Jump to content
mattc

Waldo's Weekly - The Evil Has Landed

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Jesy Blue said:

Looks like the app already has the changes!

Talk about timely!

Yeah I must say that the M3E app and how it's handled in regards to updates & support is really a great example of how to manage such an application!
Congrats for everyone involved!

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this is the best place to mention this or not:  I was perusing Wargame Vault (in prep for putting together a card order), and noticed that while cards from the errata are gone (a good sign), Arrrchie is still up.  I'm guessing he's not tagged as an alt Archie somehow and got missed.  But I needs me an updated Arrrchie card.  Yes, I can print my own on paper before that, but I prefer cardstock from WGV.   I just wanted to make Wyrd aware.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

Under a new replace ruling, the new model gains all conditions the original model(s) had. which means that if three gamins with Focused +1 each are replaced with a golem, the golem has focused +3 - is that correct?

I don't know why a change to buff a strong Coryphee, a strong Golem summoning and nerf a mediocre rat king creating (even if it's a nerf, because the rat king suddenly get a LOT of focus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, thatlatinspeakingguy said:

Under a new replace ruling, the new model gains all conditions the original model(s) had. which means that if three gamins with Focused +1 each are replaced with a golem, the golem has focused +3 - is that correct?

Oh wow, why is this rule back? It was absolutely horrible to deal with in the beta having golems and rat kings appearing with 3+ focus. I really hope this is just an oversight.

 

As for the FAQ, I have a few(very minor) issues with how some of the answers were done
1.7 seems to answer a different question than the one asked
1.14 doesn't really address the pigapult at all, which was part of the source of those questions.(although the absence of addressing it does answer the question, that kind of goes against the point of putting something in an FAQ to clarify it)
2.6 could probably be worded better or just outright use the question that spawned it, does copying an action and replacing the stat affect suits or fate modifiers(this answer points towards no)
3.7 seems to imply that an incorporeal model can't climb terrain since it is ignoring the climbable trait
5.2 could have been phrased better(e.g.  Q. does irreducible damage get around HtK. A. No)
5.10 A soft answer of the how the "bury effects fail if the model is buried" for actions and abilities that both bury and do something else, would have been better as just a general rules answer.
9.2 same problem as 5.10, but it should also be in section 5 since Grave Golem also has Demise(Immortal Soil)
9.4 also should be in section 5 since multiple models have this action

Also disappointed the spirit flute question wasn't addressed(does a model count as being in range of it's own action with a range of :new-Pulse:(yes I know this is answered in the rules so is moving hazardous auras)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

3.7 seems to imply that an incorporeal model can't climb terrain since it is ignoring the climbable trait

Fixed by the rule book errata:

Pg 37. Terrain Traits – Climbable
Add the following sentence: “If a model ignores this terrain trait, it may still move vertically up and down along the sides of this terrain.”

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Fixed by the rule book errata:

Pg 37. Terrain Traits – Climbable
Add the following sentence: “If a model ignores this terrain trait, it may still move vertically up and down along the sides of this terrain.”

 

Huh, completely missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Also disappointed the spirit flute question wasn't addressed(does a model count as being in range of it's own action with a range of :new-Pulse:(yes I know this is answered in the rules so is moving hazardous auras)

I think 1.14 clears this up though. If you aren't affected by a pulse centered on you and the Range is Pulse 4, then how can you be 'in range' if you aren't affected?

Pigapult seems pretty clear too - the shockwave is centered on the model, so that model will not be affected by the shockwave. Not sure if that was the intent, but it seems pretty clear that's what the FAQ indicates. Maybe the line about not killed by this Action is on the off chance you plop a model on 1Wd into hazardous terrain? 

I do agree though with your overall sentiment. Some of the questions and answers are worded in very awkward ways. Some of them are making me read them over and over to get it clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paddywhack said:

I think 1.14 clears this up though. If you aren't affected by a pulse centered on you and the Range is Pulse 4, then how can you be 'in range' if you aren't affected?

Like I said, I know it's already stated in the rules(1.14 is just direct quoting a rule there), but moving hazardous auras is also covered by the rules, and moving hazardous auras hasn't spawned multi-page discussions.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Pigapult seems pretty clear too - the shockwave is centered on the model, so that model will not be affected by the shockwave. Not sure if that was the intent, but it seems pretty clear that's what the FAQ indicates. Maybe the line about not killed by this Action is on the off chance you plop a model on 1Wd into hazardous terrain? 

