There's definitely room for both interpretations. 70.2 and 70.3 both using the word "remaining" leaves open the argument of "stuff that wasn't there to begin with didn't remain, as remain implies it was there to begin with."

But the new models do exist now, and they certainly were not destroyed. And it's also possible that the writers of the rulebook had no idea models would ever get added to a unit (they did have to add the rules for that in Maro's box, when you think that's something they would just include in the core rulebook) so they used that wording because it's the easiest way to say these things.

I can't wait for that FAQ... this forum will become a lot less "I dunno, could be interpreted either way" when we get some solid answers.

How do you define missing trays? Is it missing from your starting configuration or just missing from one of the costing table configuration?

Hypothetical -- There is an infantry unit in some faction with configurations like a Death Knight. You use Maro to take a 2x1 in your army. Maro adds 4 trays, making it a 2x3. It loses 1 tray. During scoring, is it considered missing a tray? I would say so. I haven't read anything that references starting configuration when determining missing trays. So you would consult the costing table and see that 2x2 is the next full configuration, so you would score the unit for 2x2 even though it started as 2x1.

This situation is impossible with any infantry unit we know about because the only way to go up 2 levels in the costing table is to add threat, which Maro can't do. That makes Maro's ability appear clear, but it is only clear because of the limited infantry units released, not because the rules themselves are clear.

1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

How do you define missing trays? Is it missing from your starting configuration or just missing from one of the costing table configuration?

Hypothetical -- There is an infantry unit in some faction with configurations like a Death Knight. You use Maro to take a 2x1 in your army. Maro adds 4 trays, making it a 2x3. It loses 1 tray. During scoring, is it considered missing a tray? I would say so. I haven't read anything that references starting configuration when determining missing trays. So you would consult the costing table and see that 2x2 is the next full configuration, so you would score the unit for 2x2 even though it started as 2x1.

This situation is impossible with any infantry unit we know about because the only way to go up 2 levels in the costing table is to add threat, which Maro can't do. That makes Maro's ability appear clear, but it is only clear because of the limited infantry units released, not because the rules themselves are clear.

If you are in the camp that you don't reference the card until you determine that the unit is missing trays, you compare the unit to the army list and if it has less trays than you brought it in with then it is missing trays. If it isn't, then you score what you paid to bring it in. How many trays a certain unit has will definitely be recorded in official tournament army lists.

In this way, Maro can give you a score buffer, but he doesn't pump your score up.

11 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

How do you define missing trays? Is it missing from your starting configuration or just missing from one of the costing table configuration?

I struggled with this as well. One item that trips me up is RR 27 Destroyed, 3rd sentence: "When a tray is destroyed, it is disconnected from the unit and placed next to its matching unit card off of the play area."

So, let's example this: Through the course of a battle, A 4 tray unit of reanimates loses 1 tray and has 3 more added to it, leaving it at 6 trays come the end of the game. Is it missing a tray? Surely it is, a tray went missing when you destroyed it on turn 2, but I've found it! You can see it sitting over there next to it's unit card! No, it's not missing any trays. Look at the play area, it has more trays than it started with!

FAQ removed all doubt on this one.

I'm fine with that since FFG ruled, it's their game. However...

Ankaur Maro can't increase threat.

Ankaur Maro Doesn't increase value of units.

Really? Do they ever want to go ahead and limit Kari or Lord Hawthorne any time soon?

All is as it should be :-)

Hawthorne and Kari do not increase threat or increase value of units either.

6 minutes ago, Aurelus said:

Hawthorne and Kari do not increase threat or increase value of units either.

Hawthorne and Kari abilities are more focus on direct damage, Maro ability is about regen. Anyway the rule is set in stone now.

Nothing is stopping you from playing the Daqan.

I play both and am pretty content with Maro as he is, though I do like him more as a unit upgrade than his own unit so far...

On 8/8/2017 at 6:31 AM, Aurelus said:

Hawthorne and Kari do not increase threat or increase value of units either.

This might not be what you had in mind, but Hawthorne can reconfigure a 4 tray unit into a 4x1, thus increasing the threat from 2 to 4.

On 8/7/2017 at 4:41 PM, backupsidekick said:

I'm fine with that since FFG ruled, it's their game. However...

Ankaur Maro can't increase threat.

Ankaur Maro Doesn't increase value of units.

Really? Do they ever want to go ahead and limit Kari or Lord Hawthorne any time soon?

Put Column tactics on any unit Maro added trays to. Increases your threat.

Add trays to a unit on the last turn or so to not give value tonyour opponent.

Run Maro by himself with Violent Forces and Fortuna's Die to deal minimum 8 damage to a single runegolem, or to completely kill a blight battery. He's an incredibly potent ranged threat in a faction that doesnt have a significant way to deal damage at ranged.

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:56 PM, Waywardpaladin said:

I play both and am pretty content with Maro as he is, though I do like him more as a unit upgrade than his own unit so far...

I have a thread in tactics about maro's viability as an upgrade as opposed to a hero. I'd love to hear your input. Head to that forum post.

On 8/7/2017 at 4:41 PM, backupsidekick said:

I'm fine with that since FFG ruled, it's their game. However...

Ankaur Maro can't increase threat.

Ankaur Maro Doesn't increase value of units.

Really? Do they ever want to go ahead and limit Kari or Lord Hawthorne any time soon?

Maro cant generate score but he can keep it from going away.

If you brought a 3x3 of reanimates and Maro kept adding to them so that by the end they were down to 8 trays, guess what theyre still worth alot instead of being dead like any other army would be.

The faq was needed. It basically meant that if a Maro player got lucky for a couple rounds and you failed to kill off the trays he added or kill him directly he actually not only got HARDER to beat but he also got more score. Both is kinda bs.
Kari/Hawthorne cant do anything to protect your score. For that matter neither can Mr "I Have All Da Surges!" which i was surprised to see faq'd that way.