Cleaning up the schemes...

[Maniacal_cackle]

We have an influx of new players, and I wanted to present a clearer breakdown of the schemes that:

1. Intuitively breakdown the within X" and LOS rules.
2. Fixes the friendly controlled/enemy controlled issue.

This also seems to be a hot topic on the forum at the moment, so thought it would be a good time to write all this up.

Just to check, is this the 'correct' interpretation of how all the schemes should work? Changes are underlined.

Quote

1. Breakthrough

Reveal: At the end of the turn, if you have one or more friendly Scheme Markers and a friendly model in the Deployment Zone, and there are no enemy models within 4 of that model, you may reveal this Scheme and remove one such Scheme Marker to gain 1 Vp.

End: At the end of the game, if you have three or more friendly Scheme Markers in the enemy Deployment Zone, you may remove three such Scheme Markers to gain 1 VP.

Quote

2. Take Prisoner

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if you have a friendly model engaging the chosen model and there are no other enemy models within 4 of the chosen model, you may reveal this Scheme to gain 1 VP.

End: At the end of the game, if you have a friendly model engaging the chosen model, or if the chosen model was killed by a model controlled by your opponent, gain 1 VP.

Vendetta- as written

Assassinate - as written

Quote

Claim Jump

At the beginning of the game, secretly choose a friendly non-Leader model.

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if there are no enemy models within 3 of the secretly chosen model and the secretly chosen model is within 2" of the centrepoint, you may reveal this Scheme to gain 1VP.

End: At the end of the game, if the secretly chosen model is still in play with half or more of its maximum Health and within 2" of the Centrepoint, gain 1 VP.

Quote

Hidden Martyrs

At the beginning of the game, secretly choose two friendly non-Leader models with a total combined Cost of 13 or lower.

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if exactly one of the chosen models was killed by a model controlled by your opponent, gain 1 VP.

End: At the end of the game, if exactly one of the chosen models is engaged by an enemy model of Higher Cost and that chosen model has more than half its maximum Health, gain 1 VP

Quote

Sabotage:

At the beginning of the game, secretly choose a terrain piece within 3" of the enemy Deployment Zone.

Reveal: at the end of the turn, if you have two or more friendly scheme markers that meet all of these conditions:

1. within 2" of the chosen terrain piece
2. on the enemy table half
3. not within 3 of an enemy model

You may remove two such scheme markers to gain 1 VP.

End: At the end of the game, if the chosen terrain piece has no enemy scheme markers within 2" of it and one or more friendly scheme markers within 2" of it and on the enemy Table Half, you may remove one such friendly Scheme Marker to gain 1 VP.

Sabotage is a bit ugly no matter how you slice it.

Quote

Catch and Release

At the beginning of the game, secretly choose a friendly Minion.

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if the chosen model is within 1 of an enemy Master or Henchman and not engaged by any other enemy model, gain 1 VP.

End: At the end of the game, if the chosen model is in play, on the enemy Table Half and not engaged, gain 1 VP.

Quote

Research Mission

Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if you have a friendly model within 4 of three or more different types of Markers on the enemy Table Half, including Strategy Markers, gain 1 VP.

End: At the end of the game, if you have three or more friendly models each within 2 of a different type of Marker on the enemy Table Half, including Strategy Markers, gain 1 VP.

Spread them out - as written.

Runic Binding - as written.

Right, did I miss anything? Or does this revision fix all the schemes (in regards to friendly/enemy controlled and range/LOS)?

[Adran]

The use of the Aura looks a little strange, and as written you seem to be jumping it around what you are drawing the aura from. This might be a side effect of you basically just find and replacing. Its also a little strange that its a 1 time affect from an aura that is a lasting effect.  I understand what you're trying to do, I'm not sure its that much clearer. (I'd have picked a pulse rather than an Aura for the time thing, ). For example you seem to have the Auras coming from the markers in research mission, but you can't be affected by more than 1 aura of the same name. You can get round this sort of thing with wording, but it probably would need more written rules to work as you want without more questions coming up.

