Final ruling on Blood Mark

[patisarat]

Sorry if I'm a little slow here, fellow Tyrants, but this final Infernal ruling on Rasheth's Blood Mark spell was posted today, after a long checking hiatus. Interesting.

Final answer is that you can only ever transfer to models in your control area, and it always costs a fury. If a warbeast has fury equal to its FURY stat, you cannot transfer damage to it, friendly or enemy. In other words, take the damage transference paragraph in the rulebook as written, except where it is specifically overridden.

Note that this is different from the original ruling.

[Triumph Of Man]

Well that's a pretty lame hit for fatty mcbutterball.

[AngraX]

sight... well, his spell dropped in utility by 50% at least...

as for zaal, I always played him like that (paying 1 fury in his ctrl area)

[maynardstardust]

This is the exact opposite of their last ruling in every respect point by point.

I cannot believe that privateer press could not explain how they play tested this spell and meant it to work over a year ago when this question came up and we have had to wait until now to have it explain that it works the exact opposite of how it was last explained by infernals to work.

I am a huge privateer press fan and I am very proud to support the company, but I am not proud of how this was handled.

[kantoboy]

So there is a double tax? One to upkeep another to transfer? Wow...that's terribad. Lol!

[Warcaster Feiss]

I think the route they've taken is the better one. It's basically taking the rules as written, which is much better for the population of PP's games since all the players need to do is follow the rules as written, without scouring the forums.

If you read the linked thread, it also makes a lot of sense from a fairness point of view, Zaal transferring to a bunch of Ancestral Guardians for free would be broken beyond belief

[kantoboy]

Well then they should fix zaal. Not nerf rasheth. Blood mark is pretty hard to pull off anyway.

[maynardstardust]

Since this last year and a half was actually an extended open play test on how to make Rasheth terrible you think that I can return him to Privateer Press for a refund now?

Low mileage! I only played him about 4 or 5 time because I didn't want to have a rules debate at the table. So I did most of my play after the previous infernal ruling. Aside from my general laziness this is also the reason why the poor guy never saw the receiving end of a paint brush.

[PG_Pickles]

I cannot believe that privateer press could not explain how they play tested this spell and meant it to work over a year ago when this question came up and we have had to wait until now to have it explain that it works the exact opposite of how it was last explained by infernals to work.

I am a huge privateer press fan and I am very proud to support the company, but I am not proud of how this was handled.

I expect the final ruling was the way it was playtested but that they phrased the rules on transfers badly in the way they cover this (basically they nested two clauses the wrong way round).

When this came to light they followed RAW rather than the RAI, as they seem to do when it does not hugely impact the game. Now this has been changed to a more sensible ruling. I do think it is errata or disambiguation at the very least so should be in an errata document but it seems OK,.

The reason this way is better is not Rasheth who was OK with it but Zaal who was silly & it's more important to have coherent rules than to protect Rasheth's quirk.

I think the route they've taken is the better one. It's basically taking the rules as written, which is much better for the population of PP's games since all the players need to do is follow the rules as written, without scouring the forums.

If you read the linked thread, it also makes a lot of sense from a fairness point of view, Zaal transferring to a bunch of Ancestral Guardians for free would be broken beyond belief

So I agree with this except it now being RAW. It was certainly the obvious reading though.

[maynardstardust]

Well when rules like Talion on Vayl specifically say "May spend one fury to transfer" and Blood Mark does not say this I do no feel that was the obvious reading or the RAW at all. It was a statement that could be interpreted different ways and still is. I agree this is set up to shut down Zaal being stupid good but Rasheth has to be thrown under the bus as well or they will have to make an errata and admit that they need more clarification which they will avoid at all costs.

Blood mark says "can transfer damage".


Black spot says "can make an additional attack" does this mean that I must spend a fury for the extra attack before I make it? No, that would be stupid. But the rules for additional attacks state that I must!

Sorry, I'm going to shut up and keep my grumpiness to myself before they give black spot the work over too.

