Is Reactivate a Talent? - Hoffman

[TalonRaven]

I'm checking on the legality of this, because I think it's a pretty darn powerful combo...

C.Hoffman has a spell called (2) Overwrite Edict...

Activate target Construct after this model's activation ends. If the target Construct has activated previously this turn, it gains Reactivate. This model's Controller controls the target during this activation After this activation, the target cannot activate again this turn

... and an action called (0) Assimilate

This model gains one Talent or Spell possessed by target Construct within 6". Effects that reference a model by name cannot by assimilated

Now, consider the scenario where Hoffman casts Overwrite Edict on a Peacekeeper, who has already activated during that turn thus gaining the ability Reactivate.

According to Rules Manual, pg 34, Action Modifiers, Reactivate is one of the four Abilities that is collectively known as Action Modifiers. On pg 12, Abilities are defined as a Talent. Therefore, Reactivate is a Talent, and Hoffman can use (0) Assimilate to gain Reactivate, allowing him to go again during that turn. Well, not immediately after, but the point is that he gets to go again.

I searched on the forums, but this thread was inconclusive on the Hoffman Assimilating Reactivate, and I felt that the main issue relies on two things:

1) Is Reactivate a Talent?

2) If a Construct "gains" a Talent, does it count as "possessing" it for purposes of Assimilate?

[osoi]

I am not a rules marshall but I would say no as reactivate is a 'temporary talent/action modifier' and a ruling applied in the past with Hoffman making a construct slow so he could be fast and then maintain machines it away was not legal as it only applies to permanent abilities/talents. I would expect the ruling to go in a similar fashion.

[bucket_boy101]

It's cagey, but technically correct.

[LoboStele]

When the Peacekeeper is affected by Override Edict, it gains the Reactivate effect, it does not gain a Talent/Ability.

Basically, Hoffman can Assimilate things that are physically printed on the model's stat card when it came from Wyrd to start with. Anything added to the stat card throughout the game is an effect, and is not subject to Assimilate.

This has been discussed in the rules forum in the past, but it's been a few months. I believe there was an entire, multi-page thread on it at one point.

[TalonRaven]

The difference between Hoffman's Maintain Machines and Assimilate, though, is that Maintain Machines specifically says "listed abilities".

Maintain Machines - Other friendly Constructs within 6" may choose to ignore any of their listed abilities.

In Assimilate, it simply says Hoffman can gain an ability 'possessed' by the model, which suggests that even temporary, it can be copied.

Assimilate - This model gains one Talent or Spell possessed by target Construct within 6". Effects that reference a model by name cannot by assimilated

Hence the question if Reactivate gained through Overwrite Edict counted as a Talent, and if not, a page reference or a thread link would be nice. =)

[LoboStele]

OK, well, the thread at the link below is the one I was thinking of, and Keltheos pointed out pretty well how it worked with Maintain Machines, but he never came back and answered it in terms of Assimilate. I think it was pretty obvious that the intent was the same for both though.

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20640&highlight=assimilate&page=2

[marshimartian]

OK, well, the thread at the link below is the one I was thinking of, and Keltheos pointed out pretty well how it worked with Maintain Machines, but he never came back and answered it in terms of Assimilate. I think it was pretty obvious that the intent was the same for both though.

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20640&highlight=assimilate&page=2

How do you feel that he intended the same for both? He only clearly defined "listed" as it applies to maintain machines. As (0)Assimilate doesn't use the word "listed" I don't believe the ruling can apply.

As for Assimilating Reactivate, RAW seems to allow it.

[bucket_boy101]

Doesn't that just mean he can get an infinite activation then? I predict a non-reactivate-assimilation ruling coming.

[Dolomyte]

Thats a pretty clever little workaround you've got there. Interested to see what the rules marshalls say.

[LoboStele]

Doesn't that just mean he can get an infinite activation then? I predict a non-reactivate-assimilation ruling coming.

Well, you can only benefit from Reactivate one time during a turn anyways.

I'm quite sure that you can only assimilate abilities that are printed on the card to start with. I can sort of see how the RAW supports the other argument, but I don't think that was the RAI.

