FAQ: Circle Orboros

[brokennecron]

thats true but the question is to whether it prevents freestrikes from missed, trampled models which do not get freestrikes. I know in my gaming community there is still some confusion about this rule and would like to prevent misinterpretation for future FAQ readers.

[Ruan]

Hmm... I can see where you're going. Let me think a bit on how I can rework that. Been thinking of reworking an entry or two anyways.

Any other entries people think could be better worded/made more clear while I'm at it?

[rpavers]

I need to find a ruling and didnt see it in here (might be useful when answer found to add it to general section?). If you are engaged by a model with reach and you don't have reach (geomancy beasts come to mind here), and you target the reach model with a spell do you suffer the shooting into melee penalty or not because you are being engaged?

[taffyjoe]

I need to find a ruling and didnt see it in here (might be useful when answer found to add it to general section?). If you are engaged by a model with reach and you don't have reach (geomancy beasts come to mind here), and you target the reach model with a spell do you suffer the shooting into melee penalty or not because you are being engaged?

Nope, there is a difference between being engaged and engaging. In the case you outline, your model is in melee, it is in an enemy models melee range, it is engaged. Your opponents model is not engaged as it is not in your melee range, although it is engageing, so it does not get the in melee def bonus vs shooting.

[Snowmelter]

Nope, there is a difference between being engaged and engaging. In the case you outline, your model is in melee, it is in an enemy models melee range, it is engaged. Your opponents model is not engaged as it is not in your melee range, although it is engageing, so it does not get the in melee def bonus vs shooting.

Answer is correct, except the explanation is wrong. For both -the rule for the +4 DEF for being in melee and the exception for the magic attack on a target in the same melee- the trigger is being in melee (page 80, Hordes). And page 51, Hordes defines being-in-melee as either being engaged or engaging. For this question it makes no differences, but if someone else shoots(or casts) into this melee there will be the DEF-modifier. With taffyjoe´s explanation it would not be.

[Gsot]

Thanks again for a great thread.

2 fairly common things I've wondered about.

1) can you channel a geomancy spell? why/why not? I do channel them at the moment but only played GGs 3 times.

2) geomancy explicitly states the caster counts as casting the spell, but is in the faq that prevent spell casting stops it. Does this mean if a) the caster is in anti magic bubble b) if either is in or c) if the geomancer is in?

Could rule forum them but it'd be 3 linked questions and the explanations here are much better...!

[PG_LEJKaya]

1: You cannot channel a Geomancy spell. Gallows Groves state specifically that a warlock can channel through them not a beast. (Laris is obvious)

2: When using Geomancy the beast casts the spell. It it the point of origin and the caster.
After the initial cast, the caster is considered to have cast the spell, this means they can upkeep it, they gain any extra benefits (Restoration healing or Parasite armour for example) and also is there in case we ever get a spell that can only be cast once per turn.
So to answer your question, if the beast is in the anti magic area it cannot use Geomancy (Assuming the anti magic in question applies, see Mage Blight).
The warlock being in such a bubble makes no difference.

[Gsot]

Thanks a lot!

[emmonno]

alright, heavy noob question here.
When you channel a spell with geomancy does the caster pay the cost for the spell or do you only force the wold?

[PG_fildrigar]

alright, heavy noob question here.
When you channel a spell with geomancy does the caster pay the cost for the spell or do you only force the wold?

Right here at the beginning of this thread are all of the As of the FAQs.

[Ruan]

I've added a few new entries... notably the Woldwrath section, the above mentioned trample-freestrike clarification (at long last!), the fact that you must be in a forest to claim concealment from it as opposed to 1" and base obscured, that if you and another player are on two different hills of the same elevation, neither model gets the Elevated Target bonus - you have to actually be higher than the other. Electro-leap -> Prey ruling added. Well, most of those added have an Infernal ruling/clarification added.

Anyone have any other suggestions as to any new FAQs not currently in?

[Ruan]

Skorne will be happy with this... Psychic Vampire recently got a re-ruling as to timing on Psychic Vampire, which we as Circle particularly need to be aware of:

When does Psychic Vampire's damage trigger off of spell casting/using an animus?

