Safe in My Bed + Lethal Damage

[DocSchlock]

I'm coming at this from an angle of helping new players into the game, and looking at this from a perspective of someone who is reading the rules in the book and on the card and trying to apply them without reading the forums.

• Dreamer declares Safe in My Bed
• Lethal damage gets applied during Step 5 since there's no wording in the trigger to imply damage wouldn't be recorded otherwise.
• Dreamer dies.
• The Dreamer isn't around any more for Safe in My Bed to occur after Step 5, since the trigger is "after succeeding."

I understand the argument that the Dreamer can basically "hold" the effects of an Action from being applied until the trigger goes off (see http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/105662-timing-of-safe-in-my-bed/), but why is this trigger special like that when it doesn't have any wording to support such an override at all (is "target friendly Nightmare within a3 suffer the effects of the Action instead as if it had been the target" really implying that I can ignore the entire Damage / Step 5 resolution section of the rulebook? If so, that's a pretty big stretch of logic.)? Why can't I "hold" the damage from being applied for any "after succeeding" trigger, if that "after succeeding" trigger would change something?

I'll go through the standard rule steps:

Is this a problem or a problem of perception?
A problem for new players (I've had it come up a few times), especially ones that want clear, non-frustrating rules. A strong ruleset needs clear rules that can be evenly applied by everyone, and this definitely is one rule that needs work. The given explanations about why it works make no sense to players outside this forum. As soon as someone reads it closely, Safe in My Bed (and other triggers similar to it) falls apart and brings up a bunch of questions that cannot be answered outside of coming on here and finding Justin's post. I'm sure plenty of you play this "correctly," but newer players or interested players don't have the luxury of assumption - if something is unclear or a rule takes leaps of logic to work, the rule is broken. There are too many good games out at the moment and not enough time to play one with broken rules.

Does it need fixed?
If you want players to not to have to hear "Oh, it reads like this, but it really works like this (which is what the forums told me)," this rule needs looked at.

What can fix it?
An FAQ entry that explictly gives these Triggers the power to overrule the normal Step 5 resolution would be great and solve all the issues. I could just point them to that entry instead of himhawing about how the Dreamer gets to hold his Step 5 from finishing until his trigger goes off, in defiance of logic.

If the powers that be want to errata it, changing the text to

Safe in My Bed: After determining any damage but before any damage reduction from an Attack Action, discard a
card to make target friendly Nightmare within
a3 suffer the effects of the Action instead as
if it had been the target, including any Triggers.

which is clear if a little clunky, easy to understand, does not change the power level of the trigger, and works fine timing-wise. Text size would have to be shrunk a bit though.

[Myyrä]

It works that way because Justin said so. No other reason. I think it should also be put in FAQ, but we'll see.

[The Godlyness]

Well why we are here lets talk about Austringers. Distract trigger. I am betting 99% of people don't flip for damage. Cause it doesn't do any. We know this since we know what trigger is being used before the flip.

You are reading static rules which I agree should be clear. But in actual play it's quite smooth.

Also need to change kirai. And why pointing out flaws tell them to change dumb luck.

[Myyrä]

And while pointing out flaws tell them to remove dumb luck.

Fixed that for you.

[DocSchlock]

You are reading static rules which I agree should be clear. But in actual play it's quite smooth.

It's only smooth if you troll the forums and have all the inside info. Otherwise, it's annoying and a nightmare to handle.

But you're right, Austringer's trigger doesn't really work either, and neither does Kirai's. These should be changed as well, because it doesn't help players get into your game if you tell them one set of rules, then expect them to apply them in a non-standard way that requires a leap of logic. Not everyone leaps.

At least Dumb Luck (and things like it) got an FAQ.

[Bodiless]

In this instance, and the similar instance of Marcus's Defend Me trigger, it really does not work smoothly. We had this come up in our group last night, and the only reason we played it as decided on the forums is because I had been involved in the Safe in My Bed discussion and knew what Justin's answer was. So I ended up telling our Marcus player that it worked that way "because Justin said so." Which was fine for a friendly game, but I think if I had to tell someone that it worked that way at, for example, the US National coming up at NOVA, they would understandably be skeptical. Especially if it worked to my advantage by disallowing the use of Impossible to Wound on the transfer target, which was the scenario we had last night. 

[The Godlyness]

I think people are actually missing something here. The only reason dreamer gets to decide to pitch a card is cause that is how his trigger is worded.

Marcus and kirai once there trigger is declared EVERYONE knows that they are not taking the damage or the effects. They don't get the choice to keep it to them selves. If there is a valid target to pass it off on. They can't choose not to pass it off if there are targets around them since that is no doing what the trigger says.

Dreamer has the option to pitch a card or take it. The other 2 don't. So once that trigger is declared there is no take backs (tournament here not friendly do what you please games) you must do what it says.

That is the disconnect I fear. Once that trigger for Marcus or kirai is chosen rules wise yes back tracking ever so slightly but in the flow of the game. I am pretty sure you don't Mark all the damage you suffer then erase x wounds for armor then erase x more wounds for prevention etc. You look at all the effects that can come into play then after all is said and done you mark wounds on model x. So in his case trigger is known. Do what it says. It does not say reflip damage and start step 5 all over again.

This whole process literally takes less time than it took me to write this post.

[DocSchlock]

There is no disconnect here. The rules do not work as written without an investment of insider logic that is not mentioned in the rule itself, or reversing game effects that have already occurred.

As a TO, I'd just like an answer in a source I can reference officially.

Triggers with timing issues like these make newer players uncomfortable and upset - just when they think they know the rules, they face a hurdle such as these, which, through no fault of their own, they can't understand by themselves because they aren't given the tools to process it. Rules blocks cause frustration, frustration leads to seeking something that isn't as frustrating. I play with a group of 12 players, and I can safely tell you that not a single one would know what Safe in My Bed's real timing is supposed to be without coming to the forums. And that's an issue.

