Jump to content
Lucidicide

September FAQ & Errata

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 -? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :-fate to :ranged attack actions, and a defensive trigger is not a projectile attack action or part of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :-fate to :ranged 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  ;) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×