3 Points of Power Official Ruling?

[themortalgod]

So I'm not trying to get into the argument of whether a hero "can" move off a point of power and retain control of it when he is killed or not. I've spent the last hour or so reading threads where people argued both sides like crazy. Clearly the community is split on that one. (though it seems most players agree its silly that you can run up, tag the point of power then scurry to a corner and hide) 

I played a game yesterday where the opponent claimed GW FAQed it someplace confirming that "yes" you can tag a point of power then run off. The only way to get it back is kill the hero so I'm trying to find evidence of that and google hasn't really helped. I played a rather frustrating game where I felt I had lost before I even started to play as his heroes were faster so could tag all 3 pts of power then they all just ran off hiding behind walls for the rest of the game while playing ring around the rosie with my shooting/magic. I eventually killed them all but after a few turns of "cumulative" objective scoring he was too far ahead to be caught.

So ya, just hoping he was wrong about the official ruling and was wondering if anyone has seen evidence of that anywhere? I'm not overly enthusiastic about playing that mission in the future if thats the case.

[BaldoBeardo]

Whilst I agree it could be clearer, the tag'n'run interpretation feels like it requires far more semantic gymnastics to explain.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[BaldoBeardo]

Which game? there have been hundreds.

They also don't have the.. erm.. ahem.. *greatest* grasp of the rules, in some cases...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[stato]

14 minutes ago, Sactownbri said:

Interesting discussion. On the GW twitch feed they played it as you maintain control until your opponent takes it away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which game? there have been hundreds.

[Sactownbri]

Interesting discussion. On the GW twitch feed they played it as you maintain control until your opponent takes it away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Aaron Schmidt]

Its good that its called out here so players, and more importantly TOs can see it coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ogniem Plujacy]

I think I would just stop playing in this situation. Why would you want to play with someone who considers this fun?

I agree... The first rule of the game is to have fun... If you have to go in to semantics in order to explain your point of view the fun is out...

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Trout]

I think I would just stop playing in this situation. Why would you want to play with someone who considers this fun?

[stato]

If the opponent wants to argue, then their line of argument actually has them holding the objective even when their hero is dead, as they were 'controlling it' unit another hero does. Basically its bollocks.

If it was a friend, correct them and move on, if it was in a store find the manager and get him to rule on the rule, if it was a gaming club then the president (or equivalent) rules or do a show of hands.

Regardless, if its FAQ and you dont know, they need to show you or it plays the original way.

[KnightFire]

All of the scenarios that allow players to continue to hold objectives after tagging them explicitly state that its possible. None of them require any kind of reading between the lines. I don't think its anything GW need to rule on, as its something that no one has ever tried to do at any event I have been to (which is quite a lot) or any club I have played at. 

[themortalgod]

1 hour ago, Criti said:

Explain how.

Rulings are meant for vague spots. The rule here is quite clear.  See my earlier reply for explanation.

They disagree with your position. Thus it is irrelevant to them. They believe that first sentence only applies to how to "gain" control and has nothing to do with losing it. I agree with you, it is pretty obvious it isn't but they simply don't care. They see it the other way. Thus a ruling is needed by an authority. (aka GW). (and if you google around there are dozens of reddit threads and such arguing for pages and pages about it, its not like its one person)

[Criti]

2 hours ago, themortalgod said:

Yup, 100% agree with you. But rules lawyers don't care about fluff text and the actual rules are vague enough for them to feel like they have a case so really this is a situation where GW just needs to come out with an explicit ruling. 

Explain how.

Rulings are meant for vague spots. The rule here is quite clear.  See my earlier reply for explanation.

[themortalgod]

1 hour ago, Jharen said:

The descriptive fluff text for the scenario is what helped my group and I determine what the intent of the rules wording meant.

"If a mighty warrior stands upon such a location, they can leach some of the energy and siphon it away.  The longer they can remain upon the place of power, the more energy they can steal!"

Yup, 100% agree with you. But rules lawyers don't care about fluff text and the actual rules are vague enough for them to feel like they have a case so really this is a situation where GW just needs to come out with an explicit ruling. 

[Jharen]

The descriptive fluff text for the scenario is what helped my group and I determine what the intent of the rules wording meant.

"If a mighty warrior stands upon such a location, they can leach some of the energy and siphon it away.  The longer they can remain upon the place of power, the more energy they can steal!"

[Criti]

The official answer is right on the scenario sheet.

How do I control an objective?

How do I score points?

If I don't have a Hero at the 3" bubble after ANY move, I don't control it.  Period.

Most common possible objection - so I can claim it in my Movement Phase, then charge away from it?

No.

Because a charge is still a move.  Even says so right in the Charge Phase description.

So the charge MOVE ended, my Hero isn't within 3".  I no longer control that point.   The eligibility of control, PER THE SCENARIO SHEET, is determined after any move is made. 

Incidentally, this would allow a character to snag an unclaimed objective with a pile in.

That's the Rules as Written argument.

Please also note that the scenarios that allow you to walk away specifically state you can walk away.  This one does not, leading to the implication that you can't.

That's the Rules as Intended argument.

If your opponent's are claiming they can walk away,  they should have their reading comprehension skills tested. 

[Zhorphorus]

Not going to get into it because I've never played it that way or had anyone suggest you could tag them. 

I think important part here is to play it in a way that makes it enjoyable for either player. Just because gw put out the rules or faq in a certain way doesn't mean you have to play by them if it's going to break the game and make it not fun

[BaldoBeardo]

No official ruling I'm aware of, nothing in the FAQ.
Not going to restart the rules discussion as per your request...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk