New Errata, What are you going to do?

[Chase]

We've all probably read it but (all) Search no longer applies to grave robbers. So that means no more Dog, Sebastian, and Nicodem searching ( i really thought a first turn search worked well).

Is this going to change your list idea's much? If so how?

[darkphantomz]

Not really.

It actually makes Sebastian much more useful now, as his spell "Gather Body Parts" is now much more valuable.

The only thing I wish is that Mortimer's Exhume was like that spell, where I cast it and get a corpse token. Sure it is easier to cast but considering I only have a 1/4th chance to get a corpse even if I cast it is kind of crap. Not only that, but I can only cast it once a turn, that way I have a decent chance to get a corpse. Remove the once a turn restriction or either that or make it more difficult to cast and give me a guaranteed corpse

[Angus Khan]

Not really.

It actually makes Sebastian much more useful now, as his spell "Gather Body Parts" is now much more valuable.

The only thing I wish is that Mortimer's Exhume was like that spell, where I cast it and get a corpse token. Sure it is easier to cast but considering I only have a 1/4th chance to get a corpse even if I cast it is kind of crap. Not only that, but I can only cast it once a turn, that way I have a decent chance to get a corpse. Remove the once a turn restriction or either that or make it more difficult to cast and give me a guaranteed corpse

You could always save low :malicrows cards and cheat.

[nilus]

You could always save low :malicrows cards and cheat.

That brings up an interesting question(might need an Eric level answer on this). Exume requires you(after you succeed) to flip a card and if its Crows you get the corpse token. I had always assumed that second flip was uncheatable. But maybe I was wrong.

Can anyone either site a rules example or give an official yeah or nay on whether you can cheat that or not.

[capcap]

Best way to get corpse tokens for me has always been offing the opponents weaker models. That seems to be the best strategy.

[Chase]

I thought of it as un-cheatable as well. I don't think it really hurts McM at all, but i just bought all my Nicodem stuff last Tuesday. I'm thinking of Nicodem and 7 Punk Zombies.

Another thing is against Neverborn you won't see any counters, and against archanists most models will be constructs. I could be wrong about that though.

[goblyn13]

Neverborn are living models, only thing you would see counters from are Teddy, the Hooded Rider and Bad JuJu. Everything is living. Arcanists you'd have the most problem with Ramos and Rasputina. And soe far, almost all of the guild will leave corpse counters

[darkphantomz]

I didn't think Mortimer's Exhume flip was cheatable either.

Though, this changes the way I'll play Nicodem now. Instead of Nicodem searching turn one, I can advance up a bit, drop the Fog, Bloster Undead, and if Mortimer is lucky create a new Punk Zombie. I still think Nicodem is a great and powerful master, just creating mindless zombies earlier in the gamewill be a bit more difficult now. On the other hand having a shortage of mindless zombies sucks, because range attacks still have a good change to drop him dead.

Another tatic I was thinking of to get early corpses is to have some Belles and Hans. Use the Belles to lure a model much closer to you, then have Hans soften it up, keep luring close then kill him. If you wanted to take it to the extreme bring Mortimer, Sybelle, and 3 belles. Do a giant alpha strike, have Mortimer Exhume and advance and give Companion to Sybelle who goes and attempts to Lure over a model a couple times, then all the Belles activate and chain pull a model or two to your lines. If you havn't finished it with the Belles use whatever else you brought to kill it then have Nico make a nice shiney pet, either a Punk, or if Mortimer already exhumed a token onto Nicodem, a Flesh Contruct.

[darkphantomz]

double post

[Werecat]

Freak, we need to get an Eric signal made up... that is a very important question. I haven't finished reading the rules yet, but so far the only flip
i've seen that you can't cheat is a :mali-fate

[Chase]

I like that idea, sounds kinda fun and worth one try 8)

I really want Hamelin's AoE Black Death to use in the Rez'ers, but idk it's casting value is high.

[Haight]

The errata doesn't bother me much - it just means that i'll change the way i play Nicodem slightly. I means i'll concentrate on punks a little more, and buffing / decaying, etc., rather than trying to whore-out the mindless zombie angle like I was in a red light district with a fistfull of hundreds. :p: Just means you have to work a bit harder to get the mindless zombie ho-train going, rather than taking Nic, Mort, and 2+ dogs, digging up counters, and making craptons of zombies turn 2.

