Corrupted Idols placement

[Erik1978]

"...instead drops the strategy marker evenly on the centerline, touching but not overlapping the strategy marker, impassable terrain, or model"

We had a game today where there was a strategy marker (from the previous turn) in base contact with a large impassable ship.

So placing the new marker touching one of those COULD result in the marker being placed on the other side of that ship, 6-7" farther towards the centre of the table, still on the centerline?

We agreed it made most sense that the marker got placed in base contact with the other strategy marker to place it as close to it's supposed destination as possible, thought nothing seems to support it in the rules?

[Myyrä]

"If the Strategy Marker would be Dropped on top of a Strategy Marker Impassable Terrain or a model the player with Initiative in stead Drops the Strategy Marker evenly on the centerline touching but not overlapping that Strategy Marker Impassable Terrain or model. If this is not possible the Strategy Marker is not Dropped."

From your description, I'm not exactly sure where the marker was supposed to be dropped, but if initial location would have overlapped both the impassable terrain and the other marker, the new marker cannot be placed so that it's evenly on the centerline and touching both of those. Thus it would not be dropped at all.

If it was just overlapping the old marker, then you cannot place it on the other side of the ship, because it would no longer be in base contact with the old marker. You would just place it on the free side of the old marker.

[Erik1978]

Why would you want it to touch BOTH? It never can, unless a model (or terrain) is standing the EXACT distance of a 30 mm marker from the previous strategy marker, ON the centerline. How often does that happen?

The new marker should touch the previous strategy marker, model, OR terrain... not both/all of them. Perhaps I need to post some pictures here to clarify what I mean.

Quote

If it was just overlapping the old marker, then you cannot place it on the other side of the ship, because it would no longer be in base contact with the old marker. You would just place it on the free side of the old marker.

It doesn't say it has to touch the old marker but that's how we played it, as I said: as close to the original position without overlapping either model, terrain, or marker, as possible. 

[Adran]

5 minutes ago, Erik1978 said:

Why would you want it to touch BOTH? It never can, unless a model (or terrain) is standing the EXACT distance of a 30 mm marker from the previous strategy marker, ON the centerline. How often does that happen?

The new marker should touch the previous strategy marker, model, OR terrain... not both/all of them. Perhaps I need to post some pictures here to clarify what I mean.

It doesn't say it has to touch the old marker but that's how we played it, as I said: as close to the original position without overlapping either model, terrain, or marker, as possible. 

Because both overlap the initial placement? If there is only 1 thing blocking the marker placement, then you follow the rules and place it on the center line as the rules say, touching that thing.

If multiple things are blocking the marker, then you have two readings, the first is that it has to touch both, which I can't do, so it won't placed, the second is that the placing player decides where to place it, so long as it is in base contact with one of the "things" covering its supposed spot, and across the centreline. I can't tell which is right, but I think I would lean to the second one as it makes it harder to prevent markers dropping on the table, which I think is a good thing for the game.

[solkan]

I'm not sure, but I think what it means by "evenly" is "with the center of the marker on the centerline".

The idea, as far as I can tell, is that you're not supposed to drop the scheme marker on top of another strategy marker, impassible terrain, or a model.  If the position flipped would put the strategy marker on top of/overlapping one or more of those things, you try to put it next to what it would have been overlapping.  Which side you put it on is the choice of "the player with Initiative", as long as that isn't overlapping something else on the forbidden list.  If you've got a model just covering part of the centerpoint and you're doing , for example, you've got two possible positions instead of just the one "as close as possible to the centerpoint".

If that position would overlap something else, then you go to the "If this is not possible" sentence.

If the idol position is overlapping more than one thing....

I don't know which is the better result.  If you go with "It has to be in base contact with everything, and still on the centerline", that seems like it produces games where you've got models running around in pairs trying to block idol placement.  If you go with "It has to be in base contact with one of things it was overlapping, and still on the centerline", you get more idols on the board.

Either one seems plausible, so the important thing would be to decide which version you're playing when the strategy gets chosen in "Determine Scenario".  

[isilmeon]

Hi guys. In connection with the release of GG0, an important question arose about corrupted idols.  Now, idols markers are created, not dropped, and the explanation about how to place them if the location is blocked by another marker has disappeared. In this regard, a problem arises - for example, Kaeris can fill the center line with its pyre markers and strategy markers cannot be placed at all. The question is - is this just what was intended or is it just a mistake in the rules?

 

[solkan]

47 minutes ago, isilmeon said:

Hi guys. In connection with the release of GG0, an important question arose about corrupted idols.  Now, idols markers are created, not dropped, and the explanation about how to place them if the location is blocked by another marker has disappeared. In this regard, a problem arises - for example, Kaeris can fill the center line with its pyre markers and strategy markers cannot be placed at all. The question is - is this just what was intended or is it just a mistake in the rules?

Note the section in the Marker rules:

Quote

If a Marker is Created, it is treated as Dropped, with the following additional rules described below:

In other words, when dealing with markers, all of the rules that apply for Dropping a marker apply to Creating one.

So this paragraph in 'Adjusted Rules':

Quote

Strategy Markers

When playing in a Gaining Grounds event, if a Strategy Marker would be Dropped by a Strategy and cannot be Dropped in the indicated location, the player with Initiative must instead Drop the Strategy Marker as close as possible to the indicated position and in a way so that it both players or a judge agree has no additional beneficial effects for either player. If the Marker cannot be Dropped in such a way, it is not Dropped.

applies to both Dropped and Created Strategy Markers.