Over Excited

[SAYNE]

In the ability it states that if a friendly model is discarding a card within 3" of this model or another friendly model with this ability, it can take one damage and draw a card.

Does this mean with two Criers, one up the field and one chilling in the back, you can be in range of the discard with one crier, but ping the other one for damage?

Just making sure I'm reading this right.

[Clement]

The exact wording for the relevant part of the ability.

Quote

When a friendly model within 3 of one or more models with this Ability discards one or more cards as the result of a friendly ability or Action, this model may suffer 1 damage to draw a card.

This is giving me flashbacks of Guard Sergeant rules talks.  The intention here seems to be "you only get to use this once, even if you have a bunch of criers within 3", but the wording can be parsed to support your argument. 

Here's the time Guard Sergeants and Catalyst came up.

 

[Myyrä]

Considering how many times it has been pointed out before criers came out, I'm tempted to assume it's intentional.

[WWHSD]

It seems like every friendly Crier on the table can take damage to draw a card when a friendly model close to a model with the ability discards. It doesn't matter how many models with the ability that the discarding  model is near  it will still only generate one opportunity for each Crier to discard. 

Based on the next bit about taking extra damage if the ability results in having 6 or more card,I think it may very well be intentional that 3 Criers could draw 3 cards when the triggering conditions are met even if only one crier is near the triggering model. 

[Ludvig]

If two criers could draw off the same discard the effect it would just have said "Whenever a model within X of this model..." like every normal by default stacking ability does. We know this wording is used to create non-stacking effects within the context of this games rules because that is how it has been used on other models. Someone just didn't realise the implications of putting in the ohrasing that the crier draws the card since the other abilities have been the non-ability model getting an effect. Incidently this wording doesn't work on the other models it is on either for different reasons but everyone plays the way it was intended and don't try to game it.

If you have been a part of the betas since the start of m2e that should be fairly obvious. I still think it would greatly benefit from faq/errata to make the RAW reflect the intention.

[WWHSD]

8 hours ago, Ludvig said:

If two criers could draw off the same discard the effect it would just have said "Whenever a model within X of this model..." like every normal by default stacking ability does. We know this wording is used to create non-stacking effects within the context of this games rules because that is how it has been used on other models. Someone just didn't realise the implications of putting in the ohrasing that the crier draws the card since the other abilities have been the non-ability model getting an effect. Incidently this wording doesn't work on the other models it is on either for different reasons but everyone plays the way it was intended and don't try to game it..

I’m of the opinion that trying to divine developer’s intent when interpretting an ability should only happen when the ability as written doesn’t really work inside the rules. That’s not the case here.

This ability seems to be clearly written. I think it only becomes unclear when one tries to read something into the ability that’s not actually there. Whether that’s the perception that it is too powerful so must be wrong or trying to apply what you believe is the intent of the ability.

The wording is creating a non-stacking effect. Every model with the ability can only draw a single card no matter how many overlapping auras are affecting the model that discards.

It’s also kind of fluffy that when something happens that the Crier is excitedly announcing, all of the other Crier’s will relay it as well.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, SAYNE said:

In the ability it states that if a friendly model is discarding a card within 3" of this model or another friendly model with this ability, it can take one damage and draw a card.

Does this mean with two Criers, one up the field and one chilling in the back, you can be in range of the discard with one crier, but ping the other one for damage?

How do you get "Model A suffers 1 damage for Model B to draw a card" from "this model may suffer 1 damage to draw a card"?

 

 

[lame0]

Actually the ability reads pretty clear that another crier (outside of range) could take the damage as long as at least another model with the over excited ability is within 3 of the model discarding. 

Intereting find.

[Ludvig]

Guild sergeants and McMourning/Sebastian have the same wording which has led to some confusion.

RAW it looks like it should work on being near another model with the ability. I believe everyone who was involved in the design and betas for those models would agree it was supposed to require that you were near the specific model but only work once.

[Haagrum]

On the wording of the ability, "one or more models with this Ability" has nothing to do if only the Crier whose aura covers the model discarding a card may take damage to draw a card. Otherwise, it'd say "If a model within (Aura) 3 discards one or more cards".

