GG1, FAQ & Errata: Arcanist changes

[Scatterbrain]

Errata:

ARCANISTS

Steam Arachnid Swarm

•  Metal Claws stat reduced from 6 to 5

Soulstone Miner

• Armor +2 changed to Armor +1. 
• Mv reduced from 5 to 4.
• The Earth Beneath Your Feet now adds: “Until the start of this model’s next Activation, it is ignored for friendly Schemes and Strategies.”

Order Initiate 

• Cost decreased by 1.

Errata Rules:

• Pg 12. Actions Generated by Triggers Callout – Paragraph 2
• Change the text of the paragraph to: “Actions generated by Triggers (and any subsequent Actions generated) cannot declare Triggers, and like other generated Actions, they do not count against a model’s Action limit.”

Thanks to @Ogid in the Neverborn discussion for pointing out that this will effect Marcus (though I am too inexperienced to figure out exactly how. 😆)

• Pg 32. Replace
• The Rules and Steps for replacing models were adjusted to the following:
• If any original model(s) had Activated, all new models are treated as having Activated; otherwise, new models are considered not to have Activated. If this Replace occurred during an original model’s Activation, one new model may instead continue that Activation using any remaining Actions.

Will this effect how players currently use two Coryphees and the Coryphee Duet?

 

[Scatterbrain]

If you have missed them so far, you can see the original sources here: 

 

 

[Mycellanious]

I dont think it changes the Duet at all, or if it does it just kind of breaks the game? Since the model would be Activated and Activating at the same time?

[CD1248]

It stops the activate-split-activate-reform chain I think, because when the Duet splits the Coryphee that isn't continuing the activation counts as already activated.

[Morgan Vening]

26 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

I dont think it changes the Duet at all, or if it does it just kind of breaks the game? Since the model would be Activated and Activating at the same time?

What was happening, was...

Duet Activates.
Duet splits, nominating one Coryphee to be the active one and end Activation.
Activate the unactivated Coryphee, rejoin.
Duet gets another set of Actions.

Dammit, @CD1248 ! I am too slow!

[Mycellanious]

3 minutes ago, CD1248 said:

It stops the activate-split-activate-reform chain I think, because when the Duet splits the Coryphee that isn't continuing the activation counts as already activated.

Except is doesnt tho. 

"If any original model(s) had Activated, all new models are treated as having Activated; otherwise, new models are considered not to have Activated. If this Replace occurred during an original model’s Activation, one new model may instead continue that Activation using any remaining Actions."

"Manipulative – Is a model treated as having Activated during its own Activation for the Turn? a) No. During Step C.3 of a model’s Activation (pg. 21) is when it is treated as “having Activated” for the Turn. Any Actions against a model with Manipulative during Steps C.1 & C.2 of its Activation still suffer the - from Manipulative"

A model isnt considered Activated until its Activation actually ends, so when the Duet uses Dance Apart it is NOT considered to be Activated, meaning none of the one models being Replaced are considered Activated, so one model continues the Activation and the other Corepheee is considered UNactivated.

The issue is what happens when that Corephee tries to Dance Together. The new Duet would be considered to be "Activated," but its still in the middle of its Activation? So since its in its Activation it may continue using any available actions?

[Jordon]

1 hour ago, Scatterbrain said:

Order Initiate 

• Cost decreased by 1.

Errata Rules:

• Pg 12. Actions Generated by Triggers Callout – Paragraph 2
• Change the text of the paragraph to: “Actions generated by Triggers (and any subsequent Actions generated) cannot declare Triggers, and like other generated Actions, they do not count against a model’s Action limit.”

Thanks to @Ogid in the Neverborn discussion for pointing out that this will effect Marcus (though I am too inexperienced to figure out exactly how. 😆)

So a bit of a mixed change for Marcus. I've always played it as charge attacks generated by Call of the Wild could not declare triggers but I guess now it's a little more clear. However Initiates are now a point cheaper which makes them a bit more attractive for sure. I still don't really like their role within a Marcus crew however and would have preferred actual rule adjustments rather than a point decrease

[CD1248]

@Mycellanious 

I think the problem is you're exporting a rule clarification on Manipulative to apply to things other than Manipulative. 