 

I can't think of a situation off hand where "enemy-controlled model" and "Model controlled by the opponent" aren't the same, but in that case, "enemy-controlled model" is shorter.

[Ogid]

At first glance all seems OK, those are good substitutes.

However I also think it could make things harder for them in the long run. The schemes aren't that hard to understand and a lot of abilities in the game use that same kind of wording; so it'd be better for them (imho) if they wrap their head around it asap as it'll also help them to read well a lot of other abilities and actions. Also as the oficial wording is in the app and cards, they can also be confused by that.

Walking them through every one of them and being sure they understand how read within X'' and LoS (plus how this friendly-enemy controlled wording is itended to work) should be enough.

[Maniacal_cackle]

19 minutes ago, Adran said:

I can't think of a situation off hand where "enemy-controlled model" and "Model controlled by the opponent" aren't the same, but in that case, "enemy-controlled model" is shorter.

Great points all around! This is the main thing that stands out - 'enemy controlled model' means a model that is controlled by its opponent (rather than its owner). The end result is a mistake (Take Prisoner for example doesn't work).

I think during the beta they probably had the correct version and then changed it? But the one that got printed doesn't work.

[mDzierzan88]

If i may have question about "Research Mission" scheme.

Does Markers, you want to count, need to be completely on the opponents side of the table, or it's enough if only a portion of the marker is located there,

and

Does the scheme require a model, who want to score VP to be also on the opponents side of the table or it's just the markers?

 

[santaclaws01]

15 minutes ago, mDzierzan88 said:

If i may have question about "Research Mission" scheme.

Does Markers, you want to count, need to be completely on the opponents side of the table, or it's enough if only a portion of the marker is located there,

and

Does the scheme require a model, who want to score VP to be also on the opponents side of the table or it's just the markers?

 

Markers only have to be partially on their half. Only the markers need to be on their table half.

[mDzierzan88]

@santaclaws01 Thank You. 

[mDzierzan88]

I have yet another question.

Runic Binding - what area between the markers is considered the "triangle"?

Is the Triangle:

a) made out lines that are measured the same way as range of an Action (from the closest apex point to the closest apex point of the markers)

or

b) it based on lines that are measured the same way as LoS (form and to both left and right apex point od the markers) - in this case I assume it would be the outter line that is considered, since it will make te triangle slighlty larger.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, mDzierzan88 said:

I have yet another question.

Runic Binding - what area between the markers is considered the "triangle"?

Is the Triangle:

a) made out lines that are measured the same way as range of an Action (from the closest apex point to the closest apex point of the markers)

or

b) it based on lines that are measured the same way as LoS (form and to both left and right apex point od the markers) - in this case I assume it would be the outter line that is considered, since it will make te triangle slighlty larger.

I assume it is the outer lines.

[Angelshard]

@mDzierzan88 it doesn't have to be a triangle. You just have to use at least three markers, and they all have to be within 10" of each other, but you can make any shape out of markers within those restrictions. 

[mDzierzan88]

On 9/29/2020 at 3:15 PM, Angelshard said:

@mDzierzan88 it doesn't have to be a triangle. You just have to use at least three markers, and they all have to be within 10" of each other, but you can make any shape out of markers within those restrictions. 

Yes, I'am aware of that, it can be even something close to a straight line, but what I'd like to know is, where a model have to be, on that 10" line, to be counted for the scheme.
I know that distance between the points a asked about is small, but sometimes this can be the difference between having a point or not.

Because if we put two markers, precisely 10" form each other, and we assume that the field of scoring is counted from the most left/right point of the marker (the way we draw LoS), then that line will be longer by about 1,5" 

[Rufess]

When measuring distance there is no doubt that should be measured between the closest point per the rule. But when measuring the area formed between markers, I think it should be measured form the outermost edge, including the area occupated by the marker itself. 

[mDzierzan88]

Ok, Thanks guy's.

We'll play it that way, unless someone will come up with other ideas.

Cheers.