November FAQ

[Lucidicide]

Hello everyone,

The November FAQ has been released! You can find it on the website or a printer friendly version attached to this post. Three new questions have been added for this FAQ: 50, 99, and 103. I will post them below for convenience.

I will say that I expect #103 to be a bit controversial in its answer (and some people will not be happy with it), but after a lot of review and discussions I feel that it is the best answer that can be given. I want to reiterate that FAQ answers are specific to the question asked and are not applicable to other situations.

 

50) What does “ignore” mean in the rules? For example, Rusty Alyce’s Burn Out Action says the damage cannot be ignored.

Ignore refers to any way to avoid the game effect, be it through redirection, Conditions, or other game rules. For example, the Terracotta Warrior’s Ancient Protection Condition seems to allow the Terracotta Warrior to suffer the Burn Out damage instead of the initial target. This means the original target of the Burn Out Action is not impacted by the Burn Out Action, and therefore it was ignored. A Terracotta Warrior would not be able to use Ancient Protection to suffer the damage caused by Rusty Alyce’s Burn Out because it cannot be ignored by the initial target.

 

99) If my Carrion Emissary casts Shards of Kythera, how many Mindless Zombies do I get before the Markers are removed?

You get one Mindless Zombie from the Action, regardless of the placement of the Markers. If you manage to use the Action twice in a turn, you would still only get one Mindless Zombie because it removes all Markers. If you have Markers in different locations, you can choose which Marker(s) to summon your Mindless Zombie to.

 

103) If Sandeep has the To Behold Another World Upgrade and flips Moderate or Severe damage, does the target gain Paralyzed if the damage is completely prevented or reduced to zero (0)?

No, it doesn’t gain Paralyzed. To Behold Another World requires the target to suffer damage, which a model taking 0 damage is not (see FAQ #17). For example, if Seamus discarded his Mad Haberdasher Upgrade to reduce the damage to 0, he would not be Paralyzed.

 

M2E FAQ and Errata (Nov 2016) PF.pdf

[Travis]

Very quick response to some of these.  Thanks for clearing it up and extra thanks for the fast turn around.  

[retnab]

As someone who's grown to love Sandeep in the past few months, yeah this is definitely the right call.  I get what the "0 damage but still Paralyzed" group were coming from but it never seemed to be in the spirit of what the rules intended to me.  Thanks for putting this up!

[daniello_s]

Funny. I always thought this trick with Terracotta Warrior/Rusty can't be pulled because of Burn Out damage cannot be prevented as per action's decsription and I never suspected it needs clarification

[santaclaws01]

So someone's gotta be that guy and it might as well be me. In light of the FaQ on Behold Another World, how do Dumb Luck and the various heal based on damage dealt abilities still work when the target suffers 0 damage? They're all contingent on the target suffering damage yet still work regardless of any damage actually suffered by the target.

[Lucidicide]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

So someone's gotta be that guy and it might as well be me. In light of the FaQ on Behold Another World, how do Dumb Luck and the various heal based on damage dealt abilities still work when the target suffers 0 damage? They're all contingent on the target suffering damage yet still work regardless of any damage actually suffered by the target.

Those answers are also in the FAQ, so no need for further clarification. And, since the FAQ (and my post) were specific in that the answer to the question is only the answer to that specific question, there is no light that can be shed by the answer on any other question.

[santaclaws01]

28 minutes ago, Aaron said:

Those answers are also in the FAQ, so no need for further clarification. And, since the FAQ (and my post) were specific in that the answer to the question is only the answer to that specific question, there is no light that can be shed by the answer on any other question.

I know that, I'm more talking about the inconsistency of the meaning of "suffer damage". It can currently mean the damage flipped or the damage a model takes, and that's just going to cause problems as the game is expanded IMO.

[Kadeton]

5 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

I know that, I'm more talking about the inconsistency of the meaning of "suffer damage". It can currently mean the damage flipped or the damage a model takes, and that's just going to cause problems as the game is expanded IMO.

While it would obviously be preferable to have distinct terms for these measurements (damage before reduction/prevention versus damage that reduces the model's Wds), is it actually that inconsistent? As far as I can tell, here's the consistent underlying principle:

If an effect is based on an amount of damage suffered, and it affects the model causing the damage, use the amount of damage caused before reduction and prevention to measure the effect. If it affects the model upon which the damage is being inflicted, use the amount of damage by which the target's Wds are reduced (after all reduction and prevention).

The above is consistent across Dumb Luck (FAQ 64), Gada/Haberdasher (FAQ 103), Zero Damage (FAQ 17), Organ Donor (FAQ 92)... are there any answers I haven't found that are inconsistent with it?

[solkan]

I'm okay if the explanation for 103 is essentially:

<paraphrasing>The interaction of those two abilities -specifically- was broken/not intended, we want it to work this other way, and we're not prepared to change the wording on the card (yet).  So play it this way.<paraphrasing>

But I'm a pessimist and don't like nice things.  

