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

[LeperColony]

4 minutes ago, Ogid said:

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...

No, that's the opposite of my definition.

The Markers section only deals with Markers.  In other words, it is specifically related to Markers.  It doesn't cover models and markers, it's just markers.  

Friendly, Enemy & Control covers models, markers and terrain.

This is a simple question for you:

Which is more specific?

1)  Models, Markers and Terrain

2)  Markers

 

Remember, by your logic, you can walk out of engagement by using the Movement rules to conflict with the Engagement rules.  By mine, you can't.

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

No, that's the opposite of my definition.

The Markers section only deals with Markers.  In other words, it is specifically related to Markers.  It doesn't cover models and markers, it's just markers.  

Friendly, Enemy & Control covers models, markers and terrain.

This is a simple question for you:

Which is more specific?

1)  Models, Markers and Terrain

2)  Markers

Yeah, and the part of friendly, enemy and control rule about how to handle control effects. Which is the part of the rules which talks specifically about this particular interaction, so they should be the rules with the higher priority in this case imo.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

Remember, by your logic, you can walk out of engagement by using the Movement rules to conflict with the Engagement rules.  By mine, you can't.

I've never said that. But good try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 😉

 

I don't think we can convince each other, and I've said what I had to say about this topic... I hope Wyrd adress it in a FAQ. Time to Df/Wp() Fade Away of this one like @Vangerdahast.

[Rob Lo]

It doesn't look like anyone other than a FAQ is going to convince you that the introduction and definition of friendly and enemy on page 26 is more generic than the case of dropping a marker by way of a model being controlled by a model in another crew on page 28. If your group agrees, by all means play it that way. I'd only suggest before you play a random opponent where this might come up, you should discuss it beforehand.  They're likely to disagree. 

[LeperColony]

15 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Yeah, and the part of friendly, enemy and control rule about how to handle control effects. Which is the part of the rules which talks specifically about this particular interaction, so they should be the rules with the higher priority in this case imo.

Trying to use the word "specifically" doesn't actually make it specific.

Language is specific if it refers to a more narrow range of objects or circumstances.

The Markers section talks about the specific rules that cover marker allegiance.  It doesn't govern model allegiance, only markers.

Your inability to answer the, admittedly rhetorical, question about which of the two are more specific says all we need to know.  Rules that only cover markers are more specific than rules that cover markers and models.

15 minutes ago, Ogid said:

I've never said that. But good try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 😉

 

This is an incorrect use of the term "strawman."  My example is a direct logical analogy to your claim.  It's two sections of text that reference the same thing.  You're claiming there's no way to establish a hierarchy between general and specific, and therefore a FAQ is needed.

But I've laid out a logical framework, which honestly shouldn't be controversial, determining when you know a rule is more specific.

15 minutes ago, Ogid said:

I don't think we can't convince each other, and I've said what I had to say about this topic... I hope Wyrd adress it in a FAQ. Time to Df/Wp() Fade Away of this one like @Vangerdahast.

@Vangerdahast conceded his reading was probably incorrect.  You're pretty much the only one who believes "the crew controlling the model" means something other than what it says.

Nobody can stop you from playing it your way.  You should use a reading that provides a resolution agreeable to you and your group.

But that doesn't make it equally valid.

[LeperColony]

18 minutes ago, Rob Lo said:

It doesn't look like anyone other than a FAQ is going to convince you that the introduction and definition of friendly and enemy on page 26 is more generic than the case of dropping a marker by way of a model being controlled by a model in another crew on page 28. If your group agrees, by all means play it that way. I'd only suggest before you play a random opponent where this might come up, you should discuss it beforehand.  They're likely to disagree. 

He was forced to adopt the assertion that you can't determine general vs specific because his original rationale fell through (that the journalist's "Exclusive Interview" ability somehow illustrated that obeyed models drop markers friendly to their original crew).

Ultimately he has a result he wants, and he's just trying to find language to support it.  That's the opposite of what the analysis process should be though. 

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Your inability to answer the, admittedly rhetorical, question about which of the two are more specific says all we need to know.  Rules that only cover markers are more specific than rules that cover markers and models.

You should read my post again... I said in the particular case of a model droping a marker while being controled; the controled rules would be more specific than the Marker ones... but that is as subjetive as your reading.

If you had a doubt about the rules of a controled model droping a marker, where would you look at first? In the part of the rules that talks about controled models or where it talks about markers? I'd check first the pg26 first.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

This is an incorrect use of the term "strawman."  My example is a direct logical analogy to your claim.  It's two sections of text that reference the same thing.  You're claiming there's no way to establish a hierarchy between general and specific, and therefore a FAQ is needed.

But I've laid out a logical framework, which honestly shouldn't be controversial, determining when you know a rule is more specific.

You have attacked an argument I never made after constructing "a direct logical analogy" I never agreed on, lol. That's a book's example of the strawman fallacy.

