Dracomax

Well, since we are thoroughly off topic anyway, I like tacos. do you like tacos?

Well, at some point, you have to define "frequently." If it only comes up every 2 or 3 months, but comes up enough times over a few years, It probably needs to be answered in the FAQ. The FAQ should cover some things that are in the rulebook, if people still frequently have issues with those things. It does not exist to solve every rules dispute, detail, and complex interaction. That is why we have a rules forum, and the flip rule. If we tried, then it would already be long enough to fill a small rules manual by itself. Not because the rules aren't solid, but because every time you idiotproof a rule, someone builds a better idiot. i.e. we could find problems with iron clad legal documents if you turned them into a wargame. I can understand that rules at a tournament level need to be more defined. That's why the gaining ground document exists. It's why I suggested a separate list of rules decisions be produced, not by the designers, but by the TOs for use in tournaments. I just don't think everything needs to be in the faq. Also, changes to disallow charging oneself would almost certainly be errata, rather than FAQ. It should not be in the FAQ, it should be in the errata if it needs to be done at all.

Oh, I think the thread has merit, although it may have gone on a bit too long without anything new. I just don't know that it needs to be in the FAQ, since I don't see it being asked all that frequently. I could be wrong, but that is pretty much my one and only concern for FAQ: Is the question asked often enough that it needs to be clarified in order to keep from seeing at least one thread a month on it?

especially since if you fail, you get nothing... Like I said, if you have it in hand, it's fine.

So you are okay with not having an official o\answer for these things? I know I am. But you are wrong. casual players do in fact read the FAQ. Often. And it comes up enough in questions from casual players that keeping a succinct and useful FAQ is more important than having it answer every little detail. If it is important to have such a document, it is only important for the competitive tournament scene.

Maybe there should be a gaining ground specific community created FAQ that includes all the little technical bits on these kinds of things, such that it could be approved or modified by Wyrd, without having to spend a lot of time on it. That way, it could be semi-official for tournament use, without necessarily having to be something that effects even the casual gamers. Maybe on topics like this, where we reach 3-5 pages without having any kind of decisive arguments where arguments become very circular and repetitive, a poll could be used to determine consensus, and then it could be added to the GGFAQ page. Then TOs could refer to it in the vent of a rules dispute at the hyper competitive end. Just saying, I can see why wyrd would want to keep the main faq a bit lighter, and most players aren't going to need the hyper-technical rules answer. If they do, it would be there. but the rest of us can play as we read the rules, rather than forcing Justin and Co. to personally test and decide on each and every bit of hypertechnical minutae.

I usually go for 2 spiders unless I have a high enough tome in hand for just this reason. 2/turn with arcing screen up is enough to make your opponents weep as it is.

Why does all the fun stuff always happen in the ...?

Honestly, this seems like a prime candidate for "flip for it" resolution.

Well, no, that isn't why the Faq exists. The faq exists to solve questions and rules concerns that are frequent and not easily derived from the rules without confusion. It does not exist to close rules loopholes that nobody sane would use, but to close rules issues that people can't figure out without an official ruling. I nobody thinks it actually workds that way, then there is no real reason to faq it.

Well, it was either that, or "nothing new has been said in 2.9 pages..."

I think the intention is that 4 is an exclusion. If the attack is something that is required for charge, then everything works as intended. If it isn't, then we have the problem. The issue is that we have at least one example where a similar action does not view it as exclusionary. So, in my opinion, what we need is clarification as to whether the attack is in this case a mandatory point for the charge to happen at all.

That there are 3 pages of this?

See, I have always read that and been under the understanding(and could swear I've heard this from other people on the forums too) that when you fail a disengage, it still counts as having taken the walk action, and so even though you did not move, it still triggered the horror. But now that you have said that, I could see it going the other way.

How did This bit of rules minutiae impassion so many Australians?

Assuming I read this right, no, unless they fail to get away. I think what you are saying is that the disengaging model(D) tries to walk away from terrifying Model (T). T makes a diengaging strike. if that strike does not complete, then no terrifying check needs to take place. However, if T stops D using disengaging, D ends the move. within engagement range of T. So horror duel ensues. However, IF T tries to get away, and D wants to stop them, then D needs to take the horror duel in order to target T for the disengaging strike.

Of course, I'm positive that charging also requires that you move. SInce a movement of 0" is not a move, as per the FAQ, I'd say that it wouldn't count as a charge at that point.

Well, no. At that point, because the attacks are not an optional part of charge, the entire charge is just wasted. You can't use charge for the movement; the attacks are part of the charge.

Well, standing VIk to Oversize standing Vik is about the difference between Ht 2 and Ht 3, as shown in the Ashigaru to Izamu comparison pic. Sitting Vik didn't really change. The Ronin also looks like it'd be a good mini for a Ht 3 lady.

How did this gain a whole page literally overnight?!

I'd pick up at least one Electric Creation, the aforementioned spiders. Also, about 5-10 30mm markers that have been modified for use as scrap markers. Once you start looking to break out(and because if you have the other arcanist crews, you probably already have these) I'd look into the following: Rail Golem Coryphee Molemen 1-2 extra Electric Constructs (you won't have more than 3 on the field at a time, but you might occasionally get up to 3 for pulse damage)

That being said, If they wanted to ship the books out to those of us not getting models, I wouldn't complain...

Actually, it means they don't, because there is no part of the line that touches A and C which does not also touch B. Therefore, B blocks LOS on that line.

The problem is that we have shown in the past that we are not reasonable people.

Basically, at Malifaux Scale, anything over 2" tall and less than or equal to 3" as a mini would be Ht 3. I'm not sure any exist in Malifaux at the moment, but I'm sure if you look for slightly larger scale(or possibly one of the over sized VIks from the Gencon sales) you could find something.