Some rules queries.

[pixelante]

Many and profuse apologies if this is rehashing rules that have already been answered, but inquiring minds need to know the following points.

When a Coryphee Duet is placed does it get activate if both of the Coryphees had already activated this turn?

Can Perdita's Spellbreaker remove Southern Charm from Cassandra?

If a model has used all of its action points, but none of its zero cost action points, can it then use the zero cost? To put it another way, does a model end its activation when it runs out of action points or when you say it is done?

When using Soulstones to prevent damage, how many can you use per strike?

Thanks in advance.

[Q'iq'el]

Many and profuse apologies if this is rehashing rules that have already been answered, but inquiring minds need to know the following points.

When a Coryphee Duet is placed does it get activate if both of the Coryphees had already activated this turn?

The Duet doesn't get placed out of Coryphee activation - at least one of the Coryphee must still be activated the moment the ability joining them is activated.

IIRC, the Coryphee Duet gets to continue that activation (similarily to how Nephilim do after Grow or Mature), which means the Coryphee Duet will have at least 1 AP and possibly (0) actions to spend (because of fast), but can have more.

I think, technically, it's still the same activation.

Can Perdita's Spellbreaker remove Southern Charm from Cassandra?

Yes, I think she can (as the (0) ability places the effect of the same name on Cassandra). However your Attack flip will be affected by Southern Charm, so you'll be casting Spellbreaker on flip.

If a model has used all of its action points, but none of its zero cost action points, can it then use the zero cost? To put it another way, does a model end its activation when it runs out of action points or when you say it is done?

You can use your (0) actions at any point of your activation. In some cases it is out of any typical sequence - take a good look at Lilith and her Nephilim minions. They use (0)Drink Blood after they kill the opponent and cannot use it at any other point. They cannot Drink Blood if they used other (0) action before the kill and they obviously can use it after the kill they spend their last AP on.

When using Soulstones to prevent damage, how many can you use per strike?

Only one, I think.

[Chipacabra]

When a Coryphee Duet is placed does it get activate if both of the Coryphees had already activated this turn?

This is one of the more subtle rules effects in the game. The rule you need to read is for replacing a model, on page 38 of the rules manual. The short bullet point version:

• The Duet finishes out the same activation of the coryphee that took the dance together action.
  
• The Duet inherits all the AP that each coryphee had remaining, plus 1 because of Fast. Usually both coryphee have spent all their AP, so the Duet just gets the one from Fast, but sometimes exceptions happen.
  
• The Duet inherits any effects that were on each coryphee.
  
• Replace doesn't care if the old models had used 0-actions, so the Duet gets its full complement of 0s.
  

[Headcase2]

• The Duet inherits all the AP that each coryphee had remaining, plus 1 because of Fast. Usually both coryphee have spent all their AP, so the Duet just gets the one from Fast, but sometimes exceptions happen.
  

Technically true, but this will cause confusion. The duet gets to use up the remaining AP on the Coryphée that's currently active. The other Coryphée has either already activated and has 0 AP left (remember that you can't save up AP, if you don't use them you have to take the (1) Pass action), or hasn't activated yet and thus hasn't received any AP yet.

On top of that you get the extra AP from (+1) Fast and all of your (0) actions.

[pixelante]

Ok thanks, that makes sense, though I see the potential abuse of that by activating the first Coryphee to place it in an advantageous position that the duet could then exploit.

[Q'iq'el]

Ok thanks, that makes sense, though I see the potential abuse of that by activating the first Coryphee to place it in an advantageous position that the duet could then exploit.

It's not abuse if it's by design.

[Ratty]

I don't believe that is quite right.

If the Coryphee being replaced has used it's (0)AP, the Duet can't use it after being replaced. However if the Coryphee has use it's extra Instinctual (0)AP then it can still use both (0)AP from Subconscious Actions as this is an ability with a different name

[Headcase2]

Re-reading page 38 only tells me it gets to use the remaining general AP and any specific AP that haven't been used yet. Is the (0) action then considered a genaral AP, or a type of specific AP, because this goes against any prior ruling I've seen.

[Chipacabra]

I don't believe that is quite right.

If the Coryphee being replaced has used it's (0)AP, the Duet can't use it after being replaced. However if the Coryphee has use it's extra Instinctual (0)AP then it can still use both (0)AP from Subconscious Actions as this is an ability with a different name

What rule says this?

[Chipacabra]

or hasn't activated yet and thus hasn't received any AP yet.

