November FAQ

[Justin]

This month's errata and FAQ is up. Discuss!

http://www.wyrd-games.net/resources

[Justin]

Update to Conflux of Combat is up.

...and next update this thread goes in the regular forum as the down/up voting moving the answers around makes discussion impossible.

[Lucidicide]

I like it!

[Fog]

I never hired metal gamin, and I've honestly been finding it more advantageous in most circumstances to summon fire gamin or ice gamin with the Rider.  I think people have been too focused on the 'hard to kill' bit, and people will very quickly come to realize that summoning models that can participate in a more active manner is almost always a stronger choice.

[Justin]

I think thats a massive cuddle for metal gamin. If you'd made protection of metal last until the start of the gamins next activation ala frank/papa it wouldnt be so bad but having to keep a 4" walk model that needs to spend 1ap getting the ability setup to need to stay within 3" makes it so situational it now looks shockingly bad!

None of that actually changed. The only change to the Protection of Metal action was the addition of "non-Metal Gamin" so it can't target itself.

Of course, there is also the loss of Hard to Kill. But just addressing your post.

[dgraz]

The Metal Gamin being able to target himself with PoM always smelled a lot more like a loophole that got through PT to me (like 'Dita taking Diestro).....all during the PT his obvious intent was to park next to some low Df, high cost model (like an Ice Golem for example) that was holding a position like for Turf War or Squatter's.

He will no longer be the crutch that people are bumping their number of activations with....no longer the go to 4ss model because of his Armor +2, Df 6, HtK.....now he'll start being used as (I think) he was intended and more importantly, he'll stop over-shadowing almost every other 4ss model in the faction.

[hippodruid]

Very solid FAQ and Errata for the month.

[Pyrflamme]

Not sure about the Gaimin's change to PoM. I do wonder about the HtK removal, though - I don't get a ton of playtime with him because I'm usually a TT kinda guy and thus he only gets taken with Mei Feng, but I feel like Armor is one of the easier defenses to negate, and losing HtK means he could get one-shot pretty often. I'll see how it goes.

[rythos42]

Oh, but it's offset by a minor stealth buff for Metal Gamin -- they gained an extra AP on their first turn!  

 

(ie...they no longer have to PoM themselves on their first turn, so don't lose the 1AP to casting it...)

[Justin]

Hmm, I'm struggling with the change to Deconstruction on the Conflux of Combat; If the +6 Ca lasts the duration of the action, and the Marker is discarded once the action is completed, isn't the only change to its behaviour now that, once some idiot has cycled their black joker out of their deck or some such nonsense (as per the silly discussion on the ability previously), the marker goes away? Doesn't this mean that the loop can still be done?

No.

It means you railwalk to the Marker with your increased Ca, discard it once the Railwalk is complete and if you want to trigger an additional Railwalk you'll need a new target.

 

Edit: I'll add this on the end tomorrow to seriously put the nail in this coffin: (if further Actions are generated by a Trigger, the Marker is discarded before declaring them).

Edited November 4, 2015 by Justin

[Tawg]

I am very sad for the Conflux of Thunder change, but to be fair I think it was probably necessary. The conflux during beta was terrible, then in the book was unbelievably powerful. Against an unwary opponent you could potentially have Misaki kill their entire crew in one activation, now it's just a nice bonus. Part of me is okay with this (the part that likes other people to have fun too, so that's a win for the design team there!).

&

I am very sad for the Conflux of Thunder change, but to be fair I think it was probably necessary. The conflux during beta was terrible, then in the book was unbelievably powerful. Against an unwary opponent you could potentially have Misaki kill their entire crew in one activation, now it's just a nice bonus. Part of me is okay with this (the part that likes other people to have fun too, so that's a win for the design team there!).

@Justin, this seems like a pretty massive cuddle. I agree, that it was possible for this to get a out of hand (last game I killed 5 models in one go). But I think the pendulum may have swung too far in making the Emissaries much less attractive in a Misaki crew. . This was a pretty powerful anti-summoning tech against Summoning Dreamer, Ulix pig farm, Ramos spider farm, and Somner gremlin spam. Would rather have seen it keep the ability as written but add a restriction "Minion or Peon" or maybe "an enemy model that costs 5 SS or less."

At the point it exist at currently (Post Errata), isn't it a much weaker Fast, due to requiring a model killed?  I don't disagree with taking away the equivalent to infinite AP (Or way too much at least), but it seems like this is just a conditional Fast.

