Jump to content
Morgan Vening

Emergency Power Transfer Timing Issue

Recommended Posts

This was an issue I found in the Closed Beta, that was never answered satisfactorily. It came up in a game I was assisting with last night.

:ToS-Fast: Emergency Power Transfer
Target up to two friendly models. Move one Power Token from each target to a different model within range with less Power Tokens. Then, this model may end a Condition on each model that gained a Power Token from this Action.

There are two points that probably need clarification in how it's worded, to avoid confusion, both underlined above.

Different
- Is that different from the one moving the PT, or different from either of the two chosen models, or different from who the other model picked?
For example, I have three Watchers. With 3, 2 and 0 PT respectively.
Can Watcher 1 and Watcher 2 both pass their PT to Watcher 3? Or must it be a different model?
Can Watcher 1 pass a PT to Watcher 2, and then Watcher 2 pass a PT to Watcher 3?

Less Power Tokens
- Is it at the time of selection, or is each move handled fully separately?
For example, I have three Watchers. With 3, 2 and 0 PT respectively.
Can Watcher 1 pass a PT to Watcher 2, and now, with more PT, can Watcher 2 pass a PT back to Watcher 1? (because then both would remove Conditions)

I'm thinking based on the rules, that the answer to all three is yes, but it requires some assumptions and is significantly more complex in understanding than it probably needs to be. If I'm right, and you can do all of that, and the "different" only means a model can't move a PT to itself (which it couldn't, because it doesn't have less), and "less" is at the time of the move, just writing it for one model, and then have "Then, repeat this action a second time." fixes any confusion. And if it's not, I'm sure wording can be put in to make it clear.

Having it be explicitly clear solves issues later.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or three models with 3, 3 and zero. Can Hoffman select the two models with 3 tokens then:

Can model 2 pass a token to model three reducing the number of tokens it has to 2.

Now that model 2 has less tokens than model 1, can model 1 now pass a token across to Model 2.

Models 2 and 3 can now end a condition.

This revolves around whether the passing is sequential or simultaneous?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the new update answered some of these at least. You cannot target two models to both pass to a third, but it still leaves a question whether chain passing is possible for condition removal (Models 1&2 are targets, Model 1 passes to Model 2 who passes to Model 3). It does look like the passing is meant to be done one at a time rather then simultaneously, otherwise this would not apply:

" . . . that has not gained a Power Token from this Action."

 

So I am leaning towards chain passing of tokens being fine as I read it.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maladroit said:

Well the new update answered some of these at least. You cannot target two models to both pass to a third, but it still leaves a question whether chain passing is possible for condition removal (Models 1&2 are targets, Model 1 passes to Model 2 who passes to Model 3). It does look like the passing is meant to be done one at a time rather then simultaneously, otherwise this would not apply:

" . . . that has not gained a Power Token from this Action."

So I am leaning towards chain passing of tokens being fine as I read it.

There's still too much ambiguity, IMO.

"Target up to two friendly models. Move one Power Token from each target to another model within range with less Power Tokens, that has not gained a Power Token from this Action. Then, this model may end a Condition on each model that gained a Power Token from this Action."

Depends on if you're defining "another" as different to the original two (in which case chain passing isn't allowed), or "another" as meaning other than the original model (in which case replacing "another" with "a" would probably work just as functionally). Also, I guess, "another" could mean "another other than Hoffman can be a recipient", as he is the model generating the effect, and that's the way the word "another" works for most of those abilities. 

@Kyle, any chance you can use a longer form of an explanation (with examples) of how exactly you want this to work, and we can try to take some passes that make it clear it does exactly what you want?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ability is terrible, and it almost never comes up. I always read it that both conditions have to be met before you can do either. I brought this up in closed beta several times, and closed beta is the last time I played Hoffman. 

For a support master the ability is too convoluted with to many restrictions on use. Why not just have the power be move one power token to another augmented model and remove a condition. If a condition was removed, repeat this action. Or add a trigger with a target number of 10 with stat 7 or something.

My entire point is this single zero action on a master is too situational and convoluted, and when compared to other masters, terrible. Its his only zero action and I've always thought it was weak. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 12:41 PM, trikk said:

Can we just drop one of the limits please? 😛

Alright, alright. What is the most ‘boring but efficient’ wording for this we can generate? Free power token will be awarded to whomever can provide the most concise wording as well.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we just made his "Give Fast" action his :ToS-Fast: and gave him a trigger for condition removal?  Maybe add in a "move one Power Token to or from the target and one other model in range" if we want that part to stay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, retnab said:

What if we just made his "Give Fast" action his :ToS-Fast: and gave him a trigger for condition removal?  Maybe add in a "move one Power Token to or from the target and one other model in range" if we want that part to stay?

If you make it a :ToS-Fast:, his activation becomes awful.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

Alright, alright. What is the most ‘boring but efficient’ wording for this we can generate? Free power token will be awarded to whomever can provide the most concise wording as well.

I think the value for this is in the condition removal personally, what if Hoffman had two bonus actions. One is the same token transfer as the rest of the crew with the 2" push. The second is he spends one power token to end one condition each on up to two models within 6". 

 

Edit: now I have thought about it some more, this was one of the only ways you could get use of a token that was on a non augmented construct. So perhaps Hoffman's Transfer Power was modified to be used to transfer a (maybe up to 2?) tokens from any construct within 3 to any other construct within 3. Something like:

 

"Target construct discards a power token. Another construct within 3" gains a power token. Any model that gained a power token may push up to 2"."

 

then his second bonus bonus action is the condition removal:

"Discard a power token. Target up to two friendly models (constructs?). This model may end one condition on each model targeted by this action."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One rule I try to live by with a Master: if one Action/Ability gets nerfed/changed and the Master becomes worthless, they already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, retnab said:

One rule I try to live by with a Master: if one Action/Ability gets nerfed/changed and the Master becomes worthless, they already are.