The shockwave isn't centered on the model the shockwave marker is. Also that would be hazardous terrain killing the model, not the action. Not to mention the trigger would already be resolved by the time hazardous terrain is resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

Like I said, I know it's already stated in the rules(1.14 is just direct quoting a rule there), but moving hazardous auras is also covered by the rules, and moving hazardous auras hasn't spawned multi-page discussions.

 

 

The shockwave isn't centered on the model the shockwave marker is. Also that would be hazardous terrain killing the model, not the action. Not to mention the trigger would already be resolved by the time hazardous terrain is resolved.

"Shockwave 2, Mv 15, Damage 2 centered on the chosen model"

I think that the shockwave is centered on the model, not the shockwave marker, as you seem to say in your interpretation. But I have my doubts. The FAQ confuses me more since they use the Wong example, that for me was already pretty clear due to the word "instead".

6 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Pigapult seems pretty clear too - the shockwave is centered on the model, so that model will not be affected by the shockwave. Not sure if that was the intent, but it seems pretty clear that's what the FAQ indicates. Maybe the line about not killed by this Action is on the off chance you plop a model on 1Wd into hazardous terrain? 

I agree that this doesn't sound like it was the intent, due to that trigger becoming impossible to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

"Shockwave 2, Mv 15, Damage 2 centered on the chosen model"

I think that the shockwave is centered on the model, not the shockwave marker, as you seem to say in your interpretation. But I have my doubts. The FAQ confuses me more since they use the Wong example, that for me was already pretty clear due to the word "instead".

The instead is important. Every other instance of an action being able to shockwave from another model says it is using that model to generate the shockwave instead of dropping a marker. Full Load doesn't have any explicit contradition of the rules(what's needed to override the core rules), and the core rules for shockwaves says that shockwave actions drop a 30mm shockwave marker. That's enough for me to say it drops a marker that is centered on the model. Throw in the built in trigger(and an explicit statement of if a model generates a shockwave it doesn't get affected by said shockwave), and I think it should be clear to anyone that it drops a marker.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The instead is important. Every other instance of an action being able to shockwave from another model says it is using that model to generate the shockwave instead of dropping a marker. Full Load doesn't have any explicit contradition of the rules(what's needed to override the core rules), and the core rules for shockwaves says that shockwave actions drop a 30mm shockwave marker. That's enough for me to say it drops a marker that is centered on the model. Throw in the built in trigger(and an explicit statement of if a model generates a shockwave it doesn't get affected by said shockwave), and I think it should be clear to anyone that it drops a marker.

I see your point, and I align with that interpretation, but I think it should be more clear (FAQ!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

I see your point, and I align with that interpretation, but I think it should be more clear (FAQ!).

Well, that is why I brought it up in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benny Wolcomb's new Rat Bomb trigger needs a rat in base contact with the target. Also rats don't engage models, the enemy would engage the rat, so there will be Friendly Fire involved. Is it correct?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

I think it should be clear to anyone that it drops a marker.

I see where you are coming from. I could see it that way and makes sense to play it that way, but I can still see people arguing. Would be nice if they had explicitly called out the pigapult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

There was an unintended adjustment that was made during the tail end of playtesting on Let Them Bleed that ended up creating more problems than solutions. We have since amended the wording on this Scheme to work the way we always wanted. 

Here is the updated wording for Let Them Bleed in its entirety: 

Quote

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemy
models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest
Cost and both models are at half or less than their
maximum Health, gain 1 VP. Leaders and models
with Summon Upgrades are ignored for revealing this
Scheme.
End: At the end of the game, if there is no more than
one enemy model without a Summon Upgrade in play
that has Health equal to its maximum Health, gain 1
VP.

We have updated the Gaining Grounds Season One document on our website and the app will be updated sometime soon. 

This was a unique corner case issue. For other questions or concerns regarding the wording of a rule, please refer to the Rules Discussion forum. 

Thanks for understanding.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Hey everyone,

There was an unintended adjustment that was made during the tail end of playtesting on Let Them Bleed that ended up creating more problems than solutions. We have since amended the wording on this Scheme to work the way we always wanted. 

Here is the updated wording for Let Them Bleed in its entirety: 

We have updated the Gaining Grounds Season One document on our website and the app will be updated sometime soon. 

