New Errata, What are you going to do?

[Khail]

I get that WS is correct, and that the language will be provided shortly. I was just trying to explain why people weren't wrong coming to the opposite conclusion up until this point. With the current rules it could be argued either way and the rulebook wouldn't say which was correct.

On a side note, I really do appreciate that Wyrd is willing to listen when those of us just learning the game find loopholes. The folks that have been playtesting it for the last few months/years have done a great job, but it's easy to glaze over wording issues after you understand how the rules for a piece are "supposed to work" already. Having been in that position myself with other systems, I know this all too well, heh.

The only thing missing from this game right now is a watertight ruleset - and I'd love to see Malifaux get there.

[hannibal]

cheating is part of a duel. a flip is not. it's pretty logical,

And if the rules said "you can only cheat during a duel, or in other situations where it is explicitly allowed" then it would in fact be logical and crystal clear. However, that's not what the rules say. They say:

Flipping/Re-flipping: You flip a Fate Card by turning over the top card of your Fate Deck.

Cheating Fate: Playing a Control Card from your hand to replace the Fate Card is called Cheating Fate. All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so. The played Control Card becomes the new Fate Card.

Now, nowhere in there does it say that you may only cheat fate on a duel. So the game does not in fact clearly convey that idea. The second sentence does state the limitations of cheating, but I think that an intelligent person could come to the conclusion that you can in fact cheat fate on any flip unless otherwise stated.

This is because in the combat section when it talks about damaging there simply is not a clear pattern one way or the other:

Pg 56 The Damage Flip: third paragraph explicitly states that you can cheat the flip.

Pg 57 Healing: states you cannot cheat the flip (or use soulstones for that matter).

Pg 57 Using Soulstones to prevent damage: does not say whether you can or cannot cheat (or use soulstones). It says make a flip and refer to the Healing/Prevention chart.

So seeing as the most common scenario for a non-duel flip has a "you can", a "you can't", and an omission, how are we the gamers to know what is in the rules writer's head? I think it's a fair assessment by a smart person to come out on either side of whether you can cheat a random flip or not.

So while I do see the logic of the decision (i.e. use hyper Rules As Written when reading the rules of this game), it is in fact not spelled out clearly.

[AoM]

It's in your rulebooks.

Pg. 33:

Cheating Fate: Playing a Control Card from your hand to replace the Fate Card in play is called Cheating Fate. All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so. The played Control Card becomes the new Fate Card.

There wasn't an errata or clarification here.

cheating, as WS said, is only allowed when the rules say you can. The steps for every Duel are listed, and you get to cheating fate. Flips do not have that step.

There's a damage flip, and that allows you to cheat it, following the normal restrictions on cheating. In this case, there is a specific permission to cheat.

Then there are healing and Preventing damage flips. they do not say that you can cheat them. While healing specifies that you cannot cheat it, it is just to reiterate and remind you that you cannot cheat this flip. It does not need to be specified for Preventing damage because "All models can Cheat Fate, but only when the rules allow them to do so."

There is nothing in the text of "Exhume" that allows the resulting flip to be cheated. There is no rule allowing Mortimer to cheat the flip that results from casting the spell. Cheating is allowed when casting the spell, and is mentioned in the rules for casting spells. The flip that follows a successful casting is just a random flip looking for a card with the :malicrows suit.

[hannibal]

While healing specifies that you cannot cheat it, it is just to reiterate and remind you that you cannot cheat this flip

Yes, I get that. Now. But usually, exceptions are singled out. Usually, if something isn't the exception, then it is not singled out. So by stating that healing cannot be cheated, it comes across that this is the exception and not just reiterating a rule. This is especially compounded when you have the Prevent Damage section where it is not stated that you can't cheat it.

For the record, I'm not arguing the call. I see the point. However, I feel that it is in fact not clear. I think that a logical person could see that cheating fate is always allowed unless otherwise stated. I think this could be interpreted from the rules, and implied from the back cover of the book. I mean, cheating fate is one of the selling points of game. I think a logical person could come to the conclusion that the advertised mechanic is an 'always use' sort of thing.

[jmp_mydog]

Rules lawyering kills babies ... just saying.

[AoM]

and yet, reading the rules about cheating fate would still give you "All models can Cheat Fate but only when the rules allow them to do so." In each section where you'd be able to cheat, it mentions cheating as a step, and the normal rules for cheating are followed (no cheating at negative fate, only models with "Use Soulstones" may get the additional cheating option, etc.)

If you are in a situation where cheating is not mention, such as we have here, there is no rule that mentions cheating even being an option. Without the possibility of cheating involved, cheating would be, by default, not allowed.

