Sun Quiang and "non-Peon models"

[OneLittleThunder]

Sun Quiang has the following Tactical Action:

     (1) A Recitation of the Essential Formulae (Ca 5 / TN: 13): This model gains the following Condition until the start of the next Turn: "5,300 Formulae: Enemy models within 4 count as having the Peon Characteristic in addition to any other Station Characteristic they have."

A number of Strategies and Schemes will score or not based on whether a certain model is a "non-Peon model" or not. Now that a model can have multiple Stations, that definition is no longer as clear-cut as it might have been. Is a non-Peon model:

     (a) Any model which does not have the Peon Characteristic (regardless of what other Station Characteristics they might have).

     (b) Any model which does not only have the Peon Characteristic.

So if an Enforcer stands within Sun Quiang's 5,300 Formulae aura, it is both an Enforcer and a Peon. Under definition (a), that model:

• Could not take the Interact action to Exhaust an enemy in the Exhaust Their Forces scheme.
• Could not be the target of the Interact action to Exhaust an enemy in the Exhaust Their Forces scheme.
• Would not drop a Head marker if killed during the Headhunter strategy.
• Would not count for purposes of holding a Stash marker in the Guard the Stash strategy.
• Etc.

Under definition (b), none of those statements would be true.

I feel like (a) is the correct definition; "non-Peon model" means "model that is not a Peon," and Sun Quiang's aura makes that model a Peon (even though it's also a Minion/Enforcer/etc.).

Related question: How many Bounty Points is an Enforcer/Peon worth in Collect the Bounty? 0 (Peon) or 2 (Enforcer)? (Or, to future-proof the question, 2+0 for both?)

I feel like 2 would be the correct answer, but the reasoning behind that one is harder to articulate other than just saying it "seems right."

[solkan]

As far as I can tell, the following is consistent both with the accepted semantics for English and the observed semantics for Rules English (Edit:  See below):

• non-Peon means "does not have the Peon Characteristic"
• Peon means "has the Peon Characteristic"

The meaning of those two statements does not change if the model has more than one Characteristic.  After all, a

Quote

Peon, Construct, Rare 3

is clearly a Peon, the presence of other Characteristics does not stop it being a Peon.  There's no reason why those statements would change if a model was

Quote

Peon, Enforcer, Living

So a model that is "Peon, Enforcer, ..." does not qualify as "non-Peon". 

Concerning Collect the Bounty, because the action says "as having the Peon Characteristic in addition to any other Station Characteristic they have", it doesn't prevent an 'Enforcer, Peon' model being scored as both Enforcer and Peon for Collect the Bounty.  I wouldn't be surprised if the future wording (for Gaining Grounds 2017) was changed to specify choosing the one which awards the most points.

Edit:  From the Rules Manual, page 64:

Quote

All characteristics function as keywords for effects, such as Attacks that can only target a certain type of model. An Attack might be restricted to targeting Undead models, for instance, and whether or not a model can be targeted is determined by the target’s characteristics.

The example isn't for a Station Characteristic, but the result is going to be the same.  And rules referencing "non-Construct" models have been in the game since book one.  Like Joss's Open Current Upgrade:

Quote

(0) Open Current (Ca 6 / TN: 13 / Rg 5): All non-Construct models in range must succeed on a TN 15 Wp duel or gain the following Condition until the end of the Turn: “Conductor: This model suffers on all Df duels.”

or the Young Nephilim ability:

Quote

Thirst for Blood: This model receives Fast when a non-Construct model within 3” is killed by another friendly model.

So the semantics for "non-X" when X is a Characteristic must be considered well defined.

Edited October 6, 2016 by solkan

[Bengt]

I'll open by saying that I think it was a really bad idea to give models several station characteristics. While I agree that the "non-Peon" situations can be parsed unambiguously it contains language that will confuse some people. What was wrong with "Peon for encounter purposes" (e.g. Sybelle)?

As for Collect the Bounty...

On 06/10/2016 at 2:51 AM, solkan said:

Concerning Collect the Bounty, because the action says "as having the Peon Characteristic in addition to any other Station Characteristic they have", it doesn't prevent an 'Enforcer, Peon' model being scored as both Enforcer and Peon for Collect the Bounty. 

I strongly disagree that it can be scored as both under the current wording of Collect the Bounty, the wording clearly assumes that each model only have one station characteristic. There is also no provisions for scoring each model more than once.

As for what it should be scored as, both picking the lower or the higher feels completely arbitrary to me (and just wait a few books until a model can have three or more stations... ).

The appeal for picking the higher that I can see is that Sun Quiang's talents should benefit him, but it's not always on and there are already situations where it's a bad idea to put up the aura (e.g. if you have picked Exhaust their forces) so I don't think that argument is very strong.

In conclusion I think GG16 should get a update posthaste, and until that happens discuss this before picking crews if either player could hire SQ for CtB and add it to any tournament instructions using CtB.

[Kbonn]

An enforcer who gains peon is still an enforcer.  So for Bounty it would still count as the higher one(or sum, whatever), it is still an enforcer for hunting party etc.., but it is ALSO a peon for certain things  like leave your mark, guard the stash etc..

 

[Hidelfon]

So if afected by the aura they don't count for things like extraction or guard the stash? 

[solkan]

26 minutes ago, Bengt said:

I'll open by saying that I think it was a really bad idea to give models several station characteristics. While I agree that the "non-Peon" situations can be parsed unambiguously it contains language that will confuse some people. What was wrong with "Peon for encounter purposes" (e.g. Sybelle)?

How is "non-Peon" any different from "non-Construct" as far as confusing people?

They both require the same characteristic value interpretation to make sense of, and non-Construct has been in use since the main rulebook and the first wave of cards.

It seems like you've used the wrong word, and instead of "parse" you mean "What if people have never read the Characteristics rules, and were taught the game by word of mouth?" 

[Bengt]

4 hours ago, solkan said:

How is "non-Peon" any different from "non-Construct" as far as confusing people?

They both require the same characteristic value interpretation to make sense of, and non-Construct has been in use since the main rulebook and the first wave of cards.

It seems like you've used the wrong word, and instead of "parse" you mean "What if people have never read the Characteristics rules, and were taught the game by word of mouth?" 

I most definitively meant "parse", do you now object to that it can be "parsed unambiguously"? That seems to have been your argument all along... Or were you just desperate to inject some snark into the discussion?

[OneLittleThunder]

18 hours ago, Hidelfon said:

So if afected by the aura they don't count for things like extraction or guard the stash? 

Yep. Anything that specifies "non-Peon" would not count models that were in Sun Quiang's aura.