November FAQ

[Justin]

Discuss!

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/files/file/21-malifaux-2e-faq-errata/

[SpiralngCadavr]

Reactions:

 

• Surprised about Reactivate and chain activations

• Glad to see the cover thing resolved

• The upgrade restrictions only apply to hiring is a bit odd- I can't think of any occasions when it would ever matter off the top of my head, but it sounds like you're allowed to do things like have multiple of a rare 1 upgrade?

• The resolution to (0) Defensive was expected, though I liked some of the tricks you could pull.

• Seems like "damage flip values can't be modified" is closer to errata.

 

...Also, when did Tannen's cost change? Just curious, since I don't remember seeing that.

[SurreyLee]

I'm glad you've ended the (0) defensive stance discussion.....that thread seemed a bit.....ongoing. 8)

[solkan]

Reactions:

 

• Seems like "damage flip values can't be modified" is closer to errata.

 

Explain a practical difference between FAQ and errata that doesn't involve "Is someone going to revise the wording in the text?" 

[Bengt]

...Also, when did Tannen's cost change? Just curious, since I don't remember seeing that.

His cost was 6 in the last pdf so I guess he is one of the wave 2 misprints.

[Justin]

Reactions:

 

 

• The upgrade restrictions only apply to hiring is a bit odd- I can't think of any occasions when it would ever matter off the top of my head, but it sounds like you're allowed to do things like have multiple of a rare 1 upgrade?

 

 

Example:

 

Seamus's Mad Haberdasher upgrade states that when it is used the upgrade is discarded and a hat marker is placed. Any model which discards the hat marker may then equip the mad Haberdasher upgrade. However, the Mad Haberdasher upgrade has a restriction of "Seamus." This restriction means only Seamus may purchase the upgrade before the game, not that he is the only model who can pick up the hat.

[Kaptain_Konrad]

What did the howling wolf tattoo change? Says comradery is given the the model with the upgrade, but the requirements is Sister already.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Justin, got it, thanks for the example.

 

 

Explain a practical difference between FAQ and errata that doesn't involve "Is someone going to revise the wording in the text?" 

Q&A/FAQ is answering a question of unclarity, while errata is changing something (usually due to balance or a typo).

 

Less ambiguous examples:

 

No (0) Defensive is FAQ: It's clarifying an area of ambiguity.

 

Tannen's cost is errata: It's changing something (regardless of whether it appears in print or they continued to print books/cards without the correction).

 

I feel like static damage values is the latter, since it's changing the rules (I assume) due to an issue that hadn't been addressed before, rather than something that was otherwise ambiguous, unless I'm forgetting something.

[SpiralngCadavr]

What did the howling wolf tattoo change? Says comradery is given the the model with the upgrade, but the requirements is Sister already.

As written, it doesn't state any models gain comradery. It could be inferred that the model with the upgrade gets it (assuming a typo and it should be "following abilities"), that mercs in LOS get it (assuming what you did), or (if you wanted to be a real a** of a rules lawyer) that no one gets it, and it's just a weird thing stated on the card, which can't be used (assuming nothing and arguing absolutely literal interpretation of the rules).

[zFiend]

Nothing yet on the Sonnia questions, which is a shame. Other than that, quite solid.

[Kadeton]

The Condition end-timing answer seems to expose a flaw where Conditions with different end-times will never expire so long as at least one application carries over to the next round. I'm not sure if there are currently any interactions in the game which allow for such shenanigans (sharper minds can puzzle that one out), but it may have implications for any future models.

 

For example (purely theoretical):

Model A has an ability which gives it Armor +1 until the end of the turn.

Model B has an ability which grants a friendly model Armor +1 until the start of this model's next activation.

A activates, gains Armor +1. (Armor +1 until end of turn.)

B activates, grants A Armor +1. (Armor +2 until B's next activation.)

Next turn, A activates, gains Armor +1. (Armor +3 until end of turn.)

B activates, grants A Armor +1. (Armor +4 until B's next activation.)

And so on.

