Arena Rex Forums

Agreed, I think sooner or later an FAQ or errata will come

I think after reading your post the one thing that stood out is why only the Morituri benefits say "friendly models" while the others say specific Ludus. That either makes Morituri cohorts way more powerful or the "friendly gladiators" part be similar to all cohorts. Note how the only thing they mentioned wouldn't work were the effects, but that's because only Morituri models even have that kind of box on their profiles.

But the other thread I linked specifically mentions that Noxius cannot use Ambush because he is not considered a Zephyri
No. 4 in this thread.
viewtopic.php?t=33917

_________________
Morituri te salutamus.

While I no longer claim to speak on behalf of the Noxius ruling, the only thing I will say in regards to Flourish is that I interpret the bottom of the tree as having exhausted all possible options, mostly because it would seem a little OP to generate 2 just from having 4 net successes. (Honestly, that helps me since I have Hermes in my Magnus cohort, so my interpretation isn't because I don't like it )

But hey, I could be wrong.

Agreed! The one thing with benefits I wish they would go either "friendly models" or "____ specific models" in all the benefits, just so we can be clear

But maybe the difference in the wording is there by design in order to make things balanced. Some had argued that some of the Morituri benefits were a little underpowered because once you get to Last Man Standing everyone has "Will of Antony" so perhaps the balance to that is that the Morituri spread their benefits out a little more than the other factions.
I'm. It sure if that is the reason or if there even are reasons (maybe it's just a mistake that will get errata'ed).

What I am concerned about is the lack of consistency in the rulings. If we are told one thing in the forums and then someone is told something different a few months later, then that puts into question the finality of the rulings... which undermines the whole clarification process.

Nothing to do but wait for RRG to chime in and hopefully release an official FAQ or errata document to formally clarify the issue. Until then I guess the only thing to do is simply make sure you and your opponent are clear about which interpretation will be in play when you face off.

_________________
Morituri te salutamus.

Well, in my view, in cases where you could argue either way, nobody can be right or wrong. There's just two different valid interpretations. It can only become right or wrong if RRG clarifies which one they want to make the right one.



I think it's OK that the rules are never final - all living games are always works in progress, I think. I'm certainly used to companies giving one ruling, and then coming back and reversing that ruling later on if they came up with a better idea.

But I don't like it if they give one ruling one place, and a different ruling in another place, at the same time. That makes have one consolidated official ruleset impossible. Since most games developers usually want to have one consolidated official ruleset, for the purposes of marketing and promotion if nothing else, I think we can only assume that one of the rulings is an error. Errors can always happen.

To combat this, I think it would be helpful if RRG, or even just us in the community, agree that one specific "place" has preferential status in terms of communication of rulings. For example the rules forum here. Then if a ruling in the rules forum and a ruling in a private email conflict, the rules forum wins until the conflict is sorted out.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

Yeah. I don't actually mind that rules change... just the lack of an official update here if that was the case. I just ran some demos at a local event and I go off the rulebook and the rulings here and I'd hate to think I lead people astray.

_________________
Morituri te salutamus.