SkittlesAreYum said:

Definitely. If the attack is Aimed, then the moment you declare your reroll with Aim is the last chance the OL has to play a Dodge card (since it cancels the Aim reroll, rather than doing a second reroll afterwards). Since we know that the Dodge card has to come before the Aim reroll and that it has to come after the fatigue dice, the fatigue dice definitely all have to come before the Aim reroll.

haslo said:

Yes, along with a lot of other stuff. I think that retracting that particular rule would be a good idea, but my current theory is that they never intended to remove it, the version two weeks ago just had a bunch of accidental deletions.

If someone is feeling industrious, you could compare the questions missing from the FAQ two weeks ago with the stuff that is incorrectly printed in red in this FAQ--I bet you'd find a correlation.

Overall, I applaud the new FAQ. While I don't think it's ever possible to address EVERY ambiguous situation, I think this time the FAQ answers more questions than it creates (which is certainly not always the case).

In regards to Telekinesis being removed from RtL - a change of which I wholeheartedly approve - I will note however that in the void left by this change, Hero-knockback is definitely the new Telekinesis. I've been trying it out a bit and it's definitely a VERY viable opening for most dungeons (ie. Heroes attacking each other with knockback to move a critical Hero into position), especially as the Hammer from ToI is just shop equipment. If you want to get REALLY cool, try getting Water Pact and the Screaming Eagle staff for moving the entire party along... ; >

It's a poor substitute for telekinesis, but it's definitely the next best thing. And SOME people might find it a little objectionable thematically that having the mage start off by double-blasting his own party with the Staff is a standard opening play on 75% of dungeon levels.

The_Immortal said:

I totally agree that while this faq (like so many before) is flawed, there were some definite improvements over previous installments.

It really seems like the folks at ffg decided to pay some attention to the forums and the players and actually answer some questions we've all been asking. I appreciate the efforts of whomever it was that got it (a little closer to) right this time.

As to the hero knockback thing, I think it's nice that water pact could actually have a purpose now. Screaming eagle staff can technically only hit two of your party given starting set up, so I guess it's too bad there's not a staff with blast, because then you could move everyone, including yourself. I guess you put the tanks up front and the mage in back. Don't spend your surges, make enhancements give range, and a white and yellow probably never gets through their armor.

I'm really bugged by the Sorcery/Ironskin (yeah, I know, no one wants to go there, but still) and Dark Charm/Command rulings. They are just totally inconsistent*. Does anyone think a request for an explanation would be rude?

*Ironskin's immunity to Sorcery protects other creatures but its immunity from Bleed/Burn/pierce etc does not?
*A hero with Blessing does not 'benefit' from it while dark charmed but does 'benefit' from other skills - like Inner Fire, Mighty or Marksman for example?

Sorcery versus Ironskin
Sorcery may not add damage to any attack that includes a figure with Ironskin. It may add range to the attack, but not Sorcery. Yes, Laurel can get around this. The damage immunity granted by Ironskin does extend to all figures affected by an attack that includes a model with Ironskin.

First of all, there is a typo here. Surely it should say: "It may add range to the attack, but not *damage*.

Secondly, the damage immunity granted by ironskin extending to all figures affected by an attack is possibly the most stupid rule since not being able to jump across water.

So you have a golem with some kobolds around it. A hero attacks the area with a breath attack which has sorcery. The hero now cannot use sorcery to increase the damage. Stupid.

I'm already houseruling this to say "Sorcery can still be used to increase the damage, but that damage bonus will only apply to the figures that do not have Ironskin." Anything else makes no sense.

I have a question on this...

Antistone said:

Laurel's ability reads: Laurel may spend 1 fatigue to convert any extra range she rolled into damage on a one-for-one basis.

Do people play that Marksman (+3 range) converts to +3 damage? She did not roll that range... We've always taken the literal interpretation, that only range she rolled can be converted, not range added by other skills.

This FAQ seems to suggest that range from Sorcery (cant think of the skill off hand) would give her +1 range and +1 damage, and she could then convert that to +2 damage...

Corbon said:

I think this is just an oversight. I would take this to mean that his own command would apply, since he's the one charmed. The "no longer benefits from any heroes with Command" is most likely referring to "other" heroes, since other heroes' abilities would obviously not apply, and as you point out, all other abilities of the actual charmed hero do apply. It wouldnt make sense to exclude command.

I take it that their point was if an ally was nearby, they were addressing the question of whether or not that ally's command would affect the charmed hero, and I would agree that no, it shouldn't.

Corbon said:

Isn't this always an unstated bluff? The heroes know the OL may have a Dodge at any time, so they should pad their rolls. If they add a black, miss... add a 2nd black, and get a kill... then they stop adding dice, and the OL at that point plays Dodge, it's too late to add more dice, since Dodge results are always final.

poobaloo said:

First of all, Sorcery adds to range OR damage, so I'm not sure where you're pulling numbers from in your example at the end there.

But to answer the question, I've always played that Marksman converts to +3 damage with Laurel's ability. I haven't had the word "rolled" specifically pointed out before, but I don't have any reason to think that it's a loaded technical term, either. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the myriad abilities that add bonuses on attacks specifically say they add to your attack roll (Landrec's comes to mind), which would mean that they'd technically have to be included in the "rolled" result, and if only some of them say that, I'm inclined to think that's an accidental difference that's not intended to affect anything, not that they're carefully partitioning the bonuses specifically to keep some of them from being used in weird special circumstances like this one.

Antistone said:

I'm fairly certain that range from Marksmen counts as rolled range. The reason I think this is because of a similar ruling made about the Sorcerer King's ability that ignores rolled surges. It was clarified by FFG that surges from hero abilities and skills (Landrec and Prodigy for example) count as rolled surges. I see no reason to use a different interpretation for "rolled" range. It's a skill, so it is counted as rolled, even if it isn't techincally on the dice.

poobaloo said:

I think this is very likely exactly what its supposed to be, since it would make no sense to deny the figure who has the skill its own Command bonus.

As for the whole "rolled" thing, its generally accepted that this is using the gaming/RPG definition where its what the dice say plus any bonuses. So a range of 2 on the dice plus Marksman means you rolled a 5.

poobaloo said:

Sure, I could accept that, but that is not what it says. Hence the desire for some explanation (which is also a polite way of saying "Did you make a hash of this and/or is there an error here somewhere?")

The last sentence of the Ironskin answer is completely unnecessary, totally inconsistent and simply shouldn't be there.
The Dark Charm/Command thing seems to be missing the word 'other'.
The Hero party/Lt movement/encounter question seems to be missing a line (the question is actually a statement, the answer is 'No', so presumably the actual question the statement attaches to has been accidentally missed out).

I think any or all of these may be simple errors rather than deliberate rulings.

I think this is a case of prro wording. It would be better to say that Command affects friendly models, then say that for the porposes of this attack, the Hero counts as a Monster. This clears up the whole situation, without having to use multiple causes.