LeperColony

I wonder what a versatile/OOK list would look like. You'd want corpse marker generation and maybe some heal and obey, to keep Seamus around and have him gain actions?

Does he need his crew? Is he a good second master hire?

He was forced to adopt the assertion that you can't determine general vs specific because his original rationale fell through (that the journalist's "Exclusive Interview" ability somehow illustrated that obeyed models drop markers friendly to their original crew). Ultimately he has a result he wants, and he's just trying to find language to support it. That's the opposite of what the analysis process should be though.

The rules for falling state that the model falls if "any part of its base supported by terrain or table." As a general matter, how strict have you been in applying "any part?" 1) Literally 2) Virtually (a sliver of the lip or something being fine) 3) Flexibly (you'll allow a little hanging)

Trying to use the word "specifically" doesn't actually make it specific. Language is specific if it refers to a more narrow range of objects or circumstances. The Markers section talks about the specific rules that cover marker allegiance. It doesn't govern model allegiance, only markers. Your inability to answer the, admittedly rhetorical, question about which of the two are more specific says all we need to know. Rules that only cover markers are more specific than rules that cover markers and models. This is an incorrect use of the term "strawman." My example is a direct logical analogy to your claim. It's two sections of text that reference the same thing. You're claiming there's no way to establish a hierarchy between general and specific, and therefore a FAQ is needed. But I've laid out a logical framework, which honestly shouldn't be controversial, determining when you know a rule is more specific. @Vangerdahast conceded his reading was probably incorrect. You're pretty much the only one who believes "the crew controlling the model" means something other than what it says. Nobody can stop you from playing it your way. You should use a reading that provides a resolution agreeable to you and your group. But that doesn't make it equally valid.

No, that's the opposite of my definition. The Markers section only deals with Markers. In other words, it is specifically related to Markers. It doesn't cover models and markers, it's just markers. Friendly, Enemy & Control covers models, markers and terrain. This is a simple question for you: Which is more specific? 1) Models, Markers and Terrain 2) Markers Remember, by your logic, you can walk out of engagement by using the Movement rules to conflict with the Engagement rules. By mine, you can't.

The hierarchy is present in the section headers. It's how we can narrow the general to the specific. Though of course, "general" and "specific" are relative terms. Some sections are "general" compared to one and "specific" compared to another. "Movement" is general compared to "Engagement" but specific compared to the rules as a whole. Page 26's section header is "Friendly, Enemy, & Control." It is the baseline rules to establish what is friendly and enemy, and what happens when control changes. Page 28's section header is "Markers." This specifically deals with the rules for markers, creating them, removing them and interacting with them. If you need a FAQ to say 28 is more specific to markers than 26, then you're going to need a ton of other FAQs.

The specific controls the general. Page 26 is a general outline of what is friendly and how control works. Page 28 specifically governs the allegiance of makers. In fact, the section on "Friendly, Enemy & Control" goes on to discuss the implications of a change in control, and necessarily does so in an incomplete manner by using language such as "and so on." Note that under your logic, it's ambiguous as to whether or not you can walk out of engagements, because movement on page 14 says when you walk you can move up to your Mv in inches, and engagement on page 26 says you can't use walk to leave engagement. The rules define over-arching concepts in general terms, then carve out exceptions or changes in specific sections. Those specific sections override the general to the extent necessary to give effect to the rule.

I'm sure Wyrd would dispute that it's dead, but there's been no progress and even no talk of progress for a long time.

There really is only one reading. It isn't a matter of interpretation. The only section that governs the allegiance of a dropped marker is on page 28, and its entire language states: "When a model Drops a Marker it is friendly to the Crew controlling the model that Dropped it." That's it. So all you have to do to determine the allegiance of the marker is ask yourself "which crew currently controls the model dropping the marker." Exclusive Interview doesn't help your case. What it does is allow you to use an enemy model to do interact in a way Obey normally wouldn't. For instance, if you Obey an enemy model to interact with a Turf War marker, it can't turn it friendly to you. With Exclusive Interview, however, you can. I honestly have no idea why you think Headline: Secrets Exposed has any relevance on the issue either. Enemy only is a restriction on the target of the action, it doesn't govern the allegiance of the dropped marker. Absent some other specific effect, only the rules on page 28 govern the allegiance of a marker. If you want to continue to play it some other way, that's obviously your prerogative. But from a rules standpoint, this is a clear-cut case.

