Guilty as charged

[Ming]

There is some confusion about Guilty's Guilty as charged. Ability.

Friendly Tormented models may treat Guilty as an enemy model for the purposes of Actions, Abilities, and Triggers.

Initially I though that you need to treat a Guilty as an enemy for the entire action, including the triggers. Now there's an opinion, that you can treat a Guilty as a friend for an action and as an enemy for its trigger. Which version is correct? 

[Starrius]

It means you can do enemy only triggers and also if they have blast attacks you can blast off of your own models

[Ming]

That's not my question. If I want to declare enemy only trigger or blast off the model, do I need to declare the model as an enemy from the start? Can it relent? Can I treat it as a friend for the Action and an enemy for the action's trigger?

[Starrius]

It's still friendly but for the purposes of triggers and things you can also count it as an enemy

[Starrius]

It's the shodingers cat of malifaux it is both friendly and and enemy at the same time

[Adran]

I personally feel if you are treating a model as Friendly for the action, you can't change mid way through the action. So I don't think you can relent and then use enemy only triggers.  I can't point to any rules to back this up, other than the declaration of triggers is part of the action, so you need to be counting it as enemy at that point which is during the action, so if you've already treated the model as friendly during that action (by relenting) you have nothing that allows you to change your mind

[Ming]

I would initially agree with you, but I'm looking at Jack's current version of Suppressed Memories and it seems like it was redesigned so that you could attack the Guilty to place next to it using trigger, but without attaching an upgrade.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Ming said:

I would initially agree with you, but I'm looking at Jack's current version of Suppressed Memories and it seems like it was redesigned so that you could attack the Guilty to place next to it using trigger, but without attaching an upgrade.

Its possible that they rephrased it that way so that you could take advantage of the Punishment trigger when  you attacked your own models without having to use up your limited supply of cursed upgrades.

I don't know, but that's not a good enough argument to make me change my mind.

 

[Ming]

When can we get an official FAQ for all the questions? It's a pity that Wyrd don't answer us here.

[Adran]

Just now, Ming said:

When can we get an official FAQ for all the questions? It's a pity that Wyrd don't answer us here.

Wyrd haven't given us a timeline for FAQs.  If I was a betting man I would think January is a good bet, but have no evidence to support that.

And speaking as someone that remembers the rules forums from a time when Weird did answer questions on them, its a lot of effort to run that sort of system in a way that people can find what the rules are, so I'm not upset that they don't answer individual questions on the forums.  (it can be made to work, but its a lot more complex than just having a person write an answer in the thread).

If your location has serious problems with unclear rules, you could try making a local FAQ that would explain how you locally are ruling some of these interactions.

[Jesy Blue]

It never actually become an enemy model... at no point in what it does does your opponent get to claim it's results.

 

[Gloomy]

The way I play it is you can do the 'on your heels' trigger without attaching a cursed upgrade to the guilty.

My reasoning is that The Guilty is never an actually an enemy model but you 'may treat' it as one for the purposes of actions, abilities and triggers. So you may treat it as one for just the purposes of the trigger. That's the way i read it anyway, the wording seems to give the player the choice as and when to treat the guilty as an enemy.

I think if you have to attach a cursed upgrade to the guilty it would make the ability quite crappy as the guilty would be staggered every turn and less useful as an anchor point.  In fact I probably wouldn't bother doing it if that was the case

[Ogid]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

And speaking as someone that remembers the rules forums from a time when Weird did answer questions on them, its a lot of effort to run that sort of system in a way that people can find what the rules are, so I'm not upset that they don't answer individual questions on the forums.  (it can be made to work, but its a lot more complex than just having a person write an answer in the thread).

I've seen games doing it and it's true that if the answers are left unatended and get buried in the forum, it can get really messy.

The way to make that system work is creating a subforum for official responses only, where a thread is created for every issue with the question, official answer and a link to the original thread where it was discused.

But a well made FAQ covering all the non-resolvable issues and updated regularly also works quite well.

[Maniacal_cackle]

If you couldn't separate out triggers and actions... Wouldn't it just say for actions?

What is the point of including 'and triggers' if you have to treat it as an enemy for the entire action?

I suppose it could be a clarification thing.

[Adran]

26 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

If you couldn't separate out triggers and actions... Wouldn't it just say for actions?

What is the point of including 'and triggers' if you have to treat it as an enemy for the entire action?

I suppose it could be a clarification thing.

I personally would guess clarification (there are a lot of triggers that are enemy only), and also there are triggers that affect enemy models that they didn't target (such as the drowned undertow). I think that would still have been covered on the current text, but there would have been questions about it. (There are already plenty of questions on triggers out there and if they are affected by things which affect the action, such as focus even though the rules actually answer that one)

I can't see a tormented resistance trigger that affects enemy models, but if there was one, then it would need the trigger wording in there to work on the guilty

 

I must admit I'm assuming that enemy and friendly are mutually exclusive, so if you are treating a model as an enemy you can't be treating it as friendly at the same time. That's not specified in the M3 rules and for most of the public beta testing there were no abilities that changed the friendly/enemy status, but towards the end they did put in 2 abilities which did this (see also exclusive interview and related questions), and didn't update the friendly/enemy status to clarify exactly what changing that does.

 

14 hours ago, Ogid said:

I've seen games doing it and it's true that if the answers are left unatended and get buried in the forum, it can get really messy.

The way to make that system work is creating a subforum for official responses only, where a thread is created for every issue with the question, official answer and a link to the original thread where it was discused.

But a well made FAQ covering all the non-resolvable issues and updated regularly also works quite well.

As well as the effort to maintain in order, it also places a much higher burden on the player base to keep checking that forum to know the rules.  There was several hundred entries in M2E faq, that's a lot of forum posts to look through, but only a few pages of a single document which you can scan relatively quickly for the information you want.