PiersonsMuppeteer

9 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

You're confusing a quick description to full on rules. For example, in the table it says "Malifaux is played on a surface that measures 3 feet wide by 3 feet across. This space is referred to as the “table.” This area is where the battle will take place."

Guess that means that Scion of the Void can't attack other burried models while it is itself burried, because the battle wouldn't be taking place on the table at that point.

No, it is a game term definition as denoted by the 'referred to as the "table"'. All rules after that point which say table are specifying that they only apply to the 3x3 surface unless otherwise stated (like Buried).

Except Scion has an ability which explicitly says it can target a Buried model... which is exactly what Buried rules require for permission to target a Buried model. So I'm not sure how you made that logical leap with Scion. Regardless, you do not target when resolving an Aura, making Scion's ability to target Buried models moot. 

Letting an Aura hit Beebe seems like generalizing Targeting to all forms of drawing range/LoS. Since area effects don't target, this would be a pretty big contradiction to the rules.

8 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

You're adding a restriction that isn't in the aura rules. All that is required is that the model has to be within the area(in range) and in LoS. Any model with the upgrade satisfies both conditions so long as Calypso is within the Aura.

You're right, the restrictions are in the Area Effects and Table rules (which Auras must still adhere to). Calypso would be the model that triggers any Aura effect, and the upgrade doesn't let Beebe benefit from effects affecting Calypso or let you redirect effects to Beebe. 

I'm not sold on the Corpse Candle's Walking Dead ability being the effect which kills the model. Walking Dead looks like a passive ability, so the effect is constant and is never generated. Killed specifies that the model which generated the effect which killed the model gets kill credit. Vincent's Cremation is the only Action/Ability generated during the removal of the Corpse Marker, so I think 3 Pyre Makers should be dropped. Is there anywhere that specifies more on passive abilities and whether or not they generate an effect? I use generate in the specific sense that simultaneous effects uses it, actively resolved.

2 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

I dont think the rules support this interpretation personally. An Aura is Range and LoS from the generating model, including the generating model. Buried Beebe fits all those requirements

Bebee is not on the table, and area effects are an area of the table. Bebee is never possibly within the Aura's area to trigger a range/LoS check while buried. I'm in Here seems to me to allow the ability to target either Calypso or Beebe, and not as a method to safely double dip on friendly effects. All rules pertaining to model position disallow two models in the same place on the table, so I don't see why this would grant permission to ignore that without being more explicit.

1 hour ago, Mycellanious said:

Oh I agree. But that would mean if Maxine is inside, no one benefits from her Aura, but if Beebe is inside, he can benefit from Maxine's Aura no?

I do not think Area effects draw range to a specific model, and instead draw range to an area of the table. Since Beebe is not on the table while Buried, I don't think he can ever be in range of the Aura's effect. When a model draws range to another model, I think of the targeting step for resolving an Action.

8 hours ago, Erik1978 said:

Okay thanks.

Black blood was correct?

Yes you are correct. Black blood would resolve in Step 5 of Damage Timing. However, you would not go through the Damage Timing for the models who suffer damage until you finish all of Mature Nephilim's damage timing. Briefly laid out: MN suffers damage, goes through steps 1-4 of Damage as normal, Black Blood's effect resolves in Step 5 and generates damage on models w/in 1", Step 6 is then resolved and NM is removed from the table, and finally all generated damage from Black Blood then goes through the Damage Timing steps one at a time.

27 minutes ago, Korrok said:

Yeah think the argument is that the focus cancels the negative before the aura makes them ignore the +

Haka is an Aura, and is a constant effect. At no point does one stop ignoring positive flips so that you can use a positive flip to cancel a negative flip.

5 hours ago, theamazingmrg said:

It's funny, because that is what feels like a stretch to me (and is probably the use of the word 'is').  If it was "After a model within 8 was pushed", there would be no discussion.  Was the model Pushed?  Yes.  Is it within 8?  Yes.

