FAQ needed for Outcast

[Zebo]

Hello, I was thinking about putting somewhere what Actions/Triggers/Abilities/Rules that involves Outcast do you think should be clarified. 

Not about errating/buffing/nerfing models, but fixing things that may not be clear on seem not to be used as intended due to wording. 

 

For example

General actions are considered to be "actions of models"? Like Hannah copying herself to do a charge with a action.

When targeting a model with an action, must the model be considered to be "Friendly" Or "Enemy" During the whole action? Like attacking a Guilty with a Tormented model and relent, but triggering a "enemy only" Trigger. 

When multiple models are replaced by a single model, and some but not all of those models have activated, is the new model considered to have activated? Like Hamelin using "Unclean Influence" to make one Rat King replace 4 Malifaux Rats, but one of those Malifaux Rats has already activated. 

When one enemy Scheme Marker is dropped within 6" Of two models with Wanted Criminal, how many cards do you draw? 

How does the Necrotic Decay trigger work with models that have natural damage reduction? The only current model this effects is Ashes & Dust with Incorporeal, but it would also effect any future model with Armour, Shielded, or one that can use Soul Stones.
clarifications on the replace rules would be nice. That way we can know for sure how out of activation replaces are supposed to work. Especially with Hamelin using his bonus action to cause tangled together for a rat king - can (multiple) instances of the extra action carry over, for instance?
I feel Levi being able to sac himself with his bonus action is pretty obviously legal. But a faq confirming that would put out the rumours
We also probably need some feedback on how Leveticus damage and Hoffman's trigger to make armor unable to be ignored work together. I'm in the camp that Leveticus still gets full damage since the exact wording of irreducible damage says that it can't be reduced, not that it ignores reduction. 
 

Moré Q added

[Da Git]

Good post. One I'd like to add is:

How does the Necrotic Decay trigger work with models that have natural damage reduction? The only current model this effects is Ashes & Dust with Incorporeal, but it would also effect any future model with Armour, Shielded, or one that can use Soul Stones.

[ttsgosadow]

And clarifications on the replace rules would be nice. That way we can know for sure how out of activation replaces are supposed to work. Especially with Hamelin using his bonus action to cause tangled together for a rat king - can (multiple) instances of the extra action carry over, for instance?

[ttsgosadow]

I feel Levi being able to sac himself with his bonus action is pretty obviously legal. But a faq confirming that would put out the rumours

[Ming]

7 hours ago, Zebo said:

When one enemy Scheme Marker is dropped within 6" Of two models with Wanted Criminal, how many cards do you draw? 

You draw 2 cards, because each model is affected.

[Ming]

26 minutes ago, ttsgosadow said:

I feel Levi being able to sac himself with his bonus action is pretty obviously legal. But a faq confirming that would put out the rumours

You cannot choose to reduce yourself to zero wounds.

[Scoffer]

8 minutes ago, Ming said:

You cannot choose to reduce yourself to zero wounds.

He doesn't choose to suffer wounds - he discards cards and suffers damage for every discarded card. It's action's effect, not the cost.

[Ming]

2 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

He doesn't choose to suffer wounds - he discards cards and suffers damage for every discarded card. It's action's effect, not the cost.

But you choose to discard the cards. It's not a gamble like in Judge's case.

[Scoffer]

1 minute ago, Ming said:

But you choose to discard the cards. It's not a gamble like in Judge's case.

You can choose to place a blast on yourself. You can choose to walk into hazardous terrain with 1 wound remaining. You can choose to walk second time in Molly's LoS with 2 wounds remaining. You can choose to fall down from a Ht4 building with 2 wounds remaining. Dumb_ways_to_die.avi 

[Ming]

Well, I guess the cost argument is the most solid.

Actually, just yesterday I realised there's no cost for Stutter Time - you can use it on OOK models just to flip through the deck and declare triggers.

[Ming]

How does Fade Away trigger interacts with Aionus's Sever Timeline attack? Does the resisting model stays buried or is unburied?

[Zebo]

1 hour ago, Ming said:

How does Fade Away trigger interacts with Aionus's Sever Timeline attack? Does the resisting model stays buried or is unburied?

By timing rules, both effects should happen at the same time, so active player resolves its effects first (unburies the buried target) and then the non-active player resolves its effects and buries again. 

 

In fact, not completely sure if the active player resolves first the effects that AFFECT  its models (being buried is not affecting Aionus, so he really don't resolve any effect) and then the non-active player resolves the effects that affect its models, in whatever order it chose, but really it wouldn't change the outcome, since could choose to unbury first and then bury. 

The owner of the target chooses. 

[Adran]

9 minutes ago, Zebo said:

By timing rules, both effects should happen at the same time, so active player resolves its effects first (unburies the buried target) and then the non-active player resolves its effects and buries again. 

 

In fact, not completely sure if the active player resolves first the effects that AFFECT  its models (being buried is not affecting Aionus, so he really don't resolve any effect) and then the non-active player resolves the effects that affect its models, in whatever order it chose, but really it wouldn't change the outcome, since could choose to unbury first and then bury. 

The owner of the target chooses. 

By timing rules the "when resolving" trigger would happen at the end of the action unless it needs to modify part of the action.

In this case it does not modify part of the action (There isn' a damage step for the reduction to happen in) so the model will unbury, and then re-bury.