That's an interesting interpretation. So, if a nearby mannequin companions them both, they'd activate simultaneously and THEN could both contribute AP to the duet?

[Ratty]

In general, they are considered the same model before and after the activation so they can't use an ability or AP that they have used before the change after the change. It's all the same activation.

Or in other words, they get given 1x(0)AP and 2x(1)AP at the start of the Coryphee activation. After the change the duet does not get granted a new set of AP as they haven't started a new activation they are just carrying on the original activation.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Ratty

[Headcase2]

That makes sense. Still not entirely sure if I agree, strictly from a RaW point of view, but thanks for the clarification.

[Chipacabra]

Where in the rulebook is there any such thing as a 0AP?

A model gets general AP, and possibly specific AP. A 0AP action doesn't cost AP, but you are limited to only taking one a turn. The rulebook does not define any sort of resource that a 0AP action consumes like how a 1AP action consumes general AP.

I'm sorry, but your interpretation is quite contrary to the actual replace rule. Something isn't adding up here.

[Ratty]

Where in the rulebook is there any such thing as a 0AP?

A model gets general AP, and possibly specific AP. A 0AP action doesn't cost AP, but you are limited to only taking one a turn. The rulebook does not define any sort of resource that a 0AP action consumes like how a 1AP action consumes general AP.

I'm sorry, but your interpretation is quite contrary to the actual replace rule. Something isn't adding up here.

And have you used the a 0 action this turn with the Coryphee? If the answer is yes you can't use you one 0 action with the Duet you replace it with as it's the same activation.

[Chipacabra]

And have you used the a 0 action this turn with the Coryphee? If the answer is yes you can't use you one 0 action with the Duet you replace it with as it's the same activation.

This doesn't make any sense. The duet is still a different model than the coryphee. The replace rules don't say otherwise. The duet hasn't used any 0AP actions, even if the coryphee had.

It's one thing to say as a shorthand easy way to describe the rule that a replaced model is the same as the original model, but that's just not what the rule says at all. Even if the way you're describing it gets you the correct result 99% of the time, in this one case you are insisting on an interpretation that just doesn't exist in the rules. Like I've said before on other topics, I will accept if this is the way it's SUPPOSED to be, sure, but it's really frustrating when you just repeat the same answer over and over even though the rules don't support it at all.

[Ratty]

The Replacing model(s) continues the activation using any general AP the replaced model(s) had remaining.

It implicitly says continues the activation. It's the same activation. I agree it doesn't implicitly say anything about (0) actions. But how many (0) actions do you get in an activation.

[Chipacabra]

It implicitly says continues the activation. It's the same activation. I agree it doesn't implicitly say anything about (0) actions. But how many (0) actions do you get in an activation.

You don't "get" any. They're not a resource you consume like general AP are. The rule is that each model may only perform one 0AP an activation. A duet is not the same model as a coryphee. Why should the fact that they are sharing an activation make any difference?

I think the problem here is that 99% of the time you can just say 'you get one 0AP to spend a turn' and even though that's not technically true, it gets you the correct result. But in this border case, the fact that it's not technically true actually has a gameplay effect. Since there's no such thing as a 0AP to gain or spend or lose, they are irrelevant to the replace rules. The actual rule for using 0AP actions only cares if that particular model has already used a 0AP action this activation, and the duet is not the same model.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Chipacabra

[Ratty]

You don't "get" any. They're not a resource you consume like general AP are. The rule is that each model may only perform one 0AP an activation.

You have just said it yourself "only perform one 0AP an activation". The quote I gave said it was the same activation ergo you don't get a second (0) action.

You are now just arguing for the sake are arguing, this topic is closed.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ratty

[Masque]

You have just said it yourself "only perform one 0AP an activation". The quote I gave said it was the same activation ergo you don't get a second (0) action.

Actually, what he said, and what the rules say, is that each model gets one (0) per activation, not that there can only be one (0) per activation regardless of how many models are acting.

[Chipacabra]

You have just said it yourself "only perform one 0AP an activation". The quote I gave said it was the same activation ergo you don't get a second (0) action.

You are now just arguing for the sake are arguing, this topic is closed.

I'm really not arguing just to be arguing. I am frustrated that you're ignoring my points, and not backing up your points with either a rule or with an errata to the rules. Please believe that I am not just trolling you, that I have read the rules carefully, and that your answer is NOT justified by the rulebook.