Todd

I think maybe you're getting hung up on the mention of pairs? Lol! Companion, the unexplainable mechanic. Wyrd should have a contest. Player submitting the best written version of Companion wins an entire faction of their choice. Entries must be 10 sentences or less, and may include no more than 3 diagrams. Rule must convey the entirety of Companion's intent and function. No purchase necessary to play. None of the dolls actually have companion. Collodi has other ways of making them activate simultaneously. Oh, there's a thought! Why not dump the chain, and make companion work more like Holding the Strings, Pack, or Flock? Just remove Companion from the rulebook entirely. Forget about the pre-actiavtion chain formation. The specific model's companion text would indicate the eligible models (depending on what it should be allowed to companion with), and could even vary the distance (to control balance). For example, the Mannequin could have... Companion: When activating this model, you may simultaneously activate any number of friendly Showgirls within 6" that have not already activated this turn. It would work functionally the same, but without all the mess. If another companion was in range it would extend the "chain" much like the rule is supposed to work now. If implemented with some thought and consideration, it shouldn't foul up any existing companion relationships.

Would it break the game horribly if the rule was made more generic/universal? For example: Companion: This model is a Companion. Before you would activate a model, nominate any number of Companion models within 6" of each other. These models activate simultaneously. Then just go back through with the errata wand and hand out the companion rule like its candy.

Sample 3 should cover that. At least, the description of why it works can be applied to this. Models B1 and B2 have the characteristic A needs for its companion ability.

Companion?

That is fantastic Keltheos, thank you! Not to sound ungrateful (its awesome that you took the time to do this), but will there be any effort to write a simple Companion rule that's able to convey all that? If you have to take a page or two to explain it in the next version of the rules, that's fine too. I was just curious. In the meantime, could we get a separate sticky with maybe this and all the other Companion rulings in one place?

And we won't know what Wyrd intended until they write a version of Companion that makes sense. You're absolutely right, all of those other problems also exist within the wording of Companion. The only thing the rule actually conveys is that a model with Companion is necessary and some models get to simultaneously activate. We shouldn't need Wyrd to fill in all of the blanks, and basically forum rule the entire thing/process. That's the rule's job.

I'm also curious, why? I'm not too impressed. Especially since taking her means bumping up to 40ss or dropping another model that functions perfectly with the crew already. Even at 40ss, I'd be more inclined to take Johan, or a pair of Union Miners.

Measuring properly is measuring properly, either way you do it. I think I've seen people rubber ruler a long measurement more often than a lot of short ones. Nothing wrong with doing it all at once. However, you're cheating yourself out of some options. For instance, stopping just within 2" melee range of an enemy with a 1" melee range. Also, with abilities like Sword Dance you end up breaking your Wk down into pieces anyway.

Gollum is right, you can check melee range at any point (only melee. I believe Ratty or somebody messed up an said Auras too once, but it was corrected). A search should yield some relevant threads. Also, its the last bullet point under Melee Basics on page 39. Unless you forget to measure first, you shouldn't ever declare a melee strike against a model outside of your melee range. You can't pre-measure auras or ranged strikes, so those aren't really an issue. Nothing wrong with inching around, as far as I know. How did you arrive at your method of doing movement?

The very first sentence of the Paralyzed rule (page 34 of the rules manual) states what happens if you are paralyzed during your activation. Lose Remaining AP, and activation ends (in addition to the effects that accompany being paralyzed). You get to activate normally next turn.

Your whole equation (while fun, I admit ) hinges on interpreting this a certain way (choice #2). I find this way to be a stretch, and just don't see it as the logical choice. Using a pronoun (one another) to describe different/multiple nouns already leads to ambiguity. This is compounded by the fact that they're in different clauses. The reciprocal relationship reads as being between the nominated Showgirls, not the Showgirls (noun in the main clause) and the Companion model (noun in a completely different clause- subordinate clause). I'm not sure you can even use a pronoun that way. Nevermind variables, let's plug in the actual game terms that the rule is being applied to. Before activating a model with Companion (Showgirls), nominate any number of Showgirls within 6" of one another. Forget that we're trying to make the rule work a certain way. Do you really think that reads as the showgirls need to be within 6" of the Companion, and not each other?

Where are you guys getting that you have to announce where you plan to move a model? Is this somewhere in the rules and I'm just not seeing it, or some kind of forum ruling/explanation? I don't see anything preventing you from moving an inch (or an even smaller increment) at a time until you've used up a model's walk. The rules manual is actually pretty vague as to how you are supposed to conduct movement (maybe I'm overlooking something). In practice: Move a little bit (maybe 2", or maybe 5") towards an enemy (deducting the distance moved from your Wk). Stop. Check Melee Range. If in range, make a Sword Dance Strike. Use the Push trigger. Push in whatever direction you want (same as movement, a little at a time, until you've run out of inches). Resume Walk action. Move a little in whatever direction you want to go (deducting it from your model's walk). Repeat until the model's Wk is used up. Obviously, its less tedious in practice than it sounds. Is this wrong?

