My Loyal Servant

[Zebo]

If I use Load Up from Von Schill to give a pair of new boots to Hannah and I hit a ram, can I heal Hannah or "another model (other than this model)" Means you cannot heal both the target and Von Schill? 

[RisingPhoenix]

4 hours ago, Scoffer said:

The FAQ doesn't say "would never be a legal target":

Another” always refers to “not the model from which this text is written” except in those instances where the model in which “Another” is written would not always be a legal subject of the sentence, such as “Another Scrap Marker”, or “Another enemy model”. In such cases, “Another” will never refer to the previous legal subject.

"Would not always be a legal subject" is wider and includes both "would never be" and "would be, but only in some situations". 

It's obvious that Von Schill would not always be within 3" from the target, because Load Up has rg8". That's why "another" means "not the target"

And Nekima can't always push up to her Mv and make a action, which would mean that another in Nekima's aura means "other than the previously mentioned Nephilim" which would let Nekima push up to her Mv and make aaction, which literally goes directly against what the FAQ says.

My Loyal Servant is on a lot of actions for a lot of models models (about a dozen) and some will always be within 3" of the target, and some can sometimes be within 3" and sometimes not.  It's a generic wording.  We could be discussing Taggert Queeg who has My Loyal Servant on his MELEE action, and thus will always be within 3" of whatever is being hit.  Does the trigger literally change meaning on Queeg?  To make it sillier, Queeg has the identical trigger on his ranged attack action.  Does it have two meanings between the two actions?  Or does it simply have a generic wording and works exactly the same in all circumstances on all models with the trigger?  

Another's meaning was completely clarified.  Your interpretation here literally breaks the FAQ itself, which is inane.  Yes, in certain circumstances the originator model is not within 3" of the target, and in certain circumstances Nekima can't push up to her Mv and make aaction.  When they gave examples of "scheme markers" and "scrap markers" it's clear and unambiguous that they were not looking for a debate, they were saying "the originator model is obviously never a scrap marker, so when it says 'another scrap marker' it's talking about 'two different scrap markers'"

[Morgan Vening]

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

If I use Load Up from Von Schill to give a pair of new boots to Hannah and I hit a ram, can I heal Hannah or "another model (other than this model)" Means you cannot heal both the target and Von Schill? 

The latter. "another" excludes Hannah. "other than" excludes Von Schill. So it's got to be a third model.

[santaclaws01]

18 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

The latter. "another" excludes Hannah. "other than" excludes Von Schill. So it's got to be a third model.

Another excludes the model taking the action.

[Morgan Vening]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

Another excludes the model taking the action.

Wait, now I'm confused.

Have I just inverted the two (another excludes VS, other than excludes Hannah), or is the "other than" superfluous?

English. Come for the lack of clarity. Stay for the counterintuitiveness.

[solkan]

The FAQ statement is:

Quote

No. “Another” always refers to “not the model from which this text is written” except in those instances where the model in
which “Another” is written would not always be a legal subject of the sentence, such as “Another Scrap Marker”, or “Another enemy model”. In such cases, “Another” will never refer to the previous legal subject.

So the FAQ says because it’s “another model (other than this model)”, you can’t use it on the target of the action (because that was the “previous legal target”), and the parentheses prevent it being used to heal Von Schill.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Another always refers to Von Schill (or any other originator model with My Loyal Servant).  You can heal the target of the ability with My Loyal Servant.  In the example, you could heal Hannah.  You could not heal Von Schill, even if you used the ability to give the equipment to Von Schill.  The parenthetical is a clarification of what is meant by "Another model" (Parentheticals serve a clarifying role).   Another doesn't refer to "the previous target", it means "a target other than the model from which the text is written."  

[Mycellanious]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

The FAQ statement is:

So the FAQ says because it’s “another model (other than this model)”, you can’t use it on the target of the action (because that was the “previous legal target”), and the parentheses prevent it being used to heal Von Schill.

 

Actually that doesnt read that way, "previous legal target" isnt the clause to change what "another" means. You can only invoke the "another will never refer to previous legal subject" in cases like Ride the Rails, "If this model is within 1" of a Scarp Marker it may place itself into base contact with another Scrap Marker within 12""

In this way, the FAQ makes it clear that another cannot  refer to Mei Feng (because that doesnt make grammatical sense) and the last sentence tells us that "another" cannot refer to the first Scrap Marker chosen, meaning you need 2 to RtR

RAW My Loyal Servant would allow you to heal the target.

[solkan]

1 minute ago, Mycellanious said:

Actually that doesnt read that way, "previous legal target" isnt the clause to change what "another" means. You can only invoke the "another will never refer to previous legal subject" in cases like Ride the Rails, "If this model is within 1" of a Scarp Marker it may place itself into base contact with another Scrap Marker within 12""

Please explain why you're choosing to ignore the specifier "other than this model" in the text.

Attempts to strategically ignore text do not define the rules as written.