The wording of the new Replace seems to be specifically referencing the situation of one splitting into two during it's activation.

So either we accept that the clarification to Manipulative is just that, a clarification to Manipulative, or we've got mutually contradictory errata on our hands. I think the former is the simpler, and thus probably correct, solution.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Mycellanious said:

The issue is what happens when that Corephee tries to Dance Together. The new Duet would be considered to be "Activated," but its still in the middle of its Activation? So since its in its Activation it may continue using any available actions?

If one of the Coryphee perform Dance Together during its activation, that's governed by the last sentence:   If this Replace occurred during an original model’s Activation, one new model may instead continue that Activation using any remaining Actions.  (Emphasis added.). That 'instead' may or may not be redundant, but that's the more specific rule for the more specific case.

Using something like the Collodi Puppet Master action to perform Dance Together or Dance Apart results in the first section being invoked:

1 hour ago, Mycellanious said:

If any original model(s) had Activated, all new models are treated as having Activated; otherwise, new models are considered not to have Activated.

without the possibility of invoking the continuing activation exception.  Or, to think about the other big Replace user, Hamelin using Unclean Influence to make Rat Kings is going to be governed by that.

--

So I think you would still get two activations out of the sequence:

• Coryphee Duet activates and performs Dance Apart, resulting in Coryphee A and Coryphee B.  Coryphee A continues the activation.  Coryphee B has not yet activated.
• Coryphee B activates and performs Dance Together, resulting in a Coryphee Duet that continues Coryphee B's activation.  (You only have one model to choose.)

In the second sentence, that 'may' probably isn't meant as a voluntary choice.  🤷‍♀️

--

Concerning whether the Manipulative FAQ applies, note what the text says on page 21:

Quote

End Activation: Resolve any effects that happen at the end of a model’s Activation. The model is considered to have Activated this Turn.

The Manipulative FAQ is basically just saying "Yeah, really.  It's present tense (Activating) until Step 3, then it becomes Activated."

 

[korgal]

The Rules and Steps for replacing models were adjusted to the following:

1. Place each new model into base contact with any of the original models. If any cannot be Placed or cannot be added due to model limits, the Replace effect is canceled.

2. Each new model’s Health is set to the total Health of all original model’s combined or to the new model’s maximum Health, whichever is lower. If the Replace effect Heals any new models, those new models Heal at this point.

3. If any original model(s) had any Conditions or Tokens, one new model gains those Conditions at the same value (if any) and all Tokens. These Conditions, if gained during the End Phase, do not resolve their effects. Any Summon Upgrades Attached to any original model is Attached to that new model (if able); all other Upgrades are discarded.

4. If the new and original models belong to the same Crew, one new model becomes the target of any effects that targeted or chose any original models, such as Schemes, Leader designation, or lasting game effects. That new model is always considered a legal target for those effects.

5. Remove all original models from the game. If the new and original models do not belong to the same Crew, all original models are considered to be killed, ignoring Demise Abilities. No game effects (such as placing Markers or scoring points) occur from the original model being removed.

6. If any new model is at 0 Health, it is killed.

7. If any original model(s) had Activated, all new models are treated as having Activated; otherwise, new models are considered not to have Activated. If this Replace occurred during an original model’s Activation, one new model may instead continue that Activation using any remaining Actions

[Adran]

9 hours ago, Scatterbrain said:

Errata Rules:

• Pg 12. Actions Generated by Triggers Callout – Paragraph 2
• Change the text of the paragraph to: “Actions generated by Triggers (and any subsequent Actions generated) cannot declare Triggers, and like other generated Actions, they do not count against a model’s Action limit.”

Thanks to @Ogid in the Neverborn discussion for pointing out that this will effect Marcus (though I am too inexperienced to figure out exactly how. 😆)

 

If Marcus makes a model take a charge action, they can not declare triggers on the attack from that charge action.