Of course, if that's the case, why could only one Crier use their damage-and-discard effect if the event which allows it takes place? If it were intended to be limited to only one Crier, the wording should be "one model with this Ability may suffer 1 damage to draw a card." It just says "this model". In that case, the "one or more models with this Ability" text stops the Gremlin Criers taking damage and drawing for each separate model with Over-Excited within range of a model that discards a card in that manner. Compare that with Banjonistas, whose card-draw ability is clearly worded to only let you draw one card, no matter how many Banjonistas are within range.

I don't have the cards in front of me, as I don't own any Criers. However, absent an express limit on the number of Criers who can use this ability each time it becomes available, the words as written would seem to suggest that every Crier on the table can use it once each.

[Gulil]

The intention of this wording is quite obviously to limit it to one model although the wording is indeed irritating.

Played differently also the alps "never wake up" ability would summon one alp for each alp already in the game if a model is killed by feed on dreams (exponential alp growth yeah!)

wording here: if an enemy model is killed by feed on dreams while within aura 3 of one or more friendly alps, summon an alp into base contact with the model before removing it.

I guess we can agree that this is rediculous and so I will also play criers using this once only interpretation.

[Haagrum]

4 hours ago, Gulil said:

The intention of this wording is quite obviously to limit it to one model although the wording is indeed irritating.

Played differently also the alps "never wake up" ability would summon one alp for each alp already in the game if a model is killed by feed on dreams (exponential alp growth yeah!)

wording here: if an enemy model is killed by feed on dreams while within aura 3 of one or more friendly alps, summon an alp into base contact with the model before removing it.

I guess we can agree that this is rediculous and so I will also play criers using this once only interpretation.

The Alps' summoning ability is worded very similarly to the Banjonistas' draw ability. I don't read that as permitting multiple summoning.

I'd happily play Criers as limited to one draw per discard. On the wording as written, though, I think it's susceptible to multiple valid interpretations.

[Angelshard]

I agree with @Ludvig raw here isn't the same as rai. The idea isn't that any cried can take the damage, only the ones in range

[solkan]

1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

It seems like every friendly Crier on the table can take damage to draw a card when a friendly model close to a model with the ability discards. It doesn't matter how many models with the ability that the discarding  model is near  it will still only generate one opportunity for each Crier to discard. 

Based on the next bit about taking extra damage if the ability results in having 6 or more card,I think it may very well be intentional that 3 Criers could draw 3 cards when the triggering conditions are met even if only one crier is near the triggering model. 

This is the "the developer put the words 'one or more' on the card to just waste everyone's time" argument?

 

[Haagrum]

39 minutes ago, solkan said:

This is the "the developer put the words 'one or more' on the card to just waste everyone's time" argument?

 

No, that's there so that you can't trigger the damage-and-draw effect multiple times per Crier off one discard if there are multiple overlapping Crier auras. The words actually have something to do for explaining the effect in this interpretation.

[WWHSD]

1 hour ago, solkan said:

This is the "the developer put the words 'one or more' on the card to just waste everyone's time" argument?

 

No. Without that bit a model that was within 3 inches of two different Criers would allow each Crier to draw two cards for a total of 4 cards per discard event. The way that it is written each of those criers only gets to draw a single card for a total of two.

 

[Ludvig]

@WWHSD

McMourning can also clearly process poison from his own aura and push from Sebastian's catalyst ability since he is another model than Sebastian.

A guild sergeant can clearly use his own aura to count for the ability of another guild sergeant to boost his own walk stat if you have two in the crew.

I can't stop you from playing it the way you think it's supposed to work but I think you will run a pretty high risk of needing to call a judge over for a ruling in a tournament or having an argument in a non-tournament game.

Since I was one of the people who tested the guild sergeant I'm pretty certain their ability wasn't supposed to be granted to themselves. Unfortunately the strangeness of that wording wasn't considered during the beta. Even more unfortunate is that it was reused because it is a really weird wording. I can't be positive on the intent of designing the criers because I didn't beta them but the wording that was reused on their ability has been used before with the intent to create non-stacking effects.

 

If criers can draw cards from being near one crier then you would logically suffer poison twice if you activate near Sebastian or McMourning because I can first check Sebastian's ability and determine that you are within 6" of him to take 3hp of damage. After that i check McMourning and determine that for his ability you are also near one or more model with the ability so you suffer 3 more hp of damage from being near Sebastian because McMourning also has catalyst. To me that sounds cimpletely insane but damn would I start picking.him for.my games!

