September FAQ & Errata

[Lucidicide]

Hey Wyrdos,

It's time for your bimonthly FAQ and errata! This is my first month as lead designer of Malifaux, and I'm pretty excited to be taking over. I've been playing Malifaux since 2009 and helping test the game since 2010. I helped create parts of second edition, and the game is near and dear to me. Justin leaving is the end of an era, and I know I've got big shoes to fill.

With that in mind, it is a great time to look at our FAQ and Errata. I poured through the document with the help of the team and re-examined past rulings and our processes. Based on some of the rulings and confusion, I've made some changes to the FAQ and Errata document to bring Malifaux in line with my vision of the rules. You'll find some new clarifications in this document, too. I talk about a few of the changes at the bottom of this post, but I encourage you to download the new document and look it over yourself.

This FAQ and Errata update is also going to be the last combined FAQ and Errata update. Starting in 2017, we are going to move to a twice-per-year Errata schedule: one that will coincide with the release of Gaining Grounds in December (effective January) and one that will come out in June (effective July), if necessary. This will allow us plenty of time to examine interactions that are arising in the meta and adjust for any issues that may arise. Additionally, it allows us to easily provide errata cards on Wargame Vault for those who own the models or Upgrades being adjusted. Finally, it will make changes easier for new players -- there's only two adjustments per year. I don't expect a lot of changes each year, but I feel this process will improve the game's stability in the long term.

This process will not change our bimonthly FAQ schedule, and I still expect to be able to address any immediate concerns over clarity on a regular basis.

Without further ado, here is your September FAQ and Errata, with some notes on the changes below: M2E FAQ and Errata (Sept 2016).pdf or M2E FAQ and Errata (Sept 2016) PF.pdf

Notes:

• All of the FAQ questions have been given a number, no longer broken by section, to make referencing the FAQ easier.
• The reference to correct proxies for Dead Justice models will be moved to Gaining Grounds for 2017.
• There were six core rules errata in this update:
  • Triggers - A few FAQ questions have been removed regarding Triggers, which were functioning as errata. They were moved to the errata section and combined for cleanliness.
  • Chain Activations - Models can no longer Chain Activate themselves to be more consistent with common sense. This change removed a question in the FAQ.
  • Actions Causing Actions - This call out box was modified to include Abilities causing Actions, clarifying a few things like Brewmaster's On The House Aura.
  • LoS to Markers - A new rule was added to the game to explain how LoS is drawn to non-Terrain Markers, clarifying (and therefore removing) a few questions in the FAQ.
  • Summoning - This section was modified to include models summoned by Abilities, which were previously vague in certain applications of the Summoning rules.
  • Paralyzed - Models can no longer take Actions while Paralyzed, regardless of whether its their Activation or not. This brings it more in line with common sense.
• #29 - This was a re-write of a Hazardous question to increase clarity for models with auras.
• #51 - This consolidates two questions into one, as they address the same issue.
• #69 - This question was made more universal to address all times that a damage flip shows up in a Trigger.
• #96 - This is a change in answer due to an errata.
• #117 - This overrules a previous ruling to be more consistent with the wording on the card.
• #124 - This overrules a previous ruling to be more consistent with how the rules work.
• #125 - This was reworked, and an errata was added to specify that no additional AP is spent.

You can find all this information on the website: http://www.wyrd-games.net/malifaux-faq-errata

Thanks, and happy gaming!

[Dogmantra]

nice to finally see a ruling on climbing during a charge, even if it wasn't my side

paralyse change is interesting, certainly makes the condition more potent, and swaps out the 0" engagement range for no engagmenet range, which I always felt was a bit more supported by the rules anyway. i've not often used obey etc on paralysed models but it will be interesting to see how being unable to do so changes things.

 

[Bengt]

The last bit of the new ruling for markers "(note that a 30mm model will never be able to block LoS to a 30mm Marker)" doesn't seem entirely consistent with
 

Quote

 

32) If two models on 30mm bases are trying to draw LoS to each other, can another model on a 30mm base which is positioned perfectly between them block that LoS?

Yes, although it would be very difficult to position the models in such a way.

 

 

[Icemyn]

Regarding #69 and triggers such as Lady J's Riposte or Perdita's Quick Draw. 

How does this work exactly?

69) If a Trigger causes a damage flip, does that count as part of the original Action? Is it modified by things like the Accuracy Modifier and Focus? Yes, Triggers are a part of the Action which caused them and any damage flip on a Trigger would retain any modifiers to the original flip including Accuracy, Focus, cover, etc. (9/14/16)

I assume this was only meant for triggers like slug, but seems to overlap with defensive triggers as well. 
So I benefit from my opponents focus? Or I was in hard cover with perdita so the quick draw shot is on another -? 

[Dogmantra]

10 minutes ago, Bengt said:

The last bit of the new ruling for markers "(note that a 30mm model will never be able to block LoS to a 30mm Marker)" doesn't seem entirely consistent with

I had to go back and check to see if that ruling had been removed because personally I'm not a fan.

But I don't think it's entirely inconsistent, although a little unclear. The text of the rule says "If a model is standing completely on top of a non-terrain Marker in such a way that no LoS lines touch the Marker without first crossing another model’s base," - in the case of a 30mm on top of a 30mm marker, the LoS line won't first cross its base, it will touch the marker and the base at the same time.

1 minute ago, Icemyn said:

So I benefit from my opponents focus? Or I was in hard cover with perdita so the quick draw shot is on another -? 

You wouldn't get a benefit from focus because it applies to the action's duel and damage flip, and defensive triggers aren't part of the action. Similarly, cover only applies a to attack actions, and a defensive trigger is not a projectile attack action or part of it.

