Public Enemies token spending

[Armour]

Quote

At the end of each Turn, a Crew may discard all Bounty Tokens from any friendly models in play. Then that Crew gains 1 VP if there are no enemy models in play or if it discarded at least X Bounty Tokens, where X is equal to the VP gained from this Strategy, plus 2.

So at the end of a turn, the "may" allows you to not discard bounty tokens- this could be useful in turn 1, as you can't score points at the end of that turn.

My question is if the "any models" means you may leave tokens on some models during an end phase, even if discarding some to score a VP from the strategy.

For example:

End phase of turn 2. 
Jorogumo has 3 bounty tokens, Katashiro has 2 bounty tokens.
3 tokens are needed for the 1st point from the strategy.  Can you discard the tokens from the Jorogumo, but not the extra ones from the Katashiro, keeping them until turn 3 and still score the strategy?

[Clement]

Correct.  You select as many or as few models as you want, then discard ALL the tokens from those models.  So you could remove all the Jorogumo tokens and none of the katashiro, but you could NOT remove all the Katashiro and only 1 Jorogumo token.

[katadder]

Much as I agree I have seen people rule it that you remove all tokens from all models if you choose to remove any.

Love the ambiguity in wyrd rules writing sometimes 😂

[Armour]

17 hours ago, katadder said:

Much as I agree I have seen people rule it that you remove all tokens from all models if you choose to remove any.

Love the ambiguity in wyrd rules writing sometimes 😂

The ambiguity is unfortunately the issue here.

I'll recommend to my player community that we play it as being able to remove from a selected number of models rather than all, but it probably needs to go into a FAQ if the strategy sticks around, or the GG1 document should be clarified.

[Sol_Sorrowsong]

If I recall correctly, there was a portion of TFW podcast with Wyrd devs where they talk about this scheme removal of All tokens from an individual model. Not that it was necessary to remove all tokens from all models.

 

Logically, it is a difficult strat to score full points on anyways, because most people have one or two designated killers so some points are lost here and there regardless.  I think if you started from 0 after scoring, it would be very difficult to get more than a couple points and furthermore, there are simpler ways of writing those rules.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I assumed it was all models, but reading the stuff here, seems very likely it is all tokens from any number of models.

There are several ways they could gave phrased it if they meant all markers from all models.

[regleant]

Just curious now that we're some number of months in, which way have people been playing it? My group has been spending ALL tokens, because that's what the scheme says to do. But I can see an argument going the other way (select any number of friendly models, then discard all of their bounty tokens). 

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, regleant said:

Just curious now that we're some number of months in, which way have people been playing it? My group has been spending ALL tokens, because that's what the scheme says to do. But I can see an argument going the other way (select any number of friendly models, then discard all of their bounty tokens). 

I've swapped to playing it as choose any number of models, and overall I'd say it is better.

Now it's a relevant choice which model you kill things with, etc.

[touchdown]

I don't really see how it's ambiguous. If they meant all tokens it would be a lot easier to write a crew may discard all bounty tokens. There would be no reason to specify from any models.

[regleant]

33 minutes ago, touchdown said:

I don't really see how it's ambiguous. If they meant all tokens it would be a lot easier to write a crew may discard all bounty tokens. There would be no reason to specify from any models.

 

Writing rules in simple English has not been Wyrd's forte', otherwise the rules forum wouldn't need to exist.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 hours ago, regleant said:

 

Writing rules in simple English has not been Wyrd's forte', otherwise the rules forum wouldn't need to exist.

 

To be fair, Magic: The Gathering (arguably a simpler game) has over 200 pages of detailed rules to achieve a high level of clarity. It isn't exactly feasible for Wyrd to hit the level of detail necessary for clarity, and I'd much rather have messy, complex & fun rules over simpler & clear.

[LeperColony]

28 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

To be fair, Magic: The Gathering (arguably a simpler game) has over 200 pages of detailed rules to achieve a high level of clarity. It isn't exactly feasible for Wyrd to hit the level of detail necessary for clarity, and I'd much rather have messy, complex & fun rules over simpler & clear.

While true, it's not actually so clear cut.  They used to (and maybe still do) offer free 20 card starter packs that also included a rules card.  And that rules card was sufficient to teach the vast majority of the game.

If anything, I think Wyrd would benefit from Magic's model.  The basic rulebook is sufficient for the vast majority of cases, but having a comprehensive set of the rules that really broke down these interactions step-by-step would be an authoritative source for resolving the outliers. 

[regleant]

2 hours ago, LeperColony said:

While true, it's not actually so clear cut.  They used to (and maybe still do) offer free 20 card starter packs that also included a rules card.  And that rules card was sufficient to teach the vast majority of the game.

If anything, I think Wyrd would benefit from Magic's model.  The basic rulebook is sufficient for the vast majority of cases, but having a comprehensive set of the rules that really broke down these interactions step-by-step would be an authoritative source for resolving the outliers. 

While I agree that a comprehensive source for outliers would be great, i would hardly call a misunderstanding on 25% of the core strategies an outlier. We have people playing a core component of the game different ways, depending on what their local groups agree to. That’s one reason I stopped playing anything by GW.