I'm trying to divine intent, so there's necessarily a margin of uncertainty. But my reading is that since Step B requires a model that has "not yet Activated this turn," C(3) is the means by which that status is tracked. As I mentioned in my initial reply, this is a matter of interpretation between two equally consistent readings. There are reasons. Obey, as you mentioned. Or Action copying, which is reasonably common in the game.

Yeah, and in fact Exclusive Interview allows you to do things like use an enemy model to turn Turf War markers or deliver a message, both of which require friendly models. But as you've mentioned, it's not relevant for determining the allegiance of scheme markers during Obey.

When I feel a matter is subject to interpretation, I'm not shy in saying so. But sometimes the words offer a pretty clear reading. I'm curious what other reading "the crew controlling the model" can mean to you?

Yes, he belongs to his crew. But he is being controlled by an enemy model. The rule states the marker is friendly to "the crew controlling the model." Not the model. Not the model's crew. The crew controlling the model. When a model is being obeyed by an enemy, which crew is controlling the obeyed model? The answer to that question must necessarily match the answer to "which crew is the marker friendly to?"

I feel if this were the intended result, the rules would say that markers are "friendly to the model that dropped it." But instead, it says "friendly to the Crew controlling the model that dropped it." (emphasis mine) So I'd actually say that the marker is friendly to the Obeying model.

This is an interesting question that, in my opinion, isn't going to have a clear answer. Rather, it'll come down to interpretation. So if I were you, I'd be cautious of any reply that seemed to set down a gospel truth and would probably just discuss it with my group. If we couldn't come to a consensus, just flip for it. The rules do say that you "activate" a model in Step B of the Activation Phase. "Activated" is the past tense of "Activate," so it is possible to argue that Manipulative no longer qualifies from this point on. In fact, I think this is probably the intention, and it's how I've been playing it (though I've never considered this before). Your opponent's reading is perfectly consistent with the wording of the rules. But in my opinion, I think the intent of the "The model counts as having Activated this Turn" of C(3) is to render the model ineligible for further activation under step B.

A more ambiguous question, to my mind, is whether the +2 is tied to the flipped card or if it is applied even if you cheat. The text says it adds "+2 to its duel total." You don't total the duel until 2(d)(IV). And on on page 10 of the digital book, under section D, it says you add all modifiers at this stage. When I first read the ability, I assumed it increased the flipped card's value by 2, which was then lost if you cheated. But now I believe that under the rules, you can cheat the flip and still add 2 to the result. Though you still make the decision as to whether or not to spend the chi before cheating.

Flip is 2(d)(II). Cheat is 2(d)(III). While technically cheating is "after" flipping, by that logic "next turn" or "thursday" would be as well. The text of Harness Chi identifies a specific window in the game's timing sequence, not an open-ended starting point.

If the test of useful models is "Seamus can't kill it in one turn" then wtf are people left playing with?

Yeah, Seamus killing someone isn't an indication that the victim model is weak.

Virtually all terrain range buildings are not properly scaled anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. The first structure is alright. If it were me, I'd likely dispense with the seating and just use an open space, or at the least get rid of the chairs. The second structure might not be very interactive/interesting unless you're going to use building interiors. And even then, unless there's interesting sight lines or entry points, it'd probably just become a bunker.

The building wasn't the point, it was just something that occurred to me after making the post. It's one of those things where, because it's a game with a limited set of rules to model all of human (and gremlin and neverborn...) behavior, there are going to be instances of the absurd being possible. Like rocks or pigs ignoring the ceilings and roofs of buildings.

Well, even limited to height 4 it would still protect the Pigapult (size 4).

True, and it would be difficult to enter in the first place since the door needs to be something the "base can fit through." Also, upon re-reading the rule, it says place effects can't move a model into or out of a building, so you actually couldn't use "Full Load." But you could use "Rocks is Pigs."

The Pigapult is inside a roofed building that can be entered. Both of its actions ignore LoS (one explicitly, and the other because it doesn't target anything, it just places a nearby model "anywhere within range [18"]." So can the Pigapult just sit inside and chuck rocks or pigs? Rules as written, it seems like it. But this also feels like a bad result.