So an interesting issue popped up today...

When scoring, you count your unit's value of whatever their current tray number is (rounding down, i.e. 8 tray formation counts as a 3x2 not a 3x3) plus any non-discarded upgrades.
Maro messes with this, and of course the main rulebook is ambiguous about it.

A unit of Reanimates started as a 3x2, but ended the game as a 3x3. The rule book does not call out how to handle this, just to reference it to the score card. This technically means Maro literally generated points since a 3x3 is a normal formation, even though he didnt start as that.

You could argue against it since when the rulebook tells you to reference the score card it is only referring to "partially destroyed units" - which obviously this isnt since its actually beefier than it started.

Is there anything im missing that would prevent Maro from literally adding to your own score like this?

70.3 To calculate the point value of his remaining army, each player
adds up the point value of all units and upgrades in his army
that were not destroyed or discarded throughout the game.

This plus the rule for partially destroyed units(70.4) suggests to me that you cannot add to a units point value. It isn't listed in steps but it seems to be an order of operations. Full units then partial ones.

This came up in a game we played today. I'm leaning towards taking points off from the original size at army deployment. It can make a properly played Maro list very strong but then you need this against the spearstar which is often putting out 12-16 points of damage a round.

Ive been playing this as you cannot score more than your starting poimts cost. It has worked pretty well ao far

I suggest the tounament rules will just say: You can't have more points then played in the format (e. g. 200 p for standard games).

If he can't generate points he have a near by zero value.

3 minutes ago, The Bishop said:

I suggest the tounament rules will just say: You can't have more points then played in the format (e. g. 200 p for standard games).

If he can't generate points he have a near by zero value.

Objective tokens often result in scores well over 200 though, and this is needed to properly calculate a margin of victory.

Oh I miss this, it is early here :/

I mean the limit just for the deployment points and objective points then additional without a limit.

There needs to be a FAQ on this for sure. I just played a game where I able to outmaneuver my opponent, and practically wipe a 3x3 reanimate unit and worms, while I lost 1 tray of spears, 2 trays cavalry, and Kari. With embedded maro he was able to build up a 2x1 archer, and 2x1 reanimate group that barely engaged. He beat me by 40 points. I could see a close score since I lost Kari, sure, but on paper he slaughtered me. I cant see how Maro can add to units in a way that causes more damage potential, AND also double or triple their initial cost.

10 hours ago, Aurelus said:

There needs to be a FAQ on this for sure. I just played a game where I able to outmaneuver my opponent, and practically wipe a 3x3 reanimate unit and worms, while I lost 1 tray of spears, 2 trays cavalry, and Kari. With embedded maro he was able to build up a 2x1 archer, and 2x1 reanimate group that barely engaged. He beat me by 40 points. I could see a close score since I lost Kari, sure, but on paper he slaughtered me. I cant see how Maro can add to units in a way that causes more damage potential, AND also double or triple their initial cost.

How is he increasing damage potential?

2x1 archers roll 2 dice, flub rolls, no damage. 2x2 (or 2x3) with rerolls have a better chance of getting those 2 to 3 hits after an initial crappo roll... Just ask my 2x1 Golems lol

Wish FFG would have been a bit more clear with game mechanics like this, but it's still early...

2 minutes ago, Aurelus said:

2x1 archers roll 2 dice, flub rolls, no damage. 2x2 (or 2x3) with rerolls have a better chance of getting those 2 to 3 hits after an initial crappo roll... Just ask my 2x1 Golems lol

Wish FFG would have been a bit more clear with game mechanics like this, but it's still early...

Ok, yeah that works. But to me that wouldn't be increasing potential, just increasing consistency. Whatever your final roll is after 1 or 2 rerolls was possible without the rerolls and would be the same damage whether you rerolled them or not. When you said potential, I incorrectly assumed you meant adding threat, which Maro can't do. Not everyone has been playing him correctly, however.

Anyway, enough tired rambling out of me.

2 hours ago, Aurelus said:

Wish FFG would have been a bit more clear with game mechanics like this, but it's still early...

If only they had experience with other living minis games to iron all this stuff out. A companies first game is always a rough trod... (I am not nearly so forgiving of constant and repeated mistakes)

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

If only they had experience with other living minis games to iron all this stuff out. A companies first game is always a rough trod... (I am not nearly so forgiving of constant and repeated mistakes)

At first I thought you were being sarcastic. In my opinion, the interactions here are not too different from LCGs and their Star Wars miniatures games. I feel like we shouldn't see this many rules ambiguities because FFG does have a lot of experience making this type of game. From my perspective, this is an example of repeated omissions.

8 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

At first I thought you were being sarcastic. In my opinion, the interactions here are not too different from LCGs and their Star Wars miniatures games. I feel like we shouldn't see this many rules ambiguities because FFG does have a lot of experience making this type of game. From my perspective, this is an example of repeated omissions.

I was being sarcastic, except in parentheses. We have all seen this exact scenario in x-wing, armada, etc.

So the rule that says you reference the card for point values and number of trays says you only do that if the unit is partially destroyed. If the unit doesn't have less trays then it started with, it scores what it cost. It doesn't define this directly, but the implication to me is that it is the cost you paid while army building.