[daniello_s]

7 hours ago, Kadeton said:

While it would obviously be preferable to have distinct terms for these measurements (damage before reduction/prevention versus damage that reduces the model's Wds), is it actually that inconsistent? As far as I can tell, here's the consistent underlying principle:

If an effect is based on an amount of damage suffered, and it affects the model causing the damage, use the amount of damage caused before reduction and prevention to measure the effect. If it affects the model upon which the damage is being inflicted, use the amount of damage by which the target's Wds are reduced (after all reduction and prevention).

The above is consistent across Dumb Luck (FAQ 64), Gada/Haberdasher (FAQ 103), Zero Damage (FAQ 17), Organ Donor (FAQ 92)... are there any answers I haven't found that are inconsistent with it?

That's how I see this as well but imagine yourself that in  my local group all other players take damage reduction/prevention into account before effect on attacking model is kicking off so it is not taht obvious as you might think

[Goret]

7 hours ago, solkan said:

I'm okay if the explanation for 103 is essentially:

<paraphrasing>The interaction of those two abilities -specifically- was broken/not intended, we want it to work this other way, and we're not prepared to change the wording on the card (yet).  So play it this way.<paraphrasing>

But I'm a pessimist and don't like nice things.  

 I agree,

Well, as i play Seamus, i don't mind some more love for my hat, but when ever i am called to a table because of an "what ability kicks in first" question, i take out my rules manual and open it on page 51 and read the General Timing box. as both upgrades state "after suffering damage" i was led to believe that attacker's ability kicks in first...

Anyway, glad my hat is so awesome!

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, daniello_s said:

That's how I see this as well but imagine yourself that in  my local group all other players take damage reduction/prevention into account before effect on attacking model is kicking off so it is not taht obvious as you might think

I don't think it's obvious at all - I had to trawl through a lot of FAQ answers to realise that there was a consistent pattern in how "suffering damage" was treated. I'm just hoping to get that knowledge out there (hopefully with some official support), so people can understand the basic reasoning behind these specific situations, and from there work out how to resolve other damage-related rules questions that might come up.

[Dogmantra]

Well personally I felt like the dumb luck faq was basically an errata but just ambiguous enough to get away with an faq instead of having to distribute a whild bunch of new cards.

[SunTsu]

10 hours ago, Kadeton said:

While it would obviously be preferable to have distinct terms for these measurements (damage before reduction/prevention versus damage that reduces the model's Wds), is it actually that inconsistent? As far as I can tell, here's the consistent underlying principle:

If an effect is based on an amount of damage suffered, and it affects the model causing the damage, use the amount of damage caused before reduction and prevention to measure the effect. If it affects the model upon which the damage is being inflicted, use the amount of damage by which the target's Wds are reduced (after all reduction and prevention).

The above is consistent across Dumb Luck (FAQ 64), Gada/Haberdasher (FAQ 103), Zero Damage (FAQ 17), Organ Donor (FAQ 92)... are there any answers I haven't found that are inconsistent with it?

Ok. What about reporting this principle in the next faqs? It would help a lot.

The problem about the Seamus and Sandeep interaction question was that the general timing flow chart rule directly contradict this principle, so making it explicit in the faqs would be great IMVVHO. ;-)

 

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

Well personally I felt like the dumb luck faq was basically an errata but just ambiguous enough to get away with an faq instead of having to distribute a whild bunch of new cards.

Seconded. I think McMournings heal and a few other effects have also gone on damage flipped rather than dealt in the end but right now it isn't super clear where the distinction lies.

[yool1981]

Thanks a lot for the FAQ.

As I am currently introducing the game to some new players, I confirm that some definition of terms and/or rule harmonization would sometimes avoid misunderstandings. The core rules are still very well written though but sometimes the cards are not so clear.

Maybe a duel resolution timing flow chart would help too - with arrows & yes/no choices (including a clarification of the "after damaging" term by putting it after damage prevention for example).

Finally, I may have missed it but I did not find any clarification as to how the Wiil o' the Wisp & the Voodoo doll interact (the question was asked on the rules forum but I don't remember seeing any clarification).

http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/121164-will-o-the-wisp-and-voodoo-doll/

[santaclaws01]

11 hours ago, Kadeton said:

While it would obviously be preferable to have distinct terms for these measurements (damage before reduction/prevention versus damage that reduces the model's Wds), is it actually that inconsistent? As far as I can tell, here's the consistent underlying principle:

If an effect is based on an amount of damage suffered, and it affects the model causing the damage, use the amount of damage caused before reduction and prevention to measure the effect. If it affects the model upon which the damage is being inflicted, use the amount of damage by which the target's Wds are reduced (after all reduction and prevention).

The above is consistent across Dumb Luck (FAQ 64), Gada/Haberdasher (FAQ 103), Zero Damage (FAQ 17), Organ Donor (FAQ 92)... are there any answers I haven't found that are inconsistent with it?

That would be a good starting place, Although After Damaging triggers somewhat muddy that, because there are ones that affect the model causing the damage and ones that affect the model being damaged, yet only works when the target model is actually damaged, with the specific wording being "if the target suffers 1 or more damage".

 

As an aside it should be noted that Organ Donor actually doesn't use "suffer" but rather "inflict", which would have been a great way to distinguish the two from the start, and going forward would be a great way to avoid future problems without needing to errata anything.