 

 

[Mycellanious]

"Other than this model" in the context of My Loyal Servant refers to the card its on, ie the model taking the action. It is a clarifying statement as opposed to an additional restriction. Text is always written from the perspective of the card, so "this" could not refer to the target of the action. 

[eddy]

What about galvanize? It says another friendly model within 3" of this model. So if target is within 3" he can gain focus?

[Zebo]

And then the Ricochet trigger should be able to hit the original target also. 

[RisingPhoenix]

6 hours ago, eddy said:

What about galvanize? It says another friendly model within 3" of this model. So if target is within 3" he can gain focus?

Yes, this is how Wyrd has specifically clarified the rules work.  Another is defined as  "a target other than the model from which the text is written" unless the target from which the text is written would never be a legal target (another scheme marker, another scrap marker, etc.).  Note the target will always be within 3" of themselves.

In the case of Ricochet, I believe Wyrd probably misworded that and it should have been caught in the errata, but absent errata, RAW it does indeed allow you to target the original target.  It's possible that at one point Ricochet was "Another Enemy model" and the word enemy was dropped without the phrasing being changed.

[touchdown]

it's pretty clear they intended a model that's not Von Schill or the target but the FAQ RAW say the target is allowed and both clauses mean the same thing.

[Scoffer]

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Another is defined as  "a target other than the model from which the text is written" unless the target from which the text is written would never be a legal target (another scheme marker, another scrap marker, etc.). 

The FAQ doesn't say "would never be a legal target":

Another” always refers to “not the model from which this text is written” except in those instances where the model in which “Another” is written would not always be a legal subject of the sentence, such as “Another Scrap Marker”, or “Another enemy model”. In such cases, “Another” will never refer to the previous legal subject.

"Would not always be a legal subject" is wider and includes both "would never be" and "would be, but only in some situations". 

It's obvious that Von Schill would not always be within 3" from the target, because Load Up has rg8". That's why "another" means "not the target"

[Mycellanious]

1 hour ago, touchdown said:

it's pretty clear they intended a model that's not Von Schill or the target but the FAQ RAW say the target is allowed and both clauses mean the same thing.

Actually to me its clear that it is intended to allow the target. It even makes sense thematically because the target is the servant. If they wanted to exclude the target they would worded the parenthesis as "other than the target"

[ShinChan]

Just now, Mycellanious said:

Actually to me its clear that it is intended to allow the target. It even makes sense thematically because the target is the servant. If they wanted to exclude the target they would worded the parenthesis as "other than the target"

Just based on the name of the trigger, you can't get to that conclusion. There are more models with that same trigger and many of them are in an attack action.

[Mycellanious]

6 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

Just based on the name of the trigger, you can't get to that conclusion. There are more models with that same trigger and many of them are in an attack action.

Right. That's why the parenthetical is important. If it were part of an Attack Action and did not have the parenthetical it would allow the model to use My Loyal Servant on itself. For example, if the Carrion Emissary attacks an enemy and the parenthetical was not there it would be able to heal itself because it is never a legal target for the Action it would invoke the 2nd clause. 

[ShinChan]

3 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

Right. That's why the parenthetical is important. If it were part of an Attack Action and did not have the parenthetical it would allow the model to use My Loyal Servant on itself. For example, if the Carrion Emissary attacks an enemy and the parenthetical was not there it would be able to heal itself because it is never a legal target for the Action it would invoke the 2nd clause. 

In that we agree, but I disagree with your previous comment. If someone plays against like "My Loyal Servant" trigger can affect the target of the action, I'll apply the same reasoning to the Ricochet trigger. I see that there is an argument to make in both directions, but if one is supported, it must be supported for all the abilities/triggers/actions that have the same wording.

BTW, @RisingPhoenix is wrong, Ricochet never had the clause "enemy", since with most Bayou models, it must always be declared as a punishment to Ricochet to your own models.

[Mycellanious]

42 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

The FAQ doesn't say "would never be a legal target":

Another” always refers to “not the model from which this text is written” except in those instances where the model in which “Another” is written would not always be a legal subject of the sentence, such as “Another Scrap Marker”, or “Another enemy model”. In such cases, “Another” will never refer to the previous legal subject.

"Would not always be a legal subject" is wider and includes both "would never be" and "would be, but only in some situations". 

It's obvious that Von Schill would not always be within 3" from the target, because Load Up has rg8". That's why "another" means "not the target"

I think you are confusing "a legal subject of the sentence" with "a legal target for the action or trigger." It is a clause about grammar not a clause about game state.