Edit: Malifaux's rules are 99% perfect. It's my favorite game out of the tons I've played, and I want to make sure it's the best it can be. I know how harmful slight rules errors are to the perceptions of a burgeoning game community and want to see the game succeed where contemporaries are in the process of crashing and burning. New players, new to minigaming even, are the key, and estranging them with forum-logic-required rules interactions, especially on a centerpiece model like the Dreamer, is an issue I believe deserves attention.

 

 

 

You look at all the effects that can come into play then after all is said and done you mark wounds on model x. 

Damage is explicitly resolved in Step 5. Damage suffered is recorded as wounds per the rulebook. There is nothing to support Damage being withheld until after Step 5 - even the wording of Safe in My Bed doesn't support that. This is the issue. If the effects of the Action were supposed to be withheld by this trigger until it resolves, the trigger needs to say so explicitly instead of just talking about passing them to another target. It does not, so without any guide, the effects are resolved before the trigger. I can't tell the intent of the designer making the rule, so I have to go with what he or she wrote, both in the trigger and in the main rulebook.

[Kadeton]

As a TO, I'd just like an answer in a source I can reference officially.

As a TO, you make a ruling and your players abide by it. After the event, direct them to the forums for clarification.

I can't tell the intent of the designer making the rule, so I have to go with what he or she wrote, both in the trigger and in the main rulebook.

If you interpret any rule in a certain way and it doesn't seem to work properly, or seems to make the game's resolution mechanics fall apart, or seems grossly unfair, then you've interpreted the rule differently to how the designer intended it. There's almost always a "Well that doesn't strictly work as written, but if it worked like this it would make sense" solution that presents itself after minimal consideration.

[Myth]

If people are looking for a literal reading that supports the intended use of the rule, here you go:

 

1) Triggers that use the term "After succeeding" are defined in the rulebook as taking place after step 5.

2) But the Dreamer's trigger does not use that phrasing (which is for when the triggering model is the one succeeding). Nor does it use "After failing", which would be the expected wording if the trigger was supposed to happen after step 5. Instead, the Dreamer's trigger refers to "After an Attack Action succeeds against this model". Since it doesn't use the predefined timing of the triggers listed in the rulebook, you instead use the timing indicated in the trigger itself.

3) When do you know whether an Attack Action succeeds? In the middle of step 5, immediately before applying the results of the success. Thus, the trigger works exactly as intended.

 

I'll certainly agree that the timing and trigger rules in Malifaux are not always defined as well as they could be. And I can see how some abilities, like this one, might cause initial confusion when trying to figure out how they work. But it doesn't require access to the Forums to know the answer - this ability, at least, can be explained in a satisfactory way by the rulebook itself.

[DocSchlock]

 

When do you know whether an Attack Action succeeds? In the middle of step 5, immediately before applying the results of the success. Thus, the trigger works exactly as intended.

That's not entirely accurate. You determine success and then move to determining the effects and applying them. Justin explictly pointed out that the trigger occurs after Step 5, because you get to see the determined effects of the Action, like what damage is flipped, before you get to make the choice. If the trigger went off literally on success, then you wouldn't get to see the damage before making the choice to discard. Read Pandora's push ability to see something that quite literally goes off on determining success. Also, "after ... succeeds / succeeding" in any form is the same timing as "after succeeding."

 

 

As a TO, you make a ruling and your players abide by it. After the event, direct them to the forums for clarification.

That's the game design that gets players to leave the game. A rule should be self-evident, and when it's not, an admittedly unofficial forum answer is not an appropriate level of response.

 

If you interpret any rule in a certain way and it doesn't seem to work properly, or seems to make the game's resolution mechanics fall apart, or seems grossly unfair, then you've interpreted the rule differently to how the designer intended it. There's almost always a "Well that doesn't strictly work as written, but if it worked like this it would make sense" solution that presents itself after minimal consideration.

Once again, this is bad game design predicated on the fact that players should intentionally not apply the rules as they are written. If you take the time to define a timing scheme and then write a rule that adheres to it but doesn't make any sense when you do, that's not a place for "it's your fault, not the designer's." Blaming the player for applying the tools correctly for the given set of instructions is what gets new players to tell you to f*** off. I'm not doom and glooming a hypothetical - I'm telling you this has happened with players before that I've witnessed in M2E and other games.

There's a lot of broken rules apologists in Malifaux and that needs to stop if the game wants to keep growing. Yes, common English is fine 99% of the time, but if you make rules that are based off a set timing scheme, DO NOT break that timing scheme without CLEARLY defining how you are doing so. Reputations are easily earned and hard to lose, and once a rookie tastes bad rules, that spreads through an FLGS like wildfire, no matter how many diehard forumsgoers say "you're doing it wrong, it works like this."

EDIT: This thread should probably be locked. I've explained my side, others have explained theirs - there's really nothing else to add to this discussion.

[Kadeton]

That's the game design that gets players to leave the game. A rule should be self-evident, and when it's not, an admittedly unofficial forum answer is not an appropriate level of response.

No, that's the reality of running a tournament. If a player is arguing with the TO, they're wasting the TO's time and their opponent's time - as a TO, you need to stop people from doing that. That means making a ruling on the spot, and arguing about it later. This happens in every game system ever.

Malifaux's advantage is in having a single point of contact (this website, including these forums) between the players and the game designer. You don't have to argue rules interpretations with your players - send them to the forums instead. That's a perfectly appropriate response to a rules misunderstanding.

Once again, this is bad game design predicated on the fact that players should intentionally not apply the rules as they are written. If you take the time to define a timing scheme and then write a rule that adheres to it but doesn't make any sense when you do, that's not a place for "it's your fault, not the designer's." Blaming the player for applying the tools correctly for the given set of instructions is what gets new players to tell you to f*** off. I'm not doom and glooming a hypothetical - I'm telling you this has happened with players before that I've witnessed in M2E and other games.

