Jump to content
Joel

Zipp - rather good fun

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Reservoir Dog said:

I took earl with the dread pirate as hes still a good 3ss model. Plus he can also hitch a ride on skeeters (giving them the tomes to hand out fast to whoever else they'e ferrying) or the first mate.

Thanks!

But i imagine that earl have difficulty to stay near zipp when you took on him "dread pirate" upgrade, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TeddyBear said:

Thanks!

But i imagine that earl have difficulty to stay near zipp when you took on him "dread pirate" upgrade, right?

In this case I would drop Earl for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

It'a very easy to read a difference between declaring and taking an action, but in the action breakdown, "declare action" is the first step of taking an action.

Actually the first step is declare action and spend ap as it's describing how a model initially takes actions.  That isn' relevant here as Zipp has already done this (he declared the drop pianos attack). I agree that the first step of every characters action is declare action but zipp has already done this.  He's then declared a trigger which allows him to take a walk action but at no point does zipp declare a walk action from a trigger.

 

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

Declaring which action you are taking is a step of resolving an action. You aren't allowed to take actions without saying which action you are doing out loud.

People will get to declare disengaging strikes against that walk for example as well as the earl synergy.

As above, you're declaring your taking the trigger which allows you to take the walk action.  When you declare a charge you don' declare each component part, why would declaring a trigger be any different?

Also I agree that people get disengaging strikes. From rules:

If a model wishes to leave an enemy model’s 
engagement range with a Walk Action, it must 
declare that it wishes to do so before moving. 

It doesn' say take a disengaging strike when someone declares a walk action so I don't think this has any relevance to the trigger. Declaring you wish to leave an engagement with a walk action is different to declaring you wish to leave an engagement when you declare a walk action.

 

Believe me, as a Zipp player, I would love it if Earl could follow Zipp around with his walk triggers but I suspect that Earls card is intentionally worded this way to stop this happening.  Otherwise why wouldn' Earls card just say walk action instead of specifying it's when a walk is declared?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reservoir Dog said:

Actually the first step is declare action and spend ap as it's describing how a model initially takes actions.  That isn' relevant here as Zipp has already done this (he declared the drop pianos attack). I agree that the first step of every characters action is declare action but zipp has already done this.  He's then declared a trigger which allows him to take a walk action but at no point does zipp declare a walk action from a trigger.

 

As above, you're declaring your taking the trigger which allows you to take the walk action.  When you declare a charge you don' declare each component part, why would declaring a trigger be any different?

Also I agree that people get disengaging strikes. From rules:

If a model wishes to leave an enemy model’s 
engagement range with a Walk Action, it must 
declare that it wishes to do so before moving. 

It doesn' say take a disengaging strike when someone declares a walk action so I don't think this has any relevance to the trigger. Declaring you wish to leave an engagement with a walk action is different to declaring you wish to leave an engagement when you declare a walk action.

 

Believe me, as a Zipp player, I would love it if Earl could follow Zipp around with his walk triggers but I suspect that Earls card is intentionally worded this way to stop this happening.  Otherwise why wouldn' Earls card just say walk action instead of specifying it's when a walk is declared?

You cannot resolve an action without delaring it. 

 

From the rulebook on actions, p37 in the pdf and big book (although named p35 in the small manual). I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sentences. The rulebook specifically mentions disengaging strikes, how can you argue that they don't occur when the rulebook specifically states they occur? Note that declaration isn't some separate step before but a step included in resolving an action.

Resolving Actions
Resolving Actions is a fairly straight forward affair. The model simply proceeds
through four steps, regardless of Actions type (Tactical or Attack). During a model’s
Activation, the following steps are used to resolve an Action by the model:

1. Declare Action & Spend AP
2. Perform Duels
3. Resolve Results
1. Declare Action and Spend AP
The player begins an Action by announcing to her opponent what Action the model
is taking. This is done for clarity, and because some models might react to certain
Actions.
The most common reaction is a disengaging strike, which will prevent a
model from moving out of engagement range.

