Jump to content
  • 0

Glutonny v Interact to drop Scheme Marker


Question

This is possibly pushing it, but wanted to ask any way. 
Wind Gamin (without any Sin Token) is within 6" of Gluttony. The Wind Gamin takes the Interact action to drop a Scheme marker. Now I want to ask about the timing. I can see it being like this:
1. Wind Gamin declares Interact
2. Wind Gamin gains a Sin Token
3. Wind Gamin chooses to drop a Scheme marker
4. Gluttony discards the Sin Token on the enemy model to drop a friendly Scheme marker instead.

Is that how it's supposed to work? Or does the Wind Gamin gain the Sin Token only AFTER placing a Scheme Marker?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hunger Pangs causes the model to gain a sin token after dropping the marker, and Gluttony needs the sin token before it’s dropped to use Consumed By Gluttony (because he’s reacting to “would drop”).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
32 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think the confusing part is that Gluttony can give a token after the model 'takes' an interact action (not the bit about laying a scheme). He has two different generators.

But I think the conclusion is the same (it isn't 'after taking' until the action is complete).

Good point on this part.  The trigger on Hunger Pangs is "after [an enemy model] takes the Interact Action or drops an enemy Scheme Marker".  In the war-games that I'm used to, if you have a (possibly) overlapping condition like that, you go with whatever happens first.  In this case, if you do that, you end up with two slightly different timings:

- If an enemy model takes an Interact Action, Hunger Pangs will produce an effect at the "after the action has been resolved" step of the action.  That's the point where the model has taken an action.

- If an enemy model drops a Scheme Marker (because of something other than the Interact Action), Hunger Pangs will resolve right after the marker is dropped.

I would be surprised if the designers meant for a model to be able to gain two sin tokens from taking the Interact Action to drop a Scheme Marker.  

I can't think of a scenario with the existing models and effects where the time span between Trigger Point A and Trigger Point B:

  • Model declares Interact Action
  • Model drops a Scheme Marker
    • Trigger Point A
  • "after resolving an action step"
    • Trigger Point B

would make a significant difference.  For example, If the model's going to die due to declaring the Interact action in hazardous terrain, none of the Crossroads models care whether a dead model has Sin tokens.

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
Answer this question...

×   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