Should, for some reason, the bury try and happen before the unbury, then it doesn't happen.  (I'm not 100% sure that you can declare the fade away trigger whilst buried because of the rule about effects that try to bury buried models being ignored, which is I guess what Ming wants to know)

[Alerteddonkey42]

We also probably need some feedback on how Leveticus damage and Hoffman's trigger to make armor unable to be ignored work together. I'm in the camp that Leveticus still gets full damage since the exact wording of irreducible damage says that it can't be reduced, not that it ignores reduction. There was a long thread on this.  

7 hours ago, Ming said:

Well, I guess the cost argument is the most solid.

Definitely. Especially given that it is not a cost but simply a side-effect of drawing the cards. 

[Ming]

3 minutes ago, Alerteddonkey42 said:

We also probably need some feedback on how Leveticus damage and Hoffman's trigger to make armor unable to be ignored work together. I'm in the camp that Leveticus still gets full damage since the exact wording of irreducible damage says that it can't be reduced, not that it ignores reduction. There was a long thread on this.  

Wasn't it confirmed that Hoffman's trigger prevails? Even in the core rules?

[Adran]

18 hours ago, Alerteddonkey42 said:

We also probably need some feedback on how Leveticus damage and Hoffman's trigger to make armor unable to be ignored work together. I'm in the camp that Leveticus still gets full damage since the exact wording of irreducible damage says that it can't be reduced, not that it ignores reduction. There was a long thread on this.  

I don't want to re-start the discussion, but I think you may want to re-read page 24 where it talks about damage reduction and what it means. (That or post where the rules say what you claim because I can't see those words)

[Strikethrough]That said, this is either a core rule, or a Hoffman rule that needs clarifying,  rather than a L:evitius clarification. (I don't know what the OPs intent was, but if I was going to look for an FAQ on irreducible damage and armour that can't be ignored, I wouldn't expect it in the Outcast section as they don't have a monopoly on irreducible damage) [\strikethrough]

Edit- once I can get to a pc all this text will be crossed out as irrelevant

[Zebo]

Indeed, this thread could be useful in not-only-outcast, but sincerely didn't knew where post it

[ShinChan]

1 hour ago, Zebo said:

Indeed, this thread could be useful in not-only-outcast, but sincerely didn't knew where post it

You can keep it here, but properly format the first post and update it with all the interactions/abilities that need clarification  So people won't have to go scrolling or through different pages to find all the mechanics that need a FAQ.

[Adran]

Honestly, I imagine wyrd already have their own list. This thread probably is only going to be of use for players to discuss things. Although I could easily be wrong and things get raised here that wyrd didn't know about. 

From a moderator point of view, you are welcome to discuss it in the form you want. If you wanted a more general faq discussion the probably either in the general discussion section or the faction discussion section before it splits to factions. If you're trying to discuss outcast particular questions then here is probably best. You are certainly welcome to raise general issues that affect outcasts here. 

I possibly shouldn't have made that post, but I was trying to make a relevant point in addition to my objections to the claim the exact rules are one thing, when the ones I read literally say the opposite. 

[Alerteddonkey42]

3 hours ago, Adran said:

I don't want to re-start the discussion, but I think you may want to re-read page 24 where it talks about damage reduction and what it means. (That or post where the rules say what you claim because I can't see those words)

That said, this is either a core rule, or a Hoffman rule that needs clarifying,  rather than a L:evitius clarification. (I don't know what the OPs intent was, but if I was going to look for an FAQ on irreducible damage and armour that can't be ignored, I wouldn't expect it in the Outcast section as they don't have a monopoly on irreducible damage) 

Fair enough. I've just mostly seen it discussed in terms of Leveticus (and I play Leve so that is who I think about). 

8 minutes ago, Adran said:

Honestly, I imagine wyrd already have their own list. This thread probably is only going to be of use for players to discuss things. Although I could easily be wrong and things get raised here that wyrd didn't know about. 

From a moderator point of view, you are welcome to discuss it in the form you want. If you wanted a more general faq discussion the probably either in the general discussion section or the faction discussion section before it splits to factions. If you're trying to discuss outcast particular questions then here is probably best. You are certainly welcome to raise general issues that affect outcasts here. 

I possibly shouldn't have made that post, but I was trying to make a relevant point in addition to my objections to the claim the exact rules are one thing, when the ones I read literally say the opposite. 

I don't think it's bad to discuss FAQ's here that Wyrd is already aware. Could help players that aren't scouring the forums for every FAQ and someone could have an answer to a perceived problem. 

Sorry I made a comment that goes outside of Outcasts. I don't think that makes the thread irrelevant though. I will stay strictly on topic with Outcasts from now on while in this part of the forums.

 

[Adran]

16 minutes ago, Alerteddonkey42 said:

 

Sorry I made a comment that goes outside of Outcasts. I don't think that makes the thread irrelevant though. I will stay strictly on topic with Outcasts from now on while in this part of the forums.

 

You are totally welcome to discuss it here. I shouldn't have said anything. I'm going to strike it through, sorry for confusion caused.

all I was really objecting too was your comment about what the rules say was completely the opposite of what the actual rules say, because no where in the rules does it say" irreducible damage can't be reduced", it actually says "irreducible damage ignores damage reduction"

[Alerteddonkey42]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

"irreducible damage ignores damage reduction"

The argument being that it ignores damage reduction, not armor. 

[CD1248]

24 minutes ago, Alerteddonkey42 said:

The argument being that it ignores damage reduction, not armor. 

Counter-argument being, of course, that armor is just a specific form of damage reduction.