Nexus: An NPE like no other

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, katadder said:

because its not purely 2 friendlies, one side treats the other as an enemy. the enemy model you may treat as friendly but he doesnt treat you as such.

They are not friendly to each other, it's a one sided friendship so no 2 friendly models.

believe me, I'm right  

u are right in 50 percent and me too

it is important only for defender-because he can choose to relent if he is atacked by friendly model and atacking model doesnt choose anything

[katadder]

26 minutes ago, Plaag said:

u are right in 50 percent and me too

it is important only for defender-because he can choose to relent if he is atacked by friendly model and atacking model doesnt choose anything

except the rules say it has to be 2 friendly models, and they are not friendly. whilst you may treat it as friendly its still not friendly so therefore you cannot relent. you are not friendly to it, so half friendly models at best but still not friendly.

considering how powerful you already believe cadmus to be do you really have to try and rules lawyer something like this through (which is wrong anyway)

going around in circles here but you will see eventually (I hope). 

 

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, katadder said:

except the rules say it has to be 2 friendly models, and they are not friendly. whilst you may treat it as friendly its still not friendly so therefore you cannot relent. you are not friendly to it, so half friendly models at best but still not friendly.

considering how powerful you already believe cadmus to be do you really have to try and rules lawyer something like this through (which is wrong anyway)

going around in circles here but you will see eventually (I hope). 

 

we have 2 friendly models, so model can relent

its like the situation with face in the crowd-we have wordings and your thoughts abt how it should work

and wording says that modek can relent

[katadder]

6 minutes ago, Plaag said:

we have 2 friendly models, so model can relent

its like the situation with face in the crowd-we have wordings and your thoughts abt how it should work

and wording says that modek can relent

They are not 2 friendly models, the attacker is attacking something that's not friendly to him, so it's no friendly models.

We have rules and your thoughts on it trying to break the game, like face in the crowd.

All will become apparent I'm sure and you will find I am right.

[Math Mathonwy]

3 hours ago, katadder said:

As was pointed out with actual rules it says nothing about defender, it says 2 friendly models. 

Whilst cadmus may treat them as friendly it doesn't make them actually friendly, it's an unrequited love, only one way.

You can't relent with cadmus against models with parasite, they are still enemy models. 

For what it's worth page 26 tells you what a friendly model is,  its one hired into your crew, this never changes. A model with parasite may be classed as friendly but the models are still an enemy and a friend at best so not 2 friendly models 

It doesn't say "defender" but it does say "resisting model" which is often called a "defender".

I have to say that I'm not quite sure why Obey is relevant here.

But as a concrete example, if Fuhatsu has a Parasite Token and shoots Archivist, I believe that Archivist can relent since he's the resisting model and from his point of view it's two friendly models going about it.

I can see the logic behind the other reading as well but IMO the situation is far from clear and I would default to Archivist being able to relent.

[katadder]

7 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

It doesn't say "defender" but it does say "resisting model" which is often called a "defender".

I have to say that I'm not quite sure why Obey is relevant here.

But as a concrete example, if Fuhatsu has a Parasite Token and shoots Archivist, I believe that Archivist can relent since he's the resisting model and from his point of view it's two friendly models going about it.

I can see the logic behind the other reading as well but IMO the situation is far from clear and I would default to Archivist being able to relent.

Why would you default to that? It says 2 friendly models, at no point does the attacker (and therefore most likely active player) consider the cadmus model friendly no mater what the cadmus model thinks of him.

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, katadder said:

Why would you default to that? It says 2 friendly models, at no point does the attacker (and therefore most likely active player) consider the cadmus model friendly no mater what the cadmus model thinks of him.

i just want to read as u like, not how it is written

[katadder]

Just now, Plaag said:

i just want to read as u like, not how it is written

How it's written is 2 friendly models. One of the models doesn't consider the other friendly so it's not 2 friendly models.

As said, we are going around in circles but eventually you will see I am right 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Plaag said:

u are right in 50 percent and me too

it is important only for defender-because he can choose to relent if he is atacked by friendly model and atacking model doesnt choose anything

If the rules asked for the defender to be friendly or the attacker to be friendly then this would work, but they don't. They ask for 2 friendly models and if a is friendly to b but b is not friendly to a then you only have 1 friendly model. 

[katadder]

38 minutes ago, Adran said:

If the rules asked for the defender to be friendly or the attacker to be friendly then this would work, but they don't. They ask for 2 friendly models and if a is friendly to b but b is not friendly to a then you only have 1 friendly model. 

thanks, much better at explaining than I did and simpler too  

[Domin]

This question was fully discussed in a Cadmus theme. 

Yup, a Cadmus model can relent against an attack coming from a parasited model. 

It's rules as they are written. 

[Drfaust176]

Just now, Domin said:

This question was fully discussed in a Cadmus theme. 

Yup, a Cadmus model can relent against an attack coming from a parasited model. 

It's rules as they are written. 

I hadn’t even thought of that. Independent of the Obey, that makes the whole situation much worse- any time the Cadmus player can’t/doesn’t want to cheat, they can just relent and put the attack on double negatives. And with HtW on a number of the models, plus WaL, plus Shielded, it would make models with Parasite tokens essentially useless in combat except for a RJ. That’s insane.
 

