November FAQ

[Justin]

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

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

[Pyrflamme]

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?

I believe that the action taken off the trigger is a new, distinct action, with the triggering action being considered to have completed. You take the Railwalk, target it, get the trigger except if you flip BJ, then the action ends, discarding the marker and moving onto the triggered action.

[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?

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?

Edit: I think I've misunderstood the duration of the ability. I presumed "for the duration of the action" meant until all triggers had been resolved, and as such subsequent Rail Walks that are triggered by the ability are still in that duration. Have I just got my timing wrong here, and the +6 Ca goes away once the next (triggered) Rail Walk begins?

Edited November 4, 2015 by BigHammer

[Pyrflamme]

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."

[Justin]

See my edit above. ^

[wizuriel]

Looks like still no ruling on the Malifaux child

[Justin]

Looks like still no ruling on the Malifaux child

The question being...?

[wizuriel]

Looks like still no ruling on the Malifaux child

The question being...?

If a model has a buff to their CA does the child cast at -3CA to the buffed value or the printed value (main offenders being Sonnia and Hoffman)

Edited November 4, 2015 by wizuriel

[Insidiously Mad]

I'd also like to second the need for the black blood shaman clarification. Rules as Written you clearly can't pustule models you give black blood to, but I find it confuses a lot of newer players and leads to unnecessary arguments. 

[Justin]

I'd also like to second the need for the black blood shaman clarification. Rules as Written you clearly can't pustule models you give black blood to, but I find it confuses a lot of newer players and leads to unnecessary arguments. 

Right.

The issue here is, "Rules as written it's clear..."

If the rules are clear there isn't much use for an FAQ. I could errata it, but that is a far bigger deal and generally reserved for models which are too powerful.

I don't mind throwing in a question we're all pretty clear on (see you can have more than one Henchman) but is this one that necessary? Maybe, I'm open to the future. It's probably not getting an errata, though.

[rythos42]

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.

I read his quote as "I hate having to keep a Wk 4 model within 3" of it's target". Mainly because...I also hate having to do that. I did it once. Didn't enjoy it, to much fiddle farting about with 8 stones of models to provide a buff. Never did it again.

[Shadowfane]

I'd also like to second the need for the black blood shaman clarification. Rules as Written you clearly can't pustule models you give black blood to, but I find it confuses a lot of newer players and leads to unnecessary arguments. 

Right.

The issue here is, "Rules as written it's clear..."

If the rules are clear there isn't much use for an FAQ. I could errata it, but that is a far bigger deal and generally reserved for models which are too powerful.

I don't mind throwing in a question we're all pretty clear on (see you can have more than one Henchman) but is this one that necessary? Maybe, I'm open to the future. It's probably not getting an errata, though.

From my point of view (and please, please don't take offence at this!...) - it's a rules combination that makes no sense.

I mean, you have a model that can give out black blood as a condition, and has abilities that interact with the black blood ability.... but you can't give black blood to someone and then use your abilities on them? It's a total, total disconnect, and in my opinion, one of the more jarring missteps in the model rules.

Again though, just my opinion.... don't kill me!...

 

*edit also, when did I become an Enforcer?*...

Edited November 4, 2015 by Shadowfane

[Douglas Scoundrels]

Aw man. I loved fielding Metal Gamin. Now they're kind of worthless for what I used them for. I was going to get a second box too and color code them up like little shiny power rangers...

[Myyrä]

 

*edit also, when did I become an Enforcer?*...

I'm guessing around 250 posts.

[Justin]

 

*edit also, when did I become an Enforcer?*...

I'm guessing around 250 posts.

Quick! Attach an Upgrade to him!

I call pre-errata Nexus of Power!

 

Oh, wait, Henchman and Master only?!

Worthless.

[Astrella]

I'd also like to second the need for the black blood shaman clarification. Rules as Written you clearly can't pustule models you give black blood to, but I find it confuses a lot of newer players and leads to unnecessary arguments. 

Giving models black blood being the trigger on ritual knife? That's a condition and pustule clearly states black blood Ability. Seems pretty clear to me.

[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!

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.

that's the problem without being able to target itself the ability is now more hassle than it's worth.

[Kolath]

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

Edited November 5, 2015 by Kolath

[Artiee]

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

LOL Justin!! 

[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!).

@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."

my only issue with the conflux now is that it is very similar to the conflux of combat. Mei Feng can get an extra attack if she hits with one and spends a card, Misaki gets a whole general AP, and while she doesn't have to spend a card, she does have to kill, rather than just hit, her target. The other ability on both confluxes is a zero action push; Misaki's gets an extra inch while Mei Feng's drops a special scrap marker. IMO the conflux of combat is strictly better (because the scrap marker can be used to summon a Komainu at little cost), which I think is a shame. It's pointless lamenting what could have been, of course, but I would really have liked her conflux to make deadly dance viable, since in its current form it's a pretty terrible action, rather than just granting her even more AP. Alas.

[Adran]

Not sure I would have removed the hard to kill from the metal gamin, but I know I view them differently to most. I do liek the protection of metal errata. Makes it work much more as intended. 

Confluws changes aren't too surprising, but I've not tried either. 

Other than that, FAQ seemed fine. Nice to have an answer on the lure.

[Math Mathonwy]

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."

If your Master is killing two or more models in a turn, I'd say that you're getting your money's worth and maybe she doesn't need more AP to kill even more models

[BigHammer]

Tawg, that is precisely what has confused me too. The recent Faq on Levi's channel supports the "original action doesn't end until all generated actions do" thing, which is what threw me with the conflux and rail walk. I presumed that since these were generated actions, the duration of the original action was until all actions generated are done, and Mei would get the +6 Ca until the end of that rail walk chain (which I presumed was intended). If so, this change doesn't fix anything, since the Ca bonus and the marker will both last until the end of the entire rail walk chain.

Edited November 5, 2015 by BigHammer

[PeregrineFalcon]

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.

[Rob Lo]

Between different places online and in person, I've already heard that the Lure question (#22) means:

1. This answer overrides the cards text, so now lured models no longer have to end as close as possible, and now have to move 'the shortest route' meaning directly towards. Even if you'd get closer moving around some severe terrain that's directly between the two, you don't do that any more. 
2. FAQ questions are not to be broadly applied. This question only covers luring that ends in base contact. If it does, this only says it can't use any extra move it may have to end in a different position other than directly towards the luring model.
3. Lure works like always, you figure the closest spot a model could get to. and this FAQ now clarifies that if there are 2 ways to get to the same closest spot, you have to take the shorter way to get there, and you can't use movement trying to get around the side of the luring model.

That's just the stuff I've seen in a few hours since this was released, from just a few online sources, and only the more coherent interpretations. It amazes me how easily things can be interpreted in different ways, and I don't envy Justin or anyone that has to do this kind of thing for a game. Unfortunately, other than maybe a greater availability of diagrams and examples (a segment in the Chronicles, perhaps), I don't think there's really a solution. Questions with clear answers are often still frequent around here, and what is clear to one person probably isn't to someone else.

[Kadeton]

Lure works like always, you figure the closest spot a model could get to. and this FAQ now clarifies that if there are 2 ways to get to the same closest spot, you have to take the shorter way to get there, and you can't use movement trying to get around the side of the luring model.

That's the way I'd look at it. FAQ answers don't overwrite rules, they clarify them.