May FAQ

[Justin]

Hey all,

The May FAQ is up, check it out:  http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/downloads/M2E_FAQ_Errata_5-1-16.zip

It is worth noting that one question from the previous (March) FAQ was removed: question 8 under abilities and actions that affect multiple models.

[Lucidicide]

+1

[Justin]

11 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

With the paralyzed and being able to engage models in base, that directly contradicts the statement in the rule book's definition of paralyzed "and will therefore not engage enemy models.".

That's not the full quote:

"...the model's range is 0 and will therefore not engage enemy models."

The part you quoted is reminder text, which is broadly true, but unfortunately not true in all cases, and the FAQ clarifies this. Hope that helps.

[solkan]

Talk about burying the lead.  "Question 8 was removed."  In other words:

 

FLYING AND INCORPOREAL MOVEMENT GOT REFAQ'D!

 

[santaclaws01]

3 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Nice to see a couple of answers finally in there, although I feel like the way flight is described via FAQ is a bit unclear. Given how there's nothing in the rulebook about flight in regards to FAQ rulings with not falling during a move, could this be a prelude to a "Season Two" rulebook a la Guild Ball recently did that would clear up and add some rules to put rulings like this physically in the rulebook? Especially now the rules are free.

 

One other thing to point out, the answer to the question about Obeying a Charge implies that any attack, even one made by an enemy, stops that model from being a legal Obey target - e.g. I obey a Bayou Gremlin to walk out of an enemy Mature Nephilim's engagement range, the Nephilim makes a disengaging strike. That was an attack made during the course of an obey, so the answer implies that the Bayou Gremlin is no longer a legal Obey target for this activation. Same with my old hypothetical of "Zoraida Obeys a Taxidermist who summons a stuffed piglet, which is charged by Taelor" - an attack was made during the Obey, so is the Taxidermist no longer a valid Obey target?

I think a simple change to this would be "If any attacks are made by the model during the course of the obey" so that it specifically means the model being obeyed has to make the attack.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, philcot said:

Just a quick question on the flight example (Q.9). Ht5 building 3" away from Ht3 building. so to fly from the Ht3 TO the HT5 is 5 movement ((5-3)+3) ... if you then wanted to fly back to the Ht5 building to the Ht3 building would the move distance be 1 movement ((3-5)+3) ??

Nope, you don't get back movement credits for falling. 

The model has to pay to gain elevation, losing elevation is free.  So to move from a Ht5 building to a Ht3 building is (free falling)+3.

If you're going to be setting up a bunch of Ht 3 and Ht5 hurdles that the model is crossing, don't forget the first sentence of the FAQ answer:

Quote

A model with Flight ignores terrain for all purposes while moving.

then you have the next bit of the FAQ answer, which is essentially "You have to pay for the positive gain between the start and end point, but not anything in between."

Quote

However, the distance the model moves is still limited by the length of the move the model is allowed to take. Add the distance the model moved horizontally in relationship to its starting point to the distance the model moved vertically upwards (downwards movement is falling and it is never counted against a model’s movement total) in relationship to its starting point. This value may not exceed the distance allowed by the move the model was making.

So for the sake of simplicity, you don't try to audit out the movement path along the way.

[Fetid Strumpet]

If you aren't trying to land onto of the wall then it's #1.

[santaclaws01]

With the paralyzed and being able to engage models in base, that directly contradicts the statement in the rule book's definition of paralyzed "and will therefore not engage enemy models.".

[Dogmantra]

Nice to see a couple of answers finally in there, although I feel like the way flight is described via FAQ is a bit unclear. Given how there's nothing in the rulebook about flight in regards to FAQ rulings with not falling during a move, could this be a prelude to a "Season Two" rulebook a la Guild Ball recently did that would clear up and add some rules to put rulings like this physically in the rulebook? Especially now the rules are free.

