Questions about Obey

[Steve-El-Tragger]

Hey guys, i got two questions about obey and i hope you can help me.

1. If I Obey an enemy model and drop a scheme marker with it, is it my scheme marker or my opponents?

2. Are obeyed Models still friendly Models to their crewmates? 

thanks in advance

[Artiee]

1. ATM.  They are yours until a FAQ that says otherwise.

   (RB Pg. 28, Markers, 5th bullet.  " When a model Drops a Marker it is friendly to the Crew controlling the model that Dropped it.")

2. Yes,

 

[Vangerdahast]

Page 26 of the Rules PDF, especially the last paragraph of the first column:

 

Regardless of control the model does not change which models it considers friendly and which it considers an enemy. Control changes who makes the decisions; it does not change the Crew to which the model belongs.

 

So obeyed models are still friendly to their Crew and I would say that if the obeyed model drops a Scheme Maker it will still be a Marker for his Crew (and not the controlling Crew).

 

[Vangerdahast]

10 minutes ago, Artiee said:

1. ATM.  They are yours until a FAQ that says otherwise.

   (RB Pg. 28, Markers, 5th bullet.  " When a model Drops a Marker it is friendly to the Crew controlling the model that Dropped it.")

 

For me, the Crew controlling the model is still the same. An ennemy model controls the obeyed model but the Crew it is a member of is still the same. The obeyed model don't change Crew, only his actions are controlled by the ennemy. The obeyed model doesn't  swap Crew during this "obeyed" action.

The rule is a bit vague in my opinion. The rules should have mentionned that case (interacting) explicitely. Hoping that the FAQ will clarify that.

As is, I think that the Scheme Marker is friendly to the obeyed model  and not to the obeying model. But I can see the opposite as possible.

 

[Steve-El-Tragger]

33 minutes ago, Artiee said:

1. ATM.  They are yours until a FAQ that says otherwise.

   (RB Pg. 28, Markers, 5th bullet.  " When a model Drops a Marker it is friendly to the Crew controlling the model that Dropped it.")

2. Yes,

 

That sounds pretty clear to me, thanks for figuring out

[LeperColony]

10 minutes ago, Vangerdahast said:

As is, I think that the Scheme Marker is friendly to the obeyed model  and not to the obeying model. But I can see the opposite as possible.

I feel if this were the intended result, the rules would say that markers are "friendly to the model that dropped it."

But instead, it says "friendly to the Crew controlling the model that dropped it." (emphasis mine)

So I'd actually say that the marker is friendly to the Obeying model.

[Vangerdahast]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

I feel if this were the intended result, the rules would say that markers are "friendly to the model that dropped it."

But instead, it says "friendly to the Crew controlling the model that dropped it." (emphasis mine)

So I'd actually say that the marker is friendly to the Obeying model.

I told that I am not sure but for me the obeyed model is only controled by an ennemy model and not controled by the ennemy Crew. He is still part of his original Crew (page 26) and can't be part of the ennemy Crew.

 

Once again, I can be wrong and you can be right. FAQ should tell.

 

[Ogid]

I think it's as @Vangerdahast is saying.

The controled model is still friendly and belongs to his crew, so the scheme marker is theirs. To see this more clear, check the Journalist keyword ability "exclusive interview". Journalist forces the enemy models to interact; that rule wouldn't had sense if the markers that a controled model drop belonged to the enemy crew in the first place.

Quote

Exclusive Interview
When an enemy model within 2 takes the Interact Action, it is treated as a friendly model and the Action is controlled by this model.

 

[LeperColony]

12 minutes ago, Ogid said:

The controled model is still friendly and belongs to his crew

Yes, he belongs to his crew.  But he is being controlled by an enemy model.

The rule states the marker is friendly to "the crew controlling the model."

Not the model.

Not the model's crew.

The crew controlling the model.

When a model is being obeyed by an enemy, which crew is controlling the obeyed model?

The answer to that question must necessarily match the answer to "which crew is the marker friendly to?"

 

 

[solkan]

2 hours ago, Vangerdahast said:

 

For me, the Crew controlling the model is still the same. An ennemy model controls the obeyed model but the Crew it is a member of is still the same. The obeyed model don't change Crew, only his actions are controlled by the ennemy. The obeyed model doesn't  swap Crew during this "obeyed" action.

The rule is a bit vague in my opinion. The rules should have mentionned that case (interacting) explicitely. Hoping that the FAQ will clarify that.

