about this scenario, since: - there are not different steps in timing and both these abilities happens at the very same moment; - the order of resolution will affect the outcome in a very different way; - we have no specific rule to handle this very specific situation; - we can't determine exactly which was the game design intent. So, looking at the rules, there is a section that says: In the unlikely event that two or more abilities/effects happening at the same time have an outcome that will depend on the order of resolution, then follow these rules. Rulebook, page 46: Now, here we have exactly 2 abilities that resolves at the same time. So, do you think we have to follow these rules? Or can we cut away the page and burn the rules? Because if we don't apply it in this situation, I can't understand why ever Wyrd would have been written at all this General Timing rules.... So, if we will decide to ignore it, we can safely throw the entire rulebook off and play with our homemade rules. But if we decide to use Wyrd's ruleset we have to do as follows: 1. Sandeep flips/cheat a moderate/severe damage against Seamus 2. Both models in the after damaging step (a bit undefined in the rules but here is it) will activate abilities 3. The acting model (Sandeep) goes first per general timing rules. Seamus is suffering moderate/severe damage? Yes. So he gets paralized too. 4. The defender goes second. Seamus is suffering any damage? Yep! So he can use its hat and reduce the damage to zero. 5. Since the damage was reduced to 0, it is cancelled and FROM NOW ON Seamus is not considered anymore as a model that suffered damage. But no rules allow you to remove the paralized condition. Not the Seamus hat, that just cancelled the damage. Not the Sandeep rules, that applied condition in an absolutely legal way since at the moment ability kicked in Seamus effectively suffered damage. Not the general rules, since explicitly says in general timing section that when the order of resolution counts you have to resolve in this way. We can't go back cancelling paralize because it explicitly violate the general timing rules (again, we would burn that rules away if we don't consider it, and going back cancelling effects effectively means that those rules would be meaningless and useless at all), and because if we decide that this is how it works we will come immediately to a paradox: if you claim to cancel the paralized, you're saying that Seamus never suffered damage in step 3, so it would neither suffered damage in step 4 (that for general timing rules is AFTER the step 3), and so it would never had the possibilities to use the hat, and at this point would arrive Dr. Who in person and brings all of us in a different weird reality... Practically, what you're asking guys is: OR rewriting general timing flow chart rules in an arbitrary way (that is a thing we can't do), OR throw that rules in the trash (that is a thing we can do, but we will not result in playing Malifaux any more). So, here are the rules and as they works at the moment. We can debate if there was a mistake in writing Seamus hat rules and if the intent was this. We can claim an errata or think that this was exactly the intent. But, by a rules perspective, it's meaningless. Here there isn't uncertainty of how rules works at the moment about this specific scenario. Please, don't take it on personal. It's a game after all... Really, if you don't agree about the logic of the rules as I exposed and you think I did a fatal logical rules big mistake you can point it out and we will discuss about it. But we're not making Sandeep's advocates. We're just speaking about rules...

Because the way how it's written the ability and how it function. You can always target a model in los to charge. If you couldn't, how you could ever determine if you are in range or not? Saying a model cannot take an action because it's out of range, it's different to say that it cannot try to target it with the action (before to know if it's in range). Obviously, in Malifaux you can always measure everything, so it should not be a so important clause. But IMO this is a game design choice to explicitly and legally forbid a failed charge to be performed, even if someone is a newbie or distract player.

Mmmmm.... So if you in this scenario randomize on a friendly model you don't perform the attack??? I was under the impression that the targetting step was just at the very beginning of the declaring action and that after targetting restriction simply doeasn't kick in... Am I wrong?

Very interesting report sir. Thanks a lot for your time.

Ok, so I was dunked when I remembered the opposite....

But now it is not clear and the errata is there... I'm with you until you say: "I don't have the AP to complete the charge, my action fail, I can't declare another (0) because I've now used up my chance to declare a (0)" What you wrote is a total nonsense... First, why an action should fail if you don't have any AP to declare it? How you can fail an action never declared? You spend the AP in order to declare an action, not as a result of having declared it. The brewmaster ability is an exception explicitly defined by a special rule that change the declared action in another one. But it's a special rule that clearly states so. Here you don't have nothing of this. You can't say that an action fail if you never be able to declared it... Rulebook, page 36: and Rulebook, page 37: Second, why you wouldn't declare a (0) action? When you used your chance to declare it? Rules about free action states that a model can perform just a single free action per activation. Even if we would consider the way you pretend this to work the right way, it will not burn away the free action option. Set'er Off say that the model must take the charge action, so it really had no opportunity at all to declare a different action if it have a legal charge available, and so it cannot burn the 0 action because it never did it. Rulebook, page 37: Finally, in your scenario, if that model have some remaing AP, it must declare a charge even if the player would prefer a different action. But, if that model have no AP, since it isn't a 0 AP charge and you must pay 1 AP to do it, the charge isn't a legal choice anymore, because you can't declare an action you haven't AP to pay for. So, IMO, the ability is surely worded in a not perfect way at all and it should be clarified. Nevertless it's obvious that if a charge isn't an option anymore (for whenever reason) the model can choose a differt action if a model can legally perform it. P.S.: Just to be clear, a model to be a legal target for a charge action just need to be in los of the charging model, Rulebok page 39: so, if we will combine this with if we will follow your point of view, we have a situation where if the Set'er Off model have a model in los on the other side of the battlefield, it MUST take a charge action but it CANNOT TAKE that action because it is outside its range and so quite everytime that model's activation will result in a waste of time doing nothing at all... It could be??? It's consistent with game experience??? I don't think so...

Here is the scenario: model A use an attack action with a TN of 12 built inside, against model B. Model's A duel total is 11, model's B is 10. Who have to cheat first? I was under the impression that I read somewhere when the attacking model doesn't hit the TN, it would cheat first even if it's winning in the duel total. But I cannot find when I would read this information. That was a my fascination, maybe I recall bad the rules, or there is a place where it is written it? Have you any reference? Thanks!

No. The problem is exactly that rules don't specify in a precise way what "Suffer damage" means and when it happens. At the moment is more plain english that a rules term. Rules gives some specific flowchart about "suffering damage" (like the triggers timing rules). But that's all. Overmore, there are some rules and faqs that conflict between them about this argument. Considering the faq about Dumb Luck trigger, "suffering damage" means "when the damage flip is made" as you said. But if you look at the faq about "If you suffers 0 damage counts as you suffered damage?" the answer is "no", and is the opposite of the previous. Infact, if you flip savere on damage and the opponend prevent/reduce in some way (via soulstone or other) all the damage, it will count as no suffering any damage at all.... In the first case the suffering damage time is locate at the damage flip, in the second situation it is at the effective application of the damage at the model wounds. So, I really think that the best would have some different steps for this. Let's say "before damaging", "when damaging" and "after damaging". But to do this wyrd would have rewrite many abilities and releasing many erratas, because they would have consideri and/or decide each single ability in which phase they want to made it active.... so I don't think it will be the solution they will take. Even if, by a game design point of view, it would be the best. At the moment, by RAW, rules support the way the hat protect from damage but not from paralized in this specific scenario, due to the recalling of the general timing abilities. Maybe this was not the intention, or maybe it was, who knows? But it is how it works at the moment.