[TalonRaven]

Bump. I'm hoping that I can get a Rules Marshal's official ruling on this, as I've used this trick several times and I got a couple of stares in response. I understand that it was considered legal in the recent Malifaux tournament?

[nilus]

I agree, although I have it on good authority Zee did say it was valid to do at the Masters at Gencon

[sharpobjects]

As I posted on another one of these Hoffman threads, Zee ruled at Gen Con during the Saturday tournament that Hoffman can assimilate reactivate after he has successfully casted his (2) override edict on a construct.

I asked him personally right before the tournament started.

[Q'iq'el]

Anything on the card is a talent, IIRC. If something is placed there as an effect, it is still a talent IMHO. It isn't distinguishable, I think.

[Turbodog]

Bump for official answer.

If you can (0) assimilate a reactivate <effect> (especially the one from Override Edict) it is a HUGE tool in Hoffman's toolbox I need to know about. Hoffman is the only crew I own (until I get my gen con order...hehe)

Eagerly awaiting...

[zatoichi98]

If reactivate is a talent (or becomes one) that can now be assimilated, then the Doppleganger should also be able to mimic it. Yes?

[nilus]

In theory yes

[sharpobjects]

Keep your doppleganger away from my constructs!

[nix]

As I posted on another one of these Hoffman threads, Zee ruled at Gen Con during the Saturday tournament that Hoffman can assimilate reactivate after he has successfully casted his (2) override edict on a construct.

I asked him personally right before the tournament started.

Also keep in mind that Zee said at the start of the tournament thatvtournament rulings were constrained to the tournament, not intended as official errata.

[Hookers]

I agree, although I have it on good authority Zee did say it was valid to do at the Masters at Gencon

It should go without saying that any rulings (or rumors of rulings) at the gencon tournies were only for the tourney. Even still, Zee did explicitly say before every tournament that he ran that how he ruled on a situation was only for that situation in the tournament.

As a TO you have to rule based on what you know and what seems fair, and have to do so quickly. You can hardly be expected to make universal permanent game changing decisions on the fly.

[Csonti]

Bumping for official ruling.

[Caleb]

Bumping for the same reason

[Calmdown]

It should go without saying that any rulings (or rumors of rulings) at the gencon tournies were only for the tourney. Even still, Zee did explicitly say before every tournament that he ran that how he ruled on a situation was only for that situation in the tournament.

As a TO you have to rule based on what you know and what seems fair, and have to do so quickly. You can hardly be expected to make universal permanent game changing decisions on the fly.

Yes, though most people who play Malifaux and Miniatures games in general dont get the concept of judges using their judgement. People seem to think that if its not official then their opinion is valid and dont like judges making rulings.

Personally if I was running a tournament I'd DQ someone if they refused to abide by a ruling, substantiated or not

[mylastnerv]

. . . and official ruling on this can be made at any time . . . hopefully sooner than later.

Cause right now that "ruling" from Zee is all we have to go on.

[Turbodog]

I'm really interested in an official ruling not from a competitive standpoint...but because I don't know the intent of the developers.

Did they intend Hoffman to work this way? It is important to his character/balance that he can do this?

In the few games I play, against a small number of opponents (with local meta and all...) there's no good way for me to make a judgement call on this.

So I'd like to know.

[Q'iq'el]

. . . and official ruling on this can be made at any time . . . hopefully sooner than later.

Cause right now that "ruling" from Zee is all we have to go on.

We have the rules and the clear outcome of that rules - that it is a talent and that it can be copied.

We also have a more or less gut-driven suspicion it may not be intentional. Why not read the rules?

1) Page 12: Basic definition of "Talents" includes Action Modifiers specifically into "Abilities" group, stating they are listed in "Actions" section only for the ease of reading, but are in fact Abilities for the game purpose.

2) Page 19: Game effects section does not differentiate in any way between actual talents on the card and talents put there by the spells and other talents as an effect.

In the light of the fact that the Game effects section does not in any way exclude effects from also being talents, the Action Modifiers which are *by name* introduced as talents on the page 12 are definitely talents.