Von shtook study of anatomy timing and scheme markers.

[Korrok]

Study of anatomy tells you do resolve effects on a model based in the characteristics the model has. New shtooks scheme markers can apply a trait of your choice. If I have a undead construct that's within range of a scheme marker and use anatomy on them with the intent of giving them living.. Are the characteristics checked at this point and then applied in order, or is the action constantly checking for this characteristic and if the model moves outside the range of the scheme from the construct effect now no longer eligible to recieve the living effect? 

[diki]

I think the intention would be to calculate all the characteristics at the start of resolving the action phase, and then resolve the effects per characteristic in order.

I don't have a good rules reference to back this up, but I think its similar to start of activation effects etc.

[Adran]

I would agree with Diki, you determine the effects that are going to resolve at the start of the resolve action step, and then do them one at a time, so if you somehow gained a characteristic (or 2!) during the action or lost them it won't change the effects you are subjected to. I'd also use the Start activation as the justification. 

(I can see the argument for why you would do the other way, and there isn't a great answer to it. As long as you are consistent I don't think 1 way is more powerful than the other over all, as there are probably as many times as you gain the advantage by working out which effects first as there are when you'd be able to gain effects during the resolving)

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

My thought is that “Beast:” is short-hand for “If the target is a beast, then…”. This is in line with most cards in the game which either specify “keyword only” in targeting restrictions for the action or the relevant keyword check is in the effect itself. So the check would be made while resolving each effect, and a model moving outside the range of the marker could remove the relevant keyword before the effect is resolved. 

Unfortunately, as with many of the new titles, there are clarity issues here which probably require an FAQ to get everyone on the same page.

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

My thought is that “Beast:” is short-hand for “If the target is a beast, then…”. This is in line with most cards in the game which either specify “keyword only” in targeting restrictions for the action or the relevant keyword check is in the effect itself. So the check would be made while resolving each effect, and a model moving outside the range of the marker could remove the relevant keyword before the effect is resolved. 

Unfortunately, as with many of the new titles, there are clarity issues here which probably require an FAQ to get everyone on the same page.

I've thought a little more about this. My problem with this approach is that we don't have a time stamp for Shade of Delios. I don't think that the intention is that a model near a scheme marker would be subject to all 4, because every time you go to check a characteristic you can change your mind what is gained from shade. 

So the simplest way that this doesn't happen is that you "lock in" the characteristics as you start to resolve the action, just as you would "lock in" the effects at the start of the activation, and moving the model into or out of certain effects doesn't add/remove them from the list of effecst it has to resolve. 

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

34 minutes ago, Adran said:

I've thought a little more about this. My problem with this approach is that we don't have a time stamp for Shade of Delios. I don't think that the intention is that a model near a scheme marker would be subject to all 4, because every time you go to check a characteristic you can change your mind what is gained from shade. 

So the simplest way that this doesn't happen is that you "lock in" the characteristics as you start to resolve the action, just as you would "lock in" the effects at the start of the activation, and moving the model into or out of certain effects doesn't add/remove them from the list of effecst it has to resolve. 

 

Hmm, that is a significant problem. I would think that the line prior to the Keyword effects is where the choice for Shade of Delios is locked in, but it’s not super explicit on that either. I think the intention is sequential keyword checks, but, like you mentioned,  it is far too vulnerable to exploitation as written. Just seems a little strong to me vs an enemy Undead or Construct to place it outside 3” from the marker, and then be able to walk it even farther out of position.

[Adran]

Just now, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Hmm, that is a significant problem. I would think that the line prior to the Keyword effects is where the choice for Shade of Delios is locked in, but it’s not super explicit on that either. I think the intention is sequential keyword checks, but, like you mentioned,  it is far too vulnerable to exploitation as written. Just seems a little strong to me vs an enemy Undead or Construct to place it outside 3” from the marker, and then be able to walk it even farther out of position.

That could happen on your reading if you moved a construct 3" so it was then in range of a scheme marker and then gained undead for you to make walk. 

Thats why I said that I think largely the reading is neutral, sometimes you gain a benefit if you lock all traits in before you start resolving them and some times you will gain a benefit if you can add traits during the action. 

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

20 minutes ago, Adran said:

That could happen on your reading if you moved a construct 3" so it was then in range of a scheme marker and then gained undead for you to make walk. 

Thats why I said that I think largely the reading is neutral, sometimes you gain a benefit if you lock all traits in before you start resolving them and some times you will gain a benefit if you can add traits during the action. 

 

Very true, but that resolution only affects Constructs. The effect is more narrow than determining all effects at the start of the action’s resolution.

However, needing the scheme marker nearby the enemy to determine all effects is probably more balanced, and creates a consistent and simpler application of the Action. So I think I agree with determine all effects at start of resolution, but it still sadly needs an FAQ imo.

[Korrok]

I'm in the camp of determining all traits and then resolving them rather than being able to add or remove them during the course of resolving the action. It just seems like less of a mental tangle to deal with and at least to me feels like the intended function. I do agree that it will likely need to be faqed.