Commander_Jay

Ok, thanks. That's how I've been playing it. But when I saw the two variations on the Katanaka Sniper's card, I thought there might have been some intentional difference.

There is a common phrase used for attacks that have to the attack flip. Most cases appears as: "This Action gains to the Attack flip." And when a model has to attack and damage it will say: "This Action gains to the Attack and Damage flips." But I see that a few models (like Nino Ortega, and Katanaka Sniper) have this wording: "This Attack Action receives ." At first I thought that since it says action it would mean the attack and any resulting flips, including damage. But models that have a positive to both attack and damage say that, specifically. So does "This Attack Action receives " mean even more than that? Or is it just an odd wording that means adding a to the attack flip, and/or the damage flip, but with a different wording? The Katanaka Sniper is especially odd, as it's Ancestral Katana says "This Action gains to the Attack flip." While the Clockwork Rifle says "This Attack Action receives ." So what's the difference? What exactly does "This Attack Action receives " mean? (As this would be best cleared up with insight into the original intent of this wording, it'd be great to have and official ruling and having this added to the FAQ).

It was a good time And a good charity event. Different to have prizes given out by raffle went all random players. Winners didn't get anything, but others did. Playing fast with a fully painted crew and other such bonuses greatly improved your odds by having more tickets, kind of like an achievement event. I would recommend having a list of ways people could get tickets in the info and player packets, since that's what they should be aiming for.

I'll be there too, with another friend as well. -Commander_Jay a.k.a. the other Jonah

[This is Jonah] It was great! Awesome games, prizes, and the good flips when I needed them (mostly). I also can't wait to play again at TempleCon. Edit: I noticed other events and organizers talking about the Malifaux event with a lot of admiration and respect. Good work!

I'll be there, and bringing another friend!

I'm afraid you're missing the point about the cases when my doubts appear. Take the Dreamer a 3 Daydreams. The Daydreams have Companion (Dreamer/LordChompyBits). So I start the companion chain by choosing a Daydream, and looking around for any model named "Dreamer" or "Lord Chompy Bits." I find one, obviously nominate the Dreamer. But then no model has Companion (Daydream), so no other Daydreams would be eligible to be nominated. And nothing grants a model Companion (Daydream), or Companion (*any model that can companion this model), or anything else. So I can only companion one Daydream and the Dreamer. That's my point. Allowing more Daydreams to be eligible for nomination would be a new addition to rules. And it should be agreed upon, or not, and then added to the Official Rules Errata. Because if you do not write this up, it is open for abuse. Could anyone Companion (*any model that can companion this model)? It should be written, and not left up in the air.

Wait! This thread was not about Pacify originally, it just got derailed. We knew the how Companion interacts with Pacify from the beginning.

Here's Ratty's reply about Pacify: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25226&highlight=companion+pacify In short, you can not companion, unless all the nominated models have been pacified, and there is nothing left to activate.

Any of the nominated models may go first. It does not say or require that the model with Companion must go first in the chain. Once the group of nominated models has been established, you may choose any of them to activate first.

It has been previously ruled that Pacify makes you activate last, and can not activate sooner using Companion.

Exactly. If Companion is supposed to allow these two new features, I think it should be included on that page. That is the cause of my concern. Look also at all the posts up to #16. Sketch declares it a legal "two way street." But what is the wording of the new addition to Companion? Can you choose a Model or Characteristic, AND any model that could companion the Model or Characteristic? The Rules Marshalls say it's ok, but why? Thats my big question.

First, sorry for the long explanation, but I am concerned about the Companion rules. They are very clear in the Rules Manual, but it seems like they are being played differently, and with approval from Rules Marshals. I like for a Rules Marshal to respond if one can. I'd like to know what the official rules are, and if they are different from what is in the Rules Manual, there should an update, or errata document, because it seems to go beyond mere clarification. The Rules Manual says (on page 115): Companion (Model or Characteristic) Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another. These models activate simultaneously. Choose one of the nominated models to activate first, and complete its entire activation. Then the Controller chooses and activates another nominated model. Continue activating the nominated models until all nominated models have completed their activations. Then the Rules Manual has an example, which I will not add here. My concern is based on two points. First Concern: The first is about the very first clause is "before activating a model with Companion," but people often dont follow this requirement. For instance, you can not choose a model with companion, then it would be impossible to begin the companion chain. To illustrate this, if you have a Totem who has Companion (Master) that has been the victim of Pacify, the Totem must activate last. You also have a Master. You would have to activate the Master first, and therefore would not be able to start companion as you would not be "before activating a model with Companion." And you could not choose to activate the Totem legally at this time. But I have heard and read arguments based on Rules Marshalls saying that in effect the Master is granted the ability to Companion the Totem. People often reference this as the "two way street" that Weird_Sketch affirmed. Although this would be an addition to the rules, and not merely a clarification. Personally I thought that the "two way street" referred to your ability to start with any of the nominated models, and that you are not limited to a specific order. But that is already clearly explained under the Companion rules and under the rules for activating models simultaneously (page 31). (Perhaps related, can Lord Chompy Bits activate a Daydream when he activates? Its not on his card, nor allowed under the Companion Rules). Second concern: This is also based on having a broad definition for the "two way street." This came up with several Daydreams and The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits. The daydreams have Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits), and thus when they activate can look around for any of those models, and in this case they will find one. But they do NOT have Companion (Daydream), and nor does any other model, so additional Daydreams would not be eligible to be nominated as part of the Companion chain. Specifically, Companion says "Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another." So if its says a Model, like it does in this case, listing either The Dreamer or Lord Chompy Bits. If it said a characteristic, like Family, then you would look around for models with that characteristic. But it has been said that Companion allows a third option, that is not in the rules. That you can choose a Model or Characteristic, or any model that could companion the Model or Characteristic. For example, you could look around for The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits, but also any model that has Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits). This would not be allowed, but has been assumed. So is this allowed? Those are the two issues I cant seem to resolve. I'd LOVE for a Rules Marshal to read and respond. If you need more info, just ask. If these two things are allowed, why? Was this some intent that was not written in the Rules Manual? Or have we taken some clarifications too far? In short: If it is true that you can start a Companion when you would activate a model who does NOT have the companion talent on their card, then it should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification. And if you can companion anything beyond a listed Model or Characteristic beyond those listed in the Companion Model/Characteristic), that should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification. By the way, I do not see any official errata, nor could we find one. We see the rules section, with the Rules Manual and the clarifications and errata for the cards, but is there an Errata for the rules?

Fantastic and original event! I hope you host another ASAP!