Sorrows and Linking

[Kogan Style]

Hi all,

Here is my query: Can a Sorrow link to Hamelin? Had this while suffering from a Hamelin steamroller last game, and thinking of trying anything to make him stop I wanted to attach a sorrow to him to a) steal some life and b)siphon magic to try and cast one of his spells on someone else (think it was Nix)

Now as a Sorrow is insignificant it was argued it couldn't target Hamelin, but I as wondering, since linking isn't an isn't an attack, can it ignore the bully rule?

We played the game using the rule that the Sorrow couldn't link.

[Ratty]

(0) Link

This model and target model in base contact with it are Linked. After the model this model is Linked to completes a Walk Action or ends its activation, Push this model into base contact with the Linkedmodel. Link ends if the two models are not in base contact at the Start Closing Phase.

So Hamelin would be the target of an insignificant model, therefore Bully stops it.

*edited as I had a brainfart.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ratty

[Kogan Style]

Sorrows are ht2 but I'm guessing that due to insignificant status, they won't be able to target hamelin anyway.

[zatoichi98]

The word 'target' here seems only to reference another model, as opposed to an actual 'target' of an attack. I dobt believe it was the intent of the game designers to limit what a woe could link too. But of course, I could be wrong.

[Ratty]

The word 'target' here seems only to reference another model, as opposed to an actual 'target' of an attack. I dobt believe it was the intent of the game designers to limit what a woe could link too. But of course, I could be wrong.

target is a defined term.

[zatoichi98]

I suggest my interpretation only because the word 'target' is not repeated anywhere in tbe paragraph after the first usage. Clearly using the word 'target' throughout the paragraph would be more economical, but also clarify the intent of the usage of the term, but that's not what they did. I'm not sure how often the phrase 'another model' is used on all the game stat cards, but I'm willing to bet they are using the word 'target' as a noun, and not as a verb. The distinction is important because Hamlin's ability implies target as a verb.

[Ratty]

ER.. No.. TARGET means target full stop. It's one of the things they made sure when they updated all the cards, it should never ever be used unless they mean target.

BTW the little star by my name means I'm a Rules Marshal. Which means I'm here to clarify these things. Or to quote Sylvester Stalone's really cheesy Judge Dread... "I am the law".

[Kogan Style]

I suggest my interpretation only because the word 'target' is not repeated anywhere in tbe paragraph after the first usage. Clearly using the word 'target' throughout the paragraph would be more economical, but also clarify the intent of the usage of the term, but that's not what they did. I'm not sure how often the phrase 'another model' is used on all the game stat cards, but I'm willing to bet they are using the word 'target' as a noun, and not as a verb. The distinction is important because Hamlin's ability implies target as a verb.

Thanks for putting my argument forward much better than I could!

*EDIT - Just seen Rattys' response, happy to go along with that!

[zatoichi98]

Ratty, all due respect, I do know you are a Rules Marshal - I respect that, and thank you for that. I do appreciate your quick responses to these matters. I know you have to answer many of the same issues over and over and it can be taxing. But please remember, this forum is labeled 'Rules Discussion' and a discussion is a place where different thoughts and ideas can be heard. Many of your rulings came from players bringing up issues that were not seen during play testing and many usages of words had to be revisited and rethought. I think this is one of the things that makes Malifaux a great game - its evolving. But please, don't try to silence opinions with brute authority - facts work fine!

[hartshornn1]

I hear Dakka Dakka...

[Ratty]

Ratty, all due respect, I do know you are a Rules Marshal - I respect that, and thank you for that. I do appreciate your quick responses to these matters. I know you have to answer many of the same issues over and over and it can be taxing. But please remember, this forum is labeled 'Rules Discussion' and a discussion is a place where different thoughts and ideas can be heard. Many of your rulings came from players bringing up issues that were not seen during play testing and many usages of words had to be revisited and rethought. I think this is one of the things that makes Malifaux a great game - its evolving. But please, don't try to silence opinions with brute authority - facts work fine!

I did explain why it didn't work, as it said target. If you need to know why it doesn't mention target after the first sentence, it's because it doesn't need to.

What it says is

• This model and target model in base contact with it are Linked.
  

So you check if you can target the model as normal and that the model is in base contact and then it's linked. It then tells you what link does.

• After the model this model is Linked to completes a Walk Action or ends its activation, Push this model into base contact with the Linked model. Link ends if the two models are not in base contact at the Start Closing Phase.
  

at no point in this bit does it need to check for target, therefore it doesn't say target model. If it did you would have to check the linked model for targeting criteria every time.

