LeperColony

Why do you keep saying this? I've already shown twice that other people see the potential ambiguity (pointing it out again here makes it three times). Again, recognizing ambiguity is not the same as advocating for a particular result. It's merely accepting the fact that the language requires interpretation to get at the intent. The reality is you have no argument other than "this is the reading I prefer." Which is fine. But pretending it's the only reading that exists doesn't change the facts.

"If the Black Joker is revealed, it must be chosen, even if the flip had one or more ." (emphasis original), page 9. Again, all 46 of the other uses of must lack conditional language. I agree that's what the "or" part of the sentence does under your reading. The problem is you're pretending that's the only way to read the word "must," and that's demonstrably false. It's been false the whole time, and simply repeating that there's only one way to read it over and over again is not only wrong, it seems largely pointless. Which would be fine if the rule were written so only one interpretation were possible. But it wasn't. There's really no need to construct a justification for the "or" part of the language to accord with your reading, because there's no question what purpose it serves if "must" only has the one meaning you've assigned to it. But "must" has more than one meaning, and as here it is used with conditional language, which it isn't anywhere else, ambiguity exists as to whether must is an imperative or a predicate. I'm not sure why this needs so much repeating. Ambiguity exists when several alternative interpretations can arise from the same verbiage. We have a sentence that is naturally construable to obtain different results.

I've already disposed of this claim, but again @Kadeton not only saw the ambiguity but also saw that the only response to the contrary was to pretend the ambiguity doesn't exist by choosing a reading and pretending it's the only one. And @yames saw both readings as well. Also, a larger number of people repeating the same unsupported claim doesn't make it right. It just makes it louder. This is certainly a valid reading. But not the only one. That can't be true, because as I already established, in 46 of the other 47 uses of the word "must," this conditional language doesn't exist and yet there's no question what happens. For instance: "Players must offer their deck to their opponent to cut whenever it is shuffled." (page 7). This is a clear imperative. It does not leave any room for discretion. Every other use of the word "must" follows this pattern. Only the "must" in trigger costs includes language that leaves it unclear whether it refers to an imperative (you have no choice, it has to happen) or a conditional predicate (you have to do it if you want the effect, but you aren't obligated to do it). Pretending this isn't true doesn't strengthen your argument, in fact it undermines it. Those of you with your position have done nothing except endlessly repeat that it only reads one way. You've provided no rationale that resolves the fact that it can be read in an entirely consistent manner to produce a different result. And it wouldn't be hard to do: "It might be sloppy wording, but I would say you just always have to pay costs." That's an assertion that doesn't pretend away the ambiguity, it just offers a resolution. And it's valid. It's probably even true. But constantly claiming it only means what you say it does is simply wrong. This was amply demonstrated when @Flippin' Wyrd George brought dictionary.com's usage of the word "must" and every example backed my position. As I've said, a usage that would back your position is "what goes up must come down."

The Viks are generally considered to be fairly straightforward, I think.

Every other must is an obligatory thing that has to be done. That's the issue. It is ambiguous whether or not the "must" in this case is a thing that has to be done, or a predicate condition that if not met prevents the "other portions" of the trigger from taking effect. And as I've stated, while the singularly exceptional usage of conditional language in the trigger's case is not dispositive, it is noteworthy that it is different from the other 46 times "must" appears.

That the wording could have been more clear emphasizes its ambiguous potential. All you're doing is asserting your position as though it were fact, when the reality is I've already demonstrated on multiple occasions that a perfectly natural reading of the sentence leads to the implication that it may be possible to decline paying the cost. First of all, this is inaccurate. @Kadeton acknowledged he sees the potential ambiguity as well, and in fact commented on how the rest of the posts are all simply assuming it away. So it's not just me. But also, this thread only has posts from a total of 10 people, including myself who asked the original question and @yames who asked an unrelated question (and so advanced no opinion on the main discussion). I'm sorry if I don't see that as a particularly overwhelming avalanche. The fact is, you have all brought just the same argument, and your only supporting evidence is mere assertion. @Flippin' Wyrd George came the closest to trying to bring evidence, but all his examples of the usage of the word "must" supported "my" position. To be clear, I'm actually not asserting that the rule states the paying of costs may be declined. I'm asserting the rule on trigger costs is unclear on whether costs may be declined. If you had all simply stated that you think the costs can't be avoided, there'd really be no further argument because that's a valid reading of the sentence. The issue is that you're trying to claim it's the only natural reading, and that's simply not accurate. I've always played this way, and it never even occurred to me that it might not work any other way. But because I'd never examined it before, I figured it would be prudent to ask and it turns out pretty much nobody has examined it before. It probably is just sloppy wording. But it is interesting that it's the only time this wording appears.

Deviations from the norm are often (though not necessarily) significant. It's frankly disingenuous to claim otherwise.