I'm definitely in the camp that says Maro will not increase your score at this point.

Page 3, in the greyed out area

During a game, players DO NOT NEED TO CONTINUALLY CHECK IF THEIR ARMY IS LEGAL . As players lose figures, trays, and upgrades, their armies may become configured in ways that are counter to the army-building rules. THIS IS OKAY- THE ARMY-BUILDING RULES ONLY APPLY WHEN BUILDING AN ARMY, NOT WHILE PLAYING THE GAME...

This line shows that you do not use the army-building rules anywhere except when building the army, meaning your army can exceed 200 points.

Second, when looking at final scoring, you check the lines in order. 70.2 states:

A player's score is equal to the total point value of all units and upgrades remaining in his army plus any points gained through objective tokens.

This rule doesn't state anything regarding that a unit has to start in your army, and it does state you calculate the TOTAL POINT VALUE of all units. A Unit is NOT a TRAY , it is the combination of all trays linked together as a unit, so you cannot calculate the total point value of a unit, if you are disregarding trays within that unit. That is not the total point value of that unit, that is the STARTING POINT VALUE of the unit which FFG never references.

Third, when looking at the scoring rules, if there are any conflicts with 70.2 (which there aren't at this point) look at 70.3, which states:

To calculate the point value of his remaining army, each player adds up the point value of all units and upgrades in his army that were not destroyed or discarded throughout the game.

you have to 1. check the point value, 2. of all units. 3. that were not destroyed. Reanimated waiqar units fit ALL 3.

If there is any conflict with 70.3, then you look at 70.4. Even this does not discredit the idea that Maro adds units that count, because if that unit had lost trays throughout the game, then it would have had partially destroyed ranks

49 minutes ago, backupsidekick said:

Page 3, in the greyed out area

During a game, players DO NOT NEED TO CONTINUALLY CHECK IF THEIR ARMY IS LEGAL . As players lose figures, trays, and upgrades, their armies may become configured in ways that are counter to the army-building rules. THIS IS OKAY- THE ARMY-BUILDING RULES ONLY APPLY WHEN BUILDING AN ARMY, NOT WHILE PLAYING THE GAME...

This line shows that you do not use the army-building rules anywhere except when building the army, meaning your army can exceed 200 points.

Second, when looking at final scoring, you check the lines in order. 70.2 states:

A player's score is equal to the total point value of all units and upgrades remaining in his army plus any points gained through objective tokens.

This rule doesn't state anything regarding that a unit has to start in your army, and it does state you calculate the TOTAL POINT VALUE of all units. A Unit is NOT a TRAY , it is the combination of all trays linked together as a unit, so you cannot calculate the total point value of a unit, if you are disregarding trays within that unit. That is not the total point value of that unit, that is the STARTING POINT VALUE of the unit which FFG never references.

Third, when looking at the scoring rules, if there are any conflicts with 70.2 (which there aren't at this point) look at 70.3, which states:

To calculate the point value of his remaining army, each player adds up the point value of all units and upgrades in his army that were not destroyed or discarded throughout the game.

you have to 1. check the point value, 2. of all units. 3. that were not destroyed. Reanimated waiqar units fit ALL 3.

If there is any conflict with 70.3, then you look at 70.4. Even this does not discredit the idea that Maro adds units that count, because if that unit had lost trays throughout the game, then it would have had partially destroyed ranks

Your premise uses some very faulty logic.

First, the army building rules are the restrictions on formations and available upgrades, as well things like uniques. That rule is saying you don't lose an upgrade if your unit drops below the requisite formation. Saying it implies anything about scoring is a leap in logic.

Second, the only rule that instructs you to use the unit's card to determine it's point value is the one referring to units that have lost trays. If they wanted you to always look at the chart, they wouldn't need 3 different bullet points on scoring.

So what are you using to reference your unit's point cost? It's the cost you paid to add that unit to your army, per your army list.

On 8/3/2017 at 8:10 AM, Darthain said:

If only they had experience with other living minis games to iron all this stuff out. A companies first game is always a rough trod... (I am not nearly so forgiving of constant and repeated mistakes)

to be fair the scoring in RWM is completely different than the other games.

Its kinda backwards. You tally up what you have left, add objectives, thats your score. Your kills mean nothing unless theyre generating objective tokens, usually its the other way around: staying a healthy size all game usually means that unit didnt do anything for you since it never got hurt in the process of killing things.
But on the same token it has to be backwards in this game. First game i had where it wasnt a landslide victory one way or another we stood there for a moment and went "wait...how do you score in this?" because we had no idea how to figure out what we had killed of a unit that was still around. Looked it up, and our minds blew.

Then of course Maro popped up and so did my OP to this thread

2 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

So what are you using to reference your unit's point cost? It's the cost you paid to add that unit to your army, per your army list.

it's not point cost it's point value, total point value to be exact in the wording they use. You are not calculating total point value, if you are removing trays from the unit to calculate original point value.

