N18 House of Shadow: Delaque Sub Plots

[SirWalterManny]

I love some of the sub-plots for being so thematic (“No witnesses”, “eyes in the dark” and “host of shadows” I’m looking at you)… but struggling with a few of them in how they are supposed to work. Not sure if I am just tired and misreading, or If these are really just not clear:

7 “Craven is the Coward” seems unclear as to how this works/what this represents thematically. Is this supposed to trigger when any one of your fighters is isolated (has no friendly fighters within 6” of it)? Or when all your fighters are dispersed (none are within 6” of another)? Why?

“Reveal this Sub-plot if there are three or more enemy fighters currently Broken, and no friendly fighters within 6" of one of your fighters.”

8 “Follow the Leader” what if the selected enemy fighter is removed from the battlefield? Is the sub-plot successfully completed, or failed?

9 “A Dark Mirror” - as for 8.

10 “Dead of Night” - assume this is missing an ‘at the start’ or ‘at the end’ clarification for when during the designated round the check is made.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Got Craven... I think "friendly fighters" is meant to read "enemy fighters". Makes sense then.

 

[Jakkarra]

Got Craven... I think "friendly fighters" is meant to read "enemy fighters". Makes sense then.

My understanding is that they mean "Fighters considered friendly to the enemy model originally discussed". It's a very GW way of writing a simple concept in a confusing manner.

So, yeah, I'd say it means "Enemy fighters".

 

[SirWalterManny]

Got Craven... I think "friendly fighters" is meant to read "enemy fighters". Makes sense then.

My understanding is that they mean "Fighters considered friendly to the enemy model originally discussed". It's a very GW way of writing a simple concept in a confusing manner.

So, yeah, I'd say it means "Enemy fighters".

Yeah, that makes sense rules-wise, would be much clearer and would also make sense thematically.

 

[Sundown Dreamer]

No, RAW I do not think so.

The comma actually separates the sentence! Because of this and also because the card owner is addressed by "of one of your fighters" I would relate it to my own and not the enemy fighters.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

RAW I agree.

But that makes no sense, so I'm fairly sure it's just a typo

 

[Sundown Dreamer]

Maybe, but I have big problems imagining how one can confuse "enemy" and "friendly" here?


Edit: If I think about it, it means that every Delaque stands for himself and fights alone. So don't be a coward and you get the reward for that. - I hope I translated correctly, but that would make sense to me.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

That's the RAW but it feels nonsensical to me. Wouldn't it make more sense if the enemy was nowhere near you because they're all scared?

As for how you can get them confused, this is GW.
Maybe they changed the wording at some point but didn't change all of it?

 

[TopsyKretts]

How one can confuse simple terms? I've stopped being surprised years ago!

 

[SirWalterManny]

Maybe, but I have big problems imagining how one can confuse "enemy" and "friendly" here?


Edit: If I think about it, it means that every Delaque stands for himself and fights alone. So don't be a coward and you get the reward for that. - I hope I translated correctly, but that would make sense to me.

Translated fine I think, but I still dont get this thematically. If assuming it should be as written, the reward is being given because (1) multiple enemy fighters are fleeing and (2) unrelated to this, on of your fighters is by themselves.

If assumption is it should be ‘enemy fighters’ then rewards are given because (1) multiple enemy fighters are fleeing and (2) no other enemy fighters are near you (inference being all those who were are now fleeing, or that no enemies dare come near you because they are craven cowards).

That makes more thematic sense, and also is more coherent game-play wise (you have made the enemy fighters near you flee… not ‘you have made enemy fighters flee and, oh, by the way, one of your fighters is nowhere near the rest of your gang - (note, RAW, the friendly fighter 6”away from the rest of your gang could be Broken themselves and still get the reward)

 

[SirWalterManny]

… note, RAW, the friendly fighter 6”away from the rest of your gang could be Broken themselves and still get the reward.

Actually, that could be another option: it could be supposed to say “no BROKEN friendly fighters within 6” of one of your fighters”.

That would also make sense (and wording would allow for use in multi-player games also).