Prince Faolan's card ability allows him to treat any march as modified by 1 of the following: Turn, wheel, charge.

His modifier dial has a 'turn charge'.

Can he modify his initiative 2 march into a wheel and use the 'turn charge' modifier to make that wheel a charge?

We would love your feedback on this.

Other similar example:

Unit with 'Marching Cornicen/Marching Starling/etc' upgrade - Can turn a march into a turn. But if a straight charge is dialed up, can they do a turn charge or is the modifier canceled because they're not going straight? For reference, we've always said yes it's a charge.

Dial

My first instinct is to readily say yup, that sounds right.

However, it brings to question if a march is already modified can it be effected by another modifier. It's an odd one since the banking charge is the only way faolan can dial in a charge, other than using his innate charge ability.

I think the question to ask is, do the modifiers stack or does one cancel the other?

If they stack, then you dial bank charge, but modify the bank to a wheel. If one cancels the other, which I think is more likely, then you replace the bank charge with a wheel, and no charge.

The FAQ is where I go with this. Read the descriptions on page 6 for aggresive musicians. The charge modifier is stacked on top of anmarch already modified with a bank or wheel. I see no reason to not let it work the other way.

I await seeing what i missed though

A couple of things:

1) Faolans ability says "when you perform a [march]" it does not say "when you perform an UNMODIFIED [march]"

1 point for

2) The FAQ that Church pointed out, and I agree the reverse should hold up as well.

2 points for

It would seem the wording is in favor, but is the intent in favor? I guess the question is should he be able to wheel charge or not? Given how the Latari also shift charge its not an unreasonable assumption to say (as a designer) since he cant shift charge like other latari heroes he can charge on ANY march.

Seems reasonable to me (1 point against :D)

Sounds good to me. Wheel 2 charge. It’s amazing by the way if you haven’t used him with spirit sword he’s very tanky and puts out 8-10 DMG a turn.

I'm not so sure. If this were the intended interaction why put a turning charge modifier on his dial when a straight charge would do?

I think the intent was that he must dial in the turn charge in order to turn AND charge.

1 hour ago, QuickWhit said:

I'm not so sure. If this were the intended interaction why put a turning charge modifier on his dial when a straight charge would do?

I think the intent was that he must dial in the turn charge in order to turn AND charge.

This is where I go. I think the reason he has a turn charge in the first place is that his ability text isn't meant to stack with other sources, like his modifier dial. So you can charge straight while dialing in white or defense, you can turn charge by dialing it, or you can turn or wheel without charging by dialing in white or defense.

I think they biffed the wording, though, and under RAW it's permissable because other rulings indicate that charge and turn/wheel modifiers from different sources stack. If they care to enforce RAI, they'll change it to @flightmaster101 's suggested "when you perform an unmodified [march]" with errata. Assuming we ever get errata.

I suppose you could enforce some dumb mental gymnastics to suggest that you can't stack conflicting turn/charge modifiers from different sources, but that would be coming from out of the blue with no existing rules support.

50 minutes ago, kaffis said:

This is where I go. I think the reason he has a turn charge in the first place is that his ability text isn't meant to stack with other sources, like his modifier dial. So you can charge straight while dialing in white or defense, you can turn charge by dialing it, or you can turn or wheel without charging by dialing in white or defense.

I think they biffed the wording, though, and under RAW it's permissable because other rulings indicate that charge and turn/wheel modifiers from different sources stack. If they care to enforce RAI, they'll change it to @flightmaster101 's suggested "when you perform an unmodified [march]" with errata. Assuming we ever get errata.

I suppose you could enforce some dumb mental gymnastics to suggest that you can't stack conflicting turn/charge modifiers from different sources, but that would be coming from out of the blue with no existing rules support.

Generally I’d agree with you, however his card also specifically says you only cancel the modifier if you do the March three as three March ones.

i agree it feels wrong to allow a wheel to be a turn charge, but in the same respect a unit with marching cornicen doing a turn with straight charge dialed up seems to be accepted?

9 minutes ago, mikehansenasu said:

i agree it feels wrong to allow a wheel to be a turn charge, but in the same  respect a unit with marching     cornicen doing a turn with straight charge dialed up seems to be  accepted   ?