As is, I think that the Scheme Marker is friendly to the obeyed model  and not to the obeying model. But I can see the opposite as possible.

As far as I can tell, the issue is that you don’t want to admit that the rule changes.

This is what M2E said:

Quote

This Scheme Marker is always considered friendly to the crew of the model that placed it, regardless of who controlled the Interact Action.

In M2E, if you’re Obeyed, you drop your crew’s Scheme Marker.

M3E says that it belongs to the crew controlling the action, so the result is different.  In M3E, if you’re Obeyed, you drop the Scheme Marker of whoever is controlling you.

[Vangerdahast]

2 minutes ago, solkan said:

As far as I can tell, the issue is that you don’t want to admit that the rule changes.

I can admit it. I already said that I may be wrong and I haven't refered to M2E rules (I haven't  even tought about it).

 

[LeperColony]

2 minutes ago, Vangerdahast said:

I can admit it. I already said that I may be wrong and I haven't refered to M2E rules (I haven't  even tought about it).

 

When I feel a matter is subject to interpretation, I'm not shy in saying so.  But sometimes the words offer a pretty clear reading.

I'm curious what other reading "the crew controlling the model" can mean to you?

[Vangerdahast]

14 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

When I feel a matter is subject to interpretation, I'm not shy in saying so.  But sometimes the words offer a pretty clear reading.

I'm curious what other reading "the crew controlling the model" can mean to you?

I have aready answered this point when I answered your post (the one with emphasis).

Pretty clear that I am wrong. Not a problem at all. I will play it like this. Will be pleased to discuss other topics in the future with you.

For me, debate is closed.

 

[Ogid]

13 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

I'm curious what other reading "the crew controlling the model" can mean to you?

But the rules cover this interaction explicitly as cited previously:

Quote

Regardless of control the model does not change which models it considers friendly and which it considers an enemy. Control changes who makes the decisions; it does not change the Crew to which the model belongs.

The controlling player makes all the choices, that's all. The model is still an enemy model, the controlled model cannot use an ability with the "enemy only" to his own crew for example. When he interacts, it's exactly as if he were interacting without being controled.

The Journalist ability makes this very clear, if this didn't work like we are saying, the "Exclusive Interview" ability wouldn't have any sense.

[Adran]

13 hours ago, Ogid said:

The controlling player makes all the choices, that's all. The model is still an enemy model, the controlled model cannot use an ability with the "enemy only" to his own crew for example. When he interacts, it's exactly as if he were interacting without being controled.

The Journalist ability makes this very clear, if this didn't work like we are saying, the "Exclusive Interview" ability wouldn't have any sense.

Whilst under obey you don't change friendly and enemy. But during the interact action you are being controlled by the model with Obey, which might be a different crew to you. You are still subject to things like not being able to interact because you are engaged with an enemy model. So based on the rules on page 28 the marker dropped is friendly to the model with obey.

Exclusive interview does things a little differently. By making the model friendly to you, it means that you can declare the interact action even whilst engaged by your models (although not while engaged by models from their own crew). Considering its a short ranged aura, that is a pretty useful alteration. So it still makes sense to have different wording

[Ogid]

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

Whilst under obey you don't change friendly and enemy. But during the interact action you are being controlled by the model with Obey, which might be a different crew to you. You are still subject to things like not being able to interact because you are engaged with an enemy model. So based on the rules on page 28 the marker dropped is friendly to the model with obey.

Exclusive interview does things a little differently. By making the model friendly to you, it means that you can declare the interact action even whilst engaged by your models (although not while engaged by models from their own crew). Considering its a short ranged aura, that is a pretty useful alteration. So it still makes sense to have different wording

I don't agree with these, the rules of the pg26 is talking specifically about controlled models and goes against that reading, so those rules could be nuancing the pg 28 rules (general rules aobut markers); however it could be the other way around. I can see the problem, these 2 rules seem to contradict each other.

In the other hand, if the controled model dropped a scheme marker friendly to the creed controling him, then the bolded part of Exclusive Interview would be redundant (see below). The friendly part isn't there to disengage the enemy and make the interact action legal; the Journalist abilities that force the other model to interact specify that the enemy model may take the interact action even if engaged (and some of them doesn't have a mele attack and can't engage the enemy models anyway),  just saying the action is controled by this model would be enough to force a friendly scheme marker drop.

Quote

Exclusive Interview
When an enemy model within 2 takes the Interact Action, it is treated as a friendly model and the Action is controlled by this model.