To take it a step further, what would the point value be of a unit that was 3x2 and lost the back tray, making it a 3x1, but then reanimated 3 trays back into the unit? since it lost those trays during the battle do you still get points for them since they came back? They aren't "remaining" according to current theories, since they were added. So do you only calculate point value based on the lowest value they ever were? Those units were destroyed. Even further, the figures in the reanimates come back due to regeneration rules, do you count up how many units died and then remove those from the unit at the end to see how many units actually survived? Because technically they died.

No one would argue that is how you score the game, but apparently you don't get to count Maro's ability... for the same reasoning that would force you down this line of thinking.

When calculating your score, it never references the point value from the start of the game. It never references the cost of the unit at the start of the game. The only thing it references is the total point value of the unit at the end game state, which would include the new trays because they have become part of the unit now. They aren't a separate unit, they are that unit, and the value has changed. There are no references in the rules to suggest that you do not count trays that have been added during the game. In my opinion they have gone to great length to say that you do in fact calculate the total value of all units, meaning the total value, not starting value, of all units, not only the units that did not reanimate any units.

1 hour ago, Vineheart01 said:

to be fair the scoring in RWM is completely different than the other games.

Its kinda backwards. You tally up what you have left, add objectives, thats your score. Your kills mean nothing unless theyre generating objective tokens, usually its the other way around: staying a healthy size all game usually means that unit didnt do anything for you since it never got hurt in the process of killing things.
But on the same token it has to be backwards in this game. First game i had where it wasnt a landslide victory one way or another we stood there for a moment and went "wait...how do you score in this?" because we had no idea how to figure out what we had killed of a unit that was still around. Looked it up, and our minds blew.

Then of course Maro popped up and so did my OP to this thread

What's left or what died are identical, it is just semantics. What you call fair, I call overly apologetic. This is embarassingly sloppy. You would notice the second you scored a game.

It makes zero sense that Maro deployed in a unit for 20ish points can start basically become a points generator. That is not at all within the spirit of the game. In fact, since the potential for abuse is enormous, I would dare to say it could be game breaking... especially in tournament play.

You are going to get people who strategy is to simple not engage and generate more trays.

there already are people who ***** foot around and delay engagement for as long as possible, this will promote that style and is a NPE game.

FB page has a running discussion on this atm... 90 comments and growing... seems like no one knows how to deal with this...

So, this got rather long and rambling. I went into this thought process believing that Maro could indeed increase the point value of a unit beyond it's starting value, but I think I was wrong. For those that want it, here's the brief TLDR: They way I read it, a unit with more trays than it started with is worth the number of points it was purchased for during army building.

The Scoring rules only explicitly indicate 1 state for which to check a not destroyed unit at the end of the game to determine it's value: Is it missing trays? A unit missing trays consults its costing table at the end of the game. Defined by omission, A unit not missing trays consulted it's costing table at the during army building to determine it's point value. A unit with more trays than it started is not missing trays, and therefore is worth the number of points it was purchased for during army building.

==== The above was added after I finished the below===

It may be helpful to break down RR 70 Scoring objectively to see what information we do and do not have:
70 - Destroy everything and you win, if not, go to SCORE

70.1 - She who has the highest SCORE wins. A tie is a tie.

70.2 - <Defining what SCORE is> SCORE = REMAINING ARMY + OBJECTIVES

70.3 - <Defining REMAINING ARMY> REMAINING ARMY = POINT VALUE sum of all NOT DESTROYED UNITS and NOT DISCARDED UPGRADES.

70.4 - <Process to determine the POINT VALUE for and provide a definition of PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNITS> PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNITS are units missing some trays. Their POINT VALUE is derived as outlined.

70.5 - <defining OBJECTIVES> OBJECTIVES = value on objective card multiplied by the number of objective tokens a player has.

So, we have well defined process for determining the POINT VALUE for a PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNIT. However, There is no express indication for determining the value of a NOT PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNIT. Given that a PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNIT is one that is missing some trays, it is reasonable to conclude that a unit that is not missing some trays is a NOT PARTIALLY DESTROYED UNIT. If a unit is not missing trays, it has either the same number of trays it started with, or more trays than it started with.

I think we can all agree that the point value of a unit that has the same number of trays it started with: you just consult the Costing Table for the unit card. The same way you did when you purchased the unit during army building. It makes no difference if the Costing Table is consulted at the beginning or the end of the game, as the outcome is the same. The process is important here though. We are only instructed to consult the costing table at the end of the game for a PARTIALLY DESTROYED unit. A unit that has the same number of trays it started with already had a POINT VALUE assigned to it during army construction (RR p. 3, 2nd sentence under the Points heading implies that point cost equals POINT VALUE).

So, we now have a way to determine the POINT VALUE of units that are either missing, or have the same number of trays as they started. What about units that have more trays than they started? The rules have explicitly defined only one state for which to check a unit to determine it's POINT VALUE: PARTIALLY DESTROYED. Since a unit with more trays than it started is NOT PARTIALLY DESTROYED, we do not consult the costing table at the end of the game. That leaves us to check the cost of the unit when we purchased it during army building.

Great parse and argument there.