Warden - Relentless

[Mr_Smigs]

(+1) Relentless: Discard one Control Card. This model immediately Walks

is this optional?

[psychocamel]

Sorry if I seemed abusive, but it just seems like you are purposely trying to misinterpret things that are fairly simple to understand (ESPECIALLY to new players).

While I do agree there are many instances the rules aren't clear enough, this doesn't strike me as one of those times.

The real confusion comes from things like "Replace" being different from "replace", and the book saying damage flips are cheatable, but rules marshalls saying "only when in duels unless it says otherwise".

Not that I'm saying ignore minor issues when there's bigger issues, all issues certainly need to be addressed.

[Mr_Smigs]

Sorry if I seemed abusive, but it just seems like you are purposely trying to misinterpret things that are fairly simple to understand (ESPECIALLY to new players).

when learning new rules, I run it like a program,

that's basically how i explain it to others, and how I teach it...

so in this case...

Activate model

1-> look at abilities, do anything they tell you to do.

2-> Apply effects (Companion, rally, etc...)

3-> calculate AP

4-> do stuff.

when initially looking at the rule, because it was an ability and an action, I was assuming it took place in step 1 (and thus the question of mandatory) ...

but really it happens in both step 3 and 4.

in step 3 it generates Specific AP

in step 4 that specific AP can be used on the action listed.

really, from my perspective (from a code-junkie end) the abilities would read like:

Ability - Relentless - This model gets 1 AP for the Relentless Move Action.

Action - (1) Relentless Move : such and so forth...

or just

Ability - Relentless - Once per activation (Relentless wording with MAY in there)

but the way the game language uses it,

the (+1) is the "Ability" part of that, and the rest is the action part.

which becomes important, because if a model is somehow restricted to only specific actions, then it makes sure the model cannot use it.

[psychocamel]

when learning new rules, I run it like a program,

Yeah, that's a bad idea...

that's basically how i explain it to others, and how I teach it...

That's a really bad idea when you've run into problems reading it like a program yourself.

[Sliver Chocobo]

Yeah, that's a bad idea...

That's a really bad idea when you've run into problems reading it like a program yourself.

Agreed, computer programs are pretty stupid compared to humans, it's AI on most games is never as good as a human will be.

Deep blue and deeper blue is another matter entirely

[Hatchethead]

The real confusion comes from things like "Replace" being different from "replace", and the book saying damage flips are cheatable, but rules marshalls saying "only when in duels unless it says otherwise".

The first part I agree with (replace/Replace), but how is the second part confusing? You can only cheat a flip in a duel OR when otherwise specified (in non-duel situations). The rules manual states you can cheat a damage flip. A damage flip is not a duel (it occurs after the duel), but represents an exception to the rule because the manual says otherwise. Where's the confusion?

If it's not part of a "Duel", it's just a flip. You can't cheat a plain ol' non-duel flip unless the Talent/Spell/situation states otherwise. Mortimer's Exhume flip, for example. You can cheat it only because the Spell description says you can (the flip for the crow is not part of the Spell duel, it occurs afterward). Damage Prevention and Healing flips, Avatar Nico's Mass Grave. These are examples of non-duel flips that say nothing about cheating, hence no cheat.

... not to derail the thread. Just curious.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Hatchethead

[demkoenig]

Not to start a flame war, but you guys are kind of rude. He's just explaining how he chooses to understand something and your response is, "bad" and "stupid."

It is possible to disagree in a civil manner. For example, I, personally, don't think a rules system has to run through black and white (or 1 and 0) in order to be understood.

Part of the interesting thing about this game is that it is cross-cultural and that creates specific problems.

In another thread, I mentioned using "common sense" to apply the rules, versus a hypertechnical, algorithmical application. What I failed to grasp was that A) "common sense ain't so common" and common sense is definitely not cross cultural.

Still, a black and white, on and off analysis can still make the game hard to learn, given that I doubt these rules were written with such a system in mind.

In conclusion, I am all right with an effort to specifically identify and label the mechanics of this game in order to create a uniform standard of application, particularly at the competitive level. At home, or your FLGS with your friends, play how it makes you happy, but at a Con or Tournament, we, as a community need clear cut, uniform rules.

Back on topic:

Things in your abilities section cannot be ignored, unless some effect affects them. (For example, Peacekeeper cannot ignore Faulty Circuit; however, Hoffman's Ability Maintain Machines allows Hoffman to place an effect on the Peacekeeper that would allow the Peacekeeper to choose to ignore any of its abilities. A negative example would be: Guardian's ability Immune to Influence is stripped away by Pandora's Open the Box).

Things in your actions section are optional, unless the action specifically indicates that it is not optional. This is where the Mannequin's card is unclear because (-1) Slow is listed as an action, and models may usually choose their actions. It would have made more sense to put the Mannequin's Slow in the Abilities section.

Therefore, the Warden's Relentless Action is optional because it is not listed in the Abilities section.

[Mr_Smigs]

Wow... so... I agree to Bigmike's assessment,

we find a viable solution that both fits the descriptions in the book and the logic on the forums...

I try to be nice and explain where the misunderstanding on my end came from...

and... you guys call me dumb... dumb for using a method of thinking that's used worldwide in business and technical writing...

thanks.

demkoenig thank you for your kind response in my defense and very accurate summation of why some of us think clarity in rules for the lowest common denominator of players is the best.

I think I'll walk away from this thread before I feel the need to question the career paths of some forum members maternal lineage... or similarly say something unworthy of the forums.

[Dolomyte]

I think the problem is your looking for a level of clarity and detail in the rules that is simply not there. There are rules in malifaux that you have to make assumptions on, and if you question that assumption, the rules marshalls make a ruling and you go with that ruling.

your getting some negative replies because you question every single one of these instances, and then when the rules marshalls and other people give you how to play it, you start dictionary.com'ing the answer to pieces looking for a set of rules that are frankly not there.

I hate to say it to you, but if you cant handle a system like that, malifaux is just not the game for you.

[demkoenig]

Haha, wow, and now you tell him to leave the community!

My goodness guys, we're all in this together and if someone says something you don't like/agree with, I'd recommend carefully evaluating what you say.

No offense Dolo, but let's say another person is considering this game and that person thinks like Smig and that person stumbles upon your post. That person seriously second guesses coming into Malifaux, when they don't really need to.

The world is bigger than the members of these boards and even then, I fail to see why its necessary to carry out personal attacks/posts on the boards, especially when the forums have a private message tool.

Hopefully this thread will be locked soon, because we have a very workable answer to the question and the nature of the discourse here has truly bottomed out to a level that, honestly, offends my sensibilities.

[Ciaran]

offends my sensibilities.

You have sensibilities!?

As frustrating as it is at times, the man has made some points. I disagree with some of them, I've told him that. To be blatantly nasty isn't good, and in fact, just makes the whole thing worse. I just don't see very many innocent parties in this regard here (I am not one of those few...).

Edited September 20, 2011 by Ciaran

[Issalbotproto]

I actually agree with Dolomyte, There is a fine line between Asking for clarity and trolling, He has asked sensible questions and they have cleared up problems I've had, but those are few and far between.

He sounds more like he's tryng to bring down a whole system that everyone uses just because he interprets rules on a word level rather than an understanding level

Also, in the world of business, there is a lot more to success than asking questions it is interpretting understanding and working with not combating, fighting and attempting to reword. (also shut up stupd and dumb are words used most often by the succesful in the business world)

[psychocamel]

Not to start a flame war, but you guys are kind of rude.

A fair assumption, it's just this Smiggs thing has been going on quite a while and it's usually things that seem quite silly to question. It really has been looking like he's doing this on purpose, I'm still not sure.

Though I never called him dumb, I'm not sure who did...

I said reading it like a program was a bad idea, which of course it is, for examples see: this thread. =p

Edited September 20, 2011 by psychocamel

[psychocamel]

You can only cheat a flip in a duel OR when otherwise specified (in non-duel situations). The rules manual states you can cheat a damage flip.

The problem is that there is damage flips that aren't cheatable because they aren't in duels, despite the book saying all damage flips are cheatable.

I can't think of the example off-hand, but it's something that has been covered before. It's not all that confusing, it's just another example of how you can't always take the book as is

[demkoenig]

I know there are some damage flips that specifically say they aren't cheatable, for example Ryle's bonus damage flip. Those, I believe refer to the rule that where the book and card conflict, the rules on the card trump the rules in the book.

[psychocamel]

Yes I know that =p

[FearLord]

Rules are not meant to be followed like a program. They are meant to be interpreted like the law.

That is the whole purpose of having Rules Marshals (and Judges) - because the framework of rules cannot account for every single situation that may arise.

[psychocamel]

Very well put FearLord!

[WUWU]

Rules are not meant to be followed like a program. They are meant to be interpreted like the law.

That is the whole purpose of having Rules Marshals (and Judges) - because the framework of rules cannot account for every single situation that may arise.

I just don't agree with this at all.

Look at a game like L5R, for example. There is little to no rules "interpretation" at all, because over the years they have developed very consistent, concise wording on their cards, and have a comprehensive rulebook that specifically addresses timing and various interaction issues, almost like a computer program. If a = b then c kind of thing.

In my opinion any successful game should strive for the same

[Akujie]

L5R is an amazing game, and it has been out for over 20 years. When the game first came out it had its share of issues and wording discrepencies however. They have created a jargon (such as cost:effect) colon signifying what part of the ability applies to what. Wyrd is still hammering out alot of those details but a Table Top Mini's game adjusts slower then a card game.

Your L5R example, say a wicked blitz deck comes out (remembering the PHRATLING sickness) they release a new addition every 3 months, so adding a card that can deal with the current unbalance was quicker. Wyrd releases new crews each year to adjust. I think the shift will happen as new models hit the table, and they will lock in their own type of language, but until then thats why they have rules marshalls as a service. I don't ever remember having a forum sponsored by AEG that allowed me to ask questions and have game designers create solid rulings. Having rules marshalls is a service to the playerbase to help settle disputes and create game balance, for the Genre they are ahead of other mini games in adapting to meet player needs (i.e. Warhammer your waiting YEARS before you get a new codex for your faction to fix/balance issues).