I don't know, maybe the interact action while being controled changed during the beta but some old rules remained... If that's the case then the overlooked rule is more probably the pg28 one than the 26 plus an ability printed in a lot of cards (Exclusive Interivew). But considering the wording of the pg28, a FAQ about it would be welcome.

[santaclaws01]

16 hours ago, Ogid said:

I think it's as @Vangerdahast is saying.

The controled model is still friendly and belongs to his crew, so the scheme marker is theirs. To see this more clear, check the Journalist keyword ability "exclusive interview". Journalist forces the enemy models to interact; that rule wouldn't had sense if the markers that a controled model drop belonged to the enemy crew in the first place.

 

It wouldn't be able to interact if it wasn't treated as a friendly model and engaged.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Ogid said:

I don't agree with these, the rules of the pg26 is talking specifically about controlled models and goes against that reading, so those rules could be nuancing the pg 28 rules (general rules aobut markers); however it could be the other way around. I can see the problem, these 2 rules seem to contradict each other.

In the other hand, if the controled model dropped a scheme marker friendly to the creed controling him, then the bolded part of Exclusive Interview would be redundant (see below). The friendly part isn't there to disengage the enemy and make the interact action legal; the Journalist abilities that force the other model to interact specify that the enemy model may take the interact action even if engaged (and some of them doesn't have a mele attack and can't engage the enemy models anyway),  just saying the action is controled by this model would be enough to force a friendly scheme marker drop.

I don't know, maybe the interact action while being controled changed during the beta but some old rules remained... If that's the case then the overlooked rule is more probably the pg28 one than the 26 plus an ability printed in a lot of cards (Exclusive Interivew). But considering the wording of the pg28, a FAQ about it would be welcome.

The two passages don't contradict each other. One is saying what crew a model belongs to doesn't change just because it's being controlled. The other says a marker is friendly to the crew controlling the action. No where in the first does it say a model can't be controlled by the other crew.

[LeperColony]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Exclusive interview does things a little differently. By making the model friendly to you, it means that you can declare the interact action even whilst engaged by your models (although not while engaged by models from their own crew). Considering its a short ranged aura, that is a pretty useful alteration. So it still makes sense to have different wording

Yeah, and in fact Exclusive Interview allows you to do things like use an enemy model to turn Turf War markers or deliver a message, both of which require friendly models.

But as you've mentioned, it's not relevant for determining the allegiance of scheme markers during Obey.

[Ogid]

There could be 2 readings:

Obey drops friendly markers

• Marker rules (28)*

Obey drops enemy markers:

• Interact rules (22 "friendly" marker), Friendly, Enemy and Control (pg26), Exclusive Interview and Journalist Mechanics (cards, check the trigger "Headline: Secret Exposed")

*Note the pg28 rules doesn't specify that is also refering to when an enemy is controlling, so it could be a wording overlook.

 

For me there are more rules pointing towards dropping enemy markers than friendly markers, but It can't be 100% proved. Checking a bit, this isn't the first time this discussion happens.

I guess we will have to wait to a FAQ.

[LeperColony]

7 minutes ago, Ogid said:

There could be 2 readings:

Obey drops friendly markers

• Marker rules (28)*

Obey drops enemy markers:

• Interact rules (22 "friendly" marker), Friendly, Enemy and Control (pg26), Exclusive Interview and Journalist Mechanics (cards, check the trigger "Headline: Secret Exposed")

*Note the pg28 rules doesn't specify that is also refering to when an enemy is controlling, so it could be a wording overlook.

 

For me there are more rules pointing towards dropping enemy markers than friendly markers, but It can't be 100% proved. Checking a bit, this isn't the first time this discussion happens.

I guess we will have to wait to a FAQ.

There really is only one reading.  It isn't a matter of interpretation.

The only section that governs the allegiance of a dropped marker is on page 28, and its entire language states:

"When a model Drops a Marker it is friendly to the Crew controlling the model that Dropped it."

That's it.  

So all you have to do to determine the allegiance of the marker is ask yourself "which crew currently controls the model dropping the marker."

 

Exclusive Interview doesn't help your case.  What it does is allow you to use an enemy model to do interact in a way Obey normally wouldn't.  For instance, if you Obey an enemy model to interact with a Turf War marker, it can't turn it friendly to you.  With Exclusive Interview, however, you can.

I honestly have no idea why you think Headline:  Secrets Exposed has any relevance on the issue either.  Enemy only is a restriction on the target of the action, it doesn't govern the allegiance of the dropped marker.