[Triumph Of Man]

[kantoboy]

Since this last year and a half was actually an extended open play test on how to make Rasheth terrible you think that I can return him to Privateer Press for a refund now?

He is actually pretty decent. I stopped trying to depend on blood mark except as an arm debuff anyway. He wasn't going to break games either way. I'm more annoyed that this spell cost so much and does very little. I mean its 3 to cast, but it now essentially costs 4 to 5 fury to use. It should be awesome.

[jdelrio22]

We have a winner!

[crcalvin]

What the hell? Why was this necessary? It was a nifty and fun spell before, but this ruins it. I can't even think why I'd want to use Rashet now, that's not me trying to say bloodmark made him, it's just another reason not to take him.

[gaminguy]

Blood Mark costs the same as Parasite; it's a weaker ARM debuff but a stronger defensive mechanism, and it forces your opponent to be more cagey with their caster/lock so it has a denial element as well. I was really surprised at the earlier ruling, I thought it worked the way Maudlin just ruled it from the get go and I thought it was a strong spell then so I don't really care.

It would have been nice if it was worded properly in the first place though. I do get the distinct impression that the design team has a hand in the initial testing; since they know what it's supposed to do the RAW would always get played as the RAI if the wording is vague, and that seems to be their biggest issue in testing. The play test team will always have a problem with catching this sort of thing unless they get to play the model cold.

[SkorneOnTheCob]

Wow, this is a terrible ruling and seems to work completely opposite as how it's written. It's previous ruling was more in line with the wording on the card and for me it's just one more strike against an already lack luster caster. This official ruling adds yet more restrictions where I don't feel any were needed.

Sadly, Dominaar was the only Skorne caster I liked (as frustrating as I found him) and I built my purchases around his tier list. I can only hope my group will let me house rule the power back to the cards wording or it might mean the end of my short lived Hordes experience.

[x3tsniper]

Since this last year and a half was actually an extended open play test on how to make Rasheth terrible you think that I can return him to Privateer Press for a refund now?

Low mileage! I only played him about 4 or 5 time because I didn't want to have a rules debate at the table. So I did most of my play after the previous infernal ruling. Aside from my general laziness this is also the reason why the poor guy never saw the receiving end of a paint brush.

Seconded.

Spell cost of 3 and 1 to upkeep and then one to transfer if alll the rules are met, which is pretty easy to avoid if you are an enemy. Terrible spell for a spell slinger to rely on.

I am glad I wasn't a Rasheth fan.

[skeith]

i say silent protest to leave it how it was, same as the silent protest (atleast around here) about having to make a full run when a unit/model fails cmd check.

[rydiafan]

i say silent protest to leave it how it was, same as the silent protest (atleast around here) about having to make a full run when a unit/model fails cmd check.

There's no such thing as a "full run". Fleeing models have to run, yes, but they are quite allowed to run 0".

[Solarhaphaeriom]

The fury cost makes sense, even if it is a big downgrade. Also in view of setting precedence (Zaal and all that).
Being able nullify the expensive spell by moving out of control area doesn't seem quite right, but ok.
Being able to nullify it just by filling up your beast just seems dumb. Guess it was always meant to be put on casters? It's not a useless spell at all now, but it does seem a lot more wonky.

[skeith]

since were talking about fatty, has there been a final ruling on him and the void spirit dark rituals thing?

[Solarhaphaeriom]

Yes, the void spirit is unhurt.

[hamsandwich50]

While I'm not a fan of the control area downgrade part I'm hoping that this clarification was made in preparation for an errata, that way they don't have to clarify Zaal just change the wording on blood mark. This might just be wishful thinking but if errata was the case i think this would be a logical way to avoid more than was necessary.

[AngraX]

The move away from control area does not botter me much. Unless you are playing the likes of eHaley, they will have to be in your control if they send a beast in.

And even if the opposing caster send troops to kill you, he's probably to far away to support his army.

What really displeases me is the fury cost to transfer and the fact you can't transfer to beasts already full on fury, although that was expected I guess.