 

But because it uses active language, the Ability reads (to me) as saying "Is the model within 8" and being Pushed?" which conflicts with the "After" timing.  A model is not being Pushed after it has been Pushed.  It is only being Pushed if it is being Pushed.  Which is far too many Pushed for one paragraph.

The use of is/was is passive voice in either case.

Regardless of language used, Auras are not checked once and resolved regardless of position. “All models inside the Aura’s area are affected by the Aura as long as they stay inside the area and remain in LoS of the generating object.” What would give the model permission to push outside the Aura and resolve an effect that requires it to be within the Aura’s range and in LoS of Sonnia? If you can Push out of range of the Aura, you can also Push out of LoS of the generating model as well. It is either both or none.

19 hours ago, Thatguy said:

That is true.

I feel like OoK picks are less common in HH. Because of the small pool OoK taxes hurt more and with only 4 models keyword synergies seem more important. 

Depends on Faction maybe? I’ve only HH’d as Outcast, Resser and TT, and Jake/Bishop, Toshi/Yin or ANZ/Ototo are frequent OOK picks because they are so strong for the Strat/Schemes. Though, that could be that I use stones for reasons other than to attempt to deny the Assassinate/Vendetta reveal rarely.

29 minutes ago, theamazingmrg said:

I used Target for simplicity.  A model within 8" of Sonnia has to be Pushed.  Not  a model outside of 8" Pushed to within 8" of her. Otherwise it would be after a model ends a Push within 8" of Sonnia (See Mechanical Assistant on Mannequin, Pounce on First Mate,  etc.) 

I think that is where the ambiguity exists which earlier  posts mentioned. All previous “after … push” abilities use “after … ends a push”. Wyrd has shown with explorers and many master titles that they are cutting/changing clarifying language in abilities in favor of more room on the card. So I think it is more reasonable to assume that they are shortening “ends a Push” to “is Pushed” to save space and hope players still resolve like all previous “after push” abilities. Otherwise, the ability has to be read as when instead of after to make sense for applying the Aura’s effect before the push is complete. 

Is there any Aura currently in the game which lets you resolve the effects after a model leaves the Aura’s range? I don’t know of one, but I certainly do not know all Aura abilities. An example of the above would help to quash opinions in favor of option A.

Edit: I would also think that sequential effects would come into play for the ability as well. You wouldn’t half resolve a push, half resolve the Aura, finsh resolving the push, and then finish resolving the Aura.

2 minutes ago, theamazingmrg said:

<Timing><Target><Effect>

 

<Timing> = after something happens

<Target> = A model within 8" is Pushed outside of its activation (left to right - model within 8" comes before the Push)

<Effect> = Can do an attack

 

The timing of the ability doesn't change the fact that the model has to be within 8" when Pushed.  If it was within 8" when Pushed, it gets the attack.  If not, it doesn't.

Abilities do not have targets. The timing for the Aura is after a push. If a model is no longer within 8” of Sonnia after a push, it is no longer affected by the Aura. A model not affected by an Aura doesn’t resolve the effect.

EToE say “within 3 of a chosen marker”. Makes no difference if the model is within 3” of one or four markers, the model’s range from a marker is only checked one time. You need a “for each marker” somewhere in the effect to do multiple effect resolutions on a single model.

5 hours ago, theamazingmrg said:

It's "When a model within 8" is Pushed..." not "When a model is Pushed within 8"..."

 

The model has to be within 8" to begin with.

I agreed that if the ability used when, it would reference the starting position of the Push. However, the ability says “After a friendly…” not “when a friendly…”.  After effects are check/resolved at different times than when effects.

I do get that position is checked prior to the push with “within 8” is pushed” read right to left. However, After specifies the generation timing as the first thing when read left to right, so the push is complete when the ability’s effect is generated. If the model is question is no longer within the Aura when generating and resolving the effect, it shouldn’t get the benefit.

The effect references After, so I lean towards the effect taking place if the model ends the Push within 8” of Sonnia. If it stated When instead of After, I would say that the effect would resolve based on if the model in question started the Push within 8” of Sonnia. “After a model is Placed” is the same language in my mind, and that is not resolved based on the starting point. So my answer is A.

