Anna Lovelace Clockwork Dress Application

[benjoewoo]

So, I've looked over some previous threads discussing Anna's Gravity Well (GW) and Clockwork Dress (CD) abilities, focusing on CD more, e.g. the thread linked below which focuses on GW interacting with Lust's Now Kiss! The question is: what rules citation provides for choosing any given interpretation of CD and its application to prevent push or movement effects by enemy models?

The abilities read as follows verbatim except for the lack of aura icons, which are indicated with the actual word "aura."

Gravity Well: Enemy models may not end placement effects within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a bury effect, summon effect, or a model in this Crew.

Clockwork Dress: Enemy models may not end push or movement effects within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a Walk Action, Charge Action, or a model in this Crew. Models which would be illegally pushed or moved into the aura stop at its edge.

GW seems fairly easy to read and apply initially. Enemy models may not end placement effects within the 8" aura. As there are no placement effects in the game that could interact oddly with this rule, there isn't much discussion I've found on its application. 

CD brings up some discussion though, and while more people posted their agreement in the above thread that CD does nothing to prevent enemy push or movement effects that affect friendly models, the interpretation with equal/greater upvotes is the one by Rob Lo, the original poster, stating it would prevent Lust or a Rotten Belle from manipulating friendly models within the aura.

CD as written does not specify if the enemy push or movement effects are those that push or move enemy models--reading CD in plain language finds the ability's text is either ambiguous on the issue or allows for the broader interpretation that enemy models cannot push or move any models within the aura unless the push or movement would either push/move the model out of the aura or push/move it so that it is unaffected by the aura, i.e. the pushed/moved model is out of LoS. Another thread has discussed the LoS issue and there's no major argument against that.

If the latter interpretation based on a plain reading is true, this isn't a discussion, so this question has to address whether CD's text is ambiguous. In other threads, I've posted about my interpretation, which aligns with Rob Lo's reading: CD stops enemy generated push/move effects on any model within the aura unless the push/move ultimately pushes/moves the manipulated model out of the aura or out of LoS. Others have voiced disagreement, stating there is no ambiguity.

However, two reasons, barring a citation to the rules, FAQ, errata, or other official sources, indicate there may be ambiguity. (1) CD, if it was intended to only prevent enemy push/move effects on enemy models within the aura, could have been written as "Clockwork Dress: Enemy models may not be pushed or moved within 8 aura unless that effect was generated by a Walk Action, Charge Action, or a model in this Crew. Enemy models which would be illegally pushed or moved into the aura stop at its edge." This version would textually require fewer words and speaks in the same activate voice as the original text.

(2) All words have practical effect under the broader interpretation, and there is less interpretation required than in applying the more restrictive interpretation, rendering it a valid interpretation with greater likelihood of being effected in the game. This point will require a little more explanation, so it's in separate paragraphs. CD's first sentence provides enemy models, the subject, may not end push or movement effects, the verbs, within 8 aura..., the descriptive portion of the predicate excluding the verbs. The subject and verbs haven't been questioned to my knowledge, only the objects on which the sentence applies to, because they are not stated explicitly. The second sentence provides clarification on that object by stating "Models" as the first word and the clear object of the second sentence. 

In Malifaux's context, when models are to be specified, adjectives are generally used, e.g. "friendly" or "enemy". When just the term "models" is used, singular or plural, it allows for an ability to affect, trigger, etc. on any model in the game, including friendly, enemy, or neutral. Aionus, for example, has a trigger that specifically only takes effect if the attack ability damages an enemy model--I'm referring to the Shifting Sands trigger on his Bony Fingers attack action. CD's second sentence does not specify friendly or enemy models, and therefore applies to friendly and enemy models. This may seem odd, but CD's first sentence restricts the application to push/movement effects generated by models friendly to the aura generating Anna because it specifies the aura may only affect push or movement effects generated by enemy models.