The model also spends the AP required to perform the declared Action. If the
model does not have enough AP required for the Action, no AP are spent and the
Action is ended without any further effect.
The model also declares any variable in the Action. This depends on the Action, as
some Actions have different variables, or affect multiple targets.
It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action,
the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target.
Line of Sight (LoS) and Range are discussed further on page 40.
Sometimes a target will have special Abilities (such as Terrifying) that requires a
duel in response to being targeted. These duels are handled now, after Ap is spent
and targets are declared.

It is chrystal clear that disengaging strikes are taken during this step and that this step is part of resolving any action taken. If you never say to your opponent that you are leaving their engagement range they can't react and this part specifically says disengaging strikes are taken during it. 

 

From actions causing actions on page 38: 

Some Actions will force or allow a model to take another Action. If an
Action calls for another Action to be taken (such as Charge or “Make A
New Entry”) then the additional Action or Actions do not cost any AP.
The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also
resolved.
Some Abilities may force models to do something when declaring an Action
(such as taking a duel for Manipulative). For these Abilities, each new
Action generated triggers the Ability separately. 

 

Nowhere does it say you skip one of the stated steps of taking an action, it only says you don't need to pay ap.

 

 

Lucius and Colette and anyone with obey can make other models take actions. Are you saying they don't declare which action the model is taking and don't declare which model the free model is attacking or which attack they are using? 

The executioner has an action to take either an attack or a walk by discarding an enemy schrme marker. If I never declare the walk, just takr it whilr.msgically skipping a full step of the resolution I am then immune to disengaging strikes?

 

To add to this you declare variables such as which stat is used to attack and resist when declaring an action. No step in the opposed duel rules specifically say that you need to declare it again here so unless you declare that during the declare step of the action it get's very confusing to resolve the opposed duel since the opponent has no idea which stat you are using to attack or they are using to defend so they don't know if they get to flip two cards from defensive stance or if you are attacking their WP or whatever.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see above I'm not disagreeing with you about disengaging strikes. I even included the passage from the rulebook myself. I wholeheartedly agree that disengaging strikes take place.

What I'm  saying is that a TRIGGER to walk from an attack is not you resolving a completely seperate action where you have an ap to spend on what you want and therefore doesn' t include the declare action phase.  Its a triggered walk action not a declared walk action. Youre  not declaring a seperate walk action youre taking a trigger that allows a walk action and as Earls ability specifies it works when a walk action is declared it doesn' work as you haven't actually declared a walk action at any point (as I read the rules). To be clear:

1. You declare the ATTACK action and spend 1ap.

2.  You perform the duel

3. You resolve the results of the duel (including triggers). It is at this stage you take a walk action with the trigger and follow the applicable rules for a walk (including disengaging strikes). But at no point has Zipp actually declared a walk action (it was a trigger which was declared not an actual walk action) and therefore Earl cannot hitch a ride.

 

I know youve included the bit about obeys to assist your view on this but in my opinion this is like comparing apples and oranges.  Obeys work differently to this as obeys are not triggers and actually give out 1ap (you then declare what you'e spending that 1ap on) whereas Zipps trigger is purely for a walk action. Ie you can't take the trigger and then declare a different action. There is nothing to declare as the trigger itself has already specified what action your taking.

 

I've seen a number of posts from you regarding other rules on the forum and in the most part I've previously agreed with what you say. However, on this occasion I think we're going to have to agree to disagree until there is an official clarification in the faq. As a Zipp player I really hope I'm wrong but I will continue playing it as I've noted above until there is an official faq.

Just for clarity though, can I also ask why you think Earls ability is worded as "when a sky pirate within 1 declares a walk action" As opposed to "when a sky pirate within 1 takes a walk action" if every walk action (no matter how it' generated) begins with a declaration? It seems to me that the very point of adding the phrase "declares a walk" is a conscous decision by the writers? Ie if the phrase was "takes a walk action" we wouldn' even be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Reservoir Dog said:

 

Just for clarity though, can I also ask why you think Earls ability is worded as "when a sky pirate within 1 declares a walk action" As opposed to "when a sky pirate within 1 takes a walk action" if every walk action (no matter how it' generated) begins with a declaration? It seems to me that the very point of adding the phrase "declares a walk" is a conscous decision by the writers? Ie if the phrase was "takes a walk action" we wouldn' even be having this discussion.