1 hour ago, solkan said:

One of the things you're not paying attention to is that a model at 0 wounds mechanically cannot suffer damage--any damage it suffers will be ignored.  Because you're ignoring all of the damage, the model won't loop through the damage sequence:

While things like the timing sequences are useful for specifying some of the complicated rules interactions, those sequences need to be understood in the context of the rest of the rules.  For instance, the situation of a model at 0 wounds remaining being subject to a "target suffers X damage" event becomes a non-event because of the statement in damage reduction:

when it combines with the fact that all of X damage was ignored.

The crucial limitation of things like the Damage Timing is that they don't tell you when to give up on the sequence.  And look at steps 4 and five:

According to the damage reduction rules, if you didn't suffer any damage at step 4, you weren't damaged.  That means that you're supposed to stop without resolving step five.

Likewise, if a model is healed in Step 6a, you're supposed to stop and not continue resolving the rest of Step 6. 

I'm just saying all of this to come to the point that a loop appears to exist because the damage timing chart doesn't say when to stop the process.  Addressing that oversight would probably be the most direct way to address the issue.

 

I agree with most of your points except that the issue is two definitions of Killed exist: (1) “reduced to 0 health” in Killed, and (2) “at 0 health” in Damage Timing. If there was only the first, there wouldn’t be a need to add additional checks to continue damage timing or not. 

Also, a model can suffer damage while at 0 health. Any effect which references “suffers X damage” is considered after damage reduction as per Damage rules. So any effect which causes damage has to pass through Steps 1-5 of Damage Timing. A model with 0 health that suffers 2 damage after damage reduction will not lower their health in Step 4 as the damage is ignored, but will resolve an “after suffering damage” effect in Step 5 because they suffered 2 damage. With that in mind, I think adding an escape to damage timing in Step 4/5 for 0 damage suffered makes the rules more complex than reducing killed via damage to one definition.

1 hour ago, NerdKaiser said:

bout the more general question of whether the Damage Timing on pg 34 disagrees with the rules for Killing on pg 25? The rules in the Killed section seem to imply that the order of effects after killing is a) Heal/Replace b) all effects that generate after killing that don't place markers c) all effects that place markers d) remove the model

Damage Timing gives the order as a) Heal/Replace b) all Triggers (and only Triggers) that occur after killing c) all other effects, including marker placement d) remove the model. 

 

Your c) for Killed is incorrect. b) covers all effects after a model is killed, including abilities which have an effect that causes a marker to be dropped. The part of Killed you are naming c) only covers the killed model dropping markers as it relates to Markers and Killed Models on the same page. By the time you get to c) in the Killed section, all Trigger/Ability effects that occur from a model being killed will have resolved.

Damage Timing goes into greater detail saying that all Trigger effects from after killing resolve prior to non-Trigger effects. Yes 6c does lump in Ability after killing effects with the killed model dropping a marker, but the killed model dropping a marker based on the stat card or upgrade characteristics will resolve after all other effects because the Killed section specifies it.

In short, Damage Timing specifics Triggers before other after "killing/killed" effects, and Killed specifies the killed model drops its death marker after all other "after killing/killed effects". So you have a) heal/replace b) all triggers c1) all other effects c2) killed model's death marker d) remove model. I think they just need to remove Step 6 from damage timing, specify Killed is the last effect resolved in Step 5, and then wholly break down Killed in bullet format in the Killed section to improve clarity.

Dead beds and Fistful of Scrip are both effects that occur when a model is killed, and resolve at the same time in Damage Timing and Killed sections. A killed model drops the marker(s) in the the section you bolded, so this only refers to the markers it drops based on its characteristics. 

Like Maniacal stated, Death Beds effect will not be generated if there is not a scheme marker in range prior to step 6c. If there was a scheme marker in range already, then yes you would resolve both Fistful of Scrip and Death Beds and could choose the order. You could remove Fistful of Scrips marker instead of the initial scheme marker, but that is the only interaction it will have with the generation/resolution of Death Beds effect.

