NerdKaiser

I think you are correct. What I was incorrectly reading was in the Killed section, it says "Then, the killed model Drops any Markers as a result of being killed." So an effect by another model that drops a Marker is not included in that statement. This does create a functional step 6c2 as you described where the model dropping it's own death markers is forced to occur after all other effects, although technically within the same step. That should certainly be rewritten but at least it's not an outright contradiction. Thanks for clarifying.

Edit: I misunderstood your point, and responded to an argument you weren't making. I appreciate your answers. I'm not really sure about the idea that effects are generated at the beginning of a step, and then resolved at the end of the step (as opposed to being generated and resolved one at a time). I can see how that is implied on pg 34 in the Sequential Effects section. It does use the language of generated and resolved, but doesn't spell out what those mean or when they happen. But I'll accept that as the best answer and the rules as intended. Thanks for your help. What about 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. Why the discrepancy between when non-Trigger after-killing effects that don't place markers resolve? Are they in substep b or c? If the answer is just inaccurate wording, then I assume the Damage Timing table takes precedence.

I also thought it would not work, until I read the rules. I mentioned p34 step 6c several times. I think it actually works in favor of dropping markers at the same time as resolving the Death Beds scheme, since they are both "After Killing" effects (and are not triggers that would resolve in 6b). If both occur during 6c, that means the active player can resolve them in whichever order they want, and score Death Beds immediately by dropping a Corpse and Scheme Marker before resolving Death Beds (and before the model is removed from the table in 6d).

I'm wondering exactly when a killing-based Scheme checks to see if it's target has been killed. Does it use the Damage Timing rules? When looking at the Death Beds scheme ("After killing an enemy model within both 2" of one or more friendly scheme markers and one or more of the secretly chosen markers...") and evaluating it for the Bandit crew, I wondered if the Fistful of Scrip ability on Parker, Mad Dog, and Sue ("After this model kills an enemy model, it may Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with the killed model") allowed me to score Death Beds easily. If I'm allowed to drop Markers before revealing the scheme, then I can choose Corpse (or Scrap) Markers, and drop both relevant markers when killing an enemy to easily score the Reveal condition. This seemed too good to be true, but I wanted to check the rules to verify it couldn't work. But looking at the two relevant sections of the rulebook, I feel like the rules contradict themselves on this point. The Damage Timing rules on page 34 list a detailed order of operations. On this list, 6a deals with healing or replacing a killed model, then 6b tells you to "Resolve any After killing Triggers", but I assume this means only literal triggers of actions and not all effects (The rules for Triggers describe them as additional results of a duel which require a specific suit, which means the definition used in the rule book is very narrow.) Then step 6c is "Any effects that resolve after the model is killed (such as placing any Corpse or Scrap Markers) resolve at this point." This seems to imply that both the Fistful of Scrip ability to drop a scheme marker, and the Reveal effect of the scheme, both occur in this step. If that's true, the rules for simultaneous effects mean the Active Player (in this case, the Bandit player) can choose the order of resolving their effects. Meaning I can drop the scheme marker from Fistful of Scrip, then drop a Corpse marker, and then reveal Death Beds, scoring the point. However the rules for Killed, on page 25, state (emphasis mine): "When a model is killed, any Healing effects or effects that result in the killed model being Replaced happen first, followed by any other effects that occur when, if, or after the model is killed. Then, the killed model Drops any Markers as a result of being killed and is removed from the game (including its Stat Card and Attached Upgrades). For more information on timing, see page 34." This list begins and ends the same as step 6 of the damage timing, but it gets fuzzy in the middle. It seems to imply that all "After killing" effects happen in step 6b of Damage Timing, not just Triggers. This would mean that Death Beds checks its Reveal condition in step 6b, and Fistful of Scrip (as well as dropping a Corpse Marker) occur afterwards in step 6c, and I don't score the point. Regardless of the specifics of this question, I feel like this section is not an accurate summary of the Damaging Timing rules. Is there something I'm missing that defines when a killing-based Scheme resolves? If not I assume it's part of "Any effects" in step 6c. And, separately, is there a discrepancy between the Killed rules on page 25 and the Damage Timing on page 34, or am I misreading it? I appreciate any help with resolving this!