Well, having looked back at previous threads, very few discussions even deal with models of corresponding characteristics that don't also have the Companion ability. Also, most seemed to be concerned with which models can companion with whom, rather than their physical orientation. Pre-emptive questions (assuming the rule works the way everyone intuitively "knows" it does, rather than the way it is worded ). If referenced/characteristic models being companioned have to be within 6" of a Companion model, but not a specific companion (there is no starting model for the companion chain- http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27730&highlight=Companion ), would the following examples be legal (why or why not)? All participants in the chain are within 6" of another model in the chain. All participants are either companions or within 6" of a companion. Assume the models are in a linear orientation. Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Companion (Characteristic X) ...or this... Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"---> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"---> Companion (Characteristic C) -- 6"---> Model (Characteristic X) Some model specific examples (different companion issues though). While this is legal... Daydream (Companion: LCB) -- 6"--> Lord Chompy Bits -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB) ...would the following be illegal... Lord Chompy Bits -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB) -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB) Sorry, I know this is a mess to look at. :imsorry:

Then everyone else is cheating (themselves ) Actually, I'm sticking to my guns on this. The rule says I can do what I did. It says I can nominate any number of referenced/corresponding characteristic models within 6" of one another. Nowhere does it say that the referenced models have to have the companion ability. It doesn't even imply it. :mannequin ---6"---> :colette---6"--->:coryphee1= All Simultaneously Activating Take the above diagram, how does it not fit within the criteria/framework of the written rule? Link (specific) or Rules marshal please.

Well, you said it, I didn't! Companion is a poorly worded piece of poop, and I think we can all agree on that. However, I believe Wyrd has a very clear and specific idea of how the rule works. Why they don't write a rule that expresses that, I don't know. Anyway, my interpretation is fairly straight forward and literal. Other than everyone just knowing it doesn't work that way, can you find fault in it? I guess another interpretation could be that all the models need to be within 6" of one another. All of them within 6" of every other nominated model. No companion chains, more like clumps. It may be wrong, but read the rule and tell me it doesn't say that. But of course, we all "know" it doesn't work like that. Are there any that reference this specific case? I actually looked but couldn't find any.

No. Instinctual lets you take two different (0)actions. Besides, there's no point. Once you use Sword Dance all of your walk actions may include a Blades Strike.

Jokers have a value of 14 and the suit of your choice. I believe that is all. you still need to win the duel, and then flip damage as normal.

Oh yeah, if that is you Andrew, and it was shenanigans, I apologize.

I think I'm the culprit. Andrew, is that you? Ok, nay-sayers. “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…” What I did (Stuff) Before activating the Mannequin (a model with companion), I nominated 4 (any number of) Showgirls (models with the corresponding characteristic) within 6" of one another (notice the the phrase one another, not the model with companion). They activated simultaneously. How is this wrong?

I think it helps to think of it this way... Rather than "abilities are always active", abilities are actually always passive. That is, waiting for a time when they are called upon to actually be used or have their effects applied. You don't choose to use them, nor are they always being used. In this case, Holding the Strings is running in the background. You get to a point when its effects need to resolve, and then you determine who they are actually applied to. Its a little counter-intuitive.

That makes sense. I get it now. Thanks. I was definitely hung up on the whole "always active" bit. It also helped to look at similar rules on other models.

One last thing before I go and actually play some Malifaux. I'd like to revisit my New Years party example. "Everyone here throw out your christmas tree after January 1st." Same basic sentence structure as Holding the Strings. Let's treat it as we would a game rule. With Holding the Strings, we're trying to figure out when Marionettes need to be within 6" of Collodi to be effected. Similarly, with the New Years "rule" we need to know when everyone needs to be in the same location (here) as the speaker. In order to figure this out, lets apply the same logic that most are using to determine the timing/application of Holding the Strings. We look to the adverbial clause. "after this model's activation ends" = When the marionettes need to be within 6" of Collodi (according to how everyone seems to agree it should be played) vs. "after January 1st" Now, you wouldn't look at the New Year's example and assume the speaker intends for only people still present at the party with him/her after January 1st to throw out there christmas trees, right?

Probably from other systems like others have said. Maybe because the game uses alternating activation? Have you shown them this? I don't see how anyone could read that and think otherwise.

Agreed. I actually appreciate how well the rules are written compared to other games. Yeah, damage/wounds seems to cause a lot of issues, but even that I can see them sorting out fairly easily at some point in the future. If that's the worst thing we have to deal with, the game is in pretty good shape.

That's the problem. If you assume the adverbial clause is describing the verb activate (which is grammatically correct), you lose the timing application. My argument is there is no clear declaration of application of effects within the rule, only the implied timing of when we resolve the effects. When Collodi's actiavtion ends, we only know we're supposed to activate affected Marionettes. The sentence is trying to do too much.