 

One other thing to point out, the answer to the question about Obeying a Charge implies that any attack, even one made by an enemy, stops that model from being a legal Obey target - e.g. I obey a Bayou Gremlin to walk out of an enemy Mature Nephilim's engagement range, the Nephilim makes a disengaging strike. That was an attack made during the course of an obey, so the answer implies that the Bayou Gremlin is no longer a legal Obey target for this activation. Same with my old hypothetical of "Zoraida Obeys a Taxidermist who summons a stuffed piglet, which is charged by Taelor" - an attack was made during the Obey, so is the Taxidermist no longer a valid Obey target?

[Justin]

4 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Nice to see a couple of answers finally in there, although I feel like the way flight is described via FAQ is a bit unclear. Given how there's nothing in the rulebook about flight in regards to FAQ rulings with not falling during a move, could this be a prelude to a "Season Two" rulebook a la Guild Ball recently did that would clear up and add some rules to put rulings like this physically in the rulebook? Especially now the rules are free.

 

One other thing to point out, the answer to the question about Obeying a Charge implies that any attack, even one made by an enemy, stops that model from being a legal Obey target - e.g. I obey a Bayou Gremlin to walk out of an enemy Mature Nephilim's engagement range, the Nephilim makes a disengaging strike. That was an attack made during the course of an obey, so the answer implies that the Bayou Gremlin is no longer a legal Obey target for this activation. Same with my old hypothetical of "Zoraida Obeys a Taxidermist who summons a stuffed piglet, which is charged by Taelor" - an attack was made during the Obey, so is the Taxidermist no longer a valid Obey target?

Do you really think the clause in Obey is talking about enemy attacks?

I try to put questions in the FAQ that legitimately confuse people and come up in games. At the end of the day, the English language is ambiguous, we have very limited space to clarify the abilities on the cards themselves, and I am not perfect. While the rules can often be interpreted multiple ways, generally there is one very reasonable way to interpret them. And, as fun as theory crafting and arguing rules is (and it really can be, I'm not being sarcastic), it can muddy the waters for newer players. So if this is truly something you find confusing, feel free to start a thread. But if you are just going out on a theoretical ledge, it will not make it into the FAQ.

[santaclaws01]

5 minutes ago, Justin said:

That's not the full quote:

"...the model's range is 0 and will therefore not engage enemy models."

The part you quoted is reminder text, which is broadly true, but unfortunately not true in all cases, and the FAQ clarifies this. Hope that helps.

I was mostly quoting the part I found important to this. And I would agree it would read like reminder text if it wasn't he rule book and the only place where the rules of Paralyzed are established and that it is stating that a paralyzed model can not engage models period. If "outside of b2b" was added after that statement then it would read like a reminder text. 

[Justin]

Just now, santaclaws01 said:

I was mostly quoting the part I found important to this. And I would agree it would read like reminder text if it wasn't he rule book and the only place where the rules of Paralyzed are established and that it is stating that a paralyzed model can not engage models period. If "outside of b2b" was added after that statement then it would read like a reminder text. 

It could have been written better. But, if the rulebook was written perfectly we wouldn't have an FAQ.

[Shadowdragon]

So, Outcasts #10, the Leveticus Channel thing. Is there a reason why it contradicts every other ability that also bases something off of the damage suffered? According to this, if a model heals half the damage suffered by the enemy and inflicts 10 damage to a model with armour +2 then it should only heal 4 damage, but in several different parts of the FAQ it says it should heal 5.

[Justin]

7 minutes ago, Shadowdragon said:

So, Outcasts #10, the Leveticus Channel thing. Is there a reason why it contradicts every other ability that also bases something off of the damage suffered? According to this, if a model heals half the damage suffered by the enemy and inflicts 10 damage to a model with armour +2 then it should only heal 4 damage, but in several different parts of the FAQ it says it should heal 5.

Each FAQ is an individual case, and applies only to the question at hand. They are not meant to be applied broadly. That is straight out of the start of the FAQ. But yes, the way Channel is worded (with the word "exactly") is different than those other instances.