This was a unique corner case issue. For other questions or concerns regarding the wording of a rule, please refer to the Rules Discussion forum. 

Thanks for understanding.

App is updated.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Hey everyone,

There was an unintended adjustment that was made during the tail end of playtesting on Let Them Bleed that ended up creating more problems than solutions. We have since amended the wording on this Scheme to work the way we always wanted. 

Here is the updated wording for Let Them Bleed in its entirety: 

We have updated the Gaining Grounds Season One document on our website and the app will be updated sometime soon. 

This was a unique corner case issue. For other questions or concerns regarding the wording of a rule, please refer to the Rules Discussion forum. 

Thanks for understanding.

It's not a big deal, but I still don't understand how you're supposed to viably complete this scheme. Isn't it just straight up impossible if your opponent doesn't hire two models with identical soulstone costs? This seems especially hard because higher cost models are more likely to be the only model of their cost in your crew. E.g. a crew would commonly have 1 x 11SS model, 1 x 10SS model, 1 x 8SS model, 2 x 6SS model, meaning you have to kill 29SS of models and then leave two models at less than half. Getting two models to half health and not finishing them is already quite the opportunity cost as we know from Assassinate and Vendetta.

Am I missing something or is this supposed to be a once in a blue moon scheme for the occasion where your opponent brings 2 x 10SS models that you're okay leaving alive for a turn to score a vp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jinn said:

It's not a big deal, but I still don't understand how you're supposed to viably complete this scheme. Isn't it just straight up impossible if your opponent doesn't hire two models with identical soulstone costs? This seems especially hard because higher cost models are more likely to be the only model of their cost in your crew. E.g. a crew would commonly have 1 x 11SS model, 1 x 10SS model, 1 x 8SS model, 2 x 6SS model, meaning you have to kill 29SS of models and then leave two models at less than half. Getting two models to half health and not finishing them is already quite the opportunity cost as we know from Assassinate and Vendetta.

Am I missing something or is this supposed to be a once in a blue moon scheme for the occasion where your opponent brings 2 x 10SS models that you're okay leaving alive for a turn to score a vp?

The 11 and 10ss models are the 2 models with the highest cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The 11 and 10ss models are the 2 models with the highest cost.

How can two models have the highest cost? The wording strongly indicates specifically THE highest Cost, singular, IMO. I hope yours is the intended wording however, as that would make the scheme at least semi-viable.

  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


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

How can two models have the highest cost? The wording strongly indicates specifically THE highest Cost, singular, IMO. I hope yours is the intended wording however, as that would make the scheme at least semi-viable.

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of this language.

There are 3 apples at the store. One costs $5, one costs $4, and one costs $3. What are the two most expensive apples?

You don't say "that's an impossible question because two apples aren't tied for the most expensive."

It even says "(or are tied for)." Suggesting the default case is that they aren't tied.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dzlier said:

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of this language.

There are 3 apples at the store. One costs $5, one costs $4, and one costs $3. What are the two most expensive apples?

You don't say "that's an impossible question because two apples aren't tied for the most expensive."

It even says "(or are tied for)." Suggesting the default case is that they aren't tied.

"(or are tied for)" I read as referring to being tied with your models. Your hypothetical isn't really fair because the only possible answer to that is that two apples of different costs and you're asking for the two most expensive ones rather than those with the highest cost (which is singular). Closer would be 'Buy two apples that have the highest cost', I get two of the same apple at the same price.

By the wording of the scheme it checks whether there are two enemy models in play that have the highest Cost. If I asked 'how many models in play have the highest Cost?' and you said 'two, this 11SS model and this 10SS model' I would be very confused. The scheme should have more clear wording if it is intended to be different costing models, maybe something like:

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemy
models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest two
Costs and both models are at half or less than their
maximum Health, gain 1 VP. Leaders and models
with Summon Upgrades are ignored for revealing this
Scheme.
End: At the end of the game, if there is no more than
one enemy model without a Summon Upgrade in play
that has Health equal to its maximum Health, gain 1
VP.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jinn said:

By the wording of the scheme it checks whether there are two enemy models in play that have the highest Cost. If I asked 'how many models in play have the highest Cost?' and you said 'two, this 11SS model and this 10SS model' I would be very confused. 

If I can weigh in as a 2nd language english speaker.

To me the wording seems clunky, but intent seemed clear enough on first reading.

I read it to mean: "At the end of the Turn, if the 2 highest cost enemy models are in play and at half or less than their maximum health, gain 1 VP."  

