For example, there are different conditions to earning VP based on the scenarios being played. Do both players get to utilize those ways to earn victory points or does that only apply to the person who played the scenario card.

Say the Uthark has the scenario that allows you to gain an additional VP for killing an opposing unit while they are in a forest. Do the Daquan units also get that same VP condition?

I don't have the rules in front of me, but I always play that the special victory-point conditions only apply to the player that chose the scenario card (not both players).

The thing is, I can't find anything in the rules stating one way or the other. There are some cards where it is really obvious, like when a specific unit type called out by name (like a rune golem) being on a hill at the end of your turn nets you a VP, but the rest can be seen as applying to both sides on any given round.

How interesting. I can't find anything in the rules either. I always just assumed only the associated player got the benefit of their matching scenario card.

EDIT: I found this under "Earning Victory Points" in the Rules Reference Guide:

"During the Victory Point (VP) Step, in addition to earning victory

faction’s scenario card."

So we now have justification that VPs can only be earned from your scenario, but no hard rule yet indicating that other effects only affect the owner of the card.

But I'm pretty sure only the player whose faction matches that scenario gets the benefit of its effects, even though we haven't found it stated explicitly anywhere.

EDIT #2: I found something in the articles but it is not in the rules. Now, always take caution when going to articles because they are known to be incorrect from time to time, so it's not the best place to look for rules, but here is the link to the first article describing scenario creation: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2013/9/19/choosing-the-high-ground/

In this article is the following paragraph:

"Sam sees that Taylor has chosen Staking a Claim. This scenario card allows her units to move through forest terrain freely, but Sam is reassured by observing that rivers block the principal attack routes in both the center and on the right flank. His units will be able to take advantage of their ability to move through fords, but Taylor’s units will be hampered by these choke points. Both players place terrain on the battlefield, and take turns placing one ford. Both players have chosen the ground for their fight, but before the battle begins, they must muster their armies and place them strategically, as we’ll describe in our next preview."

In the above paragraph, it clearly indicates that the scenario text only applies to its owner.

It makes sense, but given that me and my buddy couldn't find anything stating otherwise we treated the scenarios as blanket rules for the whole campaign and it allowed for drastically different game. We had two scenarios in play that effectively made forests useless. One allowed you to move through them freely and the other allowed you to attack from them with no penalty. They were just a way to limit damage coming at you from outside, but that was it.

We also both earned victory points for having at least three forest occupied according to my VP set-up so the entire game became Daqan and Ulthark go 'inna woods' and hurl insults at each other.

Concerning the special rules that affect initial mustering/deployment phase, If I'm not mistaken, players are directed by the rules to follow instruction on "their" scenario card. Concerning other special rules, they typically say "friendly units", which I take to signify units friendly to the faction playing that specific scenario card. I did not check all the cards, however. So it is possible that the above explanation does not cover all the cases.

Use common sense, Flamespeak.

What's the point in a scenario where forests become meaningless because you add-up special rules from both scenario cards and applie them to both armies ?

FFG wasn't made yesterday, they wouldn't make such a big mistake in one of their latest game.

Everything written on one scenario card applies ONLY to the army of the player using this scenario card. Unless clearly stated otherwise, of course.

It may not be written in the rules, it's just obvious.

Play in "the spirit" of the game rather than grappling every tiny bit of opportunity to gain advantages from your opponent and you'll never ask yourself again about this kind of "rules mishaps".

Hey, man, it's just a game ! losing here isn't life-threatening !

I disagree, Jeanmiwan. Assuming you know the rules and just playing how you feel can lead to gross rules misunderstandings that can break a game. This could lead to an unhappy player base and negative rules that may affect the longevity of the game. It's not life-threatening, as you say, but I think it's worth trying to play by the rules as closely as the designers intended. The thing is, we don't know the designer's intentions except as dictated by the rules.

Also, I think it's totally possible for them to leave out a line here or there that is important. I mean, look at all the rules mistakes in the Rune Age rulebook. Mistakes happen. FFG's employees are human. By us meticulously going through the rulebook, we can help them catch mistakes they can put in the FAQ.

Also, I think it's totally possible for them to leave out a line here or there that is important. I mean, look at all the rules mistakes in the Rune Age rulebook. Mistakes happen. FFG's employees are human. By us meticulously going through the rulebook, we can help them catch mistakes they can put in the FAQ.

This. I keep on reading comments like "it's FFG, they create a game and they fix it with FAQs". The problem is that FFG games are hugely complex games with countless interaction among cards and other elements of the game, that is simply impossible for any single individual to be aware and catch everything. Especially because during the process of creating a game, authors go over and over and over the same topics, changing slightly the wording, the names, the effects, so that it becomes really hard to keep track of everything. In the last 3 years, they made huge improvements on many fronts (also thanks to some really good playtesters that started helping), but errors can still happen. It's human.