I would be happier to have a rule system that works intuitively than one with a rigid, programmatic structure. Programmatic rulesets are by necessity simpler, wordier and more reference-heavy than intuitive systems - and, in my experience, provoke just as many "But this doesn't work properly!" rules conundrums but without the fallback position of common sense.

I realise that may not be everyone's preferred approach, and that's okay. It is Malifaux's approach, however.

There's a lot of broken rules apologists in Malifaux and that needs to stop if the game wants to keep growing. Yes, common English is fine 99% of the time, but if you make rules that are based off a set timing scheme, DO NOT break that timing scheme without CLEARLY defining how you are doing so. Reputations are easily earned and hard to lose, and once a rookie tastes bad rules, that spreads through an FLGS like wildfire, no matter how many diehard forumsgoers say "you're doing it wrong, it works like this."

These rules aren't broken - they work just fine once you understand them. Some players might require clarification on exactly how they work, and come to the forums looking for explanations, and they will find them here. If enough players are confused, it will go into the FAQ.

Malifaux has one of the most robust rulesets of any miniatures game on the market, at least partially because any disputes get argued here at length until some sort of consensus is reached or Justin provides a ruling. There are some rules that are a bit wobbly, for sure - that's part of the reality of writing a complex set of mechanics across hundreds of models. Any bits that wobble too far get an FAQ or errata in short order. I don't think it's particularly "apologist" to point that out, and I definitely think it works in the game's favour rather than against it.

[DocSchlock]

That's a perfectly appropriate response to a rules misunderstanding.

 

 

It's not an appropriate response to players to say "this rule doesn't work as written, check the forums." Only 1 of my 12 players reads the forums, because the rest don't care about the stuff on here - at all. Believe it or not, this place is not the epicenter of Maifaux activity. That's why Rules Marshals don't exist anymore.

 

 

 

I would be happier to have a rule system that works intuitively than one with a rigid, programmatic structure. Programmatic rulesets are by necessity simpler, wordier and more reference-heavy than intuitive systems - and, in my experience, provoke just as many "But this doesn't work properly!" rules conundrums but without the fallback position of common sense

 

 

I would need an example of this. I have had the polar opposite experience with rigid programmatic (Warmachine) vs intuitive (Malifaux). A flowchart of timing in Malifaux would end 99% of timing questions ever brought on this forum. But it's clear from the last FAQ / errata that timings aren't set in stone, even in Justin's mind, so I doubt we'll ever get one.

Games are built on logic, the definition of a set of rules. When logic fails, intuition is a poor backup unless you are given more logic to shape its application, like in the sense of "words are Common English unless otherwise game-defined."

There's a reason computers are not programmed using intuition.

 

 

These rules aren't broken - they work just fine once you understand them.

 

Once you understand what the rules designer was thinking, that is. What about the poor soul who intuited why the Sonnia Stalker summoning worked pre-January 2015 FAQ / Errata? His intuition is now flawed - the danger of relying on intuition in tough situations where logic should be instead.

We intuited that the Dreamer's rule would obey the timing given in it and follow the normal flow of the duel. We did not intuit that it would ignore parts of that timing very selectively.

 

 

at least partially because any disputes get argued here at length until some sort of consensus is reached or Justin provides a ruling

Both unofficial.

 

Person A is given a tool, a guide to using the tool, and a text describing a specific task to perform with this tool. He performs the task using the wording of said task with definitions from the tool guide and Common English. The designer of the tool appears and tells him he used the tool wrong because the outcome was not the one the designer intended. Person A checks the task again, and rereads the guide - he does not find where he made a mistake, as he applied the text correctly to the letter given the definitions provided to him and his grasp of English.

^ Who is at fault for this? When there's an actual wording issue in a rule, all I often hear is "Person A" on these forums. There is nothing intuitive about needing to read the designer's mind to apply something the way he intended. There's a reason RAW is useful; it gives you a fallback for not being psychic. Intentions can be misread - in an example of hyperbolic language, wars have started over such misinterpretations.

As I said earlier, 99% of Malifaux rules work as RAW, but a lot of people play down the rules that don't work, telling people they aren't doing it correctly because they're not thinking about it right, even if the poor players are 100% applying the rules as they are defined by the game. Safe in My Bed does not work as Justin intended as it is currently written on the card. If you don't think this affects players, I'm going to respectively suggest you throw the rule into a group of newer players and watch them interact with it without your guidance or any outside help.

Games will always have glitches, but glitches exist to be fixed. Explaining away a problem using bad explanations does not fix it, it just aggravates those bothered by it, like a splinter. A proper FAQ would fix this issue by giving the logic that shapes the "intuition." A FAQ is free to players, and part of what Wyrd is paying Justin for anyway.

As I said, this is just boiling down to a "your opinion, my opinion" debate, which is not helping anything except our egos. I request again that this thread be locked.

EDIT: To make clear, Safe in My Bed kinda works as written, just not in the way Justin intends it to. As written, it does not prevent lethal damage to the Dreamer, and requires reversals of an Action's effects. Reversing the applied effects is the logical next step of applying the trigger, which is actually less of a leap than selectively withholding parts of the timing scheme, since the rule would have been "obviously" written another way if the intent was for the timing scheme to be edited in certain sections. "Correct" intuition can only be obtained with perfect knowledge.

[Bodiless]

If people are looking for a literal reading that supports the intended use of the rule, here you go:

 

1) Triggers that use the term "After succeeding" are defined in the rulebook as taking place after step 5.

2) But the Dreamer's trigger does not use that phrasing (which is for when the triggering model is the one succeeding). Nor does it use "After failing", which would be the expected wording if the trigger was supposed to happen after step 5. Instead, the Dreamer's trigger refers to "After an Attack Action succeeds against this model". Since it doesn't use the predefined timing of the triggers listed in the rulebook, you instead use the timing indicated in the trigger itself.

3) When do you know whether an Attack Action succeeds? In the middle of step 5, immediately before applying the results of the success. Thus, the trigger works exactly as intended.