Psychic Vampire triggers 'when the spell is cast', not 'when the spell is resolved'. Therefore it triggers when you either a) pay the cost for the spell (pay Fury, force for Geomancy) or in the case of Druids/Blackclads, declare your target for a magic attack such as Force Bolt or Stone Spray. If that 1 point of damage is enough to kill the casting model, the spell (or animus) fizzles and does not resolve. Note that this means that effectively Druids are useless as spellcasters in the area of Psychic Vampire, as any spellcasting immediately kills them without the spell going off.

Infernal ruling here.

--Note that Arcane Consumption and Hex Hammer do much the same, but have the additional clause of 'after the spell or animus has been cast' (aka, when the spell has been resolved), which makes their trigger AFTER resolution, in contrast to Psychic Vampire, which is before resolution.

------

Also added:

If you a) have Tough, b) have no knockdown (Steady/Solid Ground), and c) take a free strike while moving, only to pass your Tough roll, can you continue your movement unhindered?

Yes. So long as you have a way to prevent Knockdown and make your Tough roll, you can finish your movement (or yes, even your charge). Yes, if you are slammed or thrown during your turn and would be knocked down, you have to forfeit movement/action. This does not apply here, as you are not getting slammed or thrown.

Infernal ruling here.

[Ruan]

Adding July 2012 Errata content...

Shield Guard fixed back to the way it's supposed to be! YAY Woldwatcher. Does not require Shield Guard model to be a valid target.

Weapon/Head Locks now only work on model of same base size or less! BOO Woldwatcher.

[Ruan]

Added Infernal ruling that when you Sac Pawn a ranged AoE that directly hit, the AoE stays in place and does not move to the Sac Pawn target.

[taffyjoe]

Added Infernal ruling that when you Sac Pawn a ranged AoE that directly hit, the AoE stays in place and does not move to the Sac Pawn target.

Hmm, interesting. So the hit gets passed on and Morv (as our only Sac Pawn model) is unaffected, and if the sac pawn target is under the template is gets hot twice (as all the hits are simultaneous). Or is that wrong?

Mental block moment - how does Sac Pawn and sprays work? or does it not?

[Ruan]

Hmm, interesting. So the hit gets passed on and Morv (as our only Sac Pawn model) is unaffected, and if the sac pawn target is under the template is gets hit twice (as all the hits are simultaneous). Or is that wrong?

Mental block moment - how does Sac Pawn and sprays work? or does it not?

Alright, Morvahna gets directly hit, critically, by an AoE (or a Spray). Lets say that this attack, whatever it is, has Critical Knockdown. Before any damage rolls are made on Morvahna, Morvahna chooses to Sacrificial Pawn to another model in the AoE (or the spray). That model suffers all critical effects (is knocked down), takes blast damage from the AoE, or (if hit again) takes damage from the spray, in addition to the hit + damage transferred from Morvahna.

[Ruan]

Holding off putting anything into FAQ til I get a final ruling, but posting here so I don't forget - Crevasse ruling.

[Malal8]

Kind of a bummer. It seems like Crevasse keeps getting worse over time

[Ruan]

Ruling given from above thread:

The spray is an effect of Crevasse, but not a spell itself. Thus, the damage done by the spray is damage done by Crevasse (it triggers the RFP clause of the spell and is considered damage from a spell), but the spray is not subject to targeting restrictions that apply to spells (e.g., Spell Ward).

On another note, it may be that due to needing to 'target' a model for the Woldwrath's animus to work, Crevasse may work differently than people think....

But resolution on that issue is going to have to wait until cards/book are released and we have the absolute final version of the rules to bring to Infernals.

[Ruan]

Do Gargantuans throwing a small based model get the additional 1" distance?

No. It specifically has to be a large based model throwing a small base model. Gargantuans are on a huge base, not a large base.

Infernal ruling here.

(added)

[Ruan]

Added some more Pillar of Salt clarifications to Mohsar's entry.

