Companion concerns

[Commander_Jay]

First, sorry for the long explanation, but I am concerned about the Companion rules. They are very clear in the Rules Manual, but it seems like they are being played differently, and with approval from Rules Marshals. I like for a Rules Marshal to respond if one can.

I'd like to know what the official rules are, and if they are different from what is in the Rules Manual, there should an update, or errata document, because it seems to go beyond mere clarification.

The Rules Manual says (on page 115):

Companion (Model or Characteristic)

Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another. These models activate simultaneously. Choose one of the nominated models to activate first, and complete its entire activation. Then the