 

I'll certainly agree that the timing and trigger rules in Malifaux are not always defined as well as they could be. And I can see how some abilities, like this one, might cause initial confusion when trying to figure out how they work. But it doesn't require access to the Forums to know the answer - this ability, at least, can be explained in a satisfactory way by the rulebook itself.

 

 

DocSchlock covered a lot of this, but I would also point out that if Dreamer's trigger worked in this manner then the trigger would act between succeeding at the duel and the damage flip, in which case damage flips would be made against the new target. Which would mean you could push damage flips onto Teddy and his Impossible to Wound, which is a reading that Justin explicitly stated was not correct in the earlier Dreamer thread. So what we have a situation where this kind of plain english reading of the rules leads you to a conclusion that the game designer has specifically stated is wrong. If that doesn't call for an FAQ of some kind I don't know what does. 

 

As for plain english versus programmatic writing, I play both Malifaux and WMH (and WH40k and Dropzone and X-Wing... look, don't judge me ok? . Malifaux is by far my favorite game to play, but WMH has the most bomb-proof rules set I have ever seen. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a question has come up during play and we could not immediately and definitively resolve it via a quick check to the rulebook. Having tighter language would only improve the experience of playing Malifaux.

[Myyrä]

I find myself hoping at times that the rules would be crystal clear, but I also realize that it isn't going to happen without completely rewriting the rulebook, which likely isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'll take what I get.

[Kadeton]

It's not an appropriate response to players to say "this rule doesn't work as written, check the forums." Only 1 of my 12 players reads the forums, because the rest don't care about the stuff on here - at all.

"This rule works how you'd expect, and if you get confused, there's a whole community of people to help you."

I would need an example of this. I have had the polar opposite experience with rigid programmatic (Warmachine) vs intuitive (Malifaux). A flowchart of timing in Malifaux would end 99% of timing questions ever brought on this forum. But it's clear from the last FAQ / errata that timings aren't set in stone, even in Justin's mind, so I doubt we'll ever get one.

My group had some teething problems with WMH, because it forces you into situations where the rules break immersion. I was mostly thinking of earlier versions of M:tG, to be honest.

A timing system that isn't 'set in stone' allows for greater flexibility in rules creation. It's a useful guideline, and that's all it needs to be. However, given that a significant proportion of 'unanswerable' rules questions come down to timing, perhaps you're right.

Games are built on logic, the definition of a set of rules. When logic fails, intuition is a poor backup unless you are given more logic to shape its application, like in the sense of "words are Common English unless otherwise game-defined."

I'm not even sure what you think intuition is at this point. To me, in this context, it's the ability to look at several possible interpretations of the rules and select the most appropriate, based on fundamental logical principles - does it break the game, does it create further problems to resolve, does it seem fair and balanced. I feel like the thing that most often throws people off that track is limited, programmatic logic - the inability to consider the implications of an interpretation.

There's a reason computers are not programmed using intuition.

That reason is that computers are very, very stupid. If a computer encounters an instruction it doesn't understand, it simply stops. If a human encounters an instruction it doesn't understand, it has the intelligence to reinterpret the instruction and keep going.

Once you understand what the rules designer was thinking, that is. What about the poor soul who intuited why the Sonnia Stalker summoning worked pre-January 2015 FAQ / Errata? His intuition is now flawed - the danger of relying on intuition in tough situations where logic should be instead.

That one was a bit thorny, to be sure. Even Justin didn't seem sure on how it was 'supposed' to work (ie. which outcome was most balanced). It was ruled to work, tested by the community for a while, and then changed to not work, officially. Isn't that formal outcome the kind of thing you're looking for?

We intuited that the Dreamer's rule would obey the timing given in it and follow the normal flow of the duel. We did not intuit that it would ignore parts of that timing very selectively.

Did it break the game? Did it make the game unfair? If not, then there's nothing wrong with how you were playing it within your group, and there's nothing stopping you from continuing to play it that way if you prefer. If you would rather play according to the consensus of the wider community, that interpretation is also available to you.

 

Person A is given a tool, a guide to using the tool, and a text describing a specific task to perform with this tool. He performs the task using the wording of said task with definitions from the tool guide and Common English. The designer of the tool appears and tells him he used the tool wrong because the outcome was not the one the designer intended. Person A checks the task again, and rereads the guide - he does not find where he made a mistake, as he applied the text correctly to the letter given the definitions provided to him and his grasp of English.

Let's say Person A buys a chainsaw. The manual has instructions on how to start the saw, and how to safely cut through a log. However, the instructions on cutting do not begin with "First, start the chainsaw." Person A reads the instructions and follows them to the letter, pressing the saw firmly against the log - but the saw does not cut. A complains to the manufacturer that the saw doesn't work.

Person A can make the case that the instructions weren't sufficiently clear, but frankly, most people would think A was a fool.

There is nothing intuitive about needing to read the designer's mind to apply something the way he intended. There's a reason RAW is useful; it gives you a fallback for not being psychic. Intentions can be misread - in an example of hyperbolic language, wars have started over such misinterpretations.

RAW is never a fallback for anything - intuition is what you apply when RAW fails, which it does constantly because natural language isn't programming (though some games put significant effort into forcing language to behave that way). You don't have to be psychic, just consider the interpretations and pick the one that's most reasonable. Sometimes there won't be an obvious 'most reasonable' interpretation - if you're worried, bring it to the forums and get a discussion happening.

As I said earlier, 99% of Malifaux rules work as RAW, but a lot of people play down the rules that don't work, telling people they aren't doing it correctly because they're not thinking about it right, even if the poor players are 100% applying the rules as they are defined by the game. Safe in My Bed does not work as Justin intended as it is currently written on the card. If you don't think this affects players, I'm going to respectively suggest you throw the rule into a group of newer players and watch them interact with it without your guidance or any outside help.