[Ruan]

Finally got around to adding Electro-leap rulings for Prey and Finisher (found under pKrueger).

[Ruan]

Added Infernal ruling confirming that Kromac retains his spell list in Beast form (meaning that while he cannot cast spells, they can be Geomancied). We were already aware of this, but apparently some TOs have thought otherwise, so it's nice to get Infernal confirmation of that fact.

Also.

-----

What is the order in which eKaya's feat and other end of activation effects trigger?

Say, for instance, you have a Stalker with Lightning Strike on it. During eKaya's feat, it charges two warjacks, one of which has eSorcha's bond on it - if you end your activation next to it, you are stationary. Stalker kills the jack without the bond, but is left close to the other jack with the bond, ending its activation. At this time, three things happen at once: eKaya's feat triggers, Sprint triggers (killed the other jack), and the Stalker is made stationary because of eSorcha's bond. So what happens?

As acting player, you choose the resolution order for your effects - so you would normally be able to choose to Sprint->Teleport, or Teleport->Sprint. However, the opposing effect - the Stationary from ending your activation next to eSorcha's bonded jack - still goes off, even if the Stalker was teleported away via eKaya's feat. Therefore, the stationary effect triggers, and prevents Sprint from going off.

Infernal ruling here.

----

Still not entirely certain on wording of that one - if someone thinks they can make that clearer (possibly by going a bit more in-depth on trigger resolution rules), by all means post it up.

[niceas]

Quick question about pBaldur's feat and Colossals - following simple RAW, his feat should deny pathfinder to a Colossal - I just want to make sure that a: this is indeed the case and b: suggest that it be added to the FAQ since the pathfinder icon doesn't appear on Colossal cards.

[DarkLegacy]

Quick question about pBaldur's feat and Colossals - following simple RAW, his feat should deny pathfinder to a Colossal - I just want to make sure that a: this is indeed the case and b: suggest that it be added to the FAQ since the pathfinder icon doesn't appear on Colossal cards.

Just like Battle Engines, the rules for Colossals/Gargantuans state that the models have the Pathfinder advantage, even though it doesn't appear on the card. As such, Baldur1's feat will deny Pathfinder for them.

[Ruan]

Unfortunately, it doesn't deny things like Incorporeal... got into a match with Maelok where the two of us were just sitting around waiting to pop our feats and not bothering because it wasn't going to do anything (I was being very careful about Baldur placement, so no incorporeal gators coming at me).

Anyway, two new entries added under pBaldur for both Colossal pathfinder denial and incorporeal non-denial.

[Rez]

Might be worth addin this to the FAQ, odd rule quirk that came up in a game last night.

http://privateerpressforums.com/show...ng-on-Crevasse

[Ruan]

For those interested, a guy at my LGS and I got together and diagrammed Stealth/LoS/Channeling ect. interactions as best as we understood them - currently down in the Rules forum for confirmation.

[niceas]

Edit: NVM. Reading comprehension FTL.

[daman630]

Can you Telekinesis yourself after charging or slamming?Yes. A Woldwarden, Megalith, or eKrueger himself can do their charge/slam movement, successfully reach the target model, Geomancy Telekinesis onto themselves, and so long as they remain within melee range of the target model do their charge/slam attack. Note should you target a friendly model with a charge, you can also Telekinesis OUT of a charge, while still keeping your initial artacks.

I'm assuming this means that you can't telekinesis into the enemies back arc

[Snowmelter]

Of course you can telekinese into the oppo back arc (if you charge to the side and 2" is enough to get there), but you will not get the backstrike bonus, as you started in the front arc. It can still be worthwhile to do so. In the back arc models have no shield/buckler/shieldwall...

[Ruan]

Generally speaking though, it's easier to TK your opponent's model to turn it around than to TK yourself behind it.

Added:

If an opponent does not realize that he is in Arcane Suppression range and attempts to cast a spell but does not have enough fury/focus, what happens?

Say a warlock wants to cast a 2 fury spell, but only has 3 fury on him. He forgets he is in Arcane Suppression range, and declares he is casting the spell. It would normally cost 4 due to AS. However, he cannot pay the cost. As he cannot pay the cost, nothing happens - the fury he has remains on him.

