May 1st FAQ

[Justin]

It's up now. Enjoy: http://wyrd-games.net/community/files/file/21-malifaux-2e-faq-errata/

[Fetid Strumpet]

Thank you for the update. I have one concern, which may be nothing, as I don't have my rulebook on me at the moment, but I'm the tiniest bit concerned over your clarification over what constitutes Base to Base contact. I understand what the rule is trying to accomplish, but ultimately I think the current clarification may create unintended consequences.

 

Again the wording might be different, and if so there might be no problem, but doesn't the current wording for destroying an enemy scheme marker require base to base contact? Markers were given a height of 0, I believe, specifically to allow models to stand on top of them. An unintentional consequence of this, I assume, is that, for example, if I drop a scheme Marker, and then my model is charged, and the charging model ends up with ANY partt of it's base overlapping even the tiniest bit of my scheme marker, then, assuming my model is killed, the charging model will actually have to move, so that both of the edges of both bases are in contact, before they can spend an interact action to destroy my marker, which seems very odd to me.

 

If a model is in contact, at all, with an enemy scheme marker, and not engaged, they should be able to destroy to marker, which I think the current FAQ and wording no longer allow for I believe. Does anyone have the official wording for this?

[Mason]

 

Again the wording might be different, and if so there might be no problem, but doesn't the current wording for destroying an enemy scheme marker require base to base contact? Markers were given a height of 0, I believe, specifically to allow models to stand on top of them. An unintentional consequence of this, I assume, is that, for example, if I drop a scheme Marker, and then my model is charged, and the charging model ends up with ANY partt of it's base overlapping even the tiniest bit of my scheme marker, then, assuming my model is killed, the charging model will actually have to move, so that both of the edges of both bases are in contact, before they can spend an interact action to destroy my marker, which seems very odd to me.

 

If a model is in contact, at all, with an enemy scheme marker, and not engaged, they should be able to destroy to marker, which I think the current FAQ and wording no longer allow for I believe. Does anyone have the official wording for this?

 

Yeah, the current errata means that you can only destroy scheme markers if you're just barely touching the edge.  If you're even the slightest bit on top of the marker, it renders you unable to destroy it, which...is honestly a pretty huge shift to how the game plays. 

[Kogan Style]

Actual wording from pg.49 (large book)

"Models may take a (1) interact action  to remove every enemy scheme marker that is in base contact with the model...."

 

 

So it would be a significant change.

[Justin]

Thank you for the update. I have one concern, which may be nothing, as I don't have my rulebook on me at the moment, but I'm the tiniest bit concerned over your clarification over what constitutes Base to Base contact. I understand what the rule is trying to accomplish, but ultimately I think the current clarification may create unintended consequences.

 

Again the wording might be different, and if so there might be no problem, but doesn't the current wording for destroying an enemy scheme marker require base to base contact? Markers were given a height of 0, I believe, specifically to allow models to stand on top of them. An unintentional consequence of this, I assume, is that, for example, if I drop a scheme Marker, and then my model is charged, and the charging model ends up with ANY partt of it's base overlapping even the tiniest bit of my scheme marker, then, assuming my model is killed, the charging model will actually have to move, so that both of the edges of both bases are in contact, before they can spend an interact action to destroy my marker, which seems very odd to me.

 

If a model is in contact, at all, with an enemy scheme marker, and not engaged, they should be able to destroy to marker, which I think the current FAQ and wording no longer allow for I believe. Does anyone have the official wording for this?

 

That's fair enough.

 

The current FAQ was written specifically so that people could not drop scheme markers underneath their models, which was never the intention. In the next FAQ this will be changed to be more specific, so as not to affect removing them as well.

[Verdeloth]

Every marker ? Wished i knew that. Played with 1 interaction / marker that i was contact with. This will make things much simpler ^^

[HalcyonSeraph]

Every marker ? Wished i knew that. Played with 1 interaction / marker that i was contact with. This will make things much simpler ^^

 

There's not a whole lot of situations where you can get one model into base contact with multiple scheme markers.

[The Godlyness]

So -stat counts as 0. *flex* I just wish there was a clarification on being reduced to 0 wounds and healing. But if we base it off of Collettes trigger it should be fine. Also no errata to my dear Obedient wretch? Sad face.

