Wong skills doubts

[Deuteros]

Hi, I have a question for two Skills 

First:
-The Glow:  Discard any number of Glowy Tokens from models within range. This model draws a card for every two Glowy Tokens discarded by this Action, then every model within range gains a Glowy Token.

Can I do the skill if nobody has glowy tokens?

second:

- Launch into Space : Once per Turn. Remove target Corpse Marker, Scrap Marker, or Scheme Marker. During the next Start Phase, Drop the removed Marker in this model's LoS, not touching terrain, then all models within 3 of any Markers Dropped by this Action must each pass a TN 14 Mv duel or suffer 1 damage.

Are Scheme marker discarded after the pulse?.

If they are not discarded, can I put them in any place where I have line of sight without any range limit?

Thanks.

[ebolazaire]

1. Yes

2. a> they are not discarded after the pulse b> you can place them anywhere in LOS not touching terrain

[Deuteros]

ohh the second skill is awesome  for scheme  missions

[Democritus]

I've been wondering about another one of Wong's abilities lately. Hopefully I can just tack it onto this thread. 

His ability Uncontrollable Magic allows him to center shockwaves on a friendly model, which causes that model to suffer one damage to increase the shockwave TN. My question is does that friendly model have to take the shockwave test as well? Or is it not hit because pulses don't affect the model they originate from.

My follow up question is, if that friendly model has the Hard Knock Life ability, will it gain a glowy token both from uncontrollable magic and from failing the shockwave test? 

[Adran]

I would say it's not hit because shockwaves are pulses which won't affect the model it originated from ( so the friendly model that is being the marker). 

Which also neatly bypassed the second question. 

[wizuriel]

13 hours ago, Adran said:

I would say it's not hit because shockwaves are pulses which won't affect the model it originated from ( so the friendly model that is being the marker). 

Which also neatly bypassed the second question. 

I think in beta the general consensus is the model is NOT the shockwave marker and it's just centered on the model (so it's perfectly position on them) so the model needs to take the test.

This effects Wong, Pigapult and Collette iirc

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, wizuriel said:

I think in beta the general consensus is the model is NOT the shockwave marker and it's just centered on the model (so it's perfectly position on them) so the model needs to take the test.

This effects Wong, Pigapult and Collette iirc

Actually going to read the card, I think you're right, it centers the shockwave on the model, not replaces the shockwave marker with the model.

[CD1248]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Actually going to read the card, I think you're right, it centers the shockwave on the model, not replaces the shockwave marker with the model.

In this case there is no shockwave marker. That ability is an "instead of" effect for the act of dropping a marker. 

[ShinChan]

On 7/26/2019 at 4:45 AM, wizuriel said:

I think in beta the general consensus is the model is NOT the shockwave marker and it's just centered on the model (so it's perfectly position on them) so the model needs to take the test.

This effects Wong, Pigapult and Collette iirc

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:29 AM, CD1248 said:

In this case there is no shockwave marker. That ability is an "instead of" effect for the act of dropping a marker. 

I agree with @CD1248 here. I don't know for Colette, but for Wong it works differently that the Pigapult. Which is good, since you can get a shockwave with Sz 5 if you want

The rules:

 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by ShinChan
Attached images disappeared

[GrumpyGrandpa]

On 7/26/2019 at 7:55 PM, ShinChan said:

 

I agree with @CD1248 here. I don't know for Colette, but for Wong it works differently that the Pigapult. Which is good, since you can get a shockwave with Sz 5 if you want

The rules:

Does this mean that your model Shockwave-model would take 1 damage, and THEN take a test (with a +2 Resist), which it can potentially fail and thus gain a 2nd Glowy Token?

[Clement]

35 minutes ago, GrumpyGrandpa said:

Does this mean that your model Shockwave-model would take 1 damage, and THEN take a test (with a +2 Resist), which it can potentially fail and thus gain a 2nd Glowy Token?

I think in this scenario, your Shockwave model IS the generating object.  So just 1 damage and no test.

[PolishSausage]

So is it or isn't it?

This is a fundamental ability of the crew together with the pigapult doing the same thing. If we cant figure this out... FFS

 

[solkan]

I've got to agree with @Clement on this one.  Centering the shockwave on an object has to mean that the object generates the pulse.  Because you're doing that instead of dropping a shockwave marker.  So it's a contest between whether they should have said "Generate the Shockwave's pulse from ____" or "Center the Shockwave on ____".  

To copy/paste from a different post...

Looking for the word "center", there are the following attacks involving centered shockwaves...

Actions which say to remove:

• Fitzsimmons' Arson.  Centers shockwave on target scheme marker.
• Saboteur's Arson.  Ditto.
• Undercover Reporter's Arson.  Ditto.

Actions which do not say to remove:

• Angelica Durand's Suddenly Doves.  "may" center a shockwave on a mechanical dove.
• Rasputina's Freeze Over.  "may" center on an Ice Pillar.
• Pigapult's Full Load.  Centers shockwave on the placed model.
• *All of Wong's Shockwaves due to Uncontrollable Magic ability*:  May center shockwave on a friendly model, and the friendly model suffers a point of damage.