We know that CD's first sentence, and therefore the entire ability, cares about what model generates the push/movement effect because CD specifies that enemy models may not end push or movement effects within the aura. CD's first sentence additionally qualifies that enemy models may end push or movement effects as a result of a Walk Action, Charge Action, or as a result of a model in the same crew as the aura generating Anna.

I don't think people really argue that CD does not care about the source of the push/movement effect, but I explain it because people advocating for a more restrictive interpretation of CD have argued that the broader interpretation ignores or invalidates portions of CD's text.  At least based on my reading, this is not true, because if any portion of CD's first sentence was missing, it would change how it applied in game. For example, if the exception clause "or a model in this Crew" was deleted and all of the original text remained other than moving the "or" to be between "Walk Action" and "Charge Action," then Rotten Belles friendly to an Anna could not Lure enemy models within the aura, either to Lure them into the aura or within the aura. 

Lastly for (2) as well as I can think right now, the broader interpretation requires no inferences in applying CD in this way. It is literally reading that enemy models may not end push or movement effects within the aura except as a result of a Walk or Charge Action, or a model friendly to Anna generates the push/move effect. CD's second sentence qualifies that models that would be pushed/moved into the aura against that rule will end prematurely at the aura's edge. Because neither sentence specifies that enemy models cannot end push or movement effects on only enemy models, there is no such application under the broader interpretation.

The more restrictive interpretation requires inferring CD's application, again barring a rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source stating the contrary. The inference is that CD's first sentence reading "Enemy models may not end push or movement effects..." specifies only push or movement effects on enemy models, as opposed to also preventing push or movement effects affecting models friendly to Anna. The more restrictive interpretation in fact involves an interpretation unless the game itself provides that text is supposed to be read this way. I can't find that in the small rules manual, but I have previously found the rules manual is not as complete as the core rule book, which I don't own, so I could be wrong on this--a citation to an on point provision would disprove me completely. 

Because the more restrictive interpretation requires an inference in applying CD's ability while, imo, the broader one does not, the broader interpretation is preferable in resolving ambiguous language.

In the linked thread, Myyrä states the more restrictive interpretation, in the thread applied to GW in the same fashion as would be applied to CD, but did not cite a rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source. I can't really address his post because I would have to assume he assumes that interpretation is true, which would be a circular argument. solkan explains that in looking at other miniatures games there have been issues, justifying the ambiguous language. However, I disagree that the language creates such an issue for GW, and by extension CD, since Malifaux simply uses the term "deploy" for deployment in the rules manual, and GW, the ability related to placement effects, specifies it only affects placement effects. The rules manual does not state that deploying a crew is a placement effect, so unless the core rule book states deploying a crew is a placement effect, not just "placement" as a non-game term or just the word placement, GW wouldn't apply. solkan also brings up that in writing the ability, unubury effects and regular placement effects could be affected. Well, GW specifically excepts unbury effects in addition to summons and placement effects generated by models in the same crew as Anna or neutral to Anna, so the only effects left to be prevented would be those generated by enemy models, which are the intended effects of GW given the "Enemy" restriction in GW and to give GW actual in game effect. 

There are multiple other people who posted, but for relative brevity and because only Rob Lo, Myyrä, and solkan have upvotes on their posts, I only addressed their post contents. If someone reposts reasoning from the linked thread I'll follow up with questions or be wrong by virtue of the explanation, but I don't want to make this initial post too much longer.

I just put up a wall of text, so for those looking for a simplistic tl;dr--what rules provision, FAQ, errata, or other official source supports the interpretation of CD, and GW by extension, as only affecting push or movement effects that pushed or moved enemy models only? Is there something in the rules, FAQ, errata, or other official source saying that the phrase "Enemy models may not end X" means that X effect has to have been on an enemy model vs. generated by the enemy model?

[DrEvilmonki]

11 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

The phrase "end Push or Movement effects" is what seems to throw some people here. The end of a move effect isn't describing a point in time (in the way that ending a Condition does), it's describing a point in space. The effect applies to the model, and the position where that model stops is the "end" of that effect. If that model is an enemy model, the move effect may be restricted by Clockwork Dress.