He's still pretty mean, and has many tricks up his sleeve.

However, if Mortimer's spell is cheatable, that would be flippin' fantastic.

[Werecat]

I've posted the question in the rules section, so hopefully one of the big guys will see it and let us know. here's hoping that the big guys will throw us a bone after the nerf, ha ha.

[sprue]

What's worked well for me is killing off my own models. You can use vulture totems and canine remains which are both very cheap. Kill them to get the corpse and then summon a punk zombie or something of a higher value than the canine.

One way is to take Sebastion with a pack of 5 or so dogs. Activate Seb and 2 dogs together and let the dogs charge an opponent then attack the dogs and opponent with his AOE spell. Then use Nicodem to summon a flesh construct or other undead who will be able to finish off the enemy model and poof! another corpse token.

[nilus]

What's worked well for me is killing off my own models. You can use vulture totems and canine remains which are both very cheap. Kill them to get the corpse and then summon a punk zombie or something of a higher value than the canine.

Why would you kill off your Vulture totems?

They have a lot better uses then becoming a corpse token

[Chase]

How do you use the vulture? I used it once and I really like it but it seems with Decay's 10" range and Eyes & Ears being 1 action the bird moves then get's blasted right after Nicodem casts.

But have we had official word on the cheatable Exhume?

[Werecat]

No official word yet.

[nilus]

How do you use the vulture? I used it once and I really like it but it seems with Decay's 10" range and Eyes & Ears being 1 action the bird moves then get's blasted right after Nicodem casts.

Well first remember you can hire 2. I generally keep one back near Nicodem but outside his wall of Undead, basically use it as a way to cast spells while I have a wall of undead protecting him.

The other I generally use to take out tricky little models trying to get objectives like breakthrough or sabotage.

I generally try to make sure there are other models close to the birds that make more attractive targets. Plus I keep them in cover and in places that are hard to get to them via melee.

[Werecat]

For those that didn't see, the official word is that you cannot cheat Mortimers exume spell flip.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

For those that didn't see, the official word is that you cannot cheat Mortimers exume spell flip.
It's in your rulebooks.

Pg. 33:
Cheating Fate: Playing a Control Card from your hand to replace the Fate Card in play is called Cheating Fate. All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so. The played Control Card becomes the new Fate Card.

There wasn't an errata or clarification here.

[Khail]

I disagree WS - the issue is what constitutes "in play". We don't have any way of knowing what that means, since it isn't spelled out anywhere in the rulebook. Mortimer's Exhume flip may well have put the card flipped "in play", which would make it cheatable.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

No it would not.

His rules do not state that he is allowed to cheat that flip. Thus he cannot.

[Khail]

... you're missing my point. If the card flipped in Exhume was "in play", it would be cheatable, specifically because Exhume doesn't say it can't be cheated. How are we supposed to know if it's "in play" or not without asking the designers, since they didn't decide to put it in the rulebook?

[AoM]

the additional language to spell things out in black and white will be here in just a short while.

WS is correct. Exhume is not cheatable. basically, anything that isn't part of a duel is not cheatable unless specified otherwise. damage flip: not part of a duel, but cheating is specifically allowed.

[hannibal]

WS is correct. Exhume is not cheatable. basically, anything that isn't part of a duel is not cheatable unless specified otherwise. damage flip, not part of a duel, but cheating is specifically allowed.

Yeah, I think that's the part that's missing. Really, this should just be an FAQ as the rules support the idea that you essentially cannot cheat a flip unless it explicitly says you can. However, several people read those very rules and came to the exact opposite conclusion: you can cheat unless stated otherwise.

I'm starting to "get" Wyrd's rules writing philosophy: hyper-RAW.

[Khail]

I get that WS is correct, and that the language will be provided shortly. I was just trying to explain why people weren't wrong coming to the opposite conclusion up until this point. With the current rules it could be argued either way and the rulebook wouldn't say which was correct.

On a side note, I really do appreciate that Wyrd is willing to listen when those of us just learning the game find loopholes. The folks that have been playtesting it for the last few months/years have done a great job, but it's easy to glaze over wording issues after you understand how the rules for a piece are "supposed to work" already. Having been in that position myself with other systems, I know this all too well, heh.

The only thing missing from this game right now is a watertight ruleset - and I'd love to see Malifaux get there.

[hannibal]

cheating is part of a duel. a flip is not. it's pretty logical,

And if the rules said "you can only cheat during a duel, or in other situations where it is explicitly allowed" then it would in fact be logical and crystal clear. However, that's not what the rules say. They say:




Flipping/Re-flipping: You flip a Fate Card by turning over the top card of your Fate Deck.

Cheating Fate: Playing a Control Card from your hand to replace the Fate Card is called Cheating Fate. All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so. The played Control Card becomes the new Fate Card.

Now, nowhere in there does it say that you may only cheat fate on a duel. So the game does not in fact clearly convey that idea. The second sentence does state the limitations of cheating, but I think that an intelligent person could come to the conclusion that you can in fact cheat fate on any flip unless otherwise stated.

This is because in the combat section when it talks about damaging there simply is not a clear pattern one way or the other:

Pg 56 The Damage Flip: third paragraph explicitly states that you can cheat the flip.

Pg 57 Healing: states you cannot cheat the flip (or use soulstones for that matter).

Pg 57 Using Soulstones to prevent damage: does not say whether you can or cannot cheat (or use soulstones). It says make a flip and refer to the Healing/Prevention chart.

So seeing as the most common scenario for a non-duel flip has a "you can", a "you can't", and an omission, how are we the gamers to know what is in the rules writer's head? I think it's a fair assessment by a smart person to come out on either side of whether you can cheat a random flip or not.

So while I do see the logic of the decision (i.e. use hyper Rules As Written when reading the rules of this game), it is in fact not spelled out clearly.

[AoM]

It's in your rulebooks.

Pg. 33:
Cheating Fate: Playing a Control Card from your hand to replace the Fate Card in play is called Cheating Fate. All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so. The played Control Card becomes the new Fate Card.

There wasn't an errata or clarification here.
cheating, as WS said, is only allowed when the rules say you can. The steps for every Duel are listed, and you get to cheating fate. Flips do not have that step.

There's a damage flip, and that allows you to cheat it, following the normal restrictions on cheating. In this case, there is a specific permission to cheat.

Then there are healing and Preventing damage flips. they do not say that you can cheat them. While healing specifies that you cannot cheat it, it is just to reiterate and remind you that you cannot cheat this flip. It does not need to be specified for Preventing damage because "All models can Cheat Fate, but only when the rules allow them to do so."

There is nothing in the text of "Exhume" that allows the resulting flip to be cheated. There is no rule allowing Mortimer to cheat the flip that results from casting the spell. Cheating is allowed when casting the spell, and is mentioned in the rules for casting spells. The flip that follows a successful casting is just a random flip looking for a card with the :malicrows suit.

[hannibal]

While healing specifies that you cannot cheat it, it is just to reiterate and remind you that you cannot cheat this flip

Yes, I get that. Now. But usually, exceptions are singled out. Usually, if something isn't the exception, then it is not singled out. So by stating that healing cannot be cheated, it comes across that this is the exception and not just reiterating a rule. This is especially compounded when you have the Prevent Damage section where it is not stated that you can't cheat it.

For the record, I'm not arguing the call. I see the point. However, I feel that it is in fact not clear. I think that a logical person could see that cheating fate is always allowed unless otherwise stated. I think this could be interpreted from the rules, and implied from the back cover of the book. I mean, cheating fate is one of the selling points of game. I think a logical person could come to the conclusion that the advertised mechanic is an 'always use' sort of thing.

[jmp_mydog]

Rules lawyering kills babies ... just saying.

[AoM]

and yet, reading the rules about cheating fate would still give you "All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so." In each section where you'd be able to cheat, it mentions cheating as a step, and the normal rules for cheating are followed (no cheating at negative fate, only models with "Use Soulstones" may get the additional cheating option, etc.)

If you are in a situation where cheating is not mention, such as we have here, there is no rule that mentions cheating even being an option. Without the possibility of cheating involved, cheating would be, by default, not allowed.