The rules for strikes and spells require that you declare a target, and then have that target within range. The rules put no restrictions on which models can normally be targeted, so you may target any model that meets the above criteria.

The rules for Cheating Fate do have a restriction attached, and this is the issue. The rules for casting a spell are in that section of the book. The rules for what a specific spell does is in the spell (on the card or in the back of the book). When a spell does damage, you're moved into the damage section of the rules, unless the spell has a specific rule that would have you do otherwise (unmodified damage flip, "X" Wd, etc.). When a spell has some other affect, the rules for what the spell does are in the spell text.

Exhume just says you make a flip. If it's one of the 13 :malicrows cards that are possible (or a Red joker, which is whatever suit you'd like it to be), you get the reward. End of spell. No mention of cheating, so cheating not allowed.

[hannibal]

Hey I'm not the one drawing distinctions between "Immune to willpower duels" and "Ignores willpower duels" . . . .

[dboeren]

As long as it's going to be clarified in the FAQ that's fine. Right now I think it isn't sufficiently clear so as to be obvious and claiming "If you put these eight separate sections of the rulebook together a clear pattern emerges" doesn't jump that gap over to obvious for me.

[hannibal]

Amen, brother.

I find it frustrating that all I've been trying to say is that it is possible for intelligent people to get it wrong and the answer coming back is "idiot, it's clearly stated in the rules." At this point, given some of the substantial changes that have been made to the rules in the errata, I'm not willing to concede that the rules are always crystal clear.

[AoM]

oh, it will be in the FAQ.

and we don't think you guys are idiots at all. it's been brought up that we need to make a clear ruling for what the default state is, and make specific text when things go against that default. I was just making sure this one is crystal clear until that language gets finalized.

Like you guys said, sometimes things aren't clear, so when they come up, we try to get them fixed for you ASAP. :grouphug:

Edited September 15, 2009 by AoM

[Kealios]

It really seems this game's Rules Interpretations are RULES AS WRITTEN: if it says it, do it, and if it doesnt, you cant.

That is not bad! In fact, its VERY GOOD - IF we get to the point where everything is cleaned up, polished and Errata'd properly. Until then, RAW is a dangerous road to hoe - because there are quite a few things that have been omited in the past, and some that havent even been caught yet...

[hannibal]

Like you guys said, sometimes things aren't clear, so when they come up, we try to get them fixed for you ASAP. :grouphug:

Oh come on, group hugs are for pansies. Real men solve their problems this way:

:fight:

:vb_cheers

:friday:

For what its worth, I'm all cool with extreme RAW. And I'm okay with Mortimer's spell. He's not a corpse counter generator. He's a thug who during one of the off the turns might generate a random counter. Then he can leave it there for Nicodem to later come along and raise something with it.

[AoM]

I stand corrected. no hugs. sword fights and beer for everyone!

And that's exactly how I see our buddy Mortimer. he's not sophisticated. he's not smart or fancy. He's a cigar-chomping, shovel-swinging, hulk of a man who has no qualms digging up a body now and then, but would rather just hit you in the face or dive into an open grave to save his own hide.

[Sobek]

It really seems this game's Rules Interpretations are RULES AS WRITTEN:

The words you have in bold are one of my issues, unfortunately. I love the game and the concept, however the book is one of the most horribly put together game books I've ever seen. Rules for a single thing are scattered throughout the book, it's horribly vague in places, full or typos, and it has a laughable index.

And it even has problems with basic math. Entry #1 under the Simple Duel Example on page 37. In what world does 4 + 6 equal 11?

The game has been a absolute blast to play, with amazing ideas and miniatures, however I'm hoping for some sort of revised book, or even a living rulebook at some point.

[nilus]

The words you have in bold are one of my issues, unfortunately. I love the game and the concept, however the book is one of the most horribly put together game books I've ever seen. Rules for a single thing are scattered throughout the book, it's horribly vague in places, full or typos, and it has a laughable index.

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

Edited September 15, 2009 by nilus

[jmp_mydog]

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

Here, Here ... for a small operation to put out such a nice book with a solid ruleset is quite impressive. I mean for god's sake GW's on the 5th and 6th editions of thier core products and still haven't gotten everthing right. Same with Privateer, great books but gamers and art directors are notoriously bad at grammar and spelling. (I'm both BTW)

[Keltheos]

That said, the feedback doesn't fall on deaf ears, so if you find something not to your liking, let Wyrd know.

[Haight]

I know this might just come off like a fanboy defense but really? Is it possible that your copy might have fallen through a wormhole from an alternate earth(that reminds me I need to TIVO Fringe on Thursday)? Because I have a book with a few flaws in it, but its hardly the atrocity of gaming literature you seem to have.