 

At the very least, there's definitely the potential for models in Shenlong's crew to get semi-permanent high values of Defensive from this interaction. (Obviously Shenlong and Yu can do this already, but it will allow others to do so as well.) This probably isn't awful since Defensive greater than +3 generally isn't useful, but it is nevertheless a thing that could be an unintended advantage.

 

I'm glad to see the Leave It To Luck damage effect, Kaeris' healing and the (0) Defensive queries resolved.

[mythicFOX]

Unless there's something I'm not considering those sound like the sort of combos that're more difficult / costly to pull of than the benefit you gain from doing so.

 

Certainly worth keeping in mind for the future though.

[rb_man]

Nothing yet on the Sonnia questions, which is a shame. Other than that, quite solid.

 

SO i don't come the rules discussion that often would you mind elaborating or pointing me to a thread about. Sonnia is one of my go to masters, so I would love to know about anything that could impact her.

[DeleteAccount]

Nice round, glad to see the Yan Lo thing already included. I am missing the stacking auras though, people still have a hard time accepting that Mei Feng, Sebastian or a Night Terror can use their auras multiple times and their effects stack.

[zFiend]

SO i don't come the rules discussion that often would you mind elaborating or pointing me to a thread about. Sonnia is one of my go to masters, so I would love to know about anything that could impact her.

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103446-flame-walls-flight-incorporeal/#entry760985

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103439-sonnia-los-flame-walls/page-2#entry760851

There's a few.

[Myyrä]

Unless there's something I'm not considering those sound like the sort of combos that're more difficult / costly to pull of than the benefit you gain from doing so.

 

Certainly worth keeping in mind for the future though.

The most obvious example would be the Guardian that is actually mentioned in the FAQ. I will totally use that ruling to juggle the defensive conditions with Hoffman crew so that I can benefit from Guardians buff on several models or Gain defensive +5 on that Rail Golem.

Otherwise it might be occasionally beneficial, but not something you actually try to go for, because most similiar abilities cause the condition end earlier than normal, not later.

[MasterDisaster]

Probably should have just put this here but I have a query for Justin or the other guys in the know on this thread

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/104221-howling-wolf-tattoo-errata/

[zFiend]

The most obvious example would be the Guardian that is actually mentioned in the FAQ. I will totally use that ruling to juggle the defensive conditions with Hoffman crew so that I can benefit from Guardians buff on several models or Gain defensive +5 on that Rail Golem.

Oh ffs..

[Soundwave]

Q: If a model with the Companion Ability gains the Reactivate condition, can it use 

Reactivate to Activate twice in a row, as it ended its Activation within 6” of itself?

A: Yes. (11/1/14)

 

 

This one was a surprise to me. I can't really be bothered to try and theory up some nasty combo, but I bet there's something out there.

[r4st4f4n]

Reactions:

 

• Surprised about Reactivate and chain activations

• Glad to see the cover thing resolved

• The upgrade restrictions only apply to hiring is a bit odd- I can't think of any occasions when it would ever matter off the top of my head, but it sounds like you're allowed to do things like have multiple of a rare 1 upgrade?

• The resolution to (0) Defensive was expected, though I liked some of the tricks you could pull.

• Seems like "damage flip values can't be modified" is closer to errata.

Same reactions here, except I personally didn't like some of the tricks of the (0) Defensive

I am surprised that Leave It To Luck wasn't dealt with as a subject, also about the other flips top and the fact that it stacks...

plus

 

The Condition end-timing answer seems to expose a flaw where Conditions with different end-times will never expire so long as at least one application carries over to the next round. I'm not sure if there are currently any interactions in the game which allow for such shenanigans (sharper minds can puzzle that one out), but it may have implications for any future models.

 

For example (purely theoretical):

Model A has an ability which gives it Armor +1 until the end of the turn.

Model B has an ability which grants a friendly model Armor +1 until the start of this model's next activation.

A activates, gains Armor +1. (Armor +1 until end of turn.)

B activates, grants A Armor +1. (Armor +2 until B's next activation.)