You know what, re-reading it, I thought it was Once per game for some reason.  Once per turn seems far more reasonable, I am super OK with this change.  I feel that Misaki has plenty of options as far as maneuverability goes, and getting out of dodge after killing a single target, or attempting to push her luck by attacking something else seems more than respectable.  The only problem as it stands is going to be keeping the dragon within range of Misaki on subsequent turns, since she may find herself bouncing around quite a lot if she needs to dodge retaliation.

I like this change.

Hmm, I'm struggling with the change to Deconstruction on the Conflux of Combat; If the +6 Ca lasts the duration of the action, and the Marker is discarded once the action is completed, isn't the only change to its behaviour now that, once some idiot has cycled their black joker out of their deck or some such nonsense (as per the silly discussion on the ability previously), the marker goes away? Doesn't this mean that the loop can still be done?

No.

It means you railwalk to the Marker with your increased Ca, discard it once the Railwalk is complete and if you want to trigger an additional Railwalk you'll need a new target.

 

Edit: I'll add this on the end tomorrow to seriously put the nail in this coffin: (if further Actions are generated by a Trigger, the Marker is discarded before declaring them).

&

Hmm, I'm struggling with the change to Deconstruction on the Conflux of Combat; If the +6 Ca lasts the duration of the action, and the Marker is discarded once the action is completed, isn't the only change to its behaviour now that, once some idiot has cycled their black joker out of their deck or some such nonsense (as per the silly discussion on the ability previously), the marker goes away? Doesn't this mean that the loop can still be done?

No.

It means you railwalk to the Marker with your increased Ca, discard it once the Railwalk is complete and if you want to trigger an additional Railwalk you'll need a new target.

Yes, but do you keep the +6 Ca? Because then you can achieve the same result as before by going to the next target and just repeating the process on it instead of the original (special) marker, no?

No, the ability pretty unambiguously states that the +6 Ca is only when targeting the Scrap Marker dropped by the ability, as evidenced by the phrasing "the Scrap Marker" rather than "a Scrap Marker."

Hold up, you think as written it suggest that the +6 Ca drops off?

I'm totally fine with accepting that, but the issue I have is the side bar about Actions caused by Actions:

Some Actions will force or allow a model to take another Action.  If an Action calls for another Action to be taken (such as Charge or "Make A New Entry") then the additional Action or Actions do not cost any AP.  The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved.

Italics being my emphasis.  I have a hard time understanding the finite difference between "Resolved" and "Completed" as stated in the ability.  You may disagree, but IMO (And I mean no offense), Wyrd seems to have cryptic rulings only in so far as the words they find to be definitive in meaning are not defined in terms of the game.  And if I used those two words interchangeably in a sentence, resolved and completed, no native English speaker would disagree with me.  Which leads to the players misunderstanding because there is not a definition glossary, like in the instance of the use of the terms [Suffer // Inflict], which people commonly think means the end result damage, rather than the damage flip as it always actually means.

And that's fine, to clarify that you want "Complete" to be when you REACH Step 5 of the Resolving an Action ability, but when Triggers cause more actions (Such as Mei Feng's built in trigger for Rail Walk), then the original action can't end, because it is being extended to the duration of the new action.

And the new Conflux reads:

Push this model up to 3" in any direction, then place a Scrap Marker in base contact with it. Until the end of the Turn, friendly Leaders which target the Scrap Marker with an Action gain +6 Ca for the duration of the Action, and then discard the Marker after completing the Action.

So if it gets the +6 Ca for the "duration" of the Action, and the Actions causing Actions side bar tells me that the Action doesn't end until all Actions caused subsequently are ended, then how does that mean the duration has ended?

If this is a clear as day issue that I am misinterpreting, I can accept that.  I just don't see how the Actions causing Actions and this conflict.  Is there information I am neglecting, beyond simply being told it works differently than I imagine?  But if you have to be told it doesn't work how a reasonable reader would interpret it, then it seems to be unclear to me.

 

Meanwhile, can we get an Errata for the latest FAQ?

11) Q: Does Kirai need to summon Ikiryo within her LoS when summoning it with the Malevolence Ability?
A: No. Actions which summon require LoS, Abilities do no unless they specify otherwise. (11/1/15)

 It clearly means "not", just a typo.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tawg

[mythicFOX]

Does this forum auto correct "n erf" to "cuddle"?

Yeah, it's done that for like a year now.  

[Justin]

Let me preface this post with something. We (myself included) all want the rules to be clear and accessible to both old and new players, so anything I say here is because I want to see the game continue to be the best miniature game out there.

With that said, at this point I'm finding the FAQ document to be filled with just enough contradictory/confusing rules that it slightly worries me.