[Icemyn]

3 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

 

You wouldn't get a benefit from focus because it applies to the action's duel and damage flip, and defensive triggers aren't part of the action. Similarly, cover only applies a to attack actions, and a defensive trigger is not a projectile attack action or part of it.

Re read the FAQ it says the trigger counts as part of the action. It even mentions maintaining focus by name. 

[daniello_s]

A bit of 'rough love' for Kirai. I like it

[Dogmantra]

1 minute ago, Icemyn said:

Re read the FAQ it says the trigger counts as part of the action. It even mentions maintaining focus by name. 

*shrug* yeah in which case you're right, although I expect this will be cleared up very quickly to mean that defensive triggers don't benefit from your opponent's focus. I mean I guess you could take a very conservative view of what counts as "the action that caused" a trigger and arrive at "only attack triggers" but I think it would be hard to argue that case.

[Kadeton]

7 minutes ago, Icemyn said:

Re read the FAQ it says the trigger counts as part of the action. It even mentions maintaining focus by name. 

Do you actually think it was intended that way, or are you advocating for the Devil here?

[Lucidicide]

I changed the wording so that it clearly says an Action's Trigger and updated it everywhere.

[Icemyn]

7 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

*shrug* yeah in which case you're right, although I expect this will be cleared up very quickly to mean that defensive triggers don't benefit from your opponent's focus. I mean I guess you could take a very conservative view of what counts as "the action that caused" a trigger and arrive at "only attack triggers" but I think it would be hard to argue that case.

I expect it to be cleared up quickly as well. That is why I brought it up. 

3 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Do you actually think it was intended that way, or are you advocating for the Devil here?

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. Just pointing out how it works as written, so that it can be fixed. 
This wasn't brought up by me, I didn't catch it. They aren't on the forums. 

 

1 minute ago, Aaron said:

I changed the wording so that it clearly says an Action's Trigger and updated it everywhere.

Thanks Aaron.
 

[Tris]

Am I reading it right that attacks which trigger another attack are also part of this ruling?

So, focusing once and hitting multiple 'attack again' triggers is sufficient to focus all attacks?

[Lucidicide]

Just now, Tris said:

Am I reading it right that attacks which trigger another attack are also part of this ruling?

So, focusing once and hitting multiple 'attack again' triggers is sufficient to focus all attacks?

No. That is a new Action. In the case of Triggers like Onslaught, the Trigger is not causing the damage flip, the new Action is.

[Nemikan]

Was hoping it would be in the FAQ but it wasn't Any chance you could clarify the Hungry Land Markers?
 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

5 minutes ago, Nemikan said:

Was hoping it would be in the FAQ but it wasn't Any chance you could clarify the Hungry Land Markers?
 

 

It was already answered in that thread. Not sure it needs a ruling its actually quite a clean rule already, everyone in that thread appears to have responded accurately (i.e. RE it needing to be in FAQ, I personally don't think its necessary; take that for what its worth).

[Adran]

I'm agreeing with Bength, the Errata on a 30 mm Models never being able to block line of sight to a 30 mm marker disagrees with a 30 mm model being able to block LOS  to a 30 mm Models.

I'm happy with Standing on Top of a 30 mm Marker with a 30 mm model doesn't block LOS, but standing in between should (if you have managed that exact placement required) as it does between models.

Otherwsie, good job its looking a lot clearer at the moment. (I'm sure we'll manage to break something else by the end of the week)

[Nemikan]

Just now, PeregrineFalcon said:

It was already answered in that thread. Not sure it needs a ruling its actually quite a clean rule already, everyone in that thread appears to have responded accurately (i.e. RE it needing to be in FAQ, I personally don't think its necessary; take that for what its worth).

There's at least 3 different henchman in addition to people on a Wyrd place disagreeing what people are saying in that thread.

[Artiee]

 

4 minutes ago, Nemikan said:

There's at least 3 different henchman in addition to people on a Wyrd place disagreeing what people are saying in that thread.

FAQ # 29 doesn't answer it?

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 minute ago, Artiee said:

 

FAQ # 29 doesn't answer it?

 

NOTE: #29 does not have anything to do with Markers which are hazardous terrain. It only refers to models.

[Icemyn]

3 minutes ago, Artiee said:

 

FAQ # 29 doesn't answer it?

 

That only covers models creating Auras. Hungry Land markers are Markers w/o an aura. 

It does seem pretty clear cut though, as indicated by the Rules thread the question was asked in. 

[MrDeathTrout]

I really like the new FAQ.  Cleaning up and consolidating a few items was nice.  I like all the errata as well.  Good job.

Unfortunately Aaron left a clue as to his real motivation behind all these changes, causing me to reject the entire document.  The red headers.  Obviously this document is Guild Propaganda.   

[Hateful Darkblack]

Great updates!

[Mikey_C]

1 hour ago, Bengt said:

The last bit of the new ruling for markers "(note that a 30mm model will never be able to block LoS to a 30mm Marker)" doesn't seem entirely consistent with
 

 

In the case of a model blocking a model. When drawing the LOS tangent from attacker to target it will hit the blocking model before the target.
In a model standing on a marker the LOS will hit the marker and model simultaneously. 

That would be my guess (and just that a guess).

[Philosfr]

Clarifying the Paralyze thing...

Is a defensive trigger an action? For example, if Justice or a gremlin is paralyzed, could they still counterattack or squee away?

[Clement]

For clarity, #29:

Quote

The area within the model’s aura is treated as a unique set of hazardous terrain (and therefore deals 1/2/4 damage). In the example below, Gamin A would make a flip for Jaakuna’s aura when it finishes its movement. Gamin B would make a flip for the lava and Jaakuna when it activates. Gamin C would also make two flips: one for entering the aura, and one for entering the lava.

B is making 2 flips.  Right?  "Make a flip for the lava and Jaakuna" is ambiguous.