[Mycellanious]

8 hours ago, CD1248 said:

@Mycellanious 

I think the problem is you're exporting a rule clarification on Manipulative to apply to things other than Manipulative. 

The wording of the new Replace seems to be specifically referencing the situation of one splitting into two during it's activation.

So either we accept that the clarification to Manipulative is just that, a clarification to Manipulative, or we've got mutually contradictory errata on our hands. I think the former is the simpler, and thus probably correct, solution.

"During Step C.3 of a model’s Activation (pg. 21) is when it is treated as “having Activated” for the Turn."

This isnt a FAQ just for Manipulative, this is a clarfication to the general rules. 

The new rule do specifically address one model splitting during it's activation. They say one of the new models may continue the activation and the other is Unactivated

[Ogid]

AFAIK, the new replace rules doesn't affect the Duet in ARC; it's for Puppets (Colodi + Changelings and Vasilisa) that are the ones able to make it dance together out of activation, it also affect Hamelin.

The other important change for ARC is this one:

Soulstone Cache

• Recharge Soulstone only happens when an enemy model within a3 is killed.

No longer Soulstone farming with Colette doves or Ramos/Sandeep suicide summons.

[Jordon]

What are people's feelings about the changes to the SS miner and S.A.S.?

Personally I can still see a lot of value in the miner. Certainly not as powerful as it was but definitely still a valuable model in a good many schemes. I think it's a good change

The S.A.S. however got slapped pretty hard. I now think I'll be looking for in keyword beaters over these. Which is probably still a good change overall.

[Morgan Vening]

53 minutes ago, Jordon said:

What are people's feelings about the changes to the SS miner and S.A.S.?

Personally I can still see a lot of value in the miner. Certainly not as powerful as it was but definitely still a valuable model in a good many schemes. I think it's a good change

The S.A.S. however got slapped pretty hard. I now think I'll be looking for in keyword beaters over these. Which is probably still a good change overall.

That's how I saw both too.

Soulstone Miner now requires work, and allows the opponent a chance to respond, before it just autoscores. That your opponent couldn't really do anything to stop a pair of SSM's from scoring Outflank (or a single scoring Claim Jump), was really annoying. It still can, but now it's got to go through at least a full round of your opponent getting a chance to stop it.

I do think it should apply to Gokudo too. A little harder to pull off, but it can still be obnoxious.

I think the Swarms are still good, and an option for some crews, but not as beaters, and that's a good thing, IMO. Mv5, Unimpeded and Nimble on a 40mm base makes them great schemerunners. But not seeing a pair, plus a SSM or two in most crews, is probably a good thing, and might help evaluate which crews are in need of help, now that they can't rely on these as a crutch.

[dancater]

Overall I don't see much to complain about purely on our side of the fence, the models nerfed were pretty predicable and the nerfs have reduced but not eliminated them as options. 

The Order Initiate needed something, it got it, hopefully it makes them viable. 

Could have fine tuned more of course, always, but this got to the critical issues and seems to have resolved them.

As for other factions, seems like a few folks screaming, predictably. But they certainly seem to have focused on the really troublesome models and adjusted things. 

So overall I'd give the errata portion a 85% score. The GG1 needs to be more slowly absorbed, but on a cursory look over this also appears to have been solidly thought out.

[grundil]

14 hours ago, solkan said:

So I think you would still get two activations out of the sequence:

• Coryphee Duet activates and performs Dance Apart, resulting in Coryphee A and Coryphee B.  Coryphee A continues the activation.  Coryphee B has not yet activated.
• Coryphee B activates and performs Dance Together, resulting in a Coryphee Duet that continues Coryphee B's activation.  (You only have one model to choose.)

 

Hum i don't understand, new replace rule clearly say :

"7. If this Replace occurred during an original
model's Activation, one new model continues
that Activation using any remaining Actions.
All other new models are treated as having
Activated.
If a model is affected"

So why Coryphee B has not yet activated in your example ?

[Jordon]

I just have a hard time understanding the role Initiates play within a Marcus crew. The card draw is nice - as is being a middle of the line beast to act as a pin cushion for Marcus. 