Because every ability that goes off of actions being taken uses that wording. If you don't think every action needs to be declared, look at the rules for an interact action. It states "A model may not declare this Action if it is engaged, unless the Interact Action targets an enemy model.". Sandeep has an action, As Your Deed, So Your Destiny that says "This model may immediately perform a (1) Interact Action. So by your reasoning, this interact action can be used to place a scheme marker even if the model is engaged. But wait, let's look at triggers. The Mantra of True Self. The Interact Action may be declared while this model is engaged. So apparently Sandeep has a literally useless trigger on that action if you only declare actions that aren't generated by something else. Additionally, there is Drinking Contest, which explicitly works against a charge, and uses the wording "which declare an Action", and charge only says the model takes 2 range :melee attack actions.

Also this

29 minutes ago, Reservoir Dog said:

Obeys work differently to this as obeys are not triggers and actually give out 1ap

Is just blatantly against what the rules say. No obey or pseudo-obey action actually gives a model AP. They just allow the model to take an action of the specified AP cost.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reservoir Dog

I'm not asking you to just take my word for it but you haven't provided a single rules quote to back up your argued interpretation. If you have seen my other discussions youmay have noted that I sometimes admit myself convinced to change positions. Your stance here seems inconsistent because you said the opponent would get a disengsging strike when that is explicitly described as part of the declaration step which I proved with a rules quote. You are arguing that they purposefully built in antisynergy with Earl instead of having synergy and working the way you would want it to but you haven't provided a single rules quote to back that position. I'm sort of curious what in the rules text it is that makes you convinced you are right instead of accepting our interpretation?

I don't see any real support for your argued interpretation. Declaring the action is pointed out as being an integrated part of taking an action and you haven't quoted any rules text that makes it otherwise. One of the steps of taking an action is declaration and just because triggers don't need to spend ap doesn't mean you skip the step about saying where you are going or who you are attacking with which stat. Ryle has a trigger to take a shot against another model on his steam gatling, if that action isn't declared then you won't know who I'm shooting at because naming the target is a part of the declaration on an attack. 

I have no idea why they worded Earl as declare instead of take but those words could be used interchangably and still mean the same thing. I don't have every wording memorised but I'm sure both words occur here and there in similar actions.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: I'm in no way frustrated since I generally enjoy rule discussions and trying to reach concencus so I hope there are no hard feelings. I just really don't see what sort of rules backing you have for your position and I generally have trouble dropping something without at least understanding where the other interpretation is coming from so I would greatly appreciate clarificarion on where in the rules your reasoning is originating.

If you still want to drop the discussion I won't try to influence how you play of course, my group sometimes play things according to how we want them to be rather than what the rules seem to say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@santaclaws01 and @Ludvig

I've only got one thing to say to you two: I was wrong and you were right. I'm actually happy with that. I will now have Earl follow Zipp around handing out suits as I'm happy that if challenged I could use Sandeeps action and the rules for interacting as an example. I still find the wording of Earls ability to be odd but maybe that's just me.  Ive been doing ok with Zipp anyway and this seems to just take his mobility up another level.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to have helped. I find that there are many strange wordings and sometimes no one is sure if slightly different wordings are different because they are supposed to do something different or if the old wording was just unclear so they tried to make a clearer one. Some actions specify intended interactions while others have the same wording without specifying so you are not alone in finding the wordings odd.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I love this community. It gets better everytime at clarifying rules and discuss over things.

Hats off guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today i had my second game with Zipp, both the first and the second against Molly. Besides bad luck..(every times that i declared a walk with my skeeters, i flipped crows every time! And i never saw highest cards than 8 in my hands, also i lost always initiative flip)

I am sure, i've be wrong a lot. I always used two skeeters in my lists.. to bring me back models like burt(with dirty cheater) or pere. Very often with them triggers didn't work, on top of that i could not cheat from my hands)

I also had a slop hauler, for healing them back

I would ask you just a couple of things: once i have no more cards in my hands, there is a way to draw some cards with zipp or his pieces?