Infernal ruling here.

To the Woldwyrd's section.

Anyone have any rules updates and such?

Currently more or less waiting for Gargantuans to release - when that comes out I'm going to be revamping the FAQ.

[Snowmelter]

Just read the woldwrath entry. I could not believe that "the gun that makes cygnar jealous" does no damage with its AOE´s when the AOE´s are placed. It is sooo crappy, I had to read the card, search the rules forum and read this FAQ before I could believe it.

Something else I found was this
"When engaged in melee, can the Woldwrath still fire his ranged attack? If so, who at?

When engaged in melee by an enemy model, the Woldwrath may still fire his ranged attack at any target. When firing at the target you are in melee with, you do not get the firing in melee penalty. You also cannot get an Aim bonus when firing against a target that is in your melee."

Maybe you could rephrase so that it is clear that you never get the aiming bonus, as long as the gargantuan is in melee. Not only when shooting at models you are in melee with. http://privateerpressforums.com/show...g+melee+aiming

[Ruan]

Yeah, kinda made me sad - that lightning gun would be fantastic if it did damage when the templates were initially placed.

Other is fixed to...

When engaged in melee, can the Woldwrath still fire his ranged attack? If so, who at?

When engaged in melee by an enemy model, the Woldwrath may still fire his ranged attack at any target. When firing at the target you are in melee with, you do not get the firing in melee penalty.

When engaged in melee, can the Woldwrath forfeit his movement to gain the aim bonus?

No. A gargantuan can not gain the aiming bonus while engaged.

Infernal ruling here.

[Malal8]

Yeah, kinda made me sad - that lightning gun would be fantastic if it did damage when the templates were initially placed.

Wow...

I barely see him being worth 20 points with being able to do that. I am shocked the gun doesn't work that way.

[Ruan]

Added some Shifting Stone clarifications, plus..

How does Druid's Wrath interact with friendly magic sprays (such as Crevasse)?

Druid's Wrath requires you to directly target the model with a magic attack. Only the specific model targetted in a spray attack gets the additional die to hit. All other models that fall under the spray template do not. This is because they are not being targetted - they just happen to be in the line of fire.

Does Druid's Wrath give an additional die on magical attacks?

No. MAGIC attacks. MAGIC. I.e, a spell, an animus cast as a spell by a warlock (moot since we have no offensive animi... yet), an attack by someone with the Magic ability (Druid Force Bolt, Stone Keeper Rock Hammer, Blackclad Stone Spray). A magical attack is not a magic attack. Different rules.

Does Druid's Wrath give an additional die on Geomancied spells?

Yes. A magic attack from, for instance, a Geomancied Earth Spikes would get the additional die to hit.

[Bloodydrake]

Does Ghostly prevent free strikes?

Yes. Notably, it interacts well with trample, preventing free strikes from those models in the unit passes and does NOT contact through the trample. For maximum fun, give a Feral Bounding through a Gnarlhorn and Ghostly via a Pureblood's Leadership, Warp Speed, and watch your Feral trample 13" (SPD 8+2" Bounding+3" trample) at effective MAT 9 (MAT 7+2 from Bounding) to hit whatever it tramples over.

I believe this on the first page may be in error. I think the pureblood leadership allows you to select ghostly as a controlled warping effect..which wouldn't allow you to select speed as well..its either or is it not?

[Ruan]

...

I have no idea why it says that. Gah. Good catch. Fixed.

[brokennecron]

I don't think it was changed in this errata but I was reading the most recent one and found this amendment to grayle's sidestep: When this model with an initial melee attack or a melee special attack that is not a power attack, it can advance up to 2" after the attack is resolved. Is there such an attack that is available to grayle?

- side note: thanks for the clarification on trample free strikes (even though it was a while ago now) and I think the amount of effort you put into this thread is admirable!

[Ruan]

Nah. It was due to people side-stepping off of tramples, if I remember correctly. Grayle only has his two normal initial melee attacks, so it's a moot point for Circle.