Inescapable trap scoring

[katadder]

I have seen this in a few facebook pages so thought would bring it here. 

For scoring from inescapable trap do you have to have:

1) 2 or more enemy models within 3" of any of your scheme markers (ie can be 1 model by 1 marker, another model by another)

or

2) 2 or more enemy models with 3" of the same scheme marker

 

as written alot of us seem to be going by option 1 but this does need some official clarification as it is quite poorly written (have seen a different consensus on different pages)

[Lucidicide]

Adam Rogers is a member of the community. A very helpful one

His reading of it is not gospel. It was not edited (either for or against) because if I'd done that, then you'd say it's official and take it that way. There will be an FAQ next month.

[trikk]

We had this discussion in Poland since we already had 2 tournaments. We decided that unless a FAQ/change is made, we play by option 1.

I know there are some hints that its suppose to be option 2 but the text is messy and adding the "or more" to clarify make a bigger mess than its suppose to clean up

[Oshova]

I think that actually it's worded that both 1 and 2 are correct.

[MalifauxMartin]

51 minutes ago, Oshova said:

I think that actually it's worded that both 1 and 2 are correct.

I would agree

[Angelshard]

I also read it as both options being viable, even if that does make the scheme rather easy.

[Impact UK]

We have been playing it as in the second instance as doing this the other way is far to easy but I am happy to play this either way so maybe for the moment TO & Gaming Groups will need to make the call and ensure everyone playing knows how this is being scored.

[katadder]

@Aaron is there any chance on an official answer on this as does seem to be in alot of places and is the most regular question to TOs at tourneys from what I have seen

I realise errata is a 6 monthly thing but that works for the main rules, if you wait 6 months for this it will be halfway until the next GG. thanks for taking note

[Ikiwith]

Hi wyrdos.

Has this topic been clarified?

Thanks.

[Ludvig]

2 hours ago, Ikiwith said:

Hi wyrdos.

Has this topic been clarified?

Thanks.

Nope. Put your hope in the march faq and decide in our play group/for your event until then.

[Fenriel]

The latest wyrd ezine discusses it and offers clarification but I'm not sure that it is official? 

[Ludvig]

Not sure if I've ever seen that as an official channel for rules but if an acttual game designers explains how they play it that could be seen as a pretty good precedent. So who is it and how do they say they play it there?

[WWHSD]

29 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Not sure if I've ever seen that as an official channel for rules but if an acttual game designers explains how they play it that could be seen as a pretty good precedent. So who is it and how do they say they play it there?

Adam Rogers wrote the article. 

Top of the right hand column on page 18 it says this:

"First, you have to get a pair of enemy models within 3" of your scheme marker before removing it."

 

It looks like the article also mentions the scoring on "Surround Them". 

 

[Ludvig]

Will the real Adam Rogers please stand up? 

Does it say who Adam is? I believe the chronicles use freelance writers?

[WWHSD]

8 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Will the real Adam Rogers please stand up? 

Does it say who Adam is? I believe the chronicles use freelance writers?

He also mentions Supply Wagons destroying other Supply Wagon markers. I'd love to know if the content of that article should carry any more weight than the opinions posted in forums and Facebook.  

I'm guessing he might just be a freelance writer and that the article may not have been reviewed by anyone that actually writes rules.

pg 17:
"...I’m also not entirely sure that’s how the strategy’s rules are intended to work, but it’d be a winning play if you could pull it off"

[solkan]

Article's credit is by Adam Rogers.  Not sure who that is.

Relevant paragraph:

Quote

Another variation on an old theme is Inescapable Trap. Most sets of schemes since the beginning of Malifaux 2nd edition have had some version of the “Detonate Charges” style scheme, where scheme markers have to be placed within range of enemy models. There are two things that make it trickier this time. First, you have to get a pair of enemy models within 3" of your scheme marker before removing it. Second, it only scores one point at a time over multiple turns. So, getting the rst point is easy enough, but once your opponent knows what you’re up to, they will likely try to avoid it from that point forward. And that is where you nd out if your trap is inescapable or not. 

So the article claims it's two models near the same marker.

 

[Gnomezilla]

Chronicles has had errors in the strategy articles before (different author, realized error as soon as published, apologized immediately), so I’m leery of using it as any FAQ.

[santaclaws01]

@AgentRock Was it you who wrote the article in question?

[WWHSD]

1 hour ago, Aaron said:

There will be an FAQ next month.

That's all you need to say.

I'm my head you sounded a lot like Ving Rhames. There was also much stronger language used. 

[AgentRock]

20 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

@AgentRock Was it you who wrote the article in question?

Its me that wrote it, yes. I wrote the section in question with my best understanding of the rules. I assumed it would be corrected in editing if I was wrong, but its entirely possible it fell through the cracks. Id say wait for the FAQ to be sure. 

[WWHSD]

Today's FAQ dealt with most of the open questions on GG18.

 

The more difficult interpretation of Inescapable Trap is the official one.


"3. In Inescapable Trap, do you need 2 or more enemy models within 3” of the same Scheme Marker?
Yes. (3/1/18)"