What caused the change in bases?

There's just too many. It's a commonly used word, appearing 49 times (though from 47 onwards, it's in the fluff section that describes factions) in a ctrl+f of the .pdf, which I assume is reasonably accurate. But if you do a ctrl+f for it and follow through, you'll see every other use is like this: "Players must offer their deck to their opponent to cut whenever it is shuffled." "If, after resolving any Action, Trigger, or Ability, any player's hand size exceeds their maximum hand size, they must discard down to meet their maximum hand size." In fact, in some of these instances, the next sentence further qualifies these uses of "must" as an imperative by saying "even if..." For instance, on page 9 under "Fate Modifiers" it states: "If the Black Joker is revealed, it must be chosen, even if the flip had one or more ." (emphasis original). The only other time I could find "must" used in anything approaching similarly conditional language was on page 23, where it states under Step 2: Pay Any Costs (dealing with Actions): "Costs that reference an Action's target must instead be paid as part of declaring the target (step 3). Otherwise, the model cannot be target."

Is there any intention to update the story encounters (rules-wise) with M3E? To the extent that's even needed.

The very sentence implies the possibility of the option, hence the ambiguity. "These costs must be paid when the trigger is declared or no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." I hadn't noticed the may before, but that's yet more conditional language. Note, however, that it still could be conditional in the sense that the cost is mandatory. I'm not saying that isn't possible. The implications of the logic inherent in the word "must" is the source of the ambiguity. It's also amusing that one strain of argument among those supporting your position is must "means" an absolute imperative requirement (which I disproved using their own examples), while this new claim is that the "logical" use of the word necessarily means what you're claiming. The reality is that the rules are written by people who use words, as everyone does, with a certain degree of imprecision and sometimes that leads to ambiguity. It is interesting though that in all the examples of "must" I could find in the rulebook, this is the only section where it is used in this manner. I believe the resolution of this ambiguity isn't in denying it exists, but rather in attempting to identify the underlying intent of the rules. RAW it's possible paying costs is elective (though if unpaid, the effect fails). But intent-wise, I think it's probably correct to say paying it is mandatory.

I asked about situations where it might matter. You're asserting that the combination of cost and declaration of triggers (as opposed to the bifurcated process in actions) is intentional and significant (by which I mean the difference between the two has rules implications). So then can you "declare" a trigger when you know you can't pay the cost? Because there may be times when you can accrue some benefit upon declaring the trigger, but if declaring it requires paying the costs, then you couldn't.

I appreciate your opinion. Any reasoned contribution is always useful. But again, I actually demonstrated you used "must" the way I said illustrates the ambiguity. That's just where it's at.

I'm not sure why you're waiting for it. I'm not stating it explicitly says that. I'm not even stating that there necessarily is any choice. I'm saying there's ambiguity and your answer to the ambiguity is "at least it doesn't say it clearly."

All of those examples prove my point, not yours. None of them are logical imperatives. For instance: "Meat must be cooked thoroughly" There's no physical law that compels you to sit there and cook meat until it is thoroughly done. You can turn off the heat any time you want. It's advisable that you choose to cook it to a certain extent. The "must" in costs can mean one of two things: 1) There is no agency available to the player. If the trigger is declared and a cost exists, it shall be paid. This is the interpretation you're asserting, though amusingly none of your examples from dictionary.com use must in this way. Instead, you need something like "what goes up must come down." 2) Cost is a predicate condition, if you don't pay it, the effect doesn't occur. This is the use of the word "must" in every one of your examples.

The very fact that no other example of the word "must" is ambiguous is the point. "Must" doesn't occur in a vacuum, and this example is the only time I've encountered it in a conditional sentence. Which is what adds the ambiguity. And in fact adds to it. If something is presented in one way 99 times, it's fair to ask if the 1 different situation is significant.

I've played Malifaux for years and never thought about whether costs could be voluntarily declined. But reading the section, the language's natural reading conflicts with what I believe is the intention of the designers. I can keep listing examples like "You must eat your vegetables or you don't get dessert" pretty much all day, which none of you really care to address, because the reality is a natural reading leads to a contrary conclusion. But that's the wording in the rulebook.

I'm not sure the suit requirement is a cost.

@Kadeton's analysis is essentially where I'm at. Costs are a section where I'd like to see more clarity though. If you look at some other games like CCGs, costs tend to be described with more particulars because there are more moving pieces than it seems.

I personally think, as I said earlier, that the intent of the rules requires costs to be paid in mandatory triggers. This is actually why I made a separate thread for the question of costs generally, because mandatory triggers are potentially different. I've never played it where costs were optional. It never even occurred to me that they might be, until someone I was teaching was asking if they could not pay the Sow's cost on a trigger they flipped, and my only argument rested on an interpretation that isn't necessarily even the most natural reading of the sentence.