How i can obtain a scrap marker for earl for give a + to zipp?

When someone attack zipp, and i lost the duel i can place him within 6"..but earl stay there??

Do you have any advices please for facing Molly? i prefer give to Zipp "no quarter" because Molly can use 2 strong actions at 0

 

Thanks again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TeddyBear said:

Today i had my second game with Zipp, both the first and the second against Molly. Besides bad luck..(every times that i declared a walk with my skeeters, i flipped crows every time! And i never saw highest cards than 8 in my hands, also i lost always initiative flip)

I am sure, i've be wrong a lot. I always used two skeeters in my lists.. to bring me back models like burt(with dirty cheater) or pere. Very often with them triggers didn't work, on top of that i could not cheat from my hands)

I also had a slop hauler, for healing them back

I would ask you just a couple of things: once i have no more cards in my hands, there is a way to draw some cards with zipp or his pieces?

How i can obtain a scrap marker for earl for give a + to zipp?

When someone attack zipp, and i lost the duel i can place him within 6"..but earl stay there??

Do you have any advices please for facing Molly? i prefer give to Zipp "no quarter" because Molly can use 2 strong actions at 0

 

Thanks again

Do Over, maybe attached to Merris. Watch 3 cards, change order with her 0, draw 2 discarding Do Over.

Scraps: Sparks, when a Gremlin is killed within 6" and LoS can decide to make him drop a Scrap instead of a Corpse; Mechanized Porkchop gives a Scrap after a Wk once per Turn; dead Skeeter; dead Survivors.

Aye for Earl.

Right choices. Sammy with Diatribe to make her discard some cards may be an option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TeddyBear said:

I would ask you just a couple of things: once i have no more cards in my hands, there is a way to draw some cards with zipp or his pieces?

I've just started painting up my Zipp crew, but I'm messing around with:

First Mate + Treasure Map + Where the captain can't see (for card draw and discard with silly amounts of free bonuses)
AND Gremlin Crier - draw a card whenever a card is discarded. Hilarity ensues if you have multiple criers (although they are expensive).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cadaver_Junkie said:

I've just started painting up my Zipp crew, but I'm messing around with:

First Mate + Treasure Map + Where the captain can't see (for card draw and discard)
AND Gremlin Crier - draw a card whenever a card is discarded. Hilarity ensues if you have multiple criers (although they are expensive).

Oh forgot about Mate, yes!

Criers are fun, and can make new Bayou Gremlins for Dread Pirate, so they're totally worth!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ElPuto said:

Oh forgot about Mate, yes!

Criers are fun, and can make new Bayou Gremlins for Dread Pirate, so they're totally worth!

 

I think the Gremlin Criers could really shine in GG18, there's so many things they can shut down (or score! Think about Take Prisoner - if the crier is engaged with the prisoner, it doesn't matter how many other enemy models are nearby. I'm running my crier with a piano dropping Iron Skeeter for his ride). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cadaver_Junkie said:

I've just started painting up my Zipp crew, but I'm messing around with:

First Mate + Treasure Map + Where the captain can't see (for card draw and discard with silly amounts of free bonuses)
AND Gremlin Crier - draw a card whenever a card is discarded. Hilarity ensues if you have multiple criers (although they are expensive).

Thing about first mate + treasure map which got me confused first time is that they are two separate flips and you should mention which is which because one of the discards masters for the trigger. It's NOT flipping two cards and discarding two, together. But you're probably smarter than I was.

Criers confuse and amuse me, but I haven't picked them up yet since I don't understand them fully and don't own any bayou gremlins (yet).  No dread pirate for me right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2018 at 2:23 AM, ElPuto said:

Do Over, maybe attached to Merris. Watch 3 cards, change order with her 0, draw 2 discarding Do Over.

Do Over's "discard for card draw" happens at the start of the Activation so you can't stack the deck for it.

On 2/5/2018 at 2:34 AM, Cadaver_Junkie said:

I'm running my crier with a piano dropping Iron Skeeter for his ride. 

Huh? Never realized that Criers are Ht 1. That's weird. But certainly useful!

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

×