Is the Trailbrazer ability nonfunctional?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just looking at Pathfinders, and the Trailblazer ability let's them take the Follow My Path action in the start phase.

The problem? Follow my path is a bonus action, and you can't take bonus actions in the start phase if I'm understanding the FAQ correctly ('once per activation' stuff can only be done during an activation).

Am I correct in thinking that RAW, this ability does nothing? But obviously should be played RAI so that it works.

[Rufess]

I believe you are talking about the following FAQ.

Quote

12. Can Once per Activation effects occur outside an Activation, such as during the Start or End Phases?

a) No. Effects that are restricted to Once per Activation can only be used during a model’s Activation, i.e. Steps C.1 – C.4 of the Activation phase (pg. 21).

I believe what this FAQ means is the effects(Ability/Action/Trigger) that have Once per Activation list in italics at the start of text. While bonus action is likewise an once per activation action, it is not limited by the special restriction, instead it is limited by the Action Limit count. So my guess is bonus action can be taken during Start and End Phrase.

[Maniacal_cackle]

@Rufess, there's an additional FAQ that builds upon that:

Quote

5. Can a model take a Bonus  Action outside of an Activation?

a) No. Like all effects that are Once per Activation, Bonus Actions cannot be taken outside of a model’s Activation (such as during the Start or End Phases)

So bonus activations are explicitly forbidden in the start phase by the FAQ.

[Rufess]

Oh, I did totally miss this one, and now I can see your point.

And yes, according to this FAQ, Follow My Path is unusable during the Start Phase, which means Trailblazer is completely meaningless. So I hold that Wyrd and all playtesters had overlooked this ability during the FAQ beta, and the ability should work as its written: move another friendly model within 6" and LoS up to 2" during the Start Phase.

So before Wyrd fix the issue, I would suggest you making agreement with your opponent (or TO in case you are playing in tournament) before game on how to resolve the ability. I cannot think of any reason that one would reject to play as RAI in this case.

[touchdown]

Wouldn't the generic more specific overrides more general rule apply and trailblazer lets you ignore the during activation restriction?

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 minutes ago, touchdown said:

Wouldn't the generic more specific overrides more general rule apply and trailblazer lets you ignore the during activation restriction?

I think that is for when it actually says something to override it (for instance, if something says "ignoring once per activation", you look at a general rule saying once per activation and a specific rule overriding it, and you go with the specific rule).

However, that's good enough for me. Clearly the ability isn't meant to do nothing 😜

Malifaux rules in general require a bit of common sense xD

[Rufess]

10 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Malifaux rules in general require a bit of common sense xD

This is the strength and beauty of analog games, the developers need not to perfectly program all interactions between rules and rules, instead the players can decide how the rules would apply onto their table.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Rufess said:

This is the strength and beauty of analog games, the developers need not to perfectly program all interactions between rules and rules, instead the players can decide how the rules would apply onto their table.

Agreed. Malifaux's rules are so rich and deep, it'd be very difficult to officially rule every possible interaction (a lot like DnD). Magic: The Gathering is an example of a game that manages to have depth and precision, but it's decades older (and ends up sacrificing a lot of cool mechanics because they don't quite work with the level of precision they have).

So I think Malifaux is in a great spot!

[Yore Huckleberry]

I agree that this is a place where we need to err on the side of the ability having meaning.

The "specific beats general" principle is a little tough here, because all that it says is "may" take the follow my path ability, which doesn't really offer much force for overriding basic game rules. If it said something like "may take the interact action," for instance, we wouldn't allow it to over-write the model being engaged unless it specifically called for that.

I'd sort of rather stand on the ground that this is a clear place where rules-as-intended need to be applied rather than rules-as-written, rather than broadening the force of "may."

[Xekros]

1 hour ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

The "specific beats general" principle is a little tough here, because all that it says is "may" take the follow my path ability, which doesn't really offer much force for overriding basic game rules. If it said something like "may take the interact action," for instance, we wouldn't allow it to over-write the model being engaged unless it specifically called for that.

To my mind, you've actually proven the point that Trailblazer does work based on "specific beats general." The specific conflict arises from timing, which Trailblazer specifically calls out. The fact that the model "may" do a thing doesn't really enter into it, as far as I can tell. For example, if we replaced Follow My Path with Interact, the argument would be similar, as you can't normally take actions outside of activation, but Interact does have specific restrictions which would not be superseded by this ability, as they are not called out (engagement, range from other markers, etc.)

[solkan]

For the nTh time, the rules don't follow a "specific beats general" law.  😧

The rules for breaking the rules say:

Quote

Models in Malifaux have many unique rules that override the core rules. When a special rule explicitly contradicts the core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

For instance, an Action that states it does not require Line of Sight is allowed to disobey the normal Line of Sight rules, and it may therefore choose a target in range even if it cannot see it.

If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something from happening take precedent over rules that allow something to happen.

How do you want to classify an ability that says to take a bonus action during the Start Phase?  The mechanics of a Bonus Action are a core rule, and the ability is pretty clearly expecting a result that contradicts those mechanics (you're taking an action outside of the activation phase, after all).  So it's more a matter that the standard for "explicitly contradicts" isn't as "explicit" as some might prefer. 

[Yore Huckleberry]

On 11/27/2020 at 9:58 PM, solkan said:

 So it's more a matter that the standard for "explicitly contradicts" isn't as "explicit" as some might prefer. 

Yeah, this is precisely what I mean.