Down the wrong path and Join us

[Regelridderen]

Ended in a bit of rules discussion during my last game.

The Situation

Dishonorable uses Down the wrong path sending an opposing model in to be engaged by Alan Reid and Agent 46.

I read it as both Alan Reid and Agent 46 would be able to attack. My opponent otherwise.

-

Funnily enough Join Us reads similiar.

Yet there were no issues with Urami moving through multiple models and provoking multiple tests. 

-

So what would be the correct way to treat these situations?

[DuBlanck]

I also read it as an implicit "all friendly models may punch" but folks on the Wyrd Discord disagree on the basis that it uses singular language (shaky justification, as demonstrated) seems too powerful otherwise (rules-irrelevant).

The absence of specific singular language, like "if ends engaged, one friendly model may" seems conclusive to me for the reasons you mention regarding Join Us.

[trikk]

It's not "every" so you can only choose one IMHO

[Regelridderen]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

It's not "every" so you can only choose one IMHO

So do you have the same reservations on Join Us?

[DuBlanck]

In the absence of more exact wording, it can only be that all abilities/actions of this type allow all or exactly one - if DtWP is one punch, then JU is one Wp duel, and if JU is every model passed through, then DtWP must be every model punching.

[Clement]

I feel like your Join Us example is backwards.  If one Urami moved through multiple models, they all test.  But if multiple Urami move through a single model, it's only one test.  That's the implication of the language.

 

It's not crystal clear wording though.

[Mortarion]

After reading it a couple of times I can't really see how it can be interpreted as chosing one of the models to fight. There is nothing in the wording suggesting that a choice is involved. The rule talks about a single engaging model. In my mind, Down the Wrong Path can be read in two ways:

1. Every model which fulfills the criterea can make a attack. So in your example Alan Reid would be able to attack, since he is engaging the target and is a friendly Elite model. And Agent 46 would also be able to attack since he is engaging the target and is a friendly Mimic.

2. "a Friendly Elite of Mimic model" is to be read as "exactly one Friendly Elite or Mimic model". And in that case none of them would get to attack, since the target is not engaged by "a" model, but rather multiple models. But that becomes rather strange in my opinion. I can't think of any other rule where "a" is used like that.

But I can´t see how "a Friendly Elite of Mimic model" would be able to be fulfilled by multiple models while the second part of the rule, "the friendly model", only apply to one model. Either both parts refer to "any model fulfilling this criterea" or both parts refer to "exactly one model". And I think that the first makes a lot more sense.

[solkan]

There are a few places that have 'a friendly model' followed later by 'the friendly model' that are known to be singular:

* Dr. McMourning, untitled, and Dr. Meredith Stanley, untitled, Rancid Transplant.  'Target a model within 5" of another friendly model.  ...  This model may end one Condition of its choice on the friendly model.'

* Mr. Mordrake's Demise (Silhouette): '... it may be Placed into base contact with a friendly English Ivan.   ... and the friendly English Ivan suffers 2 irreducible damage.'

That 'a X ... the X' structure appears to be fairly common, especially when dealing with the various totems when they refer to their master model.  It's also fairly common in auras (for instance, Take the Hit:  'After an enemy model targets a friendly model ... this model may ... Place itself into base contact with the friendly model ...')  

But for each of those cases, the circumstances around the usage are what guarantees that the reference is singular.  

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 4/14/2022 at 8:09 PM, Regelridderen said:

Ended in a bit of rules discussion during my last game.

The Situation

Dishonorable uses Down the wrong path sending an opposing model in to be engaged by Alan Reid and Agent 46.

I read it as both Alan Reid and Agent 46 would be able to attack. My opponent otherwise.

-

Funnily enough Join Us reads similiar.

Yet there were no issues with Urami moving through multiple models and provoking multiple tests. 

-

So what would be the correct way to treat these situations?

Well, damn.

I actually think you raise a good point here xD

Although I'm in the one attack for Lucius camp, I don't have a good answer for this spanner yet.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Toni Ironsides, Union President Labor contract is another example:

It says a friendly model and a friendly scheme, but you can do it once for each scheme marker presumably, or once for each model.

[Regelridderen]

@Maniacal_cackle you also have some of it with the investigators :

When combining it with False Claim, there is nothing stopping the investigator from pushing two separate models, or for two investigators to react to the same scheme marker (as long as they don’t push the same model due to the aura rule).

Or how about Seamus :

If two models were pushed into his engagement, I’d expect Seamus to be able to strike them both as well?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Oh, Lynch 1 with aces.

This one is big as it is one of the ones where both events happen at the same time - you might flip two aces simultaneously. 

[Regelridderen]

3 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Oh, Lynch 1 with aces.

This one is big as it is one of the ones where both events happen at the same time - you might flip two aces simultaneously. 

Rare, but it undoubtedly will hapoen - and I doubt anyone would object to all these similar instances. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Intuitively it still feels like one attack to me, but don't think I can give a real rules justification.

Probably has to be up to discussing with your opponent/to/meta.

[gubbi_nz]

11 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Intuitively it still feels like one attack to me, but don't think I can give a real rules justification.

Probably has to be up to discussing with your opponent/to/meta.

Has the committee made a ruling either way on this for the VWS?

 

Edit: I have been asked to add some examples of similar interactions in the game that would not work (potentially as intended) depending on where you fall:

Pearl Musgrove's Reformed

Shen Long's Four Wind's punch dropping multiple enemy scheme markers in range of Lotus Eater's FoC ability

Youko Hamasaki forcing multiple simultaneous discards, drawing each time a card is discarded

Investigator Aura/Guild Steward Aura + False Claim

[Yore Huckleberry]

So, the MWS Committee ruled on this today as a single attack for Lucius's DtWP for MWS events. We agree that it's ambiguous enough that people can earnestly disagree and that there isn't a single clear foundation for ruling it a particular way, so in a given event outside the MWS, you'll want to ask the TO.

Speaking simply for myself, I do think there are pretty clear differences between resolving an action (DtWP) and an Ability (Join Us, Reformed, Protection Money, Trump Cards, etc), or between resolving an Action that specifies multiple markers (Four Winds Punch's "any markers removed by this Action") and an Action that can be read as fully completed when a single if/then conditional has been satisfied.

DtWP could certainly be written in a way that clarifies the effect one way or the other, though.

[Regelridderen]

Let’s seeif there won’t a FAQ at some point.