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.

20 hours ago, Da Git said:

Not sure if it's come up, but a great little tech pick is the Shadow Effigy. For a 7, Remember the Mission gives:

• potential 3" push (with a )
• an Interact (even if engaged) so generally a scheme marker
• if targeting a Last Blossom, you get a shadow marker for generating an action out of activation

Do this to an Archer, who drops the Shadow Marker in front of him for guaranteed concealment for Shadow Pin if he triggers it

Combo that with a Wokou Raider who can then use that scheme marker to gain Fast.

Why do people especially like Minako? Is it still for the summon or something else?

What do people think of Jin? When would you run him?

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.

34 minutes ago, touchdown said:

hanging out buried generating a pass token and forcing some discards and until you want to pop out and teleport an enemy minion to it's deployment zone sounds generically good unless your opponent has any bury tech (so probably not usable against outcasts or guild since they'll be expecting bury tricks from misaki anyway, a little easy to play in es).

However, what exactly does "in concealment" mean? I thought models had concealment, or were in concealing terrain.

"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.

2 hours ago, j3diii said:

So I just played this deployment and strat last night with Rollins vs Hoffman.  We had a similar pool, but I chose Death Beds and Spread them Out.

Here's what I ran, my opponent allowed me to proxy a Corpse Curator and then promptly regretted it. A lot of the new enforcers are really good, but man... the Corps Curator in Rollins/McCabe is super good.

Rollins
Iggy Pup
Elli
Patti
Samurai
Cherri
Huckster
Corpse Curator 

6 Stones

Game finished Rollins 6 to Hoffman 5.

The Huckster was ace for Death Beds. The Ramones were able to get me the first part of Spread Them Out and 3/4 Strats, I would have had the 4th, but my opponent got off a great slow on Patti and I Black Jokered a RWM to leave engagement with Elli.  Rollins did a bunch of murdering with Time Worn Blade which was really good versus Augmented. He killed Hoffman rather than grab the strat the Ramones couldn't get (probably a mistake in hindsight, but killing Hoffman saved me a bunch of trouble), the Mech assistant, and a Hunter. This is the first time he's done that much work with melee for me.

In hind sight taking both Spread Them Out and Death beds together was a bit difficult because it required so many schemes down. I probably needed another Huckster, but I wasn't going to miss the chance to run the Curator.  He was a rock star too, lots of passive card draw, but his fast activations let me get out a 50mm Poison Terrain token and punch a Peacemaker with it, stacking 3 poison in addition to the damage. The poison killed it. He was also able to keep a Hunter from engaging Cherri so she could shoot at Hoffman out of cover after an Analyze Weakness. If your opponent will let you, and you want to, the Corpse Curator could be good for moving Karen's (sorry that's our nickname for Kaeris, she has the haircut and everything) Pyre markers. 

You can get condition removal from the Mask, but using it for that means you cannot pass it along and get more Fast activations. Still, I think this may be the artifact you want to pull out on turn one and pass around for Fast activations  just to be able to give it to someone to stop burning on turn two. Additional condition removal would probably be a good idea. I'd recommend Jessi too just for her marker removal and she's good for Death beds, but it looks like you'd have to proxy. 

 

My typical 1st turn is Iggy digging scrap, using it to make an artifact, and then get a bunch of fast activations by passing it around. On Flank deployment, you are likely to have some ranged attacks with Samurai after they RWM. Having them fast is really helpful as you may get the opportunity to drop multiple blasts. If you want to drop scrap for card draw, I'd use the huckster's False claim early with the Inflated Worth trigger and then make sure he can't get wrecked because he won't be Manipulative. There are other options in keyword too like Jessie but the Huckster just brings a lot for it's cost. The Corpse Curator is pretty fantastic for Looted Supplies.

I do like the Crypto vs Karen.  

FWIW, I tried the Mirror for card draw, but then forgot to Focus, or didn't have the AP to Concentrate. I was only able to get like two cards from it all game. I'm going to have to practice with it more.  


 

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.

4 hours ago, Hipper Hopper Table Toper said:

4. The Aura is only the effect of this ability. So it doesnt matter what's written on P. 30/ Area effects because the abililty which grants this aura can't be taken.

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.

4 hours ago, Adran said:

Because it is possible for an ability to target a model. I can't think of an example at the moment, but it is possible for it to happen. 

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

1 hour ago, Maladroit said:

I'd agree with that - I don't think we will get agreement until a FAQ/errate. My contribution was about whether it also remains a marker/dove during the action and then what are the consequences to that - which has now come back around to the original sticking point.

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. 

1 hour ago, Zoer said:

Well, I think "These actions" stands for "actions that specifically target buried models" as they actually ignore position effects.