Yes this is a forum where there is meant to be discussion and when something major of weird comes up we do allow discussion. However this is cut and dry, there is only one way this rule can be read so there is no need to discuss. On top of that any discussion would muddy the waters for people wanting to find the answer to the same question.

[Keltheos]

We could change it to Rules Questions and Answers if that's what's needed to clarify the Badges' roles.

[Chipacabra]

We could change it to Rules Questions and Answers if that's what's needed to clarify the Badges' roles.

My suggestion would be for the rules marshalls to mark individual posts as OFFICIAL ANSWERS that have been discussed among the powers that be, to distinguish them from the opinions and interpretations of whatever RM happened to notice the thread and took a crack at it.

Don't stifle the discussion, and don't pretend that RMs are infallible. Sometimes an answer will be wrong, that's just life, and it's the mark of a good company to recognize that and make changes where they need to be made.

[Ratty]

I don't say we are infallible, however there are situation where the rules are a bit woolly and can be interpreted in multiple ways, or places where the rules obviously go against the spirit of the model and in that situation we will get together and discuss things. There are other times like this where the rules can only be read one way, or it's been ruled on before, in which we will individually answer them as it's not necessary to all have a chat.

In this case it's being argued the the RAW is wrong because it's felt that a defined keyword should just be ignored. In this situation discussion is just going to muddy the waters.

[Tiny]

Ratty, all due respect, I do know you are a Rules Marshal - I respect that, and thank you for that. I do appreciate your quick responses to these matters. I know you have to answer many of the same issues over and over and it can be taxing. But please remember, this forum is labeled 'Rules Discussion' and a discussion is a place where different thoughts and ideas can be heard. Many of your rulings came from players bringing up issues that were not seen during play testing and many usages of words had to be revisited and rethought. I think this is one of the things that makes Malifaux a great game - its evolving. But please, don't try to silence opinions with brute authority - facts work fine!

I think it may be the fact that he had to answer the same question 3 times in the same thread.

[zatoichi98]

Gentlemen, point understood. Thank you.

As for discussing rules, Ill keep my mouth shut. I didn't realize it was by invite only.

[magicpockets]

As for discussing rules, Ill keep my mouth shut. I didn't realize it was by invite only.

At the risk of opening a can of worms here....

This section of the forum is for rules which people have questions about. Sometimes you'll get people on here (like me a lot of the time) who've been around a while and have seen certain questions come up before so we can help, usually this is enough but if you disagree feel free to argue it as we've sometimes wrong or missed a change to something.

Then you've got a handful of Rules Marshalls. They're not so much here to "discuss" the rules but to give definitive answers and to explain why the rules are to be interpreted in a certain way. There's usually very little room for disagreement as they're some of the most experienced players and - crucially - they have a direct bat phone to the game creators so can discuss exact answers before they give them. In fact, delays in answers from RMs are often because they're being discussed like this, or even play tested before an official answer is given.

So yes, this thread is for "discussing" rules, as far as "what does this mean" or "how does it work in this situation". It's not a Rules "Arguments" section for when you dislike the same answer you've had from two RMs (to a pretty fundamental mechanic tbh).

So, best bet is to take it on the chin (hell, I've been there) and just move on. Don't let this misunderstanding put you off the game, the forum or even asking questions about rules. Your question about Hamelin is fair enough as it's a unique situation and maybe you didn't know target was the key for anything like that and used deliberately to control abilities. But now you do, so move on and enjoy having your ass handed to you by Hamelin

MP

[Kogan Style]

it was me who was suffering the hamelin steamroller, but I've hopefully come up with a simple plan to dodge the insignificant spell problem I've had when facing him..... now I've just gotta put him down!!

[karn987]

Gentlemen, point understood. Thank you.

As for discussing rules, Ill keep my mouth shut. I didn't realize it was by invite only.

Going along with MP and risking the can of worms..

Never stop asking questions and never stop questioning. The rules are rather complex and holes spring up here and there. I did see the angle you were coming in at this from and I could very easily see what you were getting at. If nothing else, questions like this keep the Marshals on their toes. Just consider maybe you did keep pushing past the point of reason for how the rules could/should be read.

But in the end it was your right to push as you seemed to be doing it for an honest reason and not just trolling etc. But don't take this as a que to "shut up". If you have a question, you should ask it. If something doesn't make sense, you should speak up. Malifaux has grown so much in part BECAUSE of players pushing the rules and pushing Wyrd. If you honestly doubt anyone who answers... speak up about it, always. But doubt the words, not the person who speaks. Just make sure you don't go challenging answers just for the sake of challenging authority.

There is that fine line between a discussion and an arguement we all need to carefully walk.

Edited July 12, 2011 by karn987