PiersonsMuppeteer

The different suit isn't limited to the context of only the ability, and the flip does have an associated suit when discarding the fate tokens. Fate's Master strikes me as a method to fuel the declaring of multiple triggers on Malice, and not a method to stack suits for one specific trigger.

Jin seems best in scheme marker heavy pools vs a Master which summons or uses fast flanking Minions. Bopping a Summoned or Hired schemer back to Deployment and possibly ripping the scheme marker the Minion just dropped would be a 1-2 turn setback. Plenty to either completely prevent the reveal or delay it to T5 to stop the end VP. "in concealment" is probably a typo of "in concealing terrain" or "has concealment". I would lean towards using "has concealment", it makes more sense to goof up "has" -> "in" than "concealing terrain" -> "concealment". Jin would lose some synergy with both keywords if Skulker was only concealing terrain as well.

Samurai would want to be the last Mask pass target of the turn, that way you can use the bonus action concentrate instead of needing to pass the artifact. If the Samurai has a target in range, 2-3 cards drawn end of T1 can really help set up the T2 hand. For OP: I wouldn’t hit Elli/Patti with an artifact until T2+ unless you have no cards for RWM in hand, each RWM is ~2 AP for the crew compared to Fast only giving 1 AP.

Area Effects is probably the most important rule to not allow the ability in question , as Area Effects states that they are an area of the table. So models not on the table can’t benefit from or be affected by Area effects, which an Aura is.

Targeting is only part of resolving Actions, and the instructions for resolving Abilities essentially starts at Apply Results.

The action is resolved using Colette’s stat card, and she doesn’t have Insignificant on her stat card. I don’t think there is any permission in the rules to permit a model using two stat cards simultaneously. If “using this model’s stat card” were omitted, I think there would be more argument for the Dove’s Insignificant stopping “Colette” from Interacting.

Looking at The Table and LoS rules, LoS is only used for objects on the table. Auras need to have LoS to a model affect that model. Even though Titania always has LoS to herself, LoS only exists while on the table.

Titania’ ability is an effect (the Aura) which relates to her position (if she is in the Aura). Instead of looking at what prevents you from using the Aura, what rule would give you permission to benefit from an Aura while not on the table?

Ototo and Minako seem pretty core. Ototo for obvious reasons, and Minako can summon a Wanyudo or deal irresistible damage much easier when you can force an attack that you control on her. I'd consider Wokou and Crime Bosses close to core for the efficiency they add to making the enemy Interact with Obey, with Wokou favoring a mobile pool and KCB favoring brawls.

Second paragraph of Bury rules: "These Actions ignore all game effects relating to the position of the Buried model", and lists an Aura as one of the ignored game effects. Since Tara's attack would ignore Titania's position for Aura's, I don't think Titania exists inside her Aura and does not gain the effect while Tara's Action is resolving. Another issue I see with allowing it: Auras need to draw Range and LoS to the model being affected, and neither can be done to a Buried model.

I’m liking the idea of 33 with Daw for drawing the Black Joker. You just doubled my interest in 33 OOK! Though, Hanged might be a bit slow without any Guilty in the list.

I see what you are saying more clearly now, and it brings about an issue with the resolving actions statement as well as the above. Damage timing states “suffering damage as a result of an effect”. If damage is an effect, suffering damage and following damage timing is a result of an effect… not an effect. So if an effect that causes damage resolves during damage timing, like during 6c, the suffering of that damage is not an effect.

Huh, where is that in the rules? Still can solely use damage timing rules for damage generated during damage timing resolution (so both the Blast and Demise pulse damage) for the original question, and have attacking model gain kill credit and not have a Demise loop. Edit: Nvm found it, brain kept skipping that last line for resolve effects. Thanks!

I like the look of 33 in Viks for an anti-burying schemer. Additional utility in Twin Blades to take advantage of the places from the Viks and Student. The other two don’t look useful to any Outcast crew I play, but Soul Battery could be neat nearby Aionus.

I don’t think sequential effects is actually important for the resolution of damage posed in the question. An attack that places blasts first resolves damage timing on the target (model A). Then once the damage flip is complete you place blasts and generate damage (because some attacks don’t give blast on all flip results). Any models touching blast markers besides the initial target suffer damage simultaneously (models B & C), which is resolved after the target’s damage timing and before any sequential effects because the damage is all part of the same effect. Target dies and has Demise(Explosive), Demise is resolved in step 6c and generates simultaneous damage on adjacent models (models B & C). The target is then removed and generated damage from that initial effect is all resolved in order (Blast then Demise pulse), then any sequential effects are resolved. I only see sequential effects coming into play if an effect is generated that is not resolved during damage timing, like an effect that triggered off of card draw that occurred when a model in range was killed.