[Nosilloc]

Can you make this iOS compatible?

[enderwiggin]

1 hour ago, Justin said:

Do you really think the clause in Obey is talking about enemy attacks?

I try to put questions in the FAQ that legitimately confuse people and come up in games. At the end of the day, the English language is ambiguous, we have very limited space to clarify the abilities on the cards themselves, and I am not perfect. While the rules can often be interpreted multiple ways, generally there is one very reasonable way to interpret them. And, as fun as theory crafting and arguing rules is (and it really can be, I'm not being sarcastic), it can muddy the waters for newer players. So if this is truly something you find confusing, feel free to start a thread. But if you are just going out on a theoretical ledge, it will not make it into the FAQ.

Just curious, but why do you feel it's common sense for a model that normally would end it's activation to be able to Eat it's fill without doing so simply because another model makes it act?

Ulix and War Pigs have gotten crazy buffed (Obey masters to a degree too, but they're the most egregious) and tbh it doesn't make sense why they can get around so many defensive triggers/requirements (usually) with all the rulings in the last few FAQs. You guys removed the effect of ending activation triggers (Sloth/Sub Zero etc.) from stopping obeyed models from finishing their charge, now you've went ahead and let them ignore a normal choice of healing or ending their activation. Paralyze doesn't save a crew from getting Pig charged like crazy, unless you kill it in one go it will continue healing and charging with an 8". It actually improves its charging ability since the minimum range to charge is almost non-existent then needing B2B, certainly not a common sense thing there.

If the thought of Lynch blasting with a similarly priced upgrade a few more times (for example) is that much more appalling than getting 4-6(+) charge attacks off on average + very likely incidental healing... Well, please consider limiting the action to once per turn, like Lynch, even if it's still likely much better for the AP/Dmg that comes out of it.

 

Edit: I'm also a super fan of the Flight/Incorporeal change. Major kudos from saving us the headache of explaining to new players the old way didn't work as intuitively as they first thought.

[Justin]

13 minutes ago, Nosilloc said:

Can you make this iOS compatible?

No, but there are free apps for ios which allow you to unzip zipped files.

[solkan]

8 minutes ago, Nosilloc said:

Can you make this iOS compatible?

The FAQ file is a ZIP file.  Instead of doing the reasonable thing and telling you that, iOS just throws up its hands.

Check out iZip or WinZip for iOS, see which one you prefer.

[Justin]

12 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

Just curious, but why do you feel it's common sense for a model that normally would end it's activation to be able to Eat it's fill without doing so simply because another model makes it act?

Ulix and War Pigs have gotten crazy buffed (Obey masters to a degree too, but they're the most egregious) and tbh it doesn't make sense why they can get around so many defensive triggers/requirements (usually) with all the rulings in the last few FAQs. You guys removed the effect of ending activation triggers (Sloth/Sub Zero etc.) from stopping obeyed models from finishing their charge, now you've went ahead and let them ignore a normal choice of healing or ending their activation. Paralyze doesn't save a crew from getting Pig charged like crazy, unless you kill it in one go it will continue healing and charging with an 8". It actually improves its charging ability since the minimum range to charge is almost non-existent then needing B2B, certainly not a common sense thing there.

If the thought of Lynch blasting with a similarly priced upgrade a few more times (for example) is that much more appalling than getting 4-6(+) charge attacks off on average + very likely incidental healing... Well, please consider limiting the action to once per turn, like Lynch, even if it's still likely much better for the AP/Dmg that comes out of it.

I am not entirely certain why you quoted the post you did, or why you keep referencing common sense.

I was simply stating that I try to put entries in the FAQ based on what people find legitimately confusing, and not on everything which *can* be argued just because it can be argued. Hope that helps.

As for Ulix, feel free to start a thread on the Gremlin forums and discuss it. At worst, people may have some advice for playing against it. And, if Ulix is too powerful, well, it's something to discuss.