On 9/24/2021 at 7:09 AM, Roadhouse said:

A Changeling is the first thing I'm putting in the list. Behold Her Glory is absolutely insane value. AP transfer for a Focus, drop a scheme within 2", and *draw three*. All from a 5ss model???? Cleansed by the Wood is also very good. No TN condition removal that heals 2 and gives Sheilded +1. 
 

How do you make the Changelings count as Fae? I’m not understanding how you get the scheme marker from Behold, or the heal/Shielded from Cleansed.

3 hours ago, Hipper Hopper Table Toper said:

Ok. The main qestion is: Do abilities have Targets?

 

Adran says no. Or to be fair he says the anwser might be wrong. (Thats one point where my english lacks training, but I think I got this right.)

But I say: I think they have targets.

Mainly because of two entrys in the manual.

Both on P.33

1. Bury/ Paragraph 2: "Buried models cannot be the target of any Actions or Abilities..."

2. "once per" Effects/ Parapraph 4: "Some of these effects have additional modifiers, such as being limited to targeting a specific model..."

 

The first indicates that there are abilties which targets something.

And the second as well, because I cant be limited in targeting, when there is no targeting.

 

In my opinion is the phrase "this model" or specific name a declaration of a Target.

While phrases like: a friendly model, a enemy model are unspecified target declarations.

Even if activ abilities goes automatically in effect as soon as the requirements are fullfilled, does they have a Target, which defines on what the effect appeals.

 

So? What do you think?

Do abilities have targets?

No, specifying a model and targeting a model are different things. Do you target a model when you choose it? No, choosing is part of paying costs for an Action or a Trigger, or part on an Ability’s effect. Adran specified he was wrong in agreeing that abilities have targets, and was clarifying that only Actions use the targeting step where a target is declared.

Abilities having a target is moot for Auras anyway, they do not target. A player never declares a model for the Aura to affect, the model is just affected if in range. 

Now I think that an Ability could target something, but it would need to have “target” in the effect text. I could be wrong, but I do not think a single Ability contains the word “target”. So no current Ability targets, but the rules have the design space to allow a future Ability to target.

The Once Per paragraph is defining once per turn and once per activation, it is not defining that abilities target. The paragraph you quote is specifically mentioning special restrictions (p. 23), which do not spell out that something can target. Special restrictions only define that the Action/Trigger/Ability is limited in what it targets (if it targets) or affects.

Thought of another play with Nox to move Terrors around 15”. Terror charges (5”), attacks declaring Coming with Me (4-5” to opposite side), and Terror resolves Last memory to discard and draw (5”). If near Molly2 at start of Activation, that’s 20” for 1 AP. Prob a bit better than using bring it for movement in most circumstances, Lodestone carrying Terror being one of the exceptions.

The recent talks about Nox’s effectiveness, or lack of it, in Molly2’s thread got me thinking of other ways Nox benefits from being taken in Outcasts instead of Resser. I don’t really see much for corpse markers other than Sue and Prospectors, and both effects don’t look string enough for inclusion imo. However, I see Alyce’s Pit Trap markers and Bring It’s ability to trigger Hazardous twice for 1 AP, and I see some potential for inclusion in a crew which has 2 Bring It and several Shove Aside/Terrorize. Nox has Hazardous producers in Resser/NB, but I think Injured+1 on top of 1 damage warrants some testing. Barbaros/Mature hitting 1/2 Df models seems like it could be fun, and all the movement of opposing models would be quite disruptive.

43 minutes ago, Hipper Hopper Table Toper said:

2.) Where is this Term defined?

I get you right you refer to  P.23/ step 3: Targeting/ Parapraph 2.

If thats the case I have to mention that this is just a part of the explaintion how Actions are resolved, at least in my opinion.

Because there are certain Actions wich can be used on different targets and therefor needs the Target to be specified.

Thats the reason why this step exists in this part of the manual.