For stuff like the Pigapult, it was confusing to me why the wrote about "if the placed model survives", until someone pointed out stuff like hazardous terrain can kill the stuffed pig, especially if it's wounded before being thrown.

 

[CD1248]

While this is reductive reasoning, I think it's important:

If Uncontrollable Magic involved centering a Shockwave Marker on a model,  it wouldn't really work with models on 40/50mm bases like Swine Cursed and Alphonse, because the marker would end up completely under their base and thus not able to draw LOS to anything else. 

Being able to use those big beaters as pulse nodes seems core to Wong's functionality.

 

[Clement]

I come at it from a different perspective.  Arson, Suddenly Doves, and Wong's Uncontrollable magic all use words to the effect of "Instead of placing a shockwave marker, center that shockwave on <whatever>"  Because of that Instead you aren't putting down the shockwave marker, and are using the thing you centered on AS the shockwave marker.   Thus by the pulse rules, it's not subject to the effect.

The Pigapult is where we missed the trick though, because this time out there's no "instead of placing a shockwave marker" language even hinted at.  This leaves us in a lurch as to if it was an accident or deliberate.   Combing back through old beta files, all I can say for certain is that the open beta began with this language in place, and continued through the whole time with it.   MUCH earlier in the closed beta, it used to place next to the shockwave marker after resolving but before removing and then wound/injure/slow it, so at least conceptually the idea (back then anyway) was that the pigapult maimed its payload.  I'm not sure if that change was due to an increase in power or just "cleaning up language" and some assumptions were made.  We've done that before (RIP 2e lucky effigy).

So at least for me, Wong's logic is really simple.  It's the pigapult that's kind of a mystery and needs some clearing up.  For the moment, all we've got is instructions to center on a model and no instructions to NOT use the shockwave marker.   So it would be perfectly centered under the model and now the model is getting hit maybe.

[CD1248]

@Clement Pigapult seems to work as intended with current wording. They could have made the launched model take flat damage and be the generating object (like in Uncontrollable Magic), but I struggle to see the benefit of wording it that way in this case, it would be more words on the card for the same effect.

[PolishSausage]

So, we are in agreement that placing a shockwave marker on a model or making it generate a shockwave is one and the same?

This way neither model (wong/pigapult) forces its shockwave model to take the test?

[Clement]

2 hours ago, PolishSausage said:

So, we are in agreement that placing a shockwave marker on a model or making it generate a shockwave is one and the same?

This way neither model (wong/pigapult) forces its shockwave model to take the test?

My thought is that Wong explicitly uses the model instead of a shockwave marker, so no test for the model.

The Pigapult is putting a shockwave marker under its payload target, so the payload target takes the test.  Also the Pigapult needs an FAQ.

 

[CD1248]

2 hours ago, PolishSausage said:

So, we are in agreement that placing a shockwave marker on a model or making it generate a shockwave is one and the same?

This way neither model (wong/pigapult) forces its shockwave model to take the test?

No, those are explicitly different things and use different wording as a result.

Pigapult is worded differently because in that case the model IS supposed to take the test.

[PolishSausage]

1 hour ago, Clement said:

My thought is that Wong explicitly uses the model instead of a shockwave marker, so no test for the model.

The Pigapult is putting a shockwave marker under its payload target, so the payload target takes the test.  Also the Pigapult needs an FAQ.

 

 

I can live with this as long as everyone is consistent unill FAQ

 

[Beeray]

Both Pigapult and Wong use the same verbiage for it.
"Center On" "Centered On"
I don't think one does something different from the other
[where one does make the model its centered on do the duel and the other doesn't]
But I also think that both cause the model to do the duel
Only because the Action that Pigapult has isn't IF the model survives, its if its not killed by the action.
Dying via terrain isn't dying via action right?

[Clement]

2 hours ago, Beeray said:

Both Pigapult and Wong use the same verbiage for it.
"Center On" "Centered On"
I don't think one does something different from the other
[where one does make the model its centered on do the duel and the other doesn't]
But I also think that both cause the model to do the duel
Only because the Action that Pigapult has isn't IF the model survives, its if its not killed by the action.
Dying via terrain isn't dying via action right?

They don't have the same verbiage though, read the WHOLE thing.  Wong's specifically states "When this model would Drop a Shockwave marker, it may INSTEAD center the shockwave on a friendly <you know the rest>".  That Instead is key to the difference between the two.

Because of that Instead, when Wong uses Uncontrollable magic, the Wizz-Bang model is the origin of the shockwave (and as the origin of a pulse, is not subject to it)

 

[Maciej]

@Deuteros @ebolazaire

For the first question I'd say no. 

Text in intalics is a cost and it must be paid to proceed with other effects. 

[Beeray]

3 hours ago, Clement said:

it may INSTEAD center the shockwave on a friendly

the Instead here has you do it the same way that the Pigapult does
its letting you either place a Shockwave marker or Center like the Pigapult does

[ebolazaire]

8 hours ago, Maciej said:

@Deuteros @ebolazaire

For the first question I'd say no. 

Text in intalics is a cost and it must be paid to proceed with other effects. 

Zero is a number though.