[Dogmantra]

@Justin I see what you're getting at with your post directed at me. I do find it a little unclear, and my original post was mostly in favour of something like santaclaws's idea to just add a couple of extra words to the new FAQ answer... It was more of a roundabout way of saying it but the main thing I'd like to add is that I feel left out because everyone else you have replied to got a smiley face can I please have one?

pleaaaaase

[Justin]

1 minute ago, Dogmantra said:

@Justin I see what you're getting at with your post directed at me. I do find it a little unclear, and my original post was mostly in favour of something like santaclaws's idea to just add a couple of extra words to the new FAQ answer... It was more of a roundabout way of saying it but the main thing I'd like to add is that I feel left out because everyone else you have replied to got a smiley face can I please have one?

pleaaaaase

Oh, well then you get two.

[enderwiggin]

22 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

While the rules can often be interpreted multiple ways, generally there is one very reasonable way to interpret them.

Just that part mainly is why, but I didn't want to be accused of cherrypicking.

When you play that a model normally could only eat their fill on their turn after ending the activation or that a slew of defensive triggers to defend against the crazy AP pig charges outside of normal activation,  but then have a slew of FAQs removing all the normal ways of stopping that/those model from doing horrid things... That's where I was asking for common sense because it's in the rulings recently done, not the rules as written, that are making the situation worse. I didn't need an entire thread to ask that very simple question.

I like that the game has some of the most well written rules out there, but I'm simply asking why the rules in what seems a very specific case keeps trending towards a weird resolution when far less "broken" examples get Cuddled for the potential AP:Damage ratios.

[Justin]

4 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

Just that part mainly is why, but I didn't want to be accused of cherrypicking.

When you play that a model normally could only eat their fill on their turn after ending the activation or that a slew of defensive triggers to defend against the crazy AP pig charges outside of normal activation,  but then have a slew of FAQs removing all the normal ways of stopping that/those model from doing horrid things... That's where I was asking for common sense because it's in the rulings recently done, not the rules as written, that are making the situation worse. I didn't need an entire thread to ask that very simple question.

I like that the game has some of the most well written rules out there, but I'm simply asking why the rules in what seems a very specific case keeps trending towards a weird resolution when far less "broken" examples get Cuddled for the potential AP:Damage ratios.

Well, the in the above line you quoted, I was saying that *usually* there is a reasonable way to resolve a rules question, without having to resort to an FAQ. When there is not, that's where the FAQ comes in. And most of your issues seem to be with the FAQ itself, ruling in a way you find counter-intuitive, so that's not really what I was talking about there.

That said, it is not surprising you may disagree with some rulings in the FAQ. Everything in there, by definition, could have been interpreted in multiple ways. So if you had been interpreting a rule differently than how it ended up in the FAQ, I can understand how that may cause some frustration.

In general, FAQs are not added to provide balance. They are, generally, added to provide clarity and consistency with the rules. As such, they are neither meant to help nor hinder specific models, but take an instance where players would disagree and give them a clear answer.

I'll take two specific examples you seem to have problems with and try to provide some insight into why those decisions were made:

First is Core Rule Question 51 which states that if a model has its Activation ended outside of its Activation (such as during Obey) there is no effect. This ruling was made because Activation is a very specifically defined game term. A model which is taking an Action outside of its Activation is not Activating, and therefore the Activation cannot be ended. This is not about common sense, or balance, but maintaining Activation as a very strict game term, which is important to the game as a whole. It also allows players who did not agree on the outcome of this situation to have a very clear answer for how to handle it.

The second is the ruling in Abilities/Actions question 21 which states that models with Eat Your Fill can heal even when they are not Activating. For this, the exact wording of Eat Your Fill is important, so I'll quote it:

Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model, this model may choose to heal all damage it has suffered and end its Activation.

The way Eat Your Fill is worded, both the healing and the ending of the Activation are results of the model's choice to use the Ability. Ending the Activation is not a cost. If it were a cost, it would have been worded like this:

Eat Your Fill: After killing or sacrificing an enemy model this model may choose to end its Activation to heal all damage it has suffered.