Importantly, the model that generated (applied) the effect is not the model that ends the effect, unless it pushes or moves itself.

I can see how the confusion arises, but there's no ambiguity here.

If you can see how confusion could arise sort of implies there is ambiguity.

[benjoewoo]

12 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Both of Anna's abilities use "generated by" when they're talking about the model generating a push/place/movement effect. That they would use "generated by" in one instance but not another when, per your interpretation, both are talking about effects generated by a friendly/enemy model. That is a much more significant difference in wording that the presence or absence of "effect", especially when you consider that the rules are written in English and an effect is any change, and thus any push, move or place is an effect.

A Neutral model is neither an enemy model nor is it in Anna's crew. It would not be blocked for pushing models per your interpretation.

Ok I think I see what you're saying. For the neutral model example, under both interpretations you are correct. That neutral models exist shows a need for classification in abilities, otherwise "friendly" and "non-friendly" would be mechanically simpler terms if there could only be two categories of such classifications. With a third classification, it matters that abilities and actions looking to specify source or target classifications include more specific references than implied reasoning. It's much easier to determine implied targeting when there are only two choices vs. three.

As for the significance in looking at "generated by" vs. "effect," I never said "generated by" is not important--I'm unsure where I implied this. I actually talked about CD and GW caring about source, which gives effect to the exceptions, including the one regarding models in Anna's crew. If I implied that, please let me know where so I can address it, because I didn't mean to say that. The fact the abilities care about source is why I think that the first part of the sentence in CD means CD applies to effects generated by enemy models, which would include manipulation of friendly models or non-model targets. 

In plain English, subjects and objects are generally the reference points for causing effects when describing effects, with the predicate and verbs detailing how the effect was caused and what the effect is. Enemy models are the subject--I believe we all agree on that. Models being pushed or moved, for purposes of CD, are the objects. The question is whether models as the object refers to enemy models only or include any models. I say all models, since CD's second sentence does not include the term enemy before "Models...". Per the same rule reference made earlier, pg. 23 of the rules manual and I believe pg. 31 of the core rule book, where a reference to only "models" is made, it includes all models, friendly, enemy, or otherwise.

[benjoewoo]

2 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

So, you believe that "Enemy models may not end a push/move/place effect" is referring to both generated by and acting on an enemy model?

Even if Model A were a model hired in the same crew as Anna and Sybelle, making it friendly to both and in the same crew, the Lure action taken by the rotten belle enemy to all three would still fail. 

[benjoewoo]

3 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Alright here we go. @benjoewoo

 

So, as @Bengt said, I was also operating under the assumption that you were interpreting the abilities as effects generated by enemy models, not both generated by and acting on enemy models. Not only because you're the first person who has put forth this idea which but also because you never clearly stated how you believed the ability worked, opened up by saying that you agreed with Rob Lo's interpretation of the ability from the last thread, you also put forth the dichotomy everyone has been working off of up to this point in your tl;dr. I even asked you if you believed that earlier in the thread which you never responded to so I just assumed that it was a no.

 

So, back from the top(not quoting because I think the forum wasn't liking how I was doing it).

 

You say that your interpretation requires "less interpretation", which is not something I agree with at all. As an aside, how often an interpretation of an ability would allow that ability to occur has no bearing on if that interpretation of an ability is correct or not.

 

No we get into your main argument. You propose a rewording that you think would make the ability work as it has been widely interpreted to work, but it doesn't. Your proposed rewording makes it so that no enemy model can be pushed/moved while within Anna's aura at all, so no pushing around in it, no pushing into it, and no pushing out of it.