If every action would have a clear target, this step would be unnecessary.

 

To be fair, the game term target is never explicitly defined. However, to target is when a player declares which model will be affected by the effects of an Action. The game term does have meaning as well, Terrifying uses the moment of being targeted to trigger the effect.

Attack Actions also do not require a target, it is only often required. Many attack Actions simply drop a shockwave, like Shadow Emissary’s Lightning Strike, and never target another model. A target is only required when an Action specifies that an effect will affect a target (many Attack & Tactical Actions).

I’ve got the 2021 errata Yan Lo in my app, your app might just not have downloaded everything yet. You should be able to manually download newer cards from Settings > Download options.

36 minutes ago, j3diii said:

Yeah, this was the issue. I couldn't bonus action Concentrate because I activated the Samurai too early and he had to walk to get a blast on Hoff and the Peacemaker. Hit once for severe, but armor really toned that down. Unfortunately I kind of got locked into my activation order by my deployment and wanting to go late with Rollins. Once I figured out the PwT chain I needed to do, it wasn't really possible for me to get him last. I'll have to pay more attention to the Samurai's placement next time. I was too focused on making sure I got the draw from the Corpse Curator. My hand was so bad turn one I could have used all of the help.   

An idea for future games with Corpse Curator would be to place two Artifacts on Luna, bonus action the 1st artifact onto a model that will need all 3AP from Fast and their own bonus action, and have another model take the 2nd artifact off Luna for 1 AP to use for the PWT chain. Sacrificing 1 AP and 2 HP on the Curator might free up your activation order enough that the 1 AP is well worth the cost.

On 9/23/2021 at 3:56 AM, Adran said:

Maybe. I'm fairly sure most people would instinctively expect damage from explosion 1 to all happen before damage from explosion 2 if explosion 2 was caused by explosion 1.

I would think you would have to put similar rules in place to get the effects your prefered way as to the rule book way.  Trying to resolve simultaneous things sequentially is going to lead to some strange cases, which ever way you do it, and you need to provide rules to order them. 

 

There isn't and has never been (to my knowledge) a "demise loop". no version of the rules during the public beta, or since publishing and errata has had a "demise loop". If you change the rules, it is possible to create a "demise loop", but that's a bad thing, so lets not do that. If your changing of the rules causes a demise loop, then it may well cause other unexpected problems in the damage steps so needs to be looked at carefully. 

Killed is a game term. Its covered on page 25. The rules for it are there. If you read that section you should hopefully be able to calculate what happens in step 6 exactly the same way as page 34 tells us. There are occasional unclear things for some people, but you can certainly make the 2 correlate if you read them side by side

I would say its pretty sensible to give the detailed killed timing steps in the damage timing steps when you are trying to explain the timing, as almost every single instance you need to care about the timing in more detail than explained on page 25 is when damage is involved. Killed is a common outcome of being damaged, and so its not too surprising to include it in the damage timing. 

 

I agree damage timing has the rules needed. It had the rules needed before errata, and has them after errata, but in the rules question that started this debate, the questioner had assumed each models blast damage step was an entirely separate step. so that the damage from demise should happen before all the blast. The rules in the sequential effects section were enough to convince them that the Blast damage as a whole was the "initial step", rather than the blast damage to Model A. 

Killed is a game term, but it's not really used as one. Case in point, the Damage Timing rules for determining if a model is killed are different than the rules for when a model is Killed. If Killed was a game term in the same aspect as Place, Step 5 would cover when a model is Killed because it is an effect based on a model being reduced to a specific health (0). Honestly, if Step 6 was removed and the a/b/c/d placed under Step 5, there wouldn't be the possibility of a loop when changing rules. Something at 0 can't be reduced to 0, so Killed will only happen once and the need for multiple rules to govern a VERY specific situation is no longer needed.

I had never thought a demise loop had existed until you mentioned it in another thread, and thought that it had been an issue previously. Sorry for that confusion, was trying to not start a "does a loop exist debate" by providing a solution that keeps it from being a possibility if changes were made.