In the above (hypothetical) example, ending the Activation is a cost which must be paid in order to heal. Had the above wording been the one printed, the ruling would have gone the opposite way. But, as Eat Your Fill is written, ending the Activation is not a cost which must be paid in order to heal, but merely one of the effects of the choice to use the Ability. Just because one of the effects cannot happen does not mean the entire Ability fizzles. I'll give another example where this is relevant, Killjoy's Cleaver:

(1) Cleaver (Ml 6R / Rst: Df / Rg: y2): Target suffers 4/5/7 damage. After killing a model with this Attack, this model heals 2/3/4 damage.

There are two effects there, dealing damage to an enemy, and healing damage. If both effects had to be valid for the action to be taken, Killjoy would be unable to kill enemy models while at full health (as models at full health cannot heal, and the entire attack would fizzle). It would be detrimental to the game to rule in this way.

These ruling were not made to favor any particular models. And you may well disagree with them, that's fine! If they were completely unambiguous (and common sense as you say) they would not have needed to end up in the FAQ in the first place!

I also want to add the caveat here that, over the years, I have become less and less inclined to post in depth explanations or answers in the rules forum, because it always seems that, years later, I end up quoted out of context (or even just changing my mind). It's also why FAQ answers frequently only have an answer without an explanation; all too often the explanation just ends up confusing things more. So please keep in mind that only the FAQ and actual rules are official. Please do not use this post to try to justify other rulings or formulate new questions. I am posting purely because you seem concerned about this, and I hope to shed some light on it for you.  

[enderwiggin]

Thank you for your extended response. I really do value how the company openly treats most things players bring up and I appreciate your time.

I don't really agree that RAW on Eat your fill wouldn't make it a cost vs. an effect. It may have been that way per RAI (Something I wrote on the topic a while ago - "It's not by RAW a series of instructions (no serial comma) OR using an oxford comma") but since you're actually making the rules it would be rather pigheaded to try and force my view there. Especially since I can clearly see what you intended the way you wrote it out.

Taking a few common irritants to some as an example, campaigns to get things Cuddled (to varying degrees) normally isn't as neutral as could be. I understand why, since people don't want to lose model value or they are comfortably with a model... Plus, I'm sure more people would bitch about Belles/Mech rider/Levi before Ulix.

 

So thank you again for the response. I appreciate the insight, even if it didn't match with my expectation.

[philcot]

Just a quick question on the flight example (Q.9). Ht5 building 3" away from Ht3 building. so to fly from the Ht3 TO the HT5 is 5 movement ((5-3)+3) ... if you then wanted to fly back to the Ht5 building to the Ht3 building would the move distance be 1 movement ((3-5)+3) ??

[DaGoat]

3 hours ago, Justin said:

A model with Flight ignores terrain for all purposes while moving. However, the distance the model moves is still limited by the length of the move the model is allowed to take. Add the distance the model moved horizontally in relationship to its starting point to the distance the model moved vertically upwards (downwards movement is falling and it is never counted against a model’s movement total) in relationship to its starting point. This value may not exceed the distance allowed by the move the model was making. For example, a model with a Wk of 6 and Flight declares a Walk Action. It is on a Ht 3 building and wishes to move to a point on a separate terrain piece (a Height 5 building) which is 3” away. It takes the model 5” of movement to get there (3” of horizontal movement and 2” of vertical movement because the difference between the Heights of the buildings is 2, and the model is
moving upwards). Since the model has a Wk of 6, it can make it to the desired point on the Ht 5 building and still has 1” of movement to use as it wishes once it gets there.

I have been wondering this for a while.  Even in the previous faq it reads like you are comparing the start Ht and the end Ht.  So what do you do if say there is a 3 Ht wall and you want to go from one side to the other?  If the ground is the same Ht on both side of the wall, do you just ignore it and do your full Wk through it?

Thanks!