I think it would reduce things to be resolved at another time, but I also think it would be easier to resolve Blast damage to model A and all other resulting damage prior to moving onto Blast damage on model B. Maybe I’m a minority? Also maybe targeting Demise to more concretely stop Demise loop is better adjusted by removing Step 6 of damage timing and making Killed a game term. It has always seemed odd to me that Killed isn’t a game term with the steps broken down in the Killed section of the rules instead of in damage timing. No, but apparently I might have been unique in my interpretation since it was simple to track and didn’t need the use of sequential effects to stop a Demise loop. Damage timing has all the language required imo.

I guess I don’t get why you ignore the “resolve now” in 6c, by calling the damage an “effect”, but fully resolve damage without calling damage an “effect” during action resolution. Using sequential effects seems like a convoluted process of interpreting rules uniquely to avoid the Demise loop to me. Especially since the rules seem to indicate Actions/Abilities generate effects, and effects can generate damage, which is why using a rule for effects seems weird for resolving damage. The two are presented differently in the rules. Again not arguing that the attacking model doesn’t get the kill, just saying that it seems much clearer only quoting the damage timing rules to say Demise damage is after the already generated damage to Model B & C.

Maybe saying it kills the possibility of incomplete rules understanding causing an infinite loop is better, but I think that having them once per turn could allow for some streamlining of rules that prevent the loop (or just cut down on sections of rules needed to reference during those scenarios). Is there any big detracting factor to Demise effects not already once per turn being adjusted to once per turn?

The recent rules thread on Blast damage and Demise effects has brought about one change for me, make all Demise abilities "Once per Turn". Kills infinite looping between 2 Demise models, and helps to make the Blast resolution simpler by allowing the full resolution of Blast and resulting effects before moving to the next Blast. This might need changes to damage timing or Blast rules as well, but the need to remember the damage dealt by a Demise and deal with it after resolving the other Blast damage seems like it could be streamlined in some way. I like the thought of capping every +X condition while also reducing the power of condition clear on +X conditions, but what would be an acceptable cap? Poison and Burning would need to be at least 10, but would that be a good cap overall? Some crews definitely would want it higher, but reducing burning by 5 on a model with 20+ is pretty moot.

Sequential effects deals with effects. Damage is generated by effects, which is covered by damage timing and explicitly stated there. If you use sequential effects to order damage, then effects would generate a damage effect, and not damage (nitpicky, but for good reason stated later). I suppose I don't like that using sequential effects you would resolve 2 separate effects for any effect which causes damage; an effect that says "model x suffers 2 damage", and then resolve "this model suffers 2 damage" as a sequential effect at the end of the chain. The 2 damage was supposed to have resolved in the first effect. Without using sequential effects and only using damage timing; "model x suffers 2 damage resolves" but the damage resolution (note not damage effect resolution) is sent to the end of the generated damage chain. The latter I can agree with because it makes sense even if the damage timing rules don't quite explicitly say "after other generated damage". The former option doesn't make sense because you are applying how damage resolves differently in this scenario vs (for example) resolving actions. An example of damage being a sequential effect in a regular action with "Target suffers 2/3/4 damage and this model draws a card". If damage is a sequential effect, "Target suffers 2/3/4 damage" would resolve, "this model draws a card would resolve", and then "this model suffers 2/3/4 damage" would resolve. I do not think this is currently done for actions (looking at the issue raised with Luminary's immolate recently), so it doesn't make sense to do it for only this specific scenario. To be clear, I was agreeing with Model A suffering damage. However, I just wanted to express that using sequential effects to "help" order damage was confusing because it creates inconsistency in the rules, and just using damage timing rules to back-up the reason for Model A taking damage would be much more clear. Maybe damage timing could use a small addition to clarify sequential damage, but I think it is clear enough as long as a distinction between effect and damage is kept consistent.

Sure it does; “in the order in which damage was generated”. Otherwise, you are saying that an effect which causes damage generates a secondary effect of damage (instead of just generating damage like Adran eluded to). In which, case you’d have to apply that same logic to an Action’s effects and resolve the damage after all other effects of an Action (which honestly fixes a lot of Actions wording…).

So Demise’s effect is resolved, but the damage for the effect gets loaded to the back of the damage queue is what you are ultimately saying is happening? I get it if that’s the case. The addition of sequential effects is confusing in the answer since the damage timing rules cover it completely.

Ok, so how do you finish completely resolving the damage timing without resolving the Demise? Model gets removed 6d in order to go to the next damage timing. Demise will resolve with no model on the table… 6c also says “after dying effects resolve now” not “after dying effects are generated now”.

I want to point out that Demise effects are fully resolved during part 6c. If the Demise(Explosive) effects are placed after model B & C’s in the queue, then you resolve the damage for Model B & C prior to fully resolving Model A’s damage timing as it will not resolve 6d until after B & C’s damage timing. That doesn’t seem to fit with resolving damage timing completely before moving on to the next Blast damage effect.

I love Bring It on Barbaros, the negative flip pairs well with Armor, Black Blood, and Cage Fighter. Bring It on Nox is not in the same league, a second negative on Nox is a little redundant and the card filter is not enough to make it outstanding on opposing models. Likely best use is for min 1 dmg friendly models.