Jump to content

My inital 50 scrip list


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, spooky_squirrel said:

There's a difference between the Asset limit described (pg 12 of the PDF) prior to the anatomy of the Asset card and the Limitations described within the wording of the Asset. The limit on the number of Assets a unit can have is described in plain text. The Limitations described on Asset itself are restrictions specific to that Asset. If the wording on the Allegiance ability said "ignoring Asset Limitations" I could see that argument (but I would certainly not encourage having that argument during a game), but it's not using same keyword. Even "ignoring Asset limitations" might have some wiggle room, since we have some examples of keywords not always having the capitalized lead letter within the body of the rules.

So as written, in a game where keywords are vital (and typically in bold font or capitalized in order to call attention to them as keywords), if something uses that explicit keyword, sure it applies to that keyword. If it does not use that explicit keyword, then no, it does not apply. RAW is built on explicit use of keywords.

I get where you`re coming from, but there`s also my problem - "Asset limits" is not a keyword that`s anywhere explained :s

I know it`s wonky, but I have to prepare for rules lawyers at tournaments, and the best arguments against them are written rules - just want to raise awareness on the fact that there is room for interpreations because of the lack of an explicit keyword.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Tris said:

I get where you`re coming from, but there`s also my problem - "Asset limits" is not a keyword that`s anywhere explained :s

I know it`s wonky, but I have to prepare for rules lawyers at tournaments, and the best arguments against them are written rules - just want to raise awareness on the fact that there is room for interpreations because of the lack of an explicit keyword.

The abuse that I would be more concerned about is the last sentence of the same paragraph that sets the limit on the number of Assets a specific Unit type could have (page 12, pdf):

Quote

No unit may attach more than one Asset of the same name.

That is a limit that's not defined or reinforced under the Limitations described in the Asset anatomy. When you're looking at Electrocutioners, the Allegiance Advanced Prototypes ability, and the Prototype Assets themselves, I could see grief coming up between someone who looks at that as part of the Asset attachment limit (since it's not described on the Asset card itself) and someone who sees a unit of Electrocutioners with 4 Flare Guns and Prince Unathi sitting across the table from them.

If you're not tracking: first activation is Prince Unathi, who triggers two of the Flare guns (drawing two cards and having two nearly free chances of putting the Electrocutioners in Glory before they even activate, in addition to two attacks that ignore LOS and Terrain) using his free Morale Action and another Morale Action as part of the Advance Order. He then uses Coordinated Strike (for free, because he's a Commander) to the Electrocutioners, who then Declare an Advance Order, move into rifle range (if possible), then get to take that same Action four more times (once for each due to Versatile), giving them four LOS/Terrain ignoring attacks that can put them in glory on any Success with a Tome. If they go into Glory, then they use their special action to start causing chaos on the battlefield. If they don't go into Glory then they do a range check for their rifles, passing on normal Action if they're not in range.

So while I don't disagree that maybe the wording could be tweaked to:

Quote

The limit on the number of Assets that a Unit may attach depends on the Unit type: Titans can attach up to 3 Assets, Champions up to 2, and all other...

Then the word limit appears in the same sentence as the counts, separate from the same name guidance, and is clearly different than the Asset-defined Limitations. This should help with dealing with Rules Lawyers, without cluttering up the rules with more keywords to track that make it harder to pick out keywords from regular text. I emphasize should because something I've learned as an engineer: building a system that's munchkin-proof only encourages the munchkins to try harder.

That's where my push back is rooted in. This is the initial release, so there's no reason to call it perfect and ignore it... but if every query turned into an FAQ entry, then FAQ loses its defining feature (frequently).  If every query turns into an Errata issuance, errata creep can become cumbersome and unwieldy to the point where the only people having fun are the Rules Lawyers.

Remember: as a TO/Henchman, your guidance on the rules weighs more than a munchkin trying to Rules Lawyer a grey area into an advantage over their opponent. Apply lever as needed to ensure that the event is successful in both being fun for existing players and bringing more people to the game. Even if your guidance ends up being along the lines of "please don't be that guy". I know the Henchman at my FLGS likes to cover basic ground rules up front that aren't necessarily in the printed rules (such as "here's a cool marker I brought, it's this kind of Terrain and here's its Traits") and follow up with the players to make sure that people are cool with what he's put out. This brings the questions out before anyone's even partnered up for Round 1, thus limiting the disruption to games in progress.
Adding "Abyssinia's ignoring Asset limits refers to the count, please don't attach multiple Flare Guns or Experimental Rockets to your Electrocutioners" to the ground rules discussion up front doesn't take much effort and opens the floor up to all players to discuss if they're okay with that at the tournament. If it turns out that your non-Abyssinian players are largely okay with that kind of shenanigan then roll forward with that.
I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of the non-Abyssinian players would take exception to someone attaching the Active Defenses Armor to both of their Commanders and two other Units, or adding the Gramophone Amplifier to their Electrocutioners, but if there's any doubt, then simply add "It also doesn't refer to the Limitations described on the Asset itself" to the ground rules and listen for player feedback.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information