Regarding Titania's aura, it affects all friendly models and not the enemies. It does not matter if an enemy model is within the aura's range. That's why I think Titania is still affected by her aura, despite being buried.

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?

2 hours ago, Rakthen said:

What would you all consider "core" with the new Misaki? I figure Ototo, either the sniper or archer, but thats about it. seems to leave a lot of room to build around the scheme pool.

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.

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

My general feeling is that while there's clear utility to each that utility comes at a cost that will usually be too high to pay. I agree with the assessment that I can see the Metallurgist in Amalgam, but it is a pretty card hungry model and Amalgam has a lot of those already.

 

33 is the standout overall. I see particular function in those Keywords that hand out Fast (Mercenary, Plague, Bandit, and Tormented) where you can double him with the Scion and actually bury him with potential unbury targets from Covetous Cravings (or an innocuous rat chowing down on some cheese). It's a lot of stones but it gives you an extremely fast schemer and while you have a model that good at burying enemies an OOK Scion actually has a modicum of utility.

 

That combo works especially well in Tormented, where the Scion (unburied) is better at landing Stutter Time thanks to Disturbing Whispers and 33 can retrieve the Black Joker every turn for Hanged to capitalise on. Daw, double Hanged with Servant, 33, Scion, Dead Outlaw is a build that might surprise opponents with its reach and flexibility. 

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.

28 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

It's at the end the apply results step in the resolving actions timing chart. There are also many other places in the rulebook that refer to damage as an effect without outright calling damage an effect.

You can solely use the damage timing rule for new damage effects if it's the only effect being resolved. If you have multiple effects that are already generated then you need to take a step back and look at sequential and simultaneous timing.

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.

50 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

"The most common effect of an Action is damage, which is explained on page 24."

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.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Sorry I have confused.

For the question you asked, the damage timing rules are the clearest for why you don't resolve the damage from the demise effect during the resolving the damage of the action. I wish I had just explained it that way but I was still thinking about the initial question in which sequential effects was important. 

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.

13 minutes ago, solkan said:

To the start with, you’d have just as much to keep track of for the bomb-type demises, so making those once per turn wouldn’t actually make things simpler.

And then there’s all of the demises like Leveticus that are not once per turn.

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.

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

Had you thought there was an infinite loop before that thread? 

You need to be quite in the nitty gritty of the rules to see it as a possibility, so I doubt it's really an issue. 

Where as putting once per turn on demise explosive would confuse lots of people.

 It also may not let you change the rule because it does more than just stop infinite demise. 

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.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Honestly, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. In the case of target suffers2/3/4 damage and draw a card, the damage is resolved before you draw a card. Any effects caused by the damage are resolved before you draw the card. 

The problem only comes about when you have more than1 effect generated before you resolve an effect ( so simultaneous damage and sequential damage, or multiple cases of sequential damage created during a damage step. )

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.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

There isn't actually an infinite loop, the rules already stop it.

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.

2 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Whereas I'm kinda the other way, especially with the Focus change.

Having massive amounts of a condition makes being able to strip it all with one action, the problematic aspect.

If a crew NEEDS well into the double digits on a condition for that crew to function, I think it's the crew that needs to be looked at more than the condition removal.

If you're going to have "remove all" be an enumerated amount instead though, I wouldn't make it variable. Just a fixed 5, basically the best circumstance you get out of Blood Poisoning and the like.

Also, if we're going to cap "remove all", then the few new effects that don't have a cap need it. Do NOT want the Corpse Curator capable of inflicting massive damage (especially without an opposed duel) if I'm restricted in my ability to reduce it.

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.

21 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

I'm just gonna level with you. I have no idea how you got to any of these conclusions from me saying that the rule for damage timing only applies how it says it applies and not to everything else currently waiting to resolve.

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.

4 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The damage timing rules cover effects generated by a single damage resolution. They don't cover already generated damage resolutions on top of newly created damage resolutions + other generated effect.

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…).

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

 P34 SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS
Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it  resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

And

Damage Timing (from errata) P34
When a model suffers damage, it follows the timing structure below. If any model suffers damage as a result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated.
 

 

In 6 C you resolve the demise, but not the damage the demise causes, that is the sequential effect. So you work out which models are going to be damaged by the demise, but don't reduce their health at this point. That gets resolved after you have completed the damage process you are in the middle of. 

(If you don't queue up this damage separately, you could end up with an infinite loop between 2 demise explosive models). 

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.

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

No they aren't. They're generated there, and queued up to resolve later.

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.

59 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

You can say that about a lot of model though.  

I agree wholeheartedly that Nox just doesn't seem all there. He's missing something to make him worth the cost. I still want to try him out more though. Rancid Smell might mean he takes a couple of hits instead of other potentially more important models. Flight has some advantages, but Archie has Leap.... Maybe there's more play with Bring It than I expect, but I don't see it. 

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.