I get what you're saying, but I think your situation is a bit of a strawman. While it's possible that an isolated group of players might pick up the rulebook without anyone to demo the game for them, most new players are going to be introduced by someone already involved in the game (perhaps a Henchman). Even when they're not, most people now have access to the internet for any clarifications they might need. Even a group with no experienced players and no internet access will be able to form a group consensus on how they want to play the rule in a way that doesn't break the game. If their group ever interacts with the wider community, they'll be exposed to 'guidance or outside help' and if not, they can play the game in whatever way they're happy with. I don't see the problem.

Games will always have glitches, but glitches exist to be fixed. Explaining away a problem using bad explanations does not fix it, it just aggravates those bothered by it, like a splinter. A proper FAQ would fix this issue by giving the logic that shapes the "intuition." A FAQ is free to players, and part of what Wyrd is paying Justin for anyway.

What would you like to see changed to make the current FAQ a 'proper FAQ'? Do you just mean adding an entry on this particular issue? I'd say that's likely at this point - the 'unofficial' clarifications here are just to let you know what the 'official' clarification is going to say.

[Kadeton]

As for plain english versus programmatic writing, I play both Malifaux and WMH (and WH40k and Dropzone and X-Wing... look, don't judge me ok? . Malifaux is by far my favorite game to play, but WMH has the most bomb-proof rules set I have ever seen. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a question has come up during play and we could not immediately and definitively resolve it via a quick check to the rulebook. Having tighter language would only improve the experience of playing Malifaux.

There's definitely a continuum of rules clarity, with games like 40K at the "Nonsensical and broken" end and WMH at the "Nearly airtight" end, and other games falling somewhere in between. I'd add a second dimension to that spectrum, between "Natural language" and "Programmatic language", based on how much of the game terminology is explicitly defined - I think that's the aspect that most confuses people.

However, if you're suggesting that forcing Malifaux to be more like WMH would be in any way a positive change, we're going to have to agree to vehemently disagree.

[Justin]

That's the game design that gets players to leave the game. A rule should be self-evident, and when it's not, an admittedly unofficial forum answer is not an appropriate level of response.

Once again, this is bad game design...

I think we can all agree that just because a question can be asked, does not mean it necessitates an FAQ. Many questions are easily answered by the community. Others technically can be ambiguous but with the slightest bit of context immediately clear up. For example, every time I write something like, "when this model deals damage to an enemy with an Sh Attack Action it may draw a card" I ask myself, "is someone going to interpret this as only working when the defender has an Sh Attack Action printed on its card? Cause the language could technically work that way..."

Rules are easy to break, because language is easy to misinterpret, and space is limited on cards and I'm not perfect. So if the slightest bit of common sense clears things up, it's usually best to leave them alone even if the language is technically ambiguous (like that listed above).

As such, deciding what to put in an FAQ and what to leave out isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, because a 30 page FAQ is a lot more off putting to new players than not addressing every question the forums can think up.

All that said, you make a very valid point about the FAQ being the proper place for answers and not the forums. But that doesn't mean that the question posed in this thread deserves to be in the FAQ, it's just another reminder to me not to answer questions on the forums. So I'll delete the linked post. Use the interpretation that suits you until/if this is addressed more officially.

Of course, I'm not saying it won't go in the FAQ either. I won't leave it out out of spite. But clearly giving any sort of definitive answer here is not productive.

Also, I'm usually pretty diplomatic about everything, but I'm reading beta feedback all day and I have a cold. And when you talk about bad game design, it gets irritating and I would appreciate it if it stopped. I know people are just trying to make their points to each other, but I read everything, and that is worth keeping in mind.

And no, I'm not locking the thread unless it gets off topic or personal, which it hasn't. If you really want this in the FAQ then discussing it without me making a ruling, or stifling that discussion with a lock, is the only way to go. And if that means more blows to my game design ego, so be it. I asked politely but that's all it was, you are always welcome to criticize, even when I have a cold.

[jonahmaul]

I think we can all agree that just because a question can be asked, does not mean it necessitates an FAQ. Many questions are easily answered by the community.

Personally I don't agree with this.  I think it's awesome that the designer(s) spend time of the forums and take time to answer rules enquiries but it's been stated abundantly by Wyrd that answers on the forums are not official and they only become so once they feature in the FAQ.  Therefore by not including things like this in the FAQ you will end up getting people who will continue to argue the point because they have been told that answers on the forums (including from the game designer) are not official.

 

I really don't see the reasoning behind not including things in the FAQ.  I think that the cover example in there is incredibly simplistic and if that is included then there's no reason something as complicated as this shouldn't be.  FAQ's should become as bloated as needed to iron out any issues that will inevitably arise from a complex ruleset with thousands upon thousands of different interactions that feature in a game like Malifaux.  I personally think that is far preferable to 'we're not including something because a large FAQ might put people off'.  What about 'there's no definite answer to a strange combination of abilities/triggers etc. so I'm put off'?

[DocSchlock]

Kadeton:
 

 

That reason is that computers are very, very stupid. If a computer encounters an instruction it doesn't understand, it simply stops. If a human encounters an instruction it doesn't understand, it has the intelligence to reinterpret the instruction and keep going.

This actually isn't true anymore. You can handle misunderstood instructions a variety of ways, one of which is stopping, but unless the instruction is critically bad, there's no reason you couldn't develop better logic to handle that situation.

Intuition:
1.the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
2. a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

Neither of these have anything to do with reason or logic. Intuition is a flawed mechanism, which is why people are not convicted on it in court and science doesn't accept it as proof. It's fine in a game, as long as the application of it is limited.

I have to ask: if Henchman A teaches a rule to X people based on intuition, then the rule gets FAQ'd against the mighty consensus, who benefits? Would not having the rule written strongly in the first place be the better solution, or at least a pro-active approach?
 

 

Let's say Person A buys a chainsaw. The manual has instructions on how to start the saw, and how to safely cut through a log. However, the instructions on cutting do not begin with "First, start the chainsaw." Person A reads the instructions and follows them to the letter, pressing the saw firmly against the log - but the saw does not cut. A complains to the manufacturer that the saw doesn't work.