In the case of RtR replacing "another Scrap Marker" with "not Mei Feng" does not make grammatical sense, "If this model is within 1" of a Scrap Marker it may place itself into base contact with a not Mei Feng  with 12"" In which case we are instructed to use "not the previous legal subject," in this case the first scrap marker, instead, "If this model is within 1" of a Scrap Marker it may place itself into base contact with a Scrap Marker, but not the previous scrap marker you were within 1" of"

In the case of VS's My Loyal Servant replacing "Another model" with "not Von Shill" does make grammatical sense, "Not Von Shill (other than this model) within 3" of the target heals 1/2/3"

[Mycellanious]

4 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

In that we agree, but I disagree with your previous comment. If someone plays against like "My Loyal Servant" trigger can affect the target of the action, I'll apply the same reasoning to the Ricochet trigger. I see that there is an argument to make in both directions, but if one is supported, it must be supported for all the abilities/triggers/actions that have the same wording.

BTW, @RisingPhoenix is wrong, Ricochet never had the clause "enemy", since with most Bayou models, it must always be declared as a punishment to Ricochet to your own models.

I would agree that right now RAW you can choose the Target as the model for Ricochet. That I think is clearly unintended and should be rewritten

[ShinChan]

1 minute ago, Mycellanious said:

I would agree that right now RAW you can choose the Target as the model for Ricochet. That I think is clearly unintended and should be rewritten

The same way I think that My Loyal Servant excludes the target, and that's why there is a clarification there (Another model + not this model). But with the new FAQ, or you play everything in one way or in the other, you can't choose to apply only those cases that "you/me/whoever think is intended".

The problem here is that a FAQ for Nekima's aura appears to break other triggers/actions/etc.

[Mycellanious]

4 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

The same way I think that My Loyal Servant excludes the target, and that's why there is a clarification there (Another model + not this model). But with the new FAQ, or you play everything in one way or in the other, you can't choose to apply only those cases that "you/me/whoever think is intended".

The problem here is that a FAQ for Nekima's aura appears to break other triggers/actions/etc.

But the trigger is on the card of the model taking the Action, not the target. So "this model" must refer to the model taking the Action and Declaring the Trigger (VS) and not whatever his target is. The clarification exists because the Trigger existed before the FAQ, so the clarification was necessary, but now it ought to be removed. 

[ShinChan]

2 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

But the trigger is on the card of the model taking the Action, not the target. So "this model" must refer to the model taking the Action and Declaring the Trigger (VS) and not whatever his target is. The clarification exists because the Trigger existed before the FAQ, so the clarification was necessary, but now it ought to be removed. 

The trigger is the following, there is 

"Another model (other than this model) within 3" of the target Heals 1/2/3".

• Parenthesis are a clarification, so the phrase is:
• "Another model within 3" of the target Heals 1/2/3"
• So the possibilities are:
  • 1) Another model except the target?
  • 2) Another model except the one taking the action?

If the option 1 is the right one, the clarification "other than this model" makes sense.

If the option 2 is the right one, the clarification is pointless. Also, the same clarification is when the trigger is on attack action, and a model can't target itself with an attack action, so again, pointless.

So far, it affect Ricochet and we'll have to go through all the other models to check if there is any other weird interaction (I don't think so).

As I said, I see arguments for both. This is like the problem with "At the start of the activation" before the FAQs. Both players should agree on how they want to play it until there is an official answer.

[Mycellanious]

4 minutes ago, ShinChan said:

The trigger is the following, there is 

"Another model (other than this model) within 3" of the target Heals 1/2/3".

• Parenthesis are a clarification, so the phrase is:
• "Another model within 3" of the target Heals 1/2/3"
• So the possibilities are:
  • 1) Another model except the target?
  • 2) Another model except the one taking the action?

If the option 1 is the right one, the clarification "other than this model" makes sense.

If the option 2 is the right one, the clarification is pointless. Also, the same clarification is when the trigger is on attack action, and a model can't target itself with an attack action, so again, pointless.

So far, it affect Ricochet and we'll have to go through all the other models to check if there is any other weird interaction (I don't think so).

As I said, I see arguments for both. This is like the problem with "At the start of the activation" before the FAQs. Both players should agree on how they want to play it until there is an official answer.

But you are forgetting that the text remains unchanged from GG0. Without the FAQ, so when this was written, the clarification would not be unnecessary, it was in fact crucial.

[RisingPhoenix]

3 hours ago, ShinChan said:

BTW, @RisingPhoenix is wrong, Ricochet never had the clause "enemy", since with most Bayou models, it must always be declared as a punishment to Ricochet to your own models.

Actually the Bayou have a different trigger called "Wild Shot" that's designed to shoot your own models.  Ricochet is found on a much more limited selection of models, half of which are not Bayou.  So you're definitely wrong about its purpose.

Regardless, they phrased it the way they did, so Ricochet can hit the target of the original shot.  Wild Shot, being phrased better, still can't.  

 

I honestly don't understand why @ShinChan is making this argument.  Wyrd already clarified this exact point in the GG1 FAQ, it's 2.  In fact, since many people assure me that the FAQ was all clarifications and no rules changes occurred within the FAQ, it's been 2 since M3E released and anyone who played it otherwise was playing it wrong.