[Sygerrik]

Really unhappy with this. Rasheth does not need the hit. I'm really hoping that in Mk3 PP takes a serious look at their intended design for him and adjusts his rules to reflect that. I honestly believe he should have Parasite instead of Blood Mark and a Harrow-style universal special rule that allows him one transfer to each enemy model he's tagged with a spell per turn.

[Skid64]

I think what I am most disappointed in is that it is a complete about face from the earlier indications from the Infernals. Then you have the over all cost of the spell, a fury cost of 3 + 1 x # of upkeeps + 1 for transfer; by far one of the most expensive spells in the game. As far as Fatty goes, his control area is large enough I am not going to be adversely affected. In all I can still dump damage to an enemy, so I will use it. But I will use Rasheth far less often.

[Ranhothep]

I really don't understand so much hate. It certainly is a downgrade from the previous ruling, but then again I never expected that one in the first place. For me nothing in the description indicated that the normal fury cost of a transfer should be circumvented. Even currently I think it is a strong spell, since, as has been said, it has often more far reaching tactical implications than just the one transfer. In many armies you can identify the opponent's "killer" be it a jack or beast or the caster himself. Now, due to blood mark you can often make it flat out impossible for the intended model to kill you, while making it for your army much easier to kill it. An armor debuff is a pretty strong spell even without further bonuses.

[Rynth]

Good ruling for the sake of clarity, less good ruling for how "expensive" the spell becomes(3 cost + 1 boost + 1 Transfer, maybe + another one for an upkeep). If you use the spell mostly for the ARM debuff you'll never notice the difference. If you rely on the Blood Mark transfer to stay alive you have my condolences.

There is still hope that in the next round of errata(being worked on right now, so coming soon) will make the transfer free or something. However, PP doesn't usually do buffing errata so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Mnkylord]

Blood Mark costs the same as Parasite; it's a weaker ARM debuff but a stronger defensive mechanism, and it forces your opponent to be more cagey with their caster/lock so it has a denial element as well. I was really surprised at the earlier ruling, I thought it worked the way Maudlin just ruled it from the get go and I thought it was a strong spell then so I don't really care.

Pretty much this. This is the way I thought Blood Mark worked from the get-go... The first ruling seemed "***, are you serious?" good. i.e. Too good to be true. It's still a great spell, and doesn't, in my mind at least, really hurt Fats Dominar that much. He's such an awesome warcaster anyway, with so many good things going for him. And honestly, the ability to transfer isn't usually what I'm using Blood Mark for. It's the ARM debuff I'm usually after.

[patisarat]

I can only hope my group will let me house rule the power back to the cards wording

"House ruling" is a terrible idea. You're asking your group if they could please pretend that one of your own models is more powerful than the official rules state.

And there's no original "card's wording" that you'd be following here. The wording is ambiguous; that's the whole problem.

or it might mean the end of my short lived Hordes experience.

Better you stop playing if you can't play fair.

[Bully Bully Mahu]

Don't get me wrong, I loved the previous ruling, but I depend so little on Blood Mark these days when I play Raseth, this doesn't impact me that much.

Raseth, to me anyways, is all about Breath of Corruption and Carnivore. Blood Mark is usually only sparringly anyways. Not enough resources for a spell that really costs 4 (gotta boast the hit). The only play I like Blood Mark for is as an ARM debuff to a jack that puts most Warmachine lists in an interesting place.

[wazatdingder]

I do not see why this was ever even a question. Like the final ruling says, you follow the rules for transferring unless otherwise noted. Just because one rule puts emphisis on the fact that you still need to spend a focus/fury, does not mean lack of saying so is an excuse not to. Iron Flesh does not say "models with negative speed modifiers cannot charge" so clearly I must be able to.

[SkorneOnTheCob]

I do not see why this was ever even a question. Like the final ruling says, you follow the rules for transferring unless otherwise noted. Just because one rule puts emphisis on the fact that you still need to spend a focus/fury, does not mean lack of saying so is an excuse not to. Iron Flesh does not say "models with negative speed modifiers cannot charge" so clearly I must be able to.