 

16 hours ago, retnab said:

One rule I try to live by with a Master: if one Action/Ability gets nerfed/changed and the Master becomes worthless, they already are.

I disagree with this. Hoffman is viable as a support master because he hands out power tokens and fast. I don't think he is great, but if overpower goes from a tact action to a zero, he becomes absolutely useless, and he doesn't go on the shelf, he goes in the closet because he doesn't deserve to see the light of day. 

 

Hoffman needs some adjustments in my opinion, and I fought for him in closed beta with zero changes, so I moved on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if all he does during his turn is give out Power Tokens and Fast, what's your game plan vs Tara?  Just concede?  If without that action (or even making it once per activation) "he becomes absolutely useless" then this master is not ready for launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, retnab said:

So if all he does during his turn is give out Power Tokens and Fast, what's your game plan vs Tara?  Just concede?  If without that action (or even making it once per activation) "he becomes absolutely useless" then this master is not ready for launch.

No, you just have to be more tactically aware and force the Tara player into boxes. The range of the ability is 6 inches. Tara doesn't make Hoffman useless, and every master has another master who counters what they do in some way. 

 

Hoffman needs work, but I don’t think he’s useless. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Tara is annoying, I still think he has multiple counters in:

Models ignoring Armor

Wp attacks as you have 8-9SS models with Wp4

 

Add Tara to that and you have a pretty bad keyword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I what...I don’t...what happened here?!?!! That makes about as much sense as moving his walk to a free action because fluff I AM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THAT.

 

 

@Maladroit once I am on the laptop I will compare lengths of text block to what is already there (can’t cut and paste easily on mobile), but separating the free action into two does make it easier to read at least, and getting rid of the greater/lesser clause is good too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gnomezilla said:

I what...I don’t...what happened here?!?!! That makes about as much sense as moving his walk to a free action because fluff I AM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THAT.

 

 

@Maladroit once I am on the laptop I will compare lengths of text block to what is already there (can’t cut and paste easily on mobile), but separating the free action into two does make it easier to read at least, and getting rid of the greater/lesser clause is good too.

It will still be 4 lines of text I think, but I had overlooked that it would need another stat line as well if it were two seperate actions. So I don't think it will work - even if you remove the push. Perhaps if the transfer power went on to the front of the card but I don't see that happening? It should probably be called redistribute power or something different as well . . . .

 

Other people have suggested using repeat to clean up the wording. Maybe something like:

 

"Target friendly construct discards a power token. Another construct within range gains a power token. This model may end one condition on any model that gained a power token. This action may be repeated however no model may discard or gain more than one power token using this action each turn."

I think this uses 4 lines of card space like the existing action - but it might still be unclear - could a model discard a token on the first run then gain one on the second? I am sure someone can do this better than I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or "Discard a Power Token from any number of models in range.  Choose a model in range who did not discard or gain a Power Token.  That model gains a Power Token and may end one Condition.  Then, if fewer models have been chosen than the number of discarded Power Tokens, repeat this effect."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, retnab said:

Or "Discard a Power Token from any number of models in range.  Choose a model in range who did not discard or gain a Power Token.  That model gains a Power Token and may end one Condition.  Then, if fewer models have been chosen than the number of discarded Power Tokens, repeat this effect."

I think I like this better than mine but I would add friendly to the first sentence:

"Discard a Power Token from any number of friendly models in range."

I think the other issue is, as this reads(and this applied to mine as well) you could use it to end the condition on any model, construct or other, friendly or non-friendly. So the second line might need to be worded to reflect the intent - I am not sure it was intended to be used on enemy models because it does not say what resistance to use. Perhaps the second line should read:

"Choose a friendly model (construct?) in range that did not discard or gain a power token this turn/action."

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, I think the wording is too much. Simple, but effective. 

Remove a power token from a friendly model and give it to another friendly model and remove a condition. If a condition is removed, repeat this action. 

This seems clean and to the point while remaining effective. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IronmanKC81 said:

again, I think the wording is too much. Simple, but effective. 

Remove a power token from a friendly model and give it to another friendly model and remove a condition. If a condition is removed, repeat this action. 

This seems clean and to the point while remaining effective. 

 

This creates a... Power Loop:ph34r:

I can repeat this action infinitely if I have enough conditions.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Maladroit said:

I think I like this better than mine but I would add friendly to the first sentence:

"Discard a Power Token from any number of friendly models in range."

I think the other issue is, as this reads(and this applied to mine as well) you could use it to end the condition on any model, construct or other, friendly or non-friendly. So the second line might need to be worded to reflect the intent - I am not sure it was intended to be used on enemy models because it does not say what resistance to use. Perhaps the second line should read:

"Choose a friendly model (construct?) in range that did not discard or gain a power token this turn/action."

Shenlong doesn’t have a resist for his conditions swapping either—but I hate that and have often wished that would go away. Still, if you didn’t want to precede the entire power transfer with italicized ‘friendly only’ (which should cover the whole text block) there is at least data on what happens when low river monks bop one of their own upside the head before Shen drops the entire stack on someone else.

1 hour ago, IronmanKC81 said:

again, I think the wording is too much. Simple, but effective. 

Remove a power token from a friendly model and give it to another friendly model and remove a condition. If a condition is removed, repeat this action. 

This seems clean and to the point while remaining effective. 

Efficient...but oh man, lacking in reliability and I never specified reliability! I am a terrible engineer—

(*waits for the mental shockwave of ‘no shit, Sherlock’ to pass*)

—I was hoping to reliably move two at least, but that power loop is so tempting...

Share this post


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...