And your "logical framework" is "but in the pg 28 say this and clearly this have higher priority because I say so". Sorry If i'm not jumping at that logic.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

@Vangerdahast conceded his reading was probably incorrect.  You're pretty much the only one who believes "the crew controlling the model" means something other than what it says.

Nobody can stop you from playing it your way.  You should use a reading that provides a resolution agreeable to you and your group.

But that doesn't make it equally valid.

@Vangerdahast first reading was the other one, and that could be happening to other players. If you check my answers you could see I acknowledge the 2 possible readings but I explained the one I think is the right one; you and everyone else are welcome to disagree and explain his pow. However I find your inability to see more truth than your own problematic to engage in a healthy discussion. It's exausting to argue with someone who believe he is always right and don't stop using agressive strategies like the strawman and ad hominem to "win" the discussion to be honest.

And i'll play the way the majority of players agree on; if most people agree the other one is probably the right one (like it seems), then I'll play like that. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss the holes I find in the rules so they can be considered and FAQed. In this case there are contradicting rules in these 2 pages (friendly markers created by your crew vs markers belong to the controlling crew) and this isn't the first time this question came out, nor I'm the first player doing this reading; so it'd be good for everyone that it'd be settled forever by Wyrd in a FAQ.

3 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Ultimately he has a result he wants, and he's just trying to find language to support it.  That's the opposite of what the analysis process should be though. 

Example of argument ad hominem. I'm not cocking the rules to fit the answer I want, I'm just interpreting the rules in a way different than you. In fact I'm planning to get Zoraida pretty soon and there isn't any control heavy crew in my meta. If I wanted to get an edge in game, I'd be supporting your argument.

Different reading =/= evil person trying to cheat.

If I'm wrong then perfect, at least I will know for sure which is the right one.

[LeperColony]

37 minutes ago, Ogid said:

You should read my post again... I said in the particular case of a model droping a marker while being controled; the controled rules would be more specific than the Marker ones... but that is as subjetive as your reading.

It's not subjective.  It's the opposite of subjective.  

Marker rules are more specific than Friendly, Enemy & Control by the objective definition of "specific."  It refers to less stuff.

The fewer subjects covered by a rule, the more specific that rule is.  There's nothing subjective about that, it's just the way specific and general are.  If you can't accept that, I don't think there's any frame of reference for further discussion, because that's just the actual definitions of "specific" and "general."

37 minutes ago, Ogid said:

If you had a doubt about the rules of a controled model droping a marker, where would you look at first? In the part of the rules that talks about controled models or where it talks about markers? I'd check first the pg26 first

You very well may check page 26 first, I don't know.  If you check the table of contents, do you go to control or markers?  I'm sure different people will make different decisions.

But it has nothing to do with which rule controls. 

37 minutes ago, Ogid said:

You have attacked an argument I never made after constructing "a direct logical analogy" I never agreed on, lol. That's a book's example of the strawman fallacy.

Strawman has nothing to do with consent.  You can agree or not, it has no bearing on whether an analogy is a strawman.

An argument is a strawman if it fails to adhere to the same logic supporting the original assertion.  

You took two sections of the rules that referred to the same subject and claimed it was not possible to definitively determine which was more specific. 

That was an incorrect claim.

And by way of illustrating the error, I took another two sections of the rules that referred to the same subject and applied your same reading.

Here's an invitation to show me why I mistake your position:

You don't believe we can know Markers is more specific than Friendly, Enemy, & Control absent a FAQ.  

So then how do you propose to determine specificity?  

37 minutes ago, Ogid said:

If you check my answers you could see I acknowledge the 2 possible readings but I explained the one I think is the right one; you and everyone else are welcome to disagree and explain his pow. However I find your inability to see more truth than your own problematic to engage in a healthy discussion. It's exausting to argue with someone who believe he is always right and don't stop using agressive strategies like the strawman and ad hominem to "win" the discussion to be honest.

You're perfectly entitled to your own reading.  You're even entitled to your own logic.  But you aren't entitled to re-define the English language.  What's happening is you're attempting to claim an equivalence between two outcomes, when no such equivalence exists.  

But instead of constructing a logical framework, objective standard, and then defending that standard, you're choosing to claim you're being insulted.  But you're not. 

37 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Example of argument ad hominem.

I don't think you know what these logical fallacies you keep trying to use actually mean.  You're not being attacked or insulted.  I haven't claimed you're trying to cheat.  I don't say you want one reading for yourself and another for your opponent.  I don't say you want a reading that's advantageous for you.  In fact, without knowing a lot more about what you play, I have no clue what's advantageous for you.

I'm saying you have a preferred result and you're trying to find a reading to justify it.  And that the proper way to analyze a rule is to start with a set of definitions, read the rules, and arrive at and end.

You can do that with my position.  You can't with yours.  I'm sorry that makes you feel as though you're being attacked, but you're not.  It's not personal at all.  It's a failure of logic.

 

 

[Adran]

[Modhat]

Sorry, this is no longer a constructive discussion on the rules of the game.