The problem is they could say the same of us - that we're the ones being difficult, trying to rules lawyer them out of what seems like a reasonable "towards" movement by inventing restrictions that aren't in the rulebook. I was hoping there was a line of text somewhere I had missed or an errata I could point to. In this case it looks like we will have to hash it out at the table. Thank you for your help.

You're asserting that we can't deviate from a line linking the two centers, and I think that makes sense, but I will need some black-and-white rulebook evidence to convince people at my local store. If the "center to center" definition of Towards isn't described in the book, and the word "directly" isn't mentioned anymore, it becomes my interpretation of what Towards means against my opponent's. If my opponent wants to push diagonally around that rock you mentioned, such that at no point he moves further from me and he ends up closer to me than when he started, how can I convince him that he's wrong?

So you are saying "towards" does indeed describe a path of movement, and only one path. Does that rely on "rules as intended" or is that stated somewhere? How do we know that all Towards and Away movement is "directly", or that we must take "the shortest route"? I don't see those in the text. For simplicity and clarity of rules, I want this to be true, just wondering how I can prove it to others.

For the record, I am personally on the side of "towards means directly towards". I am just asking for where the rulebook says that. It never talks about drawing straight lines between centers of bases. And the alternate definition of "towards the center" is the one that occurs in the third paragraph of that section, which says that the end goal of Towards and Away movement is to arrive as close or as far as possible. If you need to Push at an angle to get around a corner and thus arrive closer than if you hadn't, should it be allowed? Does "towards" describe exactly one line of travel, or is it the end goal of arriving as close as you can to your target (while still moving in a straight line per Push).

Understood. Push must be in a straight line, it stops if it hits terrain, and it must be "towards" the center of a target. Question 1 is, since 2e said "directly" and 3e does not, does that imply a change in how direct the movement must be? Question 2, regardless of the 2e translation, is whether pushing "towards" the center of the target means you must draw a line between the two center points and only move on that line. For the record, I believe that to be true, I just don't see where the rules say it. This is complicated by the third paragraph of the Towards and Away section, which states that the goal of Towards and Away movement is to end up as close or as far as possible. That paragraph also says "unless being pushed", but that is in reference to moving around terrain. I know Push can't move around terrain, at least not as described there, but does the rest of that paragraph still apply, namely that any direction of movement is ok as long as it doesn't put you further away at any point, and ultimately ends as close as possible? If so, as reasonable people could argue, then pushing at an angle to the target is perfectly ok if it gets you around terrain and thus as close as possible to your target. Stated another way, is "towards" the goal of the movement, or is it the exact direction of the movement? If pushing "towards" is about arriving as close as possible to the center of the target, then any angle that allows that should, and must, be taken. If pushing "towards" is a prescription for the exact course of movement, than of course it cannot choose to go at an angle, even if that angle would bring it closer to the target. Ultimately I don't see the answer in the rulebook and it is currently coming down to individual interpretation. If anyone can point me to a line I of rules text I am missing, please let me know.

Thanks for the answer! Can you clarify where you get point 1 from? Specifically, "as close or as far as possible"? Because that would help solve our dilemma. As far as I can tell, the rulebook mentions that in the caption to the example image (which isn't a push, and isn't itself rules text), and in the paragraph about moving around an object (which wouldn't apply to a push), but it never explicitly states it in a clear way. Further question. In the case of a push, does the "as close or as far as possible" still apply? Logically you would think it does, but the paragraph which includes that line also says "unless that model is being pushed". Copied below for reference. "In both cases, unless that something is being Pushed, it will move around things that would impede its movement (such as terrain with the Impassable or Severe traits, as described on pg. 37), provided that doing so will get it as close or as far from the object as possible (as appropriate)." So when pushing, must I move in a direct line to the target? Or can I push in any straight line that is overall towards my target? For clarification, the 2e rulebook used the word "directly" to describe toward and away movement, implying that your course was set - it had to be directly aimed at the target. The 3e rulebook does not say directly. Again, copied below: "If something is moving “toward” an object, it must move toward the center of that object. If something is moving “away” from an object, it must move away from the center of that object." Does moving toward the center of an object allow for us to push at angle if it's necessary? Or just if we want to? Or should it always be on a direct line between the two models regardless of terrain?