Fureans’ Machine Rage Debate

[General Zodd]

Hi all, this question isn’t a new one, but came up in the Volkite weapons discussion again. Rather than derail that thread, I thought I’d weigh in under a new heading.

 

Essentially the debate is regarding the Machine Rage trait of Legio Fureans. This states that;

 

“When rolling the reactor dice, a Tiger Eyes player counts both the Machine Spirit symbol and blank facing on the dice as a trigger for the awakening of their Titan’s machine spirit.”

 

The debate is whether or not the blank facing of the dice therefore increases heat for Fureans Titans in exactly the same way as rolling the Machine Spirit symbol.

 

There are plenty of people expressing opinions on both sides of the debate, but little in the way of consensus. Does anyone know if there is actually an official ruling on this? It’s not in the FAQ, and I’m not entirely sure how to go about requesting an official ruling, but I think it’s needed.

 

For what it’s worth, I’ve always read it as not increasing heat, and here’s my textual analysis to support that position!

 

On page 43 of the rule book, it states that if one Reactor symbol (or Machine Spirit symbol) is rolled you advance the reactor track. If you roll a double, it’s two, if it’s blank it doesn’t advance at all. Then, on page 44, under Awakening the Machine Spirit, it tells you what significance that symbol has beyond just being a funkier Reactor symbol, and outlines the process for taking a command check and so on. My reading of this is that the Awakening of the Machine Spirit is separate and unconditional on the reactor increase.

 

Now, SkimaskMohawk makes a good point that the description of the timing includes the phrase “After advancing the Reactor Status marker, make an immediate command check...” and interprets that as saying that the Machine Spirit command check cannot take place without the reactor level being increased. My assertion is that this isn’t a condition, but a timing indicator in the framework of the usual trigger.

 

The other reason I don’t think the reactor track advances is that if that were the original intent it would have been far neater and simpler if the Machine Rage rule stated that all Fureans titans treat the blank facing as a Machine Spirit symbol. This would have been much clearer and requires fewer words to explain.

 

Now, all of this is based on differing interpretations of FW rules, which are written in a fairly conversational style to assist with comprehension, but very little help when it comes to textual analysis. So this really could go either way, and if we get a “Because I said so” ruling from an FAQ I’ll be content to go with whatever they say, but until then I’ve yet to see an argument that settles this one way or another.

 

Can anyone shed more light on this, or spot a flaw in what I’ve said? Thanks!

[schoon]

I would argue "no."

 

As I read the above, the blank face "counts as" "for" the Machine Spirit awakening, but not specifically for other results.

[Sherrypie]

The result is "no" and SMM's argument doesn't hold from either design or semantics standpoint. The results of the dice roll are explained earlier on in a previous section whereas the Spirit trigger is an extra bit that comes afterwards.

 

If you read the Spirit part's description and take it in any way that's not about explaining the timing arising from the dice result itself, you are forced to a bit of a pickle where you take two heat, which is patently absurd.

 

I could write a full breakdown essay on why, but sadly typing this in a military bunk will curtail more eloquent replies for the time being :D

 

But still, everyone would benefit if GW employed technical writers as well.

[Mandragola]

It's definitely "no". It's been stated multiple times by the designers, including at the WHW event last year that I attended. Irritatingly, it isn't in the FAQ, but GW has said publicly what they want it to mean. And I've always interpreted it the same way as Zodd explains above.

[The boater]

I’ve played against Fureans using both interpretations... it doesn’t make much a difference on warlords, but man is the “heat interpretation” brutal on hounds, basically incentivizes you to play conservatively with a legion described as having given into every bestial instinct. Even without the personal anecdotes of hearing it from the designers, it’s pretty obvious what the designers were going with the rule, and I always insist to my Fureans opponents to not take the heat

[General Zodd]

That’s great, I’ve seen (and heard several podcasters) many people very confidently state the opposite, so I was getting concerned that I’d missed a memo. Thanks all!

[SkimaskMohawk]

Happy to be wrong that plasma reactor covers advancing the reactor.

 

But that still doesn't change the fact that mechanically you can't roll the command check until after the track is advanced. You can't have a time after a roll that never happens. I understand the intent behind the designers, but its blocked by their poor sentence composition. And yes sherry, it would technically cause two heat because it's never tied back to the result of the reactor roll.

 

My argument has always been the rules aren't quite tight enough on a written level to facilitate the intent. Barrage hits at -4. "Shoots" is never used as a term except in wild fire. The whole is a smash attack a weapon debacle.

[Mandragola]

I do agree that the rules are nowhere near tight enough. It leaves open these areas that are open to interpretation and the problem is made worse by having such infrequent FAQs. It’s probably caused in part by the fact that they brought in an external games designed to write AT and let him go at the end, so there’s been no continuity.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ya like as much as I can complain about the AT-isms in the rules, it was just one guy writing them and he managed to create a great game regardless.

 

The lack of faqs for non-40k/aos is really frustrating.

[schoon]

I do agree that the rules are nowhere near tight enough. It leaves open these areas that are open to interpretation and the problem is made worse by having such infrequent FAQs. It’s probably caused in part by the fact that they brought in an external games designed to write AT and let him go at the end, so there’s been no continuity.