The rules for strikes and spells require that you declare a target, and then have that target within range. The rules put no restrictions on which models can normally be targeted, so you may target any model that meets the above criteria.

The rules for Cheating Fate do have a restriction attached, and this is the issue. The rules for casting a spell are in that section of the book. The rules for what a specific spell does is in the spell (on the card or in the back of the book). When a spell does damage, you're moved into the damage section of the rules, unless the spell has a specific rule that would have you do otherwise (unmodified damage flip, "X" Wd, etc.). When a spell has some other affect, the rules for what the spell does are in the spell text.

Exhume just says you make a flip. If it's one of the 13 :malicrows cards that are possible (or a Red joker, which is whatever suit you'd like it to be), you get the reward. End of spell. No mention of cheating, so cheating not allowed.

[hannibal]

Hey I'm not the one drawing distinctions between "Immune to willpower duels" and "Ignores willpower duels" . . . .

[dboeren]

As long as it's going to be clarified in the FAQ that's fine. Right now I think it isn't sufficiently clear so as to be obvious and claiming "If you put these eight separate sections of the rulebook together a clear pattern emerges" doesn't jump that gap over to obvious for me.

[hannibal]

Amen, brother.

I find it frustrating that all I've been trying to say is that it is possible for intelligent people to get it wrong and the answer coming back is "idiot, it's clearly stated in the rules." At this point, given some of the substantial changes that have been made to the rules in the errata, I'm not willing to concede that the rules are always crystal clear.

[AoM]

oh, it will be in the FAQ. :D

and we don't think you guys are idiots at all. it's been brought up that we need to make a clear ruling for what the default state is, and make specific text when things go against that default. I was just making sure this one is crystal clear until that language gets finalized.

Like you guys said, sometimes things aren't clear, so when they come up, we try to get them fixed for you ASAP. :grouphug:

[Kealios]

It really seems this game's Rules Interpretations are RULES AS WRITTEN: if it says it, do it, and if it doesnt, you cant.

That is not bad! In fact, its VERY GOOD - IF we get to the point where everything is cleaned up, polished and Errata'd properly. Until then, RAW is a dangerous road to hoe - because there are quite a few things that have been omited in the past, and some that havent even been caught yet...

[hannibal]

Like you guys said, sometimes things aren't clear, so when they come up, we try to get them fixed for you ASAP. :grouphug:

Oh come on, group hugs are for pansies. Real men solve their problems this way:

:fight:


:vb_cheers


:friday:



For what its worth, I'm all cool with extreme RAW. And I'm okay with Mortimer's spell. He's not a corpse counter generator. He's a thug who during one of the off the turns might generate a random counter. Then he can leave it there for Nicodem to later come along and raise something with it.

[AoM]

I stand corrected. no hugs. sword fights and beer for everyone!

And that's exactly how I see our buddy Mortimer. he's not sophisticated. he's not smart or fancy. He's a cigar-chomping, shovel-swinging, hulk of a man who has no qualms digging up a body now and then, but would rather just hit you in the face or dive into an open grave to save his own hide.

[Sobek]

It really seems this game's Rules Interpretations are RULES AS WRITTEN:

The words you have in bold are one of my issues, unfortunately. I love the game and the concept, however the book is one of the most horribly put together game books I've ever seen. Rules for a single thing are scattered throughout the book, it's horribly vague in places, full or typos, and it has a laughable index.

And it even has problems with basic math. Entry #1 under the Simple Duel Example on page 37. In what world does 4 + 6 equal 11?

The game has been a absolute blast to play, with amazing ideas and miniatures, however I'm hoping for some sort of revised book, or even a living rulebook at some point.

[nilus]

The words you have in bold are one of my issues, unfortunately. I love the game and the concept, however the book is one of the most horribly put together game books I've ever seen. Rules for a single thing are scattered throughout the book, it's horribly vague in places, full or typos, and it has a laughable index.

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

[jmp_mydog]

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

Here, Here ... for a small operation to put out such a nice book with a solid ruleset is quite impressive. I mean for god's sake GW's on the 5th and 6th editions of thier core products and still haven't gotten everthing right. Same with Privateer, great books but gamers and art directors are notoriously bad at grammar and spelling. (I'm both BTW)

[Keltheos]

That said, the feedback doesn't fall on deaf ears, so if you find something not to your liking, let Wyrd know.

