Jump to content
Aaron

March 2018 FAQ

Recommended Posts

Thank you for this!  I really appreciate the breakdown for schemes and strategies affected by “Counts as two models” abilities.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the fact that a Bone Pile with an extra set of heads drops two when killed. :)

... As for Tanuki, well, who knows what they are fermenting in their gourds? :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carecalmo said:

... As for Tanuki, well, who knows what they are fermenting in their gourds? :P 

Its booze.
Strong Booze.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Aaron said:

88. If an Ability states “within one or more models with this Ability,” does the effect/Ability stack?
No. (3/1/18)

It's kind of straightforward when dealing with an ability like Catalyst since the model that that triggers the ability would be receiving the effects from each model with Catalyst, so it's something that would be clearly considered stacking.

With an ability like Over Excited on the Gremlin Crier, it's still not quite clear what the intent is. 

Somer is standing within three inches two Gremlin Criers. He discards a card for "Do It Like Dis". It seems like this ruling clearly keeps the "Over Excited" ability from allowing the Criers from taking 2 damage to draw 2 cards each.  Does it also prevent the Criers from each taking a damage and drawing a single card?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad. 89., Bone Pile, Ply for Information: can the second model be targeted with actions? To be more specific: can I interact with two-headed Bone Pile with Intel to gain Intel, because 'the second one' doesn't have the condition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pikciwok said:

Ad. 89., Bone Pile, Ply for Information: can the second model be targeted with actions? To be more specific: can I interact with two-headed Bone Pile with Intel to gain Intel, because 'the second one' doesn't have the condition?

I don't think you can target "the second one"

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Aaron said:

2. Do you need a Scheme Marker in the enemy deployment zone to score any points for Surround Them?
No. (3/1/18)

3. In Inescapable Trap, do you need 2 or more enemy models within 3” of the same Scheme Marker?
Yes. (3/1/18)

Thanks for clarifying these two, they've been giving me headaches for quite some time now.

So for Surround Them, you can score 1VP if you only have the single marker in your deployment zone, and then 2 more for each other opponent corner. Clear.
For Trap, you do need two models close to the same marker - we've been playing it the other way so far, but it's official now :)

Very interesting also the initial clarification about models counting as two, especially because it opens up scenarios that I didn't really thought of before - for example, to score Inescapable Trap you can drop a scheme marker next to just a single bone pile ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, edopersichetti said:

So for Surround Them, you can score 1VP if you only have the single marker in your deployment zone, and then 2 more for each other opponent corner.

Also, if you're playing Corners or Flank deployment you can get max 2 VP by having one in your DZ and one in either neutral corner!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reasoning for 87? Seems like if conditions were not working as intended it would have been changed sooner than five years in to M2e. Usually you have an explanation @Aaron and I’m having a hard time seeing why this change occurred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, skaroreg said:

Is there a reasoning for 87? Seems like if conditions were not working as intended it would have been changed sooner than five years in to M2e. Usually you have an explanation @Aaron and I’m having a hard time seeing why this change occurred. 

FAQ isn't a change tot he rules, it's a clarification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skaroreg said:

Is there a reasoning for 87? Seems like if conditions were not working as intended it would have been changed sooner than five years in to M2e. Usually you have an explanation @Aaron and I’m having a hard time seeing why this change occurred. 

It's not a change. This only means u played it whole time wrong. If u open rulebook u can find  that Conditions don't have their owning history and for example if i put Burning on your model it doesn't count that Burning belongs to me (enemy) when u gain immunity to Condition so u cant drop it off.  Only exception here are models with wording until this model does something u have Condition bla-bla-bla or if it gets killed then u drop this condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skaroreg said:

Is there a reasoning for 87? Seems like if conditions were not working as intended it would have been changed sooner than five years in to M2e. Usually you have an explanation @Aaron and I’m having a hard time seeing why this change occurred. 

There's 5 pages of discussion over on the rules forum that might shed some light on why this got added to the FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rillan said:

 If u open rulebook u can find  that Conditions don't have their owning history and for example if i put Burning on your model it doesn't count that Burning belongs to me (enemy) when u gain immunity to Condition so u cant drop it off. 

You also won't find anywhere in the rulebook that tells you to forget the cause of a condition.  About the closest you come to that is the bit that says that neither crew gets credit for killing a model if it dies due to a condition.

This FAQ was needed because there was no clear answer given in the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skaroreg said:

Is there a reasoning for 87? Seems like if conditions were not working as intended it would have been changed sooner than five years in to M2e. Usually you have an explanation @Aaron and I’m having a hard time seeing why this change occurred. 

87 only matters in 1 very niche circumstance (A model with Warding runes moving to be within 10" of the oxfordian mage with the right ward after it had gained a condition from an enemy model) , so its not really conditions not working as intended. Its just clarifying that outcome. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

90. If a Marker is on the centerline, is it also considered to be on a certain half of the board?
Yes. The Marker will also need to be on some half of the board, and it may be on both. (3/1/18)

I assume you mean it can be on either half of the table, Players' choice, and not on both halfs at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Erik1978 said:

I assume you mean it can be on either half of the table, Players' choice, and not on both halfs at the same time?

Would it be a problem that it's on both halves at the same time?  It makes sense that it would be on both if they are the center line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Erik1978 said:

I assume you mean it can be on either half of the table, Players' choice, and not on both halfs at the same time?

The answer states that a marker can be on both halves of the table.  The bigger point is that it seems you can have a marker on the center line and only on one side of the table (so that the center is on one side and it's edge is touching the center line to satisfy being on the center line).

Because clearly if you placed a marker with its center on the center line, half of the marker would be on each side of the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there are no current schemes that would make it a problem to have a marker on both halves of the table at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: number 89: "If the model only counts when determining VP, such as Big Jake, it works slightly differently." Um...how does it work differently exactly? Nothing in the rest of the description seems to indicate that any of the Strategy rulings are different for Big Jake as opposed to (e.g.) a Tanuki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OneLittleThunder said:

Re: number 89: "If the model only counts when determining VP, such as Big Jake, it works slightly differently." Um...how does it work differently exactly? Nothing in the rest of the description seems to indicate that any of the Strategy rulings are different for Big Jake as opposed to (e.g.) a Tanuki.

"Headhunter - Models that count as two drop two Markers. Models that count as two for scoring drop one."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×