[Morgan Vening]

I just wish there was a clarification on being reduced to 0 wounds and healing. But if we base it off of Collettes trigger it should be fine. 

Not sure what you're meaning, but there's this.

 

Q: Can a model ever be reduced to a negative number of Wounds?

A: No. The lowest number of Wounds a model may ever have is zero (0). (5/1/14)

 

So the whole Horsemen/Levitar issue is fixed, no? Horseman on 1 wound gets hit for 5, is reduced to 0, is buried and heals back to 1. Is there another interaction you were meaning?

[Verdeloth]

There's not a whole lot of situations where you can get one model into base contact with multiple scheme markers.

Played much vs death marshalls. It have happen quite often my last games ^^

[Gorbad]

There's not a whole lot of situations where you can get one model into base contact with multiple scheme markers.

Depends on the crews involved. Anyone who can put down markers in a different way than the place scheme marker interact action/modify that action an do it easily enough.

[The Godlyness]

Not sure what you're meaning, but there's this.

 

Q: Can a model ever be reduced to a negative number of Wounds?

A: No. The lowest number of Wounds a model may ever have is zero (0). (5/1/14)

 

So the whole Horsemen/Levitar issue is fixed, no? Horseman on 1 wound gets hit for 5, is reduced to 0, is buried and heals back to 1. Is there another interaction you were meaning?

Collodi attacks kill joy reducing him to 0 wounds. Triggering do my bidding. Killjoy takes a 1 action which kills a model heals 2/3/4. Is he still killed.

[DeleteAccount]

Collodi attacks kill joy reducing him to 0 wounds. Triggering do my bidding. Killjoy takes a 1 action which kills a model heals 2/3/4. Is he still killed.

... Yeah, definitely a "once you reach 0 wounds, you cannot be healed in any way unless a rule you have explicitly says so". Would that cover it or would there still be holes? Appreciate the base to base ruling, but do agree that scheme removing would needs some rewording, basically "a model touching any part of a scheme marker with it's base may yadda yadda"

[Fetid Strumpet]

I'm just curious, I know it was unintentional, but does it even need clarification? In our games we've been allowing anything to be placed in base to base to just be placed in any way that cause the bases to touch and haven't encountered any problems. Is there a specific situation that developed that necessitated the clarification?

[DeleteAccount]

To me it never made sense dropping the marker, cloud effect or whatever under the base, it just doesn't work as "in base to base" in my mind even though it's technically true and I never even considered it until avatar Seamus which I'm now 100% sure was never intended to just place the cloud under himself. I also assume the big part of keeping it base to base and not under the base touching a part of my base is to not screw around with precision and having to lift up models left and right to do things, it's the reason I pretty much assumed corpse marker, teleport abilities and so on were all worded in M2 to always have a pivot to give precise placement and not just a "put X under the model or replace x model with y model". Keeps it cleaner and avoids misplacement shenanigans.

[Thaarup]

Collodi attacks kill joy reducing him to 0 wounds. Triggering do my bidding. Killjoy takes a 1 action which kills a model heals 2/3/4. Is he still killed.

Yes- There is nothing in the heal flip that removes killed. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

What placement shennanigans? Justin said this ruling is specifically geared at scheme markers, and even given any other interpretation we never had any issues with being able to place anything in bases to base directly underneath. Has anyone encountered anything in the finalized rules at all that seems to require this? As I said we never had an issue with scheme markers, corpse or scrap markers, or even the aSeamus ability, even though that, at the moment anyway, is a non issue as its card card always be worded better if that is the intent. This clarification to me not only created additional rules issues that then require further clarification, for an issue no one I know of has had a single problem with.

I'm not in anyway saying it shouldn't happen, as this is totally the call of the developers, but it seems to me to be trying to fix something that no one at all has had a problem with. So I ask again has anyone actually had a problem with placement issues? Is there some way to abuse this that has been occurring with scheme markers that my admittedly small group has just missed?

[DeleteAccount]

Again, I'll restate, it never even crossed my mind I could even place something in base to base below a base till the seamus avatar shenanigans which I pretty clearly do consider shenanigans and completely changes how powerful it is. It's also a factor with something like Torakage smoke since it would open a lot more placement options with this interpretation of where the clouds could go. And again, I insist it's clearly so you don't have to move models around to place counters, tokens or what have you because it's pretty crystal clear that there are no more interactions that require eyeballing a models placement since they all have pivots nor do they require to put something under a model and so on.