It actually takes more or less the same amount of time. There's other threads that talk about the numbers behind it, but where it helps with making combat a little more challenging for the fated is that it adds an element of narrative uncertainty that doesn't exist with known, fixed TNs. Sure, using rules that players don't encounter as often will help shake things up. So will encounters where the outcome is inevitable but the means matter. For instance, a combat that can't be "won" in the traditional sense (like an endless horde of zombies), but the players can decide how long to stay and how many villagers to save. Also, taking away some of their toys so the fated have to find other solutions in the fight.

This is exactly what I said, so not sure how I'm understanding it wrong.

Again, you've established no source that proves this is true. You're simply asserting it's true. Which it very well may be. But I'm pointing out that perfectly natural uses of the "must...or" construction lead to opposite results, and it's noteworthy that none of you can address that fact. Again, consider the following sentence: You must register to run the marathon. The "must" here can either mean you have no choice but to register to run the marathon, OR it can mean that in order to run the marathon, you have to register, but that you can freely elect to not register (or even not run it, even if you register). Now, consider the next sentence: You must register or no other portion of the marathon happens for you (a bit tortured, I know, but trying to use their language). I'm not sure the most natural reading of that sentence is that I have no physical choice but to register.

Except it doesn't say "or nothing happens," but rather it says "or no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." (page 12). "Other portion" necessarily divides the trigger into portions, one of which is declaring it. So if an ability requires a trigger to be declared, a player may want to activate that ability even if they can't pay the trigger. For instance, consider the following: Model A has an ability "when this model declares a trigger, draw a card." Model A has a trigger with a suit requirement and a cost pay 2 life. Model A flips a but only has 1 life, so it can't pay the cost. Under your reading of the rules, A can't declare the trigger because it can't pay the cost, so it can't draw a card? I'm asking because in the other thread, you seemed to imply that because trigger's declaration and payment are NOT bifurcated as they are with actions, they operate differently from actions: "There is only 1 step for Triggers and that is the declare triggers step when you must pay any additional costs or no other part of the trigger will happen." (sorry, don't know how to quote from other thread)

Is the difference between actions/action cost timing and trigger/trigger cost timing intentional? For instance, consider the following situations: Player A has a model, Model A. Model A has the ability "when this model declares an action or a trigger, it may draw a card." It also has an ability with a cost discard a card and a trigger (on a different, no-cost action) with the cost discard a card. 1. Player A has no cards in hand. Model A declares it is taking an action, and therefore draws a card. The action's cost, discard a card, can now be paid. 2. Player A has no cards in hand. Model A declares it is generating a trigger with a cost of discard a card. At the time Model A is declaring the trigger, it has no cards in hand and can't pay the cost. But, once the trigger is declared, it will draw a card from its ability. So may it declare the trigger? Next scenario: Player B has a model, Model B. Model B has a trigger with a requirement and discard a card as the cost. Model B flips a , but has no cards in hand. Which of the following is correct: 1. Model B may declare the trigger since it has a , but the trigger has no effect due to an inability to pay the cost. 2. Model B may not declare the trigger because paying costs is part of "declaring" as it happens in the same step. I know, I've copied it myself. Reading it is what's troubling me, because to me, the most natural sentence construction or "must...or" language is elective. You "must" eat better or gain weight. But I can choose to eat the same (or worse). You "must" buy a ticket or you can't see the show. But I can choose not to see the show. You "must" do something or something else won't happen. But I can choose for that thing to not happen. I actually struggle to find a counter-example, where "must" is an actual literal imperative that will happen if possible using "must...or" sentence construction. Why does it matter? Because rules should generally be read using the most natural construction. When a rule requires a less common construction (and it does happen on occasion), it can lead to confusion. Hence the ambiguity. So the issue isn't so much that I want an explicit statement (though I wouldn't mind one), but rather that I feel the most common reading of the actual words used does not lead to the conclusion you're advancing, even if that conclusion is ultimately correct or the actual intended process. Actually, it matters more than just outside mandatory triggers. For instance, consider the following ability: When Model A declares a trigger, it may draw a card. If Model A has the suit for a trigger, but can't meet the cost, does it draw a card? Or an enemy with the following ability: When an enemy model within 6 declares a trigger, it discards a card. When does this happen? Before costs are paid? After? If it's before costs are paid, If the enemy model has 1 card in hand before declaring the trigger, can it declare it knowing it won't be able to pay the cost? And if it can't declare the trigger (because it can't pay the cost), then the enemy model's ability would never actually occur, which would never take the card away, but that means... This is actually exactly what I was saying. Failing to meet an optional cost does not result in the action failing. Seamus's optional cost modifies the action, but he can do the action without meeting it.