Errata/FAQ Live

[Justin]

Hey all,

The first official FAQ/ errata of M2E is posted up on malifaux.com. Also, the floated post at the top of this forum has been updated, so please check it out.

The FAQ document is located here. Check it out and feel free to discuss it in this thread. I will likely lock this thread after about a week so it doesn't endlessly get bumped, but it's a good place for initial reactions.

[Omenbringer]

Still wondering about the interaction of a failed Simple Duel for Drinking Contest on the attacks generated by a Charge action (either the first or second). Does it cause the models to "reset" as instead of the Charge action the model declared On the House instead?

[Ausplosions]

Thanks so much for the clarification of how incorporeal and flying models change height.

Do unimpeded models have a similar advantage? RAW I would say no because Unimpeded grants a boon for severe terrain and height does not mention "severe" although they have a similar 1" to 2" cost.

It just seems that "Unimpeded" models such as Cojo should be able to scale a mountain without slowing down. It's hard for me to visualize how Death Marshals and Samael Hopkins are Unimpeded in the same way though.

No. It's not severe terrain.

[indigonegative]

No. It's not severe terrain.

OK. maybe Unimpeded represents a character who is a dauntless pursuer, pushing obstacles aside, but not a superhuman climber.

[Clement]

Still wondering about the interaction of a failed Simple Duel for Drinking Contest on the attacks generated by a Charge action (either the first or second). Does it cause the models to "reset" as instead of the Charge action the model declared On the House instead?

Pretty sure what would happen here is that the model will test or fail each individual Ml action. The result is potentially charging the brewmaster and taking two "On the House" actions instead of attacking.

[Omenbringer]

Pretty sure what would happen here is that the model will test or fail each individual Ml action. The result is potentially charging the brewmaster and taking two "On the House" actions instead of attacking.

The issue is that the generated attacks aren't the declared action, Charge was. Charge is a 2 AP action, On the House! is only 1 AP. There are a lot of unanswered questions and options in regards to how this plays out. Several of the options have already been described in another thread and I would recommend a read of it.

With the way the attacks generated by the Charge action are being handled it makes the resolution very messy (more so if the second attack generated by the Charge action fails the TN check against Drinking Contest).

[Adran]

The issue is that the generated attacks aren't the declared action, Charge was. Charge is a 2 AP action, On the House! is only 1 AP. There are a lot of unanswered questions and options in regards to how this plays out. Several of the options have already been described in another thread and I would recommend a read of it.

With the way the attacks generated by the Charge action are being handled it makes the resolution very messy (more so if the second attack generated by the Charge action fails the TN check against Drinking Contest).

I still argue (and so far this FAQ seems to agree with me) that you declared the charge - Move, and then are allowed to declare 2 more claw actions. You make the drinking problem for each action you declare. And you DO declare each of the bonus actions from a charge or flurry. Each is a seperate action for the purposes of tests and so forth.

I'm not 100% on the timing of the Drinking problem test but my guess still is that the test is at the same time as terrorfying and manipulative tests, so after you have spent the AP. So if you fail the test when the action you declared was charge, you have spent 2 ap, and get 1 healing flip.

If you pass that test you move to be engaged, then declare claw attack 1. If you fail you heal if you pass you attack. You then declare Claw attack 2, and test again, again if you fail you heal, if you pass you attack.

So passing the test to charge you move and then might attack once, twice or never, and heal once, never or twice (totalling up to 2).

I don't find it messy at all. The actions generated are new actions, paid for by the action that generated them, but you still need to go through the whole action resolution step for each one, as it is a new action so each gets declared in turn and so forth.

[Dracomax]

OK. maybe Unimpeded represents a character who is a dauntless pursuer, pushing obstacles aside, but not a superhuman climber.

WHich is why steampunk arachnids have it, but Joss and Howard do not...Oh, wait.

[Omenbringer]

I still argue (and so far this FAQ seems to agree with me) that you declared the charge - Move, and then are allowed to declare 2 more claw actions. You make the drinking problem for each action you declare. And you DO declare each of the bonus actions from a charge or flurry. Each is a seperate action for the purposes of tests and so forth.

This does not work within the resolution of the Charge action (of which those attack actions are a portion of its "complete" resolution) since a failed test results in the On the House! Action being taken instead of the declared Charge action. The wording of Drinking Contest doesn't just interrupt or negate an actions resolution (like Manipulative) it completely replaces it with another action. Regardless of the attack actions generated by its resolution, the actual declared action was Charge. It isn't a "move and then allowed to declare 2 more claw actions" it is a defined tactical action with its own rules and the attacks are a portion of its "complete" resolution.

[solkan]

This does not work within the resolution of the Charge action (of which those attack actions are a portion of its "complete" resolution) since a failed test results in the On the House! Action being taken instead of the declared Charge action. The wording of Drinking Contest doesn't just interrupt or negate an actions resolution (like Manipulative) it completely replaces it with another action. Regardless of the attack actions generated by its resolution, the actual declared action was Charge. It isn't a "move and then allowed to declare 2 more claw actions" it is a defined tactical action with its own rules and the attacks are a portion of its "complete" resolution.

The FAQ disagrees:

Q: If the Brewmaster has used the Drinking Contest Action and a model declares a Charge against him from outside of the three inch aura, will it have to take a Wp duel to Attack the Brewmaster with the Attacks generated by the Charge Action if it ends the Charge inside the aura?

A: Yes.

"Do you have to take a Wp duel to perform the attacks inside the aura?" it asks, and answers "Yes".

[Sezar]

This FAQ should also Fix the issue of Luring an enemy already in base contact to make it fail a Wp Duel (and so healing Seamus,pe), and also generating an attack

[Ausplosions]

This FAQ should also Fix the issue of Luring an enemy already in base contact to make it fail a Wp Duel (and so healing Seamus,pe), and also generating an attack

You can still cast Lure on it, it just doesn't move. So no pounce attack, but Seamus heals, etc.

[Csonti]

This FAQ should also Fix the issue of Luring an enemy already in base contact to make it fail a Wp Duel (and so healing Seamus,pe), and also generating an attack

They sort of addressed this.

Q: If a model with the Lure Action targets a model in base contact, can Lure be used to move the

targeted model, so long as it ends in base contact with the model taking the Lure Action?

A: No. A model which is already in base contact may not be moved any further with the Lure Action.

So you can't move the target therefore it won't trigger Pounce. But Seamus will heal from the failed Wp duel.

Edit: got ninja'd

[Soundwave]

Made a thread regarding the entire Lure business, since it generated a fair bit of posts the last time.

[Omenbringer]

The FAQ disagrees:

"Do you have to take a Wp duel to perform the attacks inside the aura?" it asks, and answers "Yes".

The FAQ only definitively answers a very small portion of the interaction (namely that the test is taken multiple times) without actually answering the main issue of what happens if it is failed on the first Attack Action or especially the Second. The fact that the Attack Actions are generated as a portion of the resolution of a Charge action (a defined action) does nothing to erase the fact that the original Declared action was Charge and if the tests are failed then the model is forced to take the On the House! Action instead of the declared action.

Though I still strongly disagree with the faq entry and the call out for Actions causing Actions (the later's description is at odds with itself) this interaction needs to be cleaned up. The easiest method would be to clean up the wording of Drinking Contest though the Call Out would also be a good place to start.

At any rate, neither of us is likely to change the others mind so I'll bow out as I have already described the issue in detail in the other thread.