 

Next is you argue that because the second sentence uses "models" it means that any type of model would be subjected to her aura, but this is not true based on how Malifaux's abilities and actions are written. The second sentence is just clarifying text of how a likely scenario would resolve, and thus including "enemy" at all is unnecessary because only enemy models would have the posibility of being illegally pushed into Anna's aura. An example of this convention is the trigger on McMourning's upgrade Moonlighting for his Expunge action, Abra Cadaver. It states that he can summon a Flesh Construct "after reducing an enemy Living or Undead model to 0 wounds..." then it goes on to state that "and the model places no Corpse Marker". Notice that it does not say "the enemy Living or Undead model", because including the earlier restriction would just waste space, as it is already a given. Additionally, clarifying text as a whole does not point to what models an ability will work on. Any ability that states "before removing the model" does not fail against Reva's Shieldbearers if they don't have their Soulbound upgrade yet.

 

Going back to your first point, re-writing the ability to be "Models may not end a a push or movement effect within 8 unless that effect was generated by a Walk Action, Charge Action, or a model in this crew" keeping the second sentence the same and removing "Enemy" from the her other ability as well would make her abilities function as you think they do now. 

 

It should go without saying now that no one has said that the "generated by... a model in this crew" text is superfluous under your interpretation because no one has actually been arguing against your interpretation until now, for the reasons stated above.

 

Finally, we come to your last point where you say that your interpretation requires "no inferences" and your reassert that yours requires "less interpretation" that how it is generally accepted to work. Which is, again, something I do not agree with and I would go so far as to say that your interpretation requires the "most" of the 3 interpretations so far. Additionally, no interpretation of an ability is either more or less reliant on an official backing just because it requires "less interpretation". The ability uses terminology that is not defined within the game in the context it is used, and thus we have to look towards how other abilities are written that we know how they work, which in this case includes "Pounce" and any ability with clarifying text. We know how Pounce works which uses the same wording as Anna's abilities, and we know how clarifying text is written, for which Anna's ability follows this same convention. On top of that, we have more insight than normal as we can clearly see the intent of the ability through the multiple re-writings it has undergone in the open beta, with the most concrete version of it for gleaning intent being the one where it causes enemy models to treat the area in Anna's aura as Impassable Terrain.

 

The quote button has been fairly workable for me--it helps me in referring to previous posts since the default view is by up/down vote.

I can't remember exactly why I didn't respond earlier before the most recent post. I think I didn't because I agreed with the point--I realized there may have been some confusion so I posted a confirmation of that thought later. Similarly, others have not addressed all my thoughts, but that's just how online posting tends to work.

I'm unsure about your point regarding "less interpretation." I may just not understand it, but where ambiguity exists, less interpretation tends to lend strength to the argument because it resolves the ambiguity with "fewer" steps. Not always true, because the easier interpretation may be wrong, as you're stating, but generally speaking Rube Goldberg machines are less favored.

As far as wide interpretation I'm unsure. I'm the only player at my store who plays with Anna, much less purchased her. I also believe that for the next closest store that I go for games, I am also the only player who plays Anna. I tend not to take her very often, and when I do, I actually play with the stricter interpretation to conservatively play as I imagine most TOs would rule. Anna is a relatively recently released model in a single blister and competes for a henchmen slot, which is very crowded for almost every Resser master. I don't really play other factions, so I can't speak to them, but at least locally players haven't found her 10 SS merc cost to be worth it outside of ressers. I know there are multiple players who think she's good--I haven't had an at length discussion about it to clear to issue, so I'm asking the rules forum why the stricter interpretation is the one people use. 

You are correct, the re-worded ability would not operate exactly as the ability as written. The difference between the two is that you could not get out of the aura because you could not push/move while affected by the aura. That rewording was to address achieving the clarified "pushing/moving enemy models vs. enemy models causing the push/move."

Your McM example is flawed, I think. McM's Abra Cadaver trigger literally only affects enemy models on reducing them to 0 Wds. There are no alternatives to how this could work, because given how triggers work in the context of opposed duels, the example is much more straight forward. While you've said Anna's ability is more widely interpreted in the stricter interpretation, I'm unsure how that metric is measured other than vocal posts on the forum; for this, I am excluding TO rulings, because if TOs are consistently ruling one way, discussion is irrelevant, and I haven't seen a measuring metric for TO rulings on this issue. In fact, the post with the most upvotes on Rob Lo's thread is the broader interpretation; I acknowledge it could just be due to lack of interest, but for those who posted and were interested, no further discussion was had. 