We have stuff like #18 shown below that are pretty simple to understand... 

18) Q: If a model suffers 0 (zero) damage, does it count as having suffered damage?

A: No. 

but we don't have clarification on the Black Blood Shaman. It doesn't matter what way I want it, if Wyrd is standing by the wording on the card, that's perfectly fine. The thing is, it is by definition, a Frequently Asked Question. So, yes I would like for the answer that Wyrd has given on a few occasions now to be explicitly in there.

The FAQ does appear to be getting a little long; I believe some of the stuff in there does follow Wryd's policy that "if its clear in the rules no need for FAQ", and could be removed.

It also seems that one of the pillars of M2E's initial design goals of keeping the rules on the cards as clear as possible so no need to look up specific stuff in the rulebook is beginning to be lost. 

Now the next example, is just for that, an example. I actually don't care about any rules changes as long as the goal is balance, which I whole heartedly believe its Wyrd's intent obviously. I agree with the 'rules updates', and for that matter it's not my game so I'm not trying to say a rule should be one way or another. But there are some things that are FAQ's in this update that I think would better serve as Errata's to cards.

The two in particular are:

22) If a model is moved by the Lure Action and ends in base contact with the Attacker, can it end anywhere in base contact if it has the movement to do so?

A: No. The Lured model moves towards the Attacker by the shortest route possible and stops as soon as it is in base contact. (11/1/15)

23) If a model is pushed “into base contact” with an Incorporeal model, can it move through the Incorporeal model and stop on the other side?

A: No. It stops as soon as base contact is acheived. (11/1/15) 

Whether you agree or don't agree with the ruling is irrelevant. From a "introduce the game to someone" perspective I find this messy. I tell a new player here is a Belle, her card describes "Lure". He/She then asks the FAQ question during a game where it comes up. 

I than point this person to the FAQ #22, but have no specific rule in the rulebook to support the answer. So from the outside it looks a little messy, in my opinion. I just wish Lure and (#23) were erratas to the Belle card because than I can say, well no Wyrd decided the action wasn't clear and released updates to the cards.

Am I happy we have an FAQ and Errata cycle....absolutely. I just think simple things are being added to the rules, but glaring FAQ questions and words-on-cards without new versions are being given different definitions.

I completely agree that there are some questions in there we can cut. The glaring example for me would be, "can a Crew have more than 1 Henchman?" This was a question that used to be frequent, but it was only ever confusing because of 1.5 rules nobody plays anymore. I have considered removing these, but then the discussion would be, "The question was removed from the FAQ, I guess Wyrd intends to change the rules and we can only have 1 Henchmen!" I could have a companion document that update explaining the removals, but I hope you see the issue.

As for the 0 damage question and the shaman question, HOW you ask a question matters. Nobody ever asked, directly, "Does a model suffering 0 damage count as suffering damage?" But they did ask (and were legitimately confused by) things like, "If I have a damage track of 0/1/2 and flip weak damage, am I still doing damage? Can my opponent's Abilities which Trigger off of damage still happen?" Even though what they were essentially asking was, "Does a model that suffers 0 damage still suffer damage?" the way they framed their questions was getting people confused. Framing it the way it is in the FAQ both cut down to the heart of the matter and addressed multiple issues at once rather than having a different question for all of the ways a model could end up suffering 0 damage. So, I think it's a pretty relevant question, and one people were legitimately confused by.

The Shaman, on the other hand, always starts out, "I know how this works, but..." People aren't asking (at least, they aren't asking me) how it works, so much as they see how it works, don't like it, and are requesting an errata. Which is, I should add, completely fine to do. Some things need errata. But then, it's only going to be addressed if I think the model will need an errata, which I don't think the Shaman is quite to that level yet. If more people had been legitimately confused about how it works, I likely would have added it in already. And would be glad to if it's become a major issue for you. But as for why it's not there yet, well, you have your answer.

For the Belle question, rather obviously, I disagree with you. I have very rarely found new players coming up with that interpretation of Lure. In my experience, they tend to intuitively understand it working as described in the FAQ. It's more experienced players, in my experience, who try to interpret Lure otherwise and then get in discussions about how it works. Which, again, is fine, players want the most from their models. But this seemed to me like a question (unlike the Shaman) where players were legitimately confused about which way to rule it and would be unable to come to a consensus without an FAQ. An errata would be far more jarring to new players, in my experience. It is far easier to say, "Hey, I have this question... oh, here is the answer." Than it is to say, "Hey, I have this question... oh, here is an all new version of my card with a slightly tweaked wording." The errata approach puts the player who was already confused in a position of having to interpret yet another wording, finding out their cards are out dated, and leaves the possibility of players who had never thought of the question being confused as to why the wording was updated. An FAQ directly addresses the confusion without any collateral damage.