Because the way I (and others) read the spell on the card the word "transfer" seemed more like it was there for consistency of language and not because one was supposed to include all of the limitations of the Damages transferance ability on p.77 of the rulebook. Perhaps they should have just worded the spell to accurately reflect that. The spell as it is now with the new, official ruling is not worth 4 fury in my opinion and just adds another black mark against an already underpowered caster (at least compared to the ones I've faced).

Time to add me to the refund list and start offloading this faction.

[Vapour]

Time to add me to the refund list and start offloading this faction.

Seems like an overreaction, considering how much the faction has gained recently. Im always looking for more models.......:P

[Pwnstar53]

Pretty much this. This is the way I thought Blood Mark worked from the get-go... The first ruling seemed "***, are you serious?" good. i.e. Too good to be true. It's still a great spell, and doesn't, in my mind at least, really hurt Fats Dominar that much. He's such an awesome warcaster anyway, with so many good things going for him. And honestly, the ability to transfer isn't usually what I'm using Blood Mark for. It's the ARM debuff I'm usually after.

I agree with you both. I was personally thinking that they were going to change it bad anyways because of how it affected Zaal. He is still an amazing caster but the free transfers were a bit much IMO.

[dboeren]

Hooray, it finally works the way it's supposed to and the way it's always been written and we're free of that stupid interim ruling that made no freaking sense at all!

What? We're supposed to be whining and pouting? It was a bad ruling, and they fixed it. This makes sense, fixes the Zaal problem, and matches what the rules actually say. It's a Transfer. Unless the spell/ability says otherwise, it behave like any other Transfer. That's called rules consistency, it's a good thing for the game. Much more important than whether you get to keep an overpowered toy or not. It's not about Rasheth/Blood Mark. It's not about Zaal either. It's about the good of the game. If you think unbalanced or improper rules are OK as long as it's helping your favorite faction or model, then you need to man up a bit more.

[whats82]

Sad.

Still, good for rule clarity's benefit. Bad for balance.

[PG_Lunatic_Machine]

I don't think that this ruling makes Rasheth worthless. I played about 35+ games with him. I can only remember two games where the damage transfer part of Blood Mark was relevant (and I always played it without the free transfer, btw.). I didn't even cast it in the majority of games because his other spells (read: Breath of Corruption) are more useful to me.
And as stated above, Blood Mark is a really expensive spell to cast for its benefits. You invest 4 fury most of the time just to apply it to the target. 4 fury equals a fully boosted POW 12 against a key solo or a BoC + 1 boost or fueled up Agonizers in his tier list or 4 transfers or...

My point is: this ruling doesn't make Rasheth unplayable. Blood Mark doesn't determine his playstyle - at least for me.

[Mnkylord]

Time to add me to the refund list and start offloading this faction.

Really? Because one spell on one caster isn't as holy-crap-stupidly-good as one mistaken ruling made it out to be? Not sure where you're coming from here.

If the change of Blood Mark's mechanics (back to the way it's supposed to work) dramatically affect how you play Rasheth, then I have a feeling he wasn't really meshing with you in the first place. Especially if you feel that Rasheth is somehow "underpowered". Frankly, I think he's one of the stronger spell slingers in our stable. And his themed list is absolutely criminal.

Spending 2 fury for Blood Mark's -2 ARM perfectly reasonable, especially when you're targeting enemy jacks/beasts. That's tantamount to +2 to damage on all attacks on that model (one of the few spells that actually benefits our ranged game). Being able to transfer to that target is a nice little extra, but it's not exactly a winning lynch pin in most Rasheth strategies.

[PG_Asa]

Honestly I dont care. I use Rasheth a ton, but most of my fury goes out towards dropping stink clouds. I rarely take big hits to use BM with and mostly drop it on attacking warbeasts+jacks for the arm defuff to take them apart as they try to work their way through 16 inches of control area. Free transfer was nice, but meh, 2 agonizers with 3 focus to start with is pretty nice to, as is 8 FURY!