 

Absent some other specific effect, only the rules on page 28 govern the allegiance of a marker.  If you want to continue to play it some other way, that's obviously your prerogative.  But from a rules standpoint, this is a clear-cut case.  

[Clement]

pg 26. under "Friendly, Enemy, & Control"

Quote

Friendly models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into your Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by your Crew.

According to this line about the definition of what a friendly marker is, the model you obeyed to put down a scheme marker would put down a model friendly to it, since it was the one that dropped the marker and obey doesn't cause the obeyed model to change sides during the obey.  This is DIRECTLY in opposition to the pg 28 "models drop markers friendly to who controls them" line.  THIS is why the FAQ, apparently the above statement is unclear.

Or are you arguing that if I obey one of your models to drop a scheme marker, it's somehow friendly to *both* crews, which is crazy.

 

[LeperColony]

10 minutes ago, Clement said:

pg 26. under "Friendly, Enemy, & Control"

According to this line about the definition of what a friendly marker is, the model you obeyed to put down a scheme marker would put down a model friendly to it, since it was the one that dropped the marker and obey doesn't cause the obeyed model to change sides during the obey.  This is DIRECTLY in opposition to the pg 28 "models drop markers friendly to who controls them" line.  THIS is why the FAQ, apparently the above statement is unclear.

Or are you arguing that if I obey one of your models to drop a scheme marker, it's somehow friendly to *both* crews, which is crazy.

 

The specific controls the general.  

Page 26 is a general outline of what is friendly and how control works.

Page 28 specifically governs the allegiance of makers.

 

In fact, the section on "Friendly, Enemy & Control" goes on to discuss the implications of a change in control, and necessarily does so in an incomplete manner by using language such as "and so on." 

Note that under your logic, it's ambiguous as to whether or not you can walk out of engagements, because movement on page 14 says when you walk you can move up to your Mv in inches, and engagement on page 26 says you can't use walk to leave engagement.

The rules define over-arching concepts in general terms, then carve out exceptions or changes in specific sections.  Those specific sections override the general to the extent necessary to give effect to the rule.

[Ogid]

 

3 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

The specific controls the general.  

Page 26 is a general outline of what is friendly and how control works.

Page 28 specifically governs the allegiance of makers.

That is hard to argue without an stablished hierarchy

Page 28: General rules about Markers

Page 26: Specific rules about how Obey works

Now it suddendly drops an enemy marker... A FAQ is needed here.

[LeperColony]

2 minutes ago, Ogid said:

 

That is hard to argue without an stablished hierarchy

Page 28: General rules about Markers

Page 26: Specific rules about how Obey works

Now it suddendly drops an enemy marker... A FAQ is needed here.

The hierarchy is present in the section headers.  It's how we can narrow the general to the specific.  Though of course, "general" and "specific" are relative terms.  Some sections are "general" compared to one and "specific" compared to another.  "Movement" is general compared to "Engagement" but specific compared to the rules as a whole.

Page 26's section header is "Friendly, Enemy, & Control."  It is the baseline rules to establish what is friendly and enemy, and what happens when control changes.

Page 28's section header is "Markers."  This specifically deals with the rules for markers, creating them, removing them and interacting with them.

If you need a FAQ to say 28 is more specific to markers than 26, then you're going to need a ton of other FAQs.

[Ogid]

2 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

The hierarchy is present in the section headers.  It's how we can narrow the general to the specific.  Though of course, "general" and "specific" are relative terms.  Some sections are "general" compared to one and "specific" compared to another.  "Movement" is general compared to "Engagement" but specific compared to the rules as a whole.

Page 26's section header is "Friendly, Enemy, & Control."  It is the baseline rules to establish what is friendly and enemy, and what happens when control changes.

Page 28's section header is "Markers."  This specifically deals with the rules for markers, creating them, removing them and interacting with them.

If you need a FAQ to say 28 is more specific to markers than 26, then you're going to need a ton of other FAQs.

So, by your own definition, both have the same priority or it's so relative we (players) can't say 100% sure which is more important. Because again I can say the pg 28 rules are the general rules about Markers and the Page 26 cover the specific interaction of how to use the controlled models. We are back at square one...

If all the rules were coherent with each other, no FAQ would be needed. But there are some contradictory rules here, and FAQs are to cover these. Unless you are the one who wrote the rulebook, I don't know how you are so sure about this interaction...