Just saying the book ain't that bad.

Edit: In my opinion

Gotta agree here.

There are many, many indie and emerging games who's rules and books look like a sloppy, bloody abortion performed by jackson pollock holding a weedwhacker in comparison to the Malifaux book.

Is there a hiccup here or there ? Absolutely, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Are there some things that are going to need to be errata'd or are the result of transcription error, or a loss of translation from design intent to public understanding ? Yes.

This is true of any game - no matter how polished or long standing. Every game has errata and clarifications - its a part of the wargaming process where you cannot apply a digital patch (like in PC / Console gaming). In fact, errata and clarifications serve the same function as "patches".

A handful of developers and 20+ Playtesters have a fraction of the sets of eyes on the product that the general public will upon release. That's the nature of development, design, and playtested products. There are going to be things that Development understands one way, and players interpret another - and thus a clarification or errata is required.

Frankly, i'm pretty impressed with the quality and the relative tightness of the rules in Malifaux considering it is the companies first outing (though i do know the forward says they scrapped at least two versions of the game, so i'm sure there was some learning / growing pains there). There is a simple elegance to most of the rules that I find impressive.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Haight

[Werecat]

Yeah, but there are some pretty bad mistakes in the book. The only thing that really bugs me is that alot of the page references and the index is really bad...

The book needs some work, but it's certainly not the worst I've seen. And the fluff is amazing

[Sobek]

Yeah, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was still not put together as well as it could have been. The simple math could have been double checked. It was annoying to spend time flipping through the book, trying to figure out where the extra +1 came from for the 4+6=11 example. A more complete index of some kind would have been great. A table that lists the various 'common' things that can be cheated. A table that lists common 'status effects' like slow or paralyzed. All in places that are convenient or easy to find. The details for rules all in the same place, not split up over multiple locations in the book (The rules for Blasts are a prime example of this, being both on pages 25 and 56).

[AoM]

Seriously, without you guys bringing these issues up, we wouldn't be fixing them because we wouldn't know about them. any hard feelings aside, we appreciate you raising the questions, and bearing with it while an answer gets worked out.

I didn't have anything to do with the book math though, so I'm at least blame-free there.

[Khail]

I've said it before and I don't mind saying again - awesome work bringing this game to life guys. There are some minor issues in the rulebook that will come to light from time to time, but the fact that Wyrd is listening to the folks bringing them up has me VERY excited for the future of this game.

Malifaux has pretty much jumped to the top of my gaming priority list lately, and it looks like it'll be staying there for a good long while.

[Haight]

Seriously, without you guys bringing these issues up, we wouldn't be fixing them because we wouldn't know about them. any hard feelings aside, we appreciate you raising the questions, and bearing with it while an answer gets worked out.

I didn't have anything to do with the book math though, so I'm at least blame-free there.

Which is a sign of a good dev team. No one is infallible, not even the creator / developer. A good dev team helps the creator / developer take a step back from their cherished creation, give pause, and possibly re-think a previous move. Not always, but sometimes.

Bringing up issues with book is very very helpful. My comments were just directed at the fact that if you want to see rule books that would make baby jesus weep for the future, there's a LOT worse out there. Wyrd's virgin book is pretty damn good, all things told.

But again, player base proofreading = never bad.

[greyseerco]

Which is a sign of a good dev team. No one is infallible, not even the creator / developer. A good dev team helps the creator / developer take a step back from their cherished creation, give pause, and possibly re-think a previous move. Not always, but sometimes.

Bringing up issues with book is very very helpful. My comments were just directed at the fact that if you want to see rule books that would make baby jesus weep for the future, there's a LOT worse out there. Wyrd's virgin book is pretty damn good, all things told.

But again, player base proofreading = never bad.

My only issue is what has been stated, the rules are scattered through all the fluff, and while this is normal in the WarMac supplemental books, in the core rules the fluff is concentrated in a few areas. I hope future printings might consider moving the fluff two a chunk in the front (before the rules) a chunk in the middle (before Factions), and a chunk at the end (after faction but before handy tables, glossary, and index). That way the relevant items -rules and factions can be scanned quickly.

[Sushicaddy]

I have always liked it when relevant terms/crunch have been in bold, so it is easier to reference when in a rules debate.

Also a good index that has a good crunch reference is always good for the same reason.

Writing rules is hard, especially when you have a limited amount of editors/readers, as what seems perfectly logical to you might be confusing or unclear to the general public. Add to this the general tendency of gamers to try and read the rules in such a way in order to gain the most benefit for the faction they play (not pointing fingers here, but it IS true), and then things that were once clear get gray.