 

But now I have read it a few times, and every time came up with different meanings, and I now lean towards (b). Otherwise they could have just used easier language.

So here are my possible interpretations:  (For all of these include the "ignore Summons and Leaders", didn't want to type it out every time)

a) "At the end of the Turn, if the 2 highest cost enemy models are in play and at half or less than their maximum health, gain 1 VP."

    With this interpretation you would look at the start of the game which are the most expensive enemies, and target them for the scheme. Once you get them both to half/below but still in play at end of turn. Score.  So now if the enemy crew contains a 11ss, 10ss, 10ss it means that the 11ss is required. And either one of the 10ss models.  (and the 10ss ones "is tied for" highest) 

 

b) "At the end of Turn. Check what are the 2 most expensive models in play. If both are in the enemy crew, and they are both at/below half, gain 1 VP. "

    With this interpretation you look at game state end of turn.  Check all the remaining models (checking BOTH my and my opponent's crew).  Find the most expensive, and this is where @Jinn interpretation of "or is tied for" referring to your models makes sense to me.    See if both are in enemy crew and at/below half.  If they are, score.

So if enemy has an 11ss, 10ss and 10ss in play AND you have an 11ss remaining you can't score.   Because the 2 highest cost models are not both enemy models, since your own 11ss one has the highest cost.

But if instead enemy has an 11ss, 10ss and 10ss in play AND you have an 10ss remaining you can. Because now the 2 highest cost models are the 11ss one, and any one of the all the "tied" 10ss ones. So as long as the 11ss enemy model and one of the enemy 10ss ones are half/below your good to go.

*Edit.  In this interpretation it also means you can score if at the end of turn enemy has for example an 8ss & 6ss both on/below half, and all you have are 6ss or cheaper models. Even if you both started out with 9+ss cost models in your crews.

 

 

BUT, for both interpretations I had, it's perfectly fine to have a 11 cost and 10 cost remaining.  They are still the highest cost and I agree with @dzlier on how highest cost in a list is calculated. Highest cost = 2 most expensive. Doesn't require them to have the same cost.  Simply requires them to cost more or the same as all other models.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bort said:

I read it to mean: "At the end of the Turn, if the 2 highest cost enemy models are in play and at half or less than their maximum health, gain 1 VP."  

My problem with interpreting it that way is that "if there are two enemy models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest Cost" is very far from "the two enemy models with highest cost" or even "if the two highest cost models are enemy models". Having highest Cost reads to me as a binary state, you either have it or you don't. The wording of the scheme leaves it very open to the possibility of this requirement not being met (possibly only due to the possibility of you having higher cost models than your opponent) which makes it read very ambiguously IMO.

Either way I think this scheme needs to be slightly reworded to make it clear exactly how it is supposed to work.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jinn said:

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are two enemy
models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest two
Costs and both models are at half or less than their
maximum Health, gain 1 VP. Leaders and models
with Summon Upgrades are ignored for revealing this
Scheme.
End: At the end of the game, if there is no more than
one enemy model without a Summon Upgrade in play
that has Health equal to its maximum Health, gain 1
VP.

I hear what you are saying.   I just can't think of a cleaner way to state the scheme (or any of my interpretations of the scheme)

Unfortunately your suggested wording doesn't make it any clearer.  Because if (as you suggest) we use "the highest 2 costs" it can be interpreted as:

Enemy has 10ss and 10ss  remaining.   You have 11ss and 10ss.  

Now, the highest 2 costs as you put it, is "11ss and 10ss".  And both the enemies fall within this bucket since they are "tied for it". 

 

8 minutes ago, Jinn said:

My problem with interpreting it that way is that "if there are two enemy models in play that have (or are tied for) the highest Cost" is very far from "the two enemy models with highest cost" or even "if the two highest cost models are enemy models". Having highest Cost reads to me as a binary state, you either have it or you don't. The wording of the scheme leaves it very open to the possibility of this requirement not being met (possibly only due to the possibility of you having higher cost models than your opponent) which makes it read very ambiguously IMO.

Either way I think this scheme needs to be slightly reworded to make it clear exactly how it is supposed to work.

If, as you suggest, both enemies have to be tied at the same cost and be the most expensive (or at least nothing in your crew can be more expensive than the enemies') then I totally agree, this thing becomes really hard to score.

  • Agree 1

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...

Important Information