This is a bad example because starting the chainsaw is not a leap of logic, it is a basic property already defined in the manual as an option. On the other hand, if a hypothetical boss wanted 2x4s and got 1x2s because that's what the instructions said, then we're in a similar boat.
 

I get what you're saying, but I think your situation is a bit of a strawman. While it's possible that an isolated group of players might pick up the rulebook without anyone to demo the game for them, most new players are going to be introduced by someone already involved in the game (perhaps a Henchman). Even when they're not, most people now have access to the internet for any clarifications they might need. Even a group with no experienced players and no internet access will be able to form a group consensus on how they want to play the rule in a way that doesn't break the game. If their group ever interacts with the wider community, they'll be exposed to 'guidance or outside help' and if not, they can play the game in whatever way they're happy with. I don't see the problem.

 

To be pendantic (my apologies), my argument is ancedotal, not a strawman (that's misrepresenting an argument). There is no Henchman in my town. Closest one is 45 minutes away, and we only got in touch with him by luck since he hasn't been added to the list of Henchman published on the site in the 1.5 years he's been a Hench. Hopefully not getting him in trouble, but he only checks the forums occasionally as is and tends to go by FAQ every 2 months. The claim that "by and large, most everyone plays it correctly" is also not a valid argument, as you don't have that evidence, and this community is not the majority of players.

As mentioned by Justin, forum clarifications are not real clarifications. Only the FAQ will put anything to rest, which it is a very effective tool for.

We want to play the rules by how Justin envisioned the them interacting, because that leads to the best balance. My group prizes balance above all else. We've played poorly balanced games before and don't want to return to that awful place. We believe Malifaux has the best ruleset of any game currently out there, but like everything, has some issues that need official work. It becomes a big issue when people start getting that vibe of "bad rules" again, warranted or not. I'm just trying to minimize that.

To Justin:
 

 

For example, every time I write something like, "when this model deals damage to an enemy with an Sh Attack Action it may draw a card" I ask myself, "is someone going to interpret this as only working when the defender has an Sh Attack Action printed on its card? Cause the language could technically work that way..."

Couldn't you just write "when this model deals damage with a Sh Attack Action to an enemy, this model may draw a card"? I'm not trying to be smart - I'm genuinely curious why the other way is the prefered option.
 

 

Rules are easy to break, because language is easy to misinterpret, and space is limited on cards and I'm not perfect. So if the slightest bit of common sense clears things up, it's usually best to leave them alone even if the language is technically ambiguous (like that listed above).

As such, deciding what to put in an FAQ and what to leave out isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, because a 30 page FAQ is a lot more off putting to new players than not addressing every question the forums can think up.

All that said, you make a very valid point about the FAQ being the proper place for answers and not the forums. But that doesn't mean that the question posed in this thread deserves to be in the FAQ, it's just another reminder to me not to answer questions on the forums. So I'll delete the linked post. Use the interpretation that suits you until/if this is addressed more officially.

There's a difference between "technically ambiguous" and "just doesn't work at all." I'm of the strong opinion that Safe in My Bed and things like it fall into the latter. It doesn't take the "slightest common sense" to completely and selectively disregard the timing system of the whole game without a sentence that explains how you do so.

I agree, a 30 page FAQ is a problem. X-Wing is currently at this point and it is intimidating, but a reputation for clarified rules is better than one for confusing rules (see X-Wing's popularity).

I also agree about you posting rules answers on the forums: it just makes things more confusing for everyone. I understand how it must feel to see people repeating the wrong answers to things you must know, but the FAQ is really the best place for you to express the "right way." Rules Marshals are gone, and honestly, that's a good thing for the game as long as there is another outlet for communicating questions to you officially.

 

 

Also, I'm usually pretty diplomatic about everything, but I'm reading beta feedback all day and I have a cold. And when you talk about bad game design, it gets irritating and I would appreciate it if it stopped. I know people are just trying to make their points to each other, but I read everything, and that is worth keeping in mind.

I'm a software developer - I know how harsh negative feedback can feel, especially about a beta product or about one you think has been done for ages. I lost my perspective on your position and did not moderate my responses appropriately, and for that, I sincerely apologize. At the end of the day, it's a game, and nobody deserves to be insulted or feel slighted over such a thing.

Malifaux is a great product that you've done a wonderful job on. My group has chewed through game after game, trying to find the best blend of balance and flavor, and we stopped at M2E. But there's will always be room for improvement, especially if your concern is with getting new players unfamilar with wargaming into the game. I can only address what I see and how I see it. In my opinion, a rule like Safe in My Bed has a incorrect wording for its intended effect. Bad design is a poor choice of words on my part, as that implies a greater scope than I intended. Intuitive rules aren't bad as long as the common sense is truly common sense, which I argue is not the case here with what is written in this rule. Regardless if 100 people get your intended logic for the rule, if 200 more aren't and they don't happen to drop by the forums to mention it, there's still something wrong.

To be clear, my issue is: Safe in My Bed does not say anything about waiting to see the damage before discarding the card. That's it. That's my whole problem. As written, it's very difficult to interpret Safe in My Bed (or similar triggers) to avoid the normal duel timing without knowing your mind, because the idea that the effects are withheld past when they would normally resolve is not intuitive given the rules we have. I understand I have a choice whether to suffer them or pass them along after Step 5, but nothing about the wording says I get the chance to make that decision without applying the effects first. As I far as my group is concerned (not just me, making that clear), the decision is a choice between "keep the damage and effects applied to the Dreamer since they already have been applied, or remove them and apply them to another model after Step 5 by discarding a card." My beef is that many players are not going to get that intuition, are going to keep playing Dreamer like that, and thus unintentionally depower / unbalance a large centerpiece attraction of Malifaux.

EDIT: I called to lock the thread becuase I had seen threads go to a stalemate before and get locked because of that, which I expected to happen with this one. Keeping it open is fine - I'm not about to personally insult anyone over a plastic model's Df/Wp Trigger.