An example of why I exclude TO rulings above is Sybelle's Comply trigger on her Bleeding Tongue upgrade. The upgrade's text states the model damaged by a Bleeder Lash attack from Sybelle with the Comply trigger considers Sybelle as a friendly model for the duration of the action. Maybe I misunderstand exactly how, but I treat it as reading any enemy model damaged with that trigger cannot trigger a horror duel from Sybelle's Terrifying ability just as most people seem to describe on the forum. However, the text does not explicitly state Sybelle considers the enemy model friendly, which would be the key part of avoiding the Terrifying ability if the model were to target Sybelle with any action. Add to that the model only considers Sybelle as friendly for the duration of the action, and the enemy model could still in theory trigger Terrifying if it ended a walk action within Sybelle's engagement range, one of the possible pre-requisites to triggering the Terrifying ability. I might be missing something, but because this particular interaction is overwhelmingly discussed as though enemy models cannot trigger Sybelle's Terrifying ability, it doesn't make sense to question it. I know TOs will rule against me if I say complying an enemy model to attack Sybelle will trigger Terrifying, so I don't do it.

For reference, Sybelle's upgrade reads: "Comply: After damaging, the target immediately takes a 1 AP Action controlled by this model. The model counts Sybelle as friendly for the duration of the Action." There have been no subsequent erratas of the upgrade and a search through the FAQ returns no results for "Sybelle," "Comply," or "Bleeding Tongue."

Anna's ability is less clear, because it is a passive ability that affects models within the aura, and has to account for different categories of models in more situations than McM's Abra Cadaver, which only has to word itself regarding who is damaged--the trigger is only relevant once determining damage and faces a simpler categorization question. 

I'm unsure no one has been arguing the superfluous text point. Bengt's post literally includes the word and makes the point you're saying no one has--it also has the most upvotes. I may be misunderstanding, however. 

As for your rewording, a neutral model would be a counter example. The reworded ability would now affect neutral models being pushed/moved or causing pushes/movements, which with the "enemy" qualification would not affect.

I think this discussion is more or less coming to an end, because we're starting to discuss rules philosophy in malifaux rather than following the sticky instructions: answering questions with citations to the rules. The last rules citation was to the definition of friendly and enemy models, which we know does not account for neutral models. Santaclaws01 and I have been discussing nuanced rules interpretations with examples, counter examples, and pointing out flaws in reasoning while Bengt's last post was IT support--which I need to listen to because I had written more, lost it, and didn't save a copy. Eventually, I think one of several things will happen: (1) people stop posting here, ending the conversation without resolution; (2) there's an explicit/implicit agreement to disagree, with the same result; (3) one or multiple sides explain flaws in each other's points, arguably coming to a resolution, but not one grounded in rules application but player driven thought process, which is mainstream home brew Malifaux; or (4) TOs and Henchmen set the meta by essentially electoral vote. In any case, I'm not trying to advocate to change the meta now at large, because regardless of whether the broader interpretation is more sound or the stricter interpretation is by definition correct, TOs will likely consistently rule for the latter, which matters more--that doesn't moot this question, but past actions, e.g. Mei Feng's infinite, show that the community will largely throw out or go against the rules if it wants to. I'm seeing if the broader interpretation is a correct interpretation because if it is by nature of ambiguity allowing multiple interpretations, it'll help me understand Malifaux text and interpret future text more easily, in addition to hopefully helping draft either more concise or explanatory text.

There may be a noticeable gap of reasoning in my post or a lack of addressing something--I wrote it and posted, but the forum refreshed instead to an earlier version. Some words may also seem odd because I didn't proof in as much detail after losing some of my post. 

[DrEvilmonki]

6 hours ago, Kadeton said:

No. There's a lack of clarity, not an ambiguity. The confusion arises from a simple misunderstanding based on the terms used. The rule itself is not open to multiple interpretations unless you've misunderstood what it's saying.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.