If I were to argue that angle, I'd suggest that "straight" is a neutral direction, since it's the default state of marches and shifts. It's a neutral placeholder so you have some kind of arrow to put the charge icon on, and doesn't represent an active statement of direction to be conflicted with when stacked with another active statement of direction like a marching musician.

Well they didn’t put a straight charge on the dia because every straight March can be a charge.

18 minutes ago, mikehansenasu said:

Well they didn’t put a straight charge on the dia because every straight March can be a charge.

If they meant for the charge modifier to work with all his movement shenanigans then putting a straight charge modifier on the second dial is effectively the same as the turn charge modifier but less confusing.

1 minute ago, QuickWhit said:

If they meant for the charge modifier to work with all his movement shenanigans then putting a straight charge modifier on the second dial is effectively the same as the turn charge modifier but less confusing.

I hear what you’re saying. I agree that would be less confusing.

Straight charges because of his special ability give him the bonus of being able to add defense, skill, rally, etc. to do a turn/wheel charge he has to give that up and dial in the turn charge. Logic seems fine to me. If any March can be a straight charge then they’re not putting it on a dial.

I think church brought up a valid point that the faq suggests the abilities stack making it a viable option. Maybe it’s not intended, but we won’t know for a long time I’m sure.

At the risk of being controversial, I guess I read things a bit differently...

1) The FAQ (as I read it) doesn’t imply that turn or wheel stack with each other but rather with a charge modifier.

2) I appreciate the logical feel to having a turn stack on top of a turn, but literal reading would be two instances of the same modifier which I would interpret as being redundant.

3) If I think through the range of combinations, there is a reason to have the blue turning charge modifer on the right wheel as it gives a benefit that his card text can’t.

To be sure, we’re all speculating here, so take my opinion for what it’s worth. FFG should take the time to answer a few questions and/or update the FAQ. I would consider that minimal support for a game.

13 hours ago, mikehansenasu said:

I hear what you’re saying. I agree that would be less confusing.

Straight charges because of his special ability give him the bonus of being able to add defense, skill, rally, etc. to do a turn/wheel charge he has to give that up and dial in the turn charge. Logic seems fine to me. If any March can be a straight charge then they’re not putting it on a dial.

This is a bit contradictory... You are saying you agree it would be less confusing to have straight charge on the second dial, but then saying straight charge doesn't belong on the second dial because he can always straight charge.

Presupposing that it is correct that he can stack his movement shenanigans with the charge modifier on the second dial, obviously there would be an opportunity cost to dialing in a straight charge (were one present) as you can't also rally/defend/skill. However that cost would come at the benefit of choosing to turn charge which he can't do without dialing in a charge. This is exactly how it is now if you believe that the turn charge modifier should work with his movement passive. It would just be less confusing.

13 hours ago, mikehansenasu said:

I think church brought up a valid point that the faq suggests the abilities stack making it a viable option. Maybe it’s not intended, but we won’t know for a long time I’m sure. 

I don't know that what's in the FAQ makes it any clearer.

From the FAQ: "A unit equipped with this card that performs a march (march symbol) with a turn (turn symbol) or wheel (wheel symbol) modifier treats that (mach symbol) as modified by a charge (straight charge symbol) in addition to the other movement modifier."

From Aggressive Cornicen: "When you perform (march symbol), treat it as modified by (straight charge symbol). You do not receive panic tokens for failing to collide with an enemy during a charge."

This only makes it clear that under the correct circumstances a wheel CAN be treated as a charge. It does not address what happens when two different modifiers to a march come into play at the same time. It does not say you get to pick which pieces of two separate, mutually exclusive modifiers you want or that you have to replace one modifier with the other. So to me it is still unclear.

My take at this point (after staring at the rules and cards involved for some time now) is that there is nothing in the rules that seems to prohibit it, but nothing that allows it either. I don't see a reasonable Rules As Written (RAW) argument for or against it... which is frustrating.

However, I do see a Rules As Intended argument (RAI) against it. I believe they put a turn charge on the second dial, not a straight charge because they intended that in order to get the charge modifier you must also take the turn modifier.

EDIT: I sent a message to FFG in the hopes that they might actually weigh in here. I agree with @sarumanthewhite that FFG should at the very least support the resolution of discussions like this one. It is silly if we have to wait for the next FAQ for answers to these questions.