 

[Kadeton]

This actually isn't true anymore. You can handle misunderstood instructions a variety of ways, one of which is stopping, but unless the instruction is critically bad, there's no reason you couldn't develop better logic to handle that situation.

That sounds like semantics. You're just giving the computer additional instructions on what to do when it encounters a problem - at no point is the computer applying any intelligence. Humans have that ability, why not use it?

Intuition:

1. the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

2. a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

Neither of these have anything to do with reason or logic. Intuition is a flawed mechanism, which is why people are not convicted on it in court and science doesn't accept it as proof. It's fine in a game, as long as the application of it is limited.

No, I'd say when dealing with such abstract concepts as "balance" or "fairness", it's essential - I don't think they can be robustly defined in a logical paradigm. I also think that being able to understand the rules immediately, rather than having to consciously work out how they function, is a huge advantage in a game system.

Your reference to courts is interesting, I think, because laws are the perfect example of a set of rules written in natural language, frequently relying on the common intuition of what a 'reasonable person' would do, think or say. Landmark cases often hinge on the interpretation of ambiguous phrases, and the verdict becomes a consensus ruling on the accuracy of that interpretation.

I have to ask: if Henchman A teaches a rule to X people based on intuition, then the rule gets FAQ'd against the mighty consensus, who benefits? Would not having the rule written strongly in the first place be the better solution, or at least a pro-active approach?

It really depends: does the system have to become simpler, less varied, and less engaging in order to accommodate the more robust rule framework? Obviously we want the rules to be as strong as they can, but I would rather they break their framework than be shallow and dull. That game would suck. (In my opinion, Warmahordes already is that game, but tastes vary.)

Basically, I want the rules to be 'strong enough'. I don't much like game systems where you might as well throw away the rules and do whatever you want because it's impossible to ground your sense of balance and make reasonable interpretations (like 40k), but I appreciate the power and flexibility of a mostly-natural-language-based framework, where things generally work the way I intuitively expect (like Malifaux).

 

To be pendantic (my apologies), my argument is ancedotal, not a strawman (that's misrepresenting an argument). There is no Henchman in my town. Closest one is 45 minutes away, and we only got in touch with him by luck since he hasn't been added to the list of Henchman published on the site in the 1.5 years he's been a Hench. Hopefully not getting him in trouble, but he only checks the forums occasionally as is and tends to go by FAQ every 2 months.

I'm not sure what you're saying - as isolated as you are, that's still not "without guidance or any outside help" (though it might not be convenient). You also clearly have access to the internet, and can find guidance and help here.

Did your group have a lot of trouble reaching a consensus on how to play various rules that you weren't clear on? (I assume you had some trouble with Safe In My Bed, hence bringing it to the forums. Were there many other issues?)

The claim that "by and large, most everyone plays it correctly" is also not a valid argument, as you don't have that evidence, and this community is not the majority of players.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that - what I mean is, if you're playing the game in a way that you and all the people you play with want to play it, it's literally impossible to play the game incorrectly, even if your interpretation of the rules is different to every other group on the planet. Basically, if you're enjoying the game, you're doing it right, even if you're doing it weird.

However, once you start playing against more people, you have to take into account the way they want to play the game. When you expand your group (such as by taking part in a tournament outside your local area, or visiting the forums), the consensus has to take more people into account. Your usual way of playing might become 'wrong' in that context, and that's okay - adapt.

We want to play the rules by how Justin envisioned the them interacting, because that leads to the best balance.

That's a perfectly sound idea. Hasn't that been provided, though? You know Justin's position on this rule now.

My group prizes balance above all else. We've played poorly balanced games before and don't want to return to that awful place. We believe Malifaux has the best ruleset of any game currently out there, but like everything, has some issues that need official work. It becomes a big issue when people start getting that vibe of "bad rules" again, warranted or not. I'm just trying to minimize that.

Just pointing this out: that sense of balance is a function of intuition. You can use that to the group's advantage.

[DocSchlock]

 

That sounds like semantics. You're just giving the computer additional instructions on what to do when it encounters a problem - at no point is the computer applying any intelligence. Humans have that ability, why not use it?

Because intelligence is often flawed when applied without a generous guide of logic. I work in a position where human intelligence and interaction is often the factor that breaks a system. I'm fine with something that is 99% correctly utilized, until I find out everyone is using it incorrectly because my assumption was wrong and my instructions, while nicely formatted, were not clear enough for people to do what I wanted them to do.

 

 

Your reference to courts is interesting, I think, because laws are the perfect example of a set of rules written in natural language, frequently relying on the common intuition of what a 'reasonable person' would do, think or say. Landmark cases often hinge on the interpretation of ambiguous phrases, and the verdict becomes a consensus ruling on the accuracy of that interpretation.

But courts do not function purely on intuition - we don't imprison people because someone has a strong hunch (I mean, in a utopian fair court system). As shown time and time again, court systems also break down when it comes to natural language and must rely on escalating authorities to provide a FAQ for many poorly written laws. The courts, at least in America, are a downright terrible reference for looking at natural-language systems in general - there are many better designed ones than that.

 

 

It really depends: does the system have to become simpler, less varied, and less engaging in order to accommodate the more robust rule framework? Obviously we want the rules to be as strong as they can, but I would rather they break their framework than be shallow and dull. That game would suck. (In my opinion, Warmahordes already is that game, but tastes vary.)

Basically, I want the rules to be 'strong enough'. I don't much like game systems where you might as well throw away the rules and do whatever you want because it's impossible to ground your sense of balance and make reasonable interpretations (like 40k), but I appreciate the power and flexibility of a mostly-natural-language-based framework, where things generally work the way I intuitively expect (like Malifaux).

Malifaux does not have to become simpler at all; it just needs to becomes clearer, which is my entire central argument. I agree with you on the rest.

Though Warmahordes does fix everything anybody finds that's broken, period. It may take them 6 months, but they do it. Gotta give them credit for that.