I talk more in depth about this here: http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/108226-let-mah-handle-this-targeting-and-contingency-of-effects/?do=findComment&comment=830804

I know you were just giving examples. We could likely go back and forth all day about what should/shouldn't be in the FAQ and/or errata. But hopefully my explanation of the examples you gave gives you some insights into why certain things are or are not there. I generally agree that we need to be careful about what we put in there, which is precisely why I haven't added certain things you asked about, and I'm glad we can have this dialogue.

[Durza]

They have been knocked down from auto include to just good, I don't get the reactions from people. :/ I thought it was too much at first but after thinking about it and playing them a few times post cuddle it's not that big a deal, the protection of metal cuddle was needed, and losing hard to kill really only affects the big beatsticks like Howard or Killjoy, who still need 2 ap to kill them at minimum damage. 

[Druso]

MeiFeng Dumb-Combo deleted ouh yes!!

[daniello_s]

Metal Gamin slightly weakened!

Also it is nice that Lure-dancing around the models who cast it is no longer possible.

[Merry_HangedMan]

Wow, someone really hates Metal Gamin.

[Philosfr]

I was hoping to see clarification on the Changelings and their engagement range. We've been playing it as "no engagement range" since they have no Ml attacks of their own, but this has felt odd to me since we discussed it.

The Lure stuff makes sense, I hadn't considered the ability to "lure dance around". Though the continued use of "shortest route possible" introduces potential confusion

Direct example from my game last night. Lilitu lures a model that is 7 inches away. The shortest path is directly towards Lilitu, but that happens to go entirely through severe terrain, ending 5" away (4" walk). However, if the target went in a very slight arc around the edge of the severe terrain, the model would be able to walk the full 4" and end up 3" away. I've always thought the "end closest" would mean the model would walk around the edge of the pond and end 3" away. All the "shortest route" makes me thing the model would actually go direct through the pond and end up 5" away though...

[BigHammer]

I am very sad for the Conflux of Thunder change, but to be fair I think it was probably necessary. The conflux during beta was terrible, then in the book was unbelievably powerful. Against an unwary opponent you could potentially have Misaki kill their entire crew in one activation, now it's just a nice bonus. Part of me is okay with this (the part that likes other people to have fun too, so that's a win for the design team there!).

[Myyrä]

Wowza, that's not at all how I would have handled the Mei Feng infinite loop.

[bertmac]

I think thats a massive cuddle for metal gamin. If you'd made protection of metal last until the start of the gamins next activation ala frank/papa it wouldnt be so bad but having to keep a 4" walk model that needs to spend 1ap getting the ability setup to need to stay within 3" makes it so situational it now looks shockingly bad!

[Patzer]

I am honestly annoyed to have to wait an additional two months for the blackblood pustule ruling. It is something that was brought up more than six months ago. 

Other than that, pleased to see metal gamin get a cuddle. Whose next? 

[rythos42]

Shocked at the Metal Gamin changes! I would have definitely agreed that they were one of the more effective and cost effective 4ss models, but two changes in one go isn't a "gentle rebalancing"!

I've never used PoM on anything but the Gamin, and have been questioned on it repeatedly. I don't mind that change -- 6Df on a 4ss model was a little silly -- but to lose HtK in the same round hurts me in the Metal Gamin-shaped hole that was once my heart.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Agreed- I'm okay seeing either of those go as they're obnoxiously tough for their cost, but I think one rather than both would have probably been enough.

[BigHammer]

Hmm, I'm struggling with the change to Deconstruction on the Conflux of Combat; If the +6 Ca lasts the duration of the action, and the Marker is discarded once the action is completed, isn't the only change to its behaviour now that, once some idiot has cycled their black joker out of their deck or some such nonsense (as per the silly discussion on the ability previously), the marker goes away? Doesn't this mean that the loop can still be done?

Or has this all been a massive misunderstanding and as soon as the first rail walk is complete, both the +6 Ca bonus and the marker go away?

Edited November 4, 2015 by BigHammer

[daniello_s]

I am honestly annoyed to have to wait an additional two months for the blackblood pustule ruling. It is something that was brought up more than six months ago. 

Other than that, pleased to see metal gamin get a cuddle. Whose next? 

Rotten Belles! Rotten Belles!