[Haight]

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

Gotta agree here.

There are many, many indie and emerging games who's rules and books look like a sloppy, bloody abortion performed by jackson pollock holding a weedwhacker in comparison to the Malifaux book.

Is there a hiccup here or there ? Absolutely, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Are there some things that are going to need to be errata'd or are the result of transcription error, or a loss of translation from design intent to public understanding ? Yes.

This is true of any game - no matter how polished or long standing. Every game has errata and clarifications - its a part of the wargaming process where you cannot apply a digital patch (like in PC / Console gaming). In fact, errata and clarifications serve the same function as "patches".

A handful of developers and 20+ Playtesters have a fraction of the sets of eyes on the product that the general public will upon release. That's the nature of development, design, and playtested products. There are going to be things that Development understands one way, and players interpret another - and thus a clarification or errata is required.

Frankly, i'm pretty impressed with the quality and the relative tightness of the rules in Malifaux considering it is the companies first outing (though i do know the forward says they scrapped at least two versions of the game, so i'm sure there was some learning / growing pains there). There is a simple elegance to most of the rules that I find impressive.

[Werecat]

Yeah, but there are some pretty bad mistakes in the book. The only thing that really bugs me is that alot of the page references and the index is really bad...

The book needs some work, but it's certainly not the worst I've seen. And the fluff is amazing :)

[Sobek]

Yeah, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was still not put together as well as it could have been. The simple math could have been double checked. It was annoying to spend time flipping through the book, trying to figure out where the extra +1 came from for the 4+6=11 example. A more complete index of some kind would have been great. A table that lists the various 'common' things that can be cheated. A table that lists common 'status effects' like slow or paralyzed. All in places that are convenient or easy to find. The details for rules all in the same place, not split up over multiple locations in the book (The rules for Blasts are a prime example of this, being both on pages 25 and 56).

[AoM]

Seriously, without you guys bringing these issues up, we wouldn't be fixing them because we wouldn't know about them. any hard feelings aside, we appreciate you raising the questions, and bearing with it while an answer gets worked out.

I didn't have anything to do with the book math though, so I'm at least blame-free there. :D

[Khail]

I've said it before and I don't mind saying again - awesome work bringing this game to life guys. There are some minor issues in the rulebook that will come to light from time to time, but the fact that Wyrd is listening to the folks bringing them up has me VERY excited for the future of this game.

Malifaux has pretty much jumped to the top of my gaming priority list lately, and it looks like it'll be staying there for a good long while.

[Haight]

Seriously, without you guys bringing these issues up, we wouldn't be fixing them because we wouldn't know about them. any hard feelings aside, we appreciate you raising the questions, and bearing with it while an answer gets worked out.

I didn't have anything to do with the book math though, so I'm at least blame-free there. :D


Which is a sign of a good dev team. :) No one is infallible, not even the creator / developer. A good dev team helps the creator / developer take a step back from their cherished creation, give pause, and possibly re-think a previous move. Not always, but sometimes. :)

Bringing up issues with book is very very helpful. My comments were just directed at the fact that if you want to see rule books that would make baby jesus weep for the future, there's a LOT worse out there. Wyrd's virgin book is pretty damn good, all things told.

But again, player base proofreading = never bad.

[greyseerco]

Which is a sign of a good dev team. :) No one is infallible, not even the creator / developer. A good dev team helps the creator / developer take a step back from their cherished creation, give pause, and possibly re-think a previous move. Not always, but sometimes. :)

Bringing up issues with book is very very helpful. My comments were just directed at the fact that if you want to see rule books that would make baby jesus weep for the future, there's a LOT worse out there. Wyrd's virgin book is pretty damn good, all things told.

But again, player base proofreading = never bad.
My only issue is what has been stated, the rules are scattered through all the fluff, and while this is normal in the WarMac supplemental books, in the core rules the fluff is concentrated in a few areas. I hope future printings might consider moving the fluff two a chunk in the front (before the rules) a chunk in the middle (before Factions), and a chunk at the end (after faction but before handy tables, glossary, and index). That way the relevant items -rules and factions can be scanned quickly.