Next turn, A activates, gains Armor +1. (Armor +3 until end of turn.)

B activates, grants A Armor +1. (Armor +4 until B's next activation.)

And so on.

 

At the very least, there's definitely the potential for models in Shenlong's crew to get semi-permanent high values of Defensive from this interaction. (Obviously Shenlong and Yu can do this already, but it will allow others to do so as well.) This probably isn't awful since Defensive greater than +3 generally isn't useful, but it is nevertheless a thing that could be an unintended advantage.

 

I'm glad to see the Leave It To Luck damage effect, Kaeris' healing and the (0) Defensive queries resolved.

Is it just me, or this looks a lot like the "Bury to keep Conditions ongoing permanently" that was an old 1.5 issue, just without the bury requirement now?

I am more for "The earliest "end the Condition" ends the Condition", as if you want the Condition to last as the longer lasting between two sources, you can always choose not to apply the shorter one, and it is called a fair trade...

[mythicFOX]

The most obvious example would be the Guardian that is actually mentioned in the FAQ. I will totally use that ruling to juggle the defensive conditions with Hoffman crew so that I can benefit from Guardians buff on several models or Gain defensive +5 on that Rail Golem.

 

Is it just me, or this looks a lot like the "Bury to keep Conditions ongoing permanently" that was an old 1.5 issue, just without the bury requirement now?

 

The juggling involved would balance the benefit IMO.  Additional defensive on the same model is rapidly diminishing returns anyway.

This is one of those things that looks like a problem until you realise there's no practical way to abuse it.

[Math Mathonwy]

The McMourning heal-thing wasn't resolved, then (Lelu is a new example but still no mention of whether the ruling holds for Abilities as it does for Triggers).

[The Godlyness]

Hey power loop is solved.

I am deeply saddened but already knew you could companion reactivate yourself.

Leave it to luck was a Welcome ruling on modifying damage flips.

Johan open revolt is neatly solved.

Twirling with a gas can does not increase karis's healing done with purifying flame. Nor does arm or reduce it. Not surprised by one. But slightly on the other.

Wastrals and Jack daw were the only models missing the verbiage of ignoring all restrictions (and the mad haberdasher of course) so Jack works as intended. And wastrals can give their upgrades to anyone they feel like.

The dumb luck ruling still says only triggers are effected. Which lelus trigger is the same as desolation engines but worded as damage inflicted. I still say McMourning and Seamus(live for pain?) only heal After reduction and prevention are applied. But that's my opinion.

[Tuttleboy]

Glad that Power Loop has been answered. Everything else came off as expected. I can't really see a more practical way for condition end timing.

[r4st4f4n]

 

 

The juggling involved would balance the benefit IMO.  Additional defensive on the same model is rapidly diminishing returns anyway.

This is one of those things that looks like a problem until you realise there's no practical way to abuse it.

Sorry, I added the last line after posting.

 

I am more for "The earliest "end the Condition" ends the Condition", as if you want the Condition to last as the longer lasting between two sources, you can always choose not to apply the shorter one, and it is called a fair trade...

 

I mean, in the context of a new cleaned and revised ruling and mechanics, I think it is safer to keep a thing like Conditions, which have their timing clearly explained not to last too long, generally work to end when they are meant to or earlier, and open to pondered choices, and special abilities to purposely extend them, rather than to end when they are meant to or later, or never end, and open to possible multiple turns upkeep abuse...

Defensive is not the only stacking Condition out there

That's the same reason why I think a double +/- 2 from Leave It To Luck does work well enough if it raises a 9 to a 13 and lowers a 5 to a 1 , without introducing the elements of a 13 that becomes a 17 and a 1   that becomes a -3 ...

Maybe I am overly cautious, but this is just my opinion

[SpiralngCadavr]

With the multiple condition sources, while I understand the desire to have a streamlined rule like that, were there that many instances of it that you couldn't keep track of "this one expires at the end of activation, and these expire at the end of turn"? Not being critical, just never ran into a situation where I felt things were getting out of hand. Or, is there something more specific I'm not thinking of?