 

No, I do not consider it a big deal if you could hypothetically place a marker under a model if you wanted though it greatly increases scheme marker precision placement allowing placements that would require to actually move as intended and would disallow the narrow window of removing a recently placed scheme marker by a Ml1 model, but if both players play by those same rules it's not much of an issue. But the big ones is that would also again demand that said model be lifted from the table and precision in replacement of the marker and model can be lost, in a friendly community this is a non factor, in other not so friendly it can be a cause for conflict and the best way to avoid conflict is for it to not be able to even happen.

[The Godlyness]

Yes- There is nothing in the heal flip that removes killed.

Read Collettes trigger death defying. Then tell me again lol.

[Thaarup]

Read Collettes trigger death defying. Then tell me again lol.

 

Is it this one?

 

Df/Wp (t) Death Defying: When this model is

reduced to 0 Wounds, it may be placed in base

contact with target friendly model with a cost

of 5 or more within 8". Sacrifice the target and

then heal an amount of damage equal to the

target's remaining Wounds plus one.

 

Her Trigger happens the instant before she is Killed (just like Sonnia´s upgrade Reincarnation) and then heals her. She never gains the Killed stat in the first place.

[The Godlyness]

First line she has to hit 0 wounds. So what is the differance? Hit zero gets killed right? Or you resolve the trigger Then she has healed from zero.

Resolve Collodi's trigger killjoy healed from 0.

So either Killjoy heals or that trigger does not work.

[Thaarup]

First line she has to hit 0 wounds. So what is the differance? Hit zero gets killed right? Or you resolve the trigger Then she has healed from zero.

Resolve Collodi's trigger killjoy healed from 0.

So either Killjoy heals or that trigger does not work.

 

I would guess the Question is does Killjoy gets the Killed stat before Collodis trigger happen? 

 

I would think that Killjoy actually doesn´t gain the Killed stat until after Collodis trigger have happened and in that case he heals and doesn´t get the Killed stat at all.

 

So yes a more precise answer (IMO) would be : Yes Killjoy can´t remove Killed from himself, but he never actually gets Killed (In your stated example), so yes he heals.

 

So seems my answer changed

Thanks for the mind game

[The Godlyness]

On the Sonnia thing no it's reduced and killed nothing intervened or anything. If it had finish the job it's still killed but before place a marker. Its still killed place a stalker. After all those abilitys are resolved still at 0 still dead.

Hanged and Seamus chilling next to each other. Seamus gets attacked by a maul/blood frenzy/onslaught attack. First attack hits trigger is declared. Now the second attack is not optional so has to attack again if declared. Flips the red reduces Seamus to 0 second attack happens fails the horror check on Seamus. Seamus heals 2 and is no longer killed.

[Thaarup]

I think the problem is the stated "Immediatedly" under the terms of being Killed. 

Before "the Collodi ruling" I would have thought that the target would actually be removed before the trigger effect, but as that currently doesn´t work then the "Immediatedly" must mean something else and that seems to be after the current action is finished. 

 

But must admit that the whole timing of different triggers/abilities/rules seem a bit confusing at the moment IMO and could need a re-writting/clarification IMO. 

[The Godlyness]

Well no if you attack me when you have one wound left and I have black blood you would die first then after that ability resolved if i am at 0 I am killed to. Its the after damaging trigger that made this all possible when combined with actions causing actions lol. There is a post in in the other thread when a Vick of blood dies before the terror tot since her ability triggers after black blood.

[Ierocis]

Collodi attacks kill joy reducing him to 0 wounds. Triggering do my bidding. Killjoy takes a 1 action which kills a model heals 2/3/4. Is he still killed.

 

That is probably why "my bidding" is applied for damaging not killing. That's just from my noticing that they usually word these cards carefully for just such reasons. If you are reducing a target's wounds to 0 with a blow you are killing. Damaging usually implies he has more wounds left to go after an attack. Killjoy's black blood would still go off because he took damage. Then again, I have yet to play a single game.