[Sushicaddy]

I have always liked it when relevant terms/crunch have been in bold, so it is easier to reference when in a rules debate.

Also a good index that has a good crunch reference is always good for the same reason.

Writing rules is hard, especially when you have a limited amount of editors/readers, as what seems perfectly logical to you might be confusing or unclear to the general public. Add to this the general tendency of gamers to try and read the rules in such a way in order to gain the most benefit for the faction they play (not pointing fingers here, but it IS true), and then things that were once clear get gray.

[Minion]

My only issue is what has been stated, the rules are scattered through all the fluff, and while this is normal in the WarMac supplemental books, in the core rules the fluff is concentrated in a few areas. I hope future printings might consider moving the fluff two a chunk in the front (before the rules) a chunk in the middle (before Factions), and a chunk at the end (after faction but before handy tables, glossary, and index). That way the relevant items -rules and factions can be scanned quickly.
Just wanted to chime in here to respectfully disagree with greyseerco. I'm actually incredibly fond of the way the current rules have been laid out. First because it made for a very pleasant reading experience for me (I don't like reading massive chunks of rules, so I appreciated the breaking up). And second because I now find it very easy to find the section I'm looking for quickly -- each bit (combat, magic, whatever) is very well separated from each other bit.

Of course, everyone's going to have different opinions on this. Can't please everyone, I suppose!

[nerdelemental]

I *love* the layout. And I had nothing what-so-ever to do with it so I feel free to gush about it all day long. I was blown away by the simplest things in that book - almost all of it the strategic placement of fluff to rules to stats to reminder/explanation text. The artwork then blew me away again. Then the raw fluff blew me away. It seems like a beautiful book that I'm proud of. When I have a new player looking at our game, I have no hesitation at all to hand him the book to look through and I even have a few pages I sometimes point out and say, "Take a looks at these."

Typos are forgivable, even if they impact the game (incorrect stats or wounds) as long as they get fixed quickly and decisively and are available clearly to everyone.

Clarification is to be expected from any game. Not only will intent need to be more clearly defined in tight language for the lawyers, but the sheer space available hinders the ability to go into lengthy diatribes regarding the intent and some of that needs to just get handled and accepted.

Errata? That's unfortunate. It always is. The more games you acquire the more you come to expect it rather than cringe at it. So many more eyes can see something in a different light than the playtest. And during a playtest stats and abilities often change so radically and sometimes so quickly that it compounds the inability to catch everything. Some times it looks like a rule was made in the attempt to simplify an issue only need an errata because of some other, not thought of odd connection to that thing opened a different and unexpected loophole.

Well, I started this post to say that I love my book. The only thing I'd change is to give mine a hardcover so it'll last longer. I already have the corners bending from going in and out of my army transport and it'll only get worse. I suppose I'll be okay. When it's tattered, I'll love it all the more and just go buy a new copy. :)

[Sobek]

Just wanted to chime in here to respectfully disagree with greyseerco. I'm actually incredibly fond of the way the current rules have been laid out. First because it made for a very pleasant reading experience for me (I don't like reading massive chunks of rules, so I appreciated the breaking up). And second because I now find it very easy to find the section I'm looking for quickly -- each bit (combat, magic, whatever) is very well separated from each other bit.


Let's use the previous Blast reference as an example. If you want to see how Blasts work, your first inclination would be to look it up in the 'index'. The index entry gives the definition of what a blast is, but not how it's actually works. It refers you to page 25 for the game mechanics on how it works.

Let's now flip to Page 25. Here we find the definition of the blast once again, and rules for how the markers are placed. But it doesn't give any information about how the damage is resolved. Does a model covered by more than one of the blast markers suffer damage multiple times? Even if it was the model that was directly hit by the attack?

Having read through the book, and played several games, we all know the answer to this. However for those new to the game, it's not clear. It also gives no easy indication of where to look for the rest of the rules for how to handle blast markers. You actually have to go searching through the book to find them, on page 56; something that can really slow a game down if you have to stop in the middle of a turn to spend time searching for rules and mechanics.

Yes, I admit I was a bit harsh in my initial post about the book. I love the fluff and the artwork. But you have to admit that there were issues with the book and that there's definite room for improvement for any 'revised' edition.