Maybe the solution is to remove “Parasitic Grasp” on Will of Cadmus? That’s a big step but that seems like a big part of the issue.

[Cedar]

2 minutes ago, Drfaust176 said:

I hadn’t even thought of that. Independent of the Obey, that makes the whole situation much worse- any time the Cadmus player can’t/doesn’t want to cheat, they can just relent and put the attack on double negatives. And with HtW on a number of the models, plus WaL, plus Shielded, it would make models with Parasite tokens essentially useless in combat except for a RJ. That’s insane.
 

Maybe the solution is to remove “Parasitic Grasp” on Will of Cadmus? That’s a big step but that seems like a big part of the issue.

Wyrd could just clarify/change the rule of relenting duels in clear way that disallow Cadmus models to relent an attack from enemy with parasite token.

[katadder]

10 minutes ago, Domin said:

This question was fully discussed in a Cadmus theme. 

Yup, a Cadmus model can relent against an attack coming from a parasited model. 

It's rules as they are written. 

Adran explained it best why they cannot. Rules as written requires 2 friendly models and if model A doesn't class model B as friendly there are not 2 friendly models.

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, katadder said:

Adran explained it best why they cannot. Rules as written requires 2 friendly models and if model A doesn't class model B as friendly there are not 2 friendly models.

u have 2 friendly models, what u need else?

[Math Mathonwy]

As I said, I can see both readings. The very RAW version is, IMO, Adran's version but I believe that Faux rules aren't usually written like that (see, for example, the "another model" debacle).

The consensus prior to this tangent has been that they can relent - this has been discussed at least three times before on the forums and the conclusion has every time been that they would be able to relent. But I guess this is again one of those "agree with your opponent beforehand how you're going to be be playing it" type of deals that are somewhat common in Malifaux.

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, Math Mathonwy said:

As I said, I can see both readings. The very RAW version is, IMO, Adran's version but I believe that Faux rules aren't usually written like that (see, for example, the "another model" debacle).

The consensus prior to this tangent has been that they can relent - this has been discussed at least three times before on the forums and the conclusion has every time been that they would be able to relent. But I guess this is again one of those "agree with your opponent beforehand how you're going to be be playing it" type of deals that are somewhat common in Malifaux.

its like we are legion cannt target one model with different models-only TO says so

but wording is clear-different models can target one model with wal in one activation

[Flippin' Wyrd Jamie]

Wording is clear

You need 2 friendly models to relent, you do not have this so cannot relent 

Not already chosen for this ability this activation - it doesn't say by by this model, if you've chosen a model for any we are legion ping that activation, it cannot be chosen again, because it has already been chosen

[Plaag]

1 hour ago, Flippin' Wyrd Jamie said:

Wording is clear

You need 2 friendly models to relent, you do not have this so cannot relent 

Not already chosen for this ability this activation - it doesn't say by by this model, if you've chosen a model for any we are legion ping that activation, it cannot be chosen again, because it has already been chosen

what is written on a csrd effect only model on which card it is written, so other models with same ability can choose one model(like zoraida obey model A, than she obey bokor and bokor obey model A again)

and for relent u have 2 friendly models if u look at defender

so my thoughts can be proved just like yours)

[Drfaust176]

I think the relenting discussion is vague enough to warrant an FAQ- I see FWJ’s point, and I would prefer it function in that vein, but I think it the wording on it all could lead the to Plaag’s reading. It seems like relenting a duel that your opponent is flipping for shouldn’t be a thing, honestly.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I said this in the previous discussion about parasite relent:

Quote

It came up in the preview. I imagine it'll come up decently often!

Anyone know what I was talking about? Sounds like a video about Cadmus specifically talked about the relent issue, so there may be an official answer floating around.

[SEV]

They should just do a FAQ after each major release and take the time to address all corner cases they know of (see what WotC do after the release of each set)... Having so many corner cases and no official answer from the actual company that make the game is ridiculous and can be infuriating for tournament players.

This is even more needed because wyrd is not particularly tight in his wordings and templating...

After a year of playing this (amazing) game this is by far my biggest complaint.

[Alcathous]

8 minutes ago, SEV said:

They should just do a FAQ after each major release and take the time to address all corner cases they know of (see what WotC do after the release of each set)... Having so many corner cases and no official answer from the actual company that make the game is ridiculous and can be infuriating for tournament players.

This is even more needed because wyrd is not particularly tight in his wordings and templating...

After a year of playing this (amazing) game this is by far my biggest complaint.

It could even be a simple "the intent is X and a future faq/errata will go into more detail." 

[Maniacal_cackle]

On the flip side, FAQs have a lot of unintended consequences. See ruling on 'another', which may have broken more things than it resolved.

[Alcathous]

9 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

On the flip side, FAQs have a lot of unintended consequences. See ruling on 'another', which may have broken more things than it resolved.

True, but I think there's a difference between a declaration of intent and an official errata.

They could say "we want THIS ability to work THIS way" and then work out the details later. Probably with more community input on the ramifications, which could avoid another "another" from happening.