However my main concern with them is still that they lack any real identity. They don't really do anything particularly well, or need too much support to push them into a given role. Mutations are too limited and feel wasted on them when compared to other models with more defined purposes.

Certainly at 6ss they're better, but I know how they play and they're still not good. Maybe you'd invest in 1 just to act as a bodyguard for Marcus but anything more feels like a trap

[Mycellanious]

1 hour ago, Jordon said:

I just have a hard time understanding the role Initiates play within a Marcus crew. The card draw is nice - as is being a middle of the line beast to act as a pin cushion for Marcus. 

However my main concern with them is still that they lack any real identity. They don't really do anything particularly well, or need too much support to push them into a given role. Mutations are too limited and feel wasted on them when compared to other models with more defined purposes.

Certainly at 6ss they're better, but I know how they play and they're still not good. Maybe you'd invest in 1 just to act as a bodyguard for Marcus but anything more feels like a trap

For what they are rn they should be 5 cost models (if you give them 5 wounds)

[solkan]

1 hour ago, grundil said:

Hum i don't understand, new replace rule clearly say :

"7. If this Replace occurred during an original
model's Activation, one new model continues
that Activation using any remaining Actions.
All other new models are treated as having
Activated.
If a model is affected"

So why Coryphee B has not yet activated in your example ?

Which version of the errata are you seeing?

The version I’m seeing is:

Quote

7.  If any original model(s) had Activated, all new models are treated as having Activated; otherwise, new models are considered
not to have Activated. If this Replace occurred during an original model’s Activation, one new model instead continues that
Activation using any remaining Actions.

That’s quoting from the errata summary document.

[Scatterbrain]

4 hours ago, Jordon said:

What are people's feelings about the changes to the SS miner and S.A.S.?

I'm just sad that I didn't get a chance to try them on the tabletop when they were OP.  😆 In all seriousness, the changes seem fair, and from what I have seen, will pretty-much stop folks complaining about the Arcanist faction altogether. Legitimately, anyway.

[Mycellanious]

20 minutes ago, Scatterbrain said:

I'm just sad that I didn't get a chance to try them on the tabletop when they were OP.  😆 In all seriousness, the changes seem fair, and from what I have seen, will pretty-much stop folks complaining about the Arcanist faction altogether. Legitimately, anyway.

Magical Training: Exists

Literally Every Other Faction: "I just came here to have a good time and i honestly feel so attacked rn"

[dannydb]

so the biggest change to arcanists i feel is 

 

multiple replace now adds conditions from all models again 

 

 

so yes 9 focus across two golems is back (just had a game where i had a fire golem on 14 burning and 6 focus turn 1)

[korgal]

17 hours ago, Adran said:

If Marcus makes a model take a charge action, they can not declare triggers on the attack from that charge action.

Adran, can you tell us if the functioning of Coryphee duet changes with the new wording replace, please?

[Bort]

12 hours ago, Jordon said:

What are people's feelings about the changes to the SS miner and S.A.S.?

Personally I can still see a lot of value in the miner. Certainly not as powerful as it was but definitely still a valuable model in a good many schemes. I think it's a good change

The S.A.S. however got slapped pretty hard. I now think I'll be looking for in keyword beaters over these. Which is probably still a good change overall.

S.A.S.   Well, I have a very small malifaux collection, owning only a Hoffman Crew.   I scratch built a pair of these 3 weeks ago, and got to play them once. (since I play like a game every other week).  So personally to me it sucks. But, truth be told I believe it was needed.  I looked at my crew options, weighed S.A.S. against my keyword 8ss Hunters and just couldn't see the Hunters making a list.  So for the game as a whole I believe it was the right move.  Versatile should be a decent option, but not automatically superior to your own keyword options.

 

SS miner.  I honestly believe it got hit harder than it should have as an over reaction to how much it was used.  I believe it wasn't really so much a "good" model as an "easy" one.  It had one job, it did it without me requiring to think about it.  Now... meh.