 

We'll just have to wait for AT 2nd Edition... <ducks> ;)

[The boater]

 

 

I do agree that the rules are nowhere near tight enough. It leaves open these areas that are open to interpretation and the problem is made worse by having such infrequent FAQs. It’s probably caused in part by the fact that they brought in an external games designed to write AT and let him go at the end, so there’s been no continuity.

We'll just have to wait for AT 2nd Edition... <ducks> ;)

Haha, joking aside, what do we think the likely hood is? The rules have got to be getting close to their lifecycle...

[Mandragola]

A second edition is possible. I’m not sure it’s needed. The current starter set is excellent value.

 

But yes, a rulebook written in the format of the current 40K one, with clearly set out rules using bullet points, would be good. And it would be a great opportunity to review things like weapon cards, which are one of the areas that could use some balance changes, in my opinion. And of course to fix the Acastus.

[General Zodd]

Yeah, I’d be hesitant about a second edition. We’ve had a constant flow of source books, many of which people haven’t really had a chance to actually use in real world play yet, so anything that invalidated those would be a very tough sell (unless they want to actually make the Legio Atarus traits decent!). What they could definitely do is a 1.1 rulebook, with more formalised language and better use of traits and key words so you have discrete bits of rules you can plug together in a more understandable way. Which helps with future design, as well as comprehension.

 

I’d also be up for noodling around with some of the points balancing, especially the VMB, Inferno guns and Acastus, but that doesn’t need a new edition, just GW to be courageous enough to change printed cards and terminals, which they’ve not seemed inclined to do so far.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I don't understand their hesitancy with that tbh. They have misprinted cards already in the dual gatlings; the acastus' points and size is completely useless on the back and the warmaster might have some mistakes on its weapons too.

 

Maybe they're waiting until they can produce the thicker terminals in house?

[Mandragola]

Yeah, I’d be hesitant about a second edition. We’ve had a constant flow of source books, many of which people haven’t really had a chance to actually use in real world play yet, so anything that invalidated those would be a very tough sell (unless they want to actually make the Legio Atarus traits decent!). What they could definitely do is a 1.1 rulebook, with more formalised language and better use of traits and key words so you have discrete bits of rules you can plug together in a more understandable way. Which helps with future design, as well as comprehension.

 

I’d also be up for noodling around with some of the points balancing, especially the VMB, Inferno guns and Acastus, but that doesn’t need a new edition, just GW to be courageous enough to change printed cards and terminals, which they’ve not seemed inclined to do so far.

This is exactly what I'd hope for too. No need to change the core rules, but it would be good to clarify many of them.

 

There are other things too, like maybe including a set of the eternal war mission cards in each set.

[apologist]

Yeah, I’d be hesitant about a second edition. We’ve had a constant flow of source books, many of which people haven’t really had a chance to actually use in real world play yet, so anything that invalidated those would be a very tough sell (unless they want to actually make the Legio Atarus traits decent!). What they could definitely do is a 1.1 rulebook, with more formalised language and better use of traits and key words so you have discrete bits of rules you can plug together in a more understandable way. Which helps with future design, as well as comprehension.

 

I agree with your notes. Prior to release, the dense rules text was touted as a feature, rather than a bug – a retro style high-density rules-set designed to appeal to older wargamers. This was a bit of a fundamental mis-step, in my opinion. Perhaps it was just marketing 'damage control' of a rulesbook that does require quite a lot of flicking back and forth; perhaps it was the intention to encourage interaction and discussion between players in order to boost a sense of community. Who can say?

 

Either way, the highlighted part of Zodd's notes would be a fantastic idea, in my view. Something like the Epic: Armageddon rulebook would be ideal, in my view. That was very unusual for GW before or since, as the rules were numbered. That made it very easy and quick to reference, without sacrificing any depth. It made for a very elegant rules set with far less frantically flipping between basic and advanced rules sections.

[Noserenda]

A second edition would be kind of welcome for AT, the rulebook is mildly infuriating to use and as mentioned there are a whole bunch of edge case problems. Id like to see stats brought in book too rather than being reliant on cards made out of house and with serious stock issues. They are lovely for reference but a bit of a liability as a primary source. 

I mean a second edition wouldnt necessarily invalidate the sourcebooks, which are mostly scenarios and Legio rules anyway.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The beauty of the core rules is also their curse. they teach the game better than any other rule set. But that structure then fails people who know the base rules, but need points of clarification.

 

What would be cool, is an FAQ along the lines of the early 3rd edition 40k, where Andy Chambers had the changes printed in a format which matches the original pages they replaced in White Dwarf, you could cut out the sections and glue them in your books, I wouldn't be too averse to that as a holdover.

 

Imagine the next FAQ having a reprint of the Acastus terminal back with the changes, you print and glue stick it on.

[schoon]

Actually, I think it's on the way eventually.

 

The Traitor Legios and Trator Legios books are already a consolidation (and likely slight revision) of the existing books.

 

The real question is if they will do a first hack at corrupted Titans before of after the rules consolidation.