 

 

I'm not sure what you're saying - as isolated as you are, that's still not "without guidance or any outside help" (though it might not be convenient). You also clearly have access to the internet, and can find guidance and help here.

Did your group have a lot of trouble reaching a consensus on how to play various rules that you weren't clear on? (I assume you had some trouble with Safe In My Bed, hence bringing it to the forums. Were there many other issues?)

I'm actually not sure where my argument is going here, aside from "asking random people for answers doesn't fix anything." I concede whatever point I was going for.

We've had a lot of trouble with:

• Safe in My Bed style effects
• "Immediately" in all forms (I despise that word at this point) appearing in a rule - do we use the common English to break out of timings for this or do we obey the given timing? Does "Immediately" make this rule ignore the General Timing box and go first when the given timing comes around? If not, why? It says "immediately" - that's about as natural language as you're going to get.
• Road Kill Scholar ("If" isn't a timing) - we still don't know how to play this one
• Triggers staying after a model dies - do they still occur or are they removed from the timing "stack"? The rulebook doesn't address this at all.
• Re-killing a model through Datsue Ba to summon (can a model be rekilled?)

There are a few more, but these are all issues we've had aside from standard game learning. Most of those don't have a consensus, and there's no intuition for such finicky stuff.

 

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that - what I mean is, if you're playing the game in a way that you and all the people you play with want to play it, it's literally impossible to play the game incorrectly, even if your interpretation of the rules is different to every other group on the planet. Basically, if you're enjoying the game, you're doing it right, even if you're doing it weird.

However, once you start playing against more people, you have to take into account the way they want to play the game. When you expand your group (such as by taking part in a tournament outside your local area, or visiting the forums), the consensus has to take more people into account. Your usual way of playing might become 'wrong' in that context, and that's okay - adapt.

This is probably our fundamental point of divergence: I don't think anyone should ever have to adapt or evaluate different interpretations of a rule. I want to play the same ruleset that everyone else is playing, the way the creator has decided it should be played, across the world. That's pie-in-the-sky, yes, but Malifaux is in a good position, and when I point things out, it's only to further that position, not attack Justin (Sorry again, Justin! You're awesome! Do some cardio - really helps a cold) or the game.

 

 

That's a perfectly sound idea. Hasn't that been provided, though? You know Justin's position on this rule now.

And Justin reiterates that he can be incorrect, and his position may be wrong until he thinks about it and FAQ's it. I just want a FAQ - that's it.

 

 

Just pointing this out: that sense of balance is a function of intuition. You can use that to the group's advantage.

You are correct: balance is a function of intuition. It's amusing to argue for logic in this case, but hey, them's the breaks. I'm not sure how I can use this to my group's advantage, aside from some dastardly plan to slowly manipulate their perception of balance until 40K looks like the tightest ruleset ever.

[jonahmaul]

• "Immediately" in all forms (I despise that word at this point) appearing in a rule - do we use the common English to break out of timings for this or do we obey the given timing? Does "Immediately" make this rule ignore the General Timing box and go first when the given timing comes around? If not, why? It says "immediately" - that's about as natural language as you're going to get.

This is a very frustrating word!  There was another argument about Rasputina and her immediately ending an attackers activations which I believe she would yet other's believe that extra attack Trigger's (i.e. Killjoy/Cerberus etc.) first.  But if we take the common sense (and what I believe would be the intent) meaning then immediately means exactly that.  Hopefully we'll see a FAQ about that too.

[Justin]

 

Couldn't you just write "when this model deals damage with a Sh Attack Action to an enemy, this model may draw a card"? I'm not trying to be smart - I'm genuinely curious why the other way is the prefered option.

 

There's a difference between "technically ambiguous" and "just doesn't work at all." I'm of the strong opinion that Safe in My Bed and things like it fall into the latter. It doesn't take the "slightest common sense" to completely and selectively disregard the timing system of the whole game without a sentence that explains how you do so.

I agree, a 30 page FAQ is a problem. X-Wing is currently at this point and it is intimidating, but a reputation for clarified rules is better than one for confusing rules (see X-Wing's popularity).

 

 

 

Your wording is good, probably better than my example. But I was just giving an example of something that pretty much everyone would understand, yet could technically be read differently. Frequently issues like that are left in simply because we don't have the space to add a clarifying line, so we have to rely on context and common sense.

 

And you're right, there is a difference between technically ambiguous and what doesn't work at all. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't always agree on which issues are which, so I comb this forum trying to sort them. So I am merely here to point out what makes dredging this forum easier for me: meta discussions about the FAQ and game design aren't really helpful. Generally speaking, I agree with you. It's the individual questions themselves which need to be looked at and discussed. And this is a perfectly good one, thank you for bringing it up, I will likely include it in the next FAQ.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

[DocSchlock]

 

Your wording is good, probably better than my example. But I was just giving an example of something that pretty much everyone would understand, yet could technically be read differently. Frequently issues like that are left in simply because we don't have the space to add a clarifying line, so we have to rely on context and common sense.

Yeah, I've done some InDesign work before *shudders*. I admit I don't fully understand how tough it has to be to make a complex rule that makes the most sense with the space given, and once again, I apologize if I have trivialized something that is anything but trivial. You've got a stressful job and I don't mean to make it more so.

 

 

And you're right, there is a difference between technically ambiguous and what doesn't work at all. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't always agree on which issues are which, so I comb this forum trying to sort them. So I am merely here to point out what makes dredging this forum easier for me: meta discussions about the FAQ and game design aren't really helpful. Generally speaking, I agree with you. It's the individual questions themselves which need to be looked at and discussed. And this is a perfectly good one, thank you for bringing it up, I will likely include it in the next FAQ.

My commentary on "bad design" or "broken design" was reflective more on Kadeton's arguments than your design ability, and a poor choice of words on my part.

Thanks for looking at this. I know my players will greatly appreciate it, and I hope it helps out other people.

 

[Justin]

Yeah, it's no big deal.

 

I'm usually pretty good about understanding people are responding to each other and not to me.