[Haagrum]

6 hours ago, Ludvig said:

 

If criers can draw cards from being near one crier then you would logically suffer poison twice if you activate near Sebastian or McMourning because I can first check Sebastian's ability and determine that you are within 6" of him to take 3hp of damage. After that i check McMourning and determine that for his ability you are also near one or more model with the ability so you suffer 3 more hp of damage from being near Sebastian because McMourning also has catalyst. To me that sounds cimpletely insane but damn would I start picking.him for.my games!

The double-Induction scenario would be possible only if Catalyst didn't take effect when another model with Poison activates within range of "one or more models with this Ability".

Compare the wording of Catalyst to something like Fears Given Form or Misery, which clearly take effect multiple times if you're in multiple areas of effect.

On a side note, Sebastian's Induction aura only takes effect when you take the damage from Poison. Usually, that's the end of the turn. Catalyst (from either source) means that it happens when you activate as well. However, Induction can't work except when you take Poison damage. The 6-damage-on-activation scenario clearly doesn't happen from the rules as written - although a model could take 6 damage over a turn from being near Sebastian if it had Poison and was within Catalyst and Induction range both when it activated and during the upkeep step when Poison damage normally happens.

As for the Guild Sergeant comparison - the first and second copies of a model on the table clearly are not the same model. If each has an aura effect that works for "other models" in that range, and no other restrictions, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to affect each other with their own auras. The words "other models within X range" or similar really only mean that the model generating the aura can't benefit from their own instance of the aura.

Compare that wording to Captain Dashel's "Ready! Aim!" aura, which explicitly prevents Guild Austringers from taking Focus as a 0 action, and his "Fire!" aura, which does not. If the designers wanted to exclude Guild Sergeants from benefiting from another Guild Sergeant aura, the wording would be just as explicit. For Gremlin Criers, the effect you're arguing for could be achieved if Over-Excited said "one model with this Ability within (Aura) 3 may take 1 damage to draw a card." It doesn't say anything as restrictive as that.

We're getting a little off-topic, but in the absence of clear wording to support a particular interpretation, a different interpretation which gives effect to the rule, effect or ability as written and which does not produce an absurd outcome (for example, infinite Alp-summoning from Never Wake Up or Schrödinger's Huggy from Death Contract and The Rising Sun) should be preferred. That includes giving effect to all of the words in the rule, effect or ability if possible - I think it's dangerous to assume that words are needlessly inserted or left in by mistake. Developers' intentions and concepts of fairness are far more subjective matters than the plain meaning of words, particularly when players have an advantage to gain from invoking them.

[Ludvig]

@Haagrum You are seriously arguing that cecking range for McMourning to Sebastian is ridiculous but doing the exact same thing for Criers who have the exact same "one or more" wording is the most likely intended interaction?

I know a sergeqnt near another sergeant can benefit, that is how I play it. What I am saying ia that sergeant 1 may not measure range o his own aura for checking if he is near "one or more models with this ability" and gain advamtage of sergeant 2's aurs despite being on the other side of the board. Exactly like crier 1 isn't allowed to use his ability just because crier 2 has someone in his aura.

This isn't just plain english, this needs to be taken in context of how the Malifaux rules have chosen to word things to make them nob-stackable in the past. They used the wording they used on. criers to create non-stacking effects. If criers stack you can stack all the others as well because it's the same operative wording.

[SAYNE]

Damn... I was hoping the crier's could be slightly better because of that but oh well. I was pretty sure the intent was not to allow criers to do that, but since they're yelling and screaming "freedom" every two seconds, I was hoping that it might be the case

Thanks everyone for your time and interpretations.

[Haagrum]

On 23/01/2018 at 8:52 AM, SAYNE said:

Damn... I was hoping the crier's could be slightly better because of that but oh well. I was pretty sure the intent was not to allow criers to do that, but since they're yelling and screaming "freedom" every two seconds, I was hoping that it might be the case

Thanks everyone for your time and interpretations.

You're welcome, but I'm not sure there was actual agreement on the correct interpretation. It seems there's a few on offer:

1. Only one Crier within range of a model that's discarded a card to trigger the Over Excited ability may take damage to draw a card.

2. Any one Crier may take damage once to draw a card if at least one Crier is within range to trigger Over Excited.

3. All Criers on the table may each use Over Excited once when any model within range of any number of them discards a card in circumstances that would trigger that ability.

I prefer #3 based on what appears to me to be the plain wording of the ability. Plus, it's hugely thematic.  Others prefer other interpretations, for the reasons they have set out.

Obviously, I have a horse in this race, but I think you should put the matter to your playing group, and to any TO, to settle the matter between yourselves first. It's always better to avoid mid-game arguments.

[Haagrum]

On 20/01/2018 at 4:58 PM, Ludvig said:

@Haagrum You are seriously arguing that cecking range for McMourning to Sebastian is ridiculous but doing the exact same thing for Criers who have the exact same "one or more" wording is the most likely intended interaction?

I know a sergeqnt near another sergeant can benefit, that is how I play it. What I am saying ia that sergeant 1 may not measure range o his own aura for checking if he is near "one or more models with this ability" and gain advamtage of sergeant 2's aurs despite being on the other side of the board. Exactly like crier 1 isn't allowed to use his ability just because crier 2 has someone in his aura.

This isn't just plain english, this needs to be taken in context of how the Malifaux rules have chosen to word things to make them nob-stackable in the past. They used the wording they used on. criers to create non-stacking effects. If criers stack you can stack all the others as well because it's the same operative wording.

Respectfully, I feel like you're comparing apples with oranges here, and misrepresenting what I actually said.

The non-stacking effect for Over-Excited is only in respect of the circumstances in which Over-Excited can be used (that is, once on each occasion, not once per Crier within range). That's different from the operative part of the ability, in a separate clause, which says that when its conditions are met, "this model" may use the damage-and-draw effect. It says the same thing on every separate Crier model's card.

The interpretation that I and WWHSD have offered for Over-Excited works because of the wording on the card, and because it gives effect to every part of that wording (particularly when the language used is compared with the wording on other cards like the Banjonista). It does not assume the designer's intention was to achieve a given result, or that the wording was mistaken or contains an error. It does not create a ridiculous outcome, especially if you consider the other text on the Crier's card or the model's fluff (neither of which I've relied upon in interpreting this Ability).

In the end, the protracted argument just demonstrates that this will need a FAQ, and TO rulings/pre-game agreements until that time. We can agree to disagree.

[Ludvig]

@Haagrum

The phrase "within one or more models with this ability" doesn't explicitly make it unstackable, I can check the ability on several models near the model and for each ability the "one or more" is fulfilled. The reason we don't usuaöly let that stack is because this is the wording that the open playtest ended up using for abilities that weren't supposed to stack. 

[Myyrä]

21 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

@Haagrum

The phrase "within one or more models with this ability" doesn't explicitly make it unstackable, I can check the ability on several models near the model and for each ability the "one or more" is fulfilled. The reason we don't usuaöly let that stack is because this is the wording that the open playtest ended up using for abilities that weren't supposed to stack. 

The criers thing was actually pointed out during the playtest, and it wasn't changed, so this argument is completely invalid concerning them. Either the interaction is intentional or someone dropped the ball pretty badly.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

The criers thing was actually pointed out during the playtest, and it wasn't changed, so this argument is completely invalid concerning them. Either the interaction is intentional or someone dropped the ball pretty badly.

So then we should retroactively start using McMourning and Sebastian as stacking as well? If I check their Catalyst individually I can use it from both McMourning and Sebastian on a model activating near one of them to tick poison twice. 

It is regrettable that some wordings are very weird but we've had five years of agreement on what "one or more" does, that's probably why they kept using the same wording.

[Myyrä]

4 hours ago, Ludvig said:

So then we should retroactively start using McMourning and Sebastian as stacking as well? If I check their Catalyst individually I can use it from both McMourning and Sebastian on a model activating near one of them to tick poison twice. 

It is regrettable that some wordings are very weird but we've had five years of agreement on what "one or more" does, that's probably why they kept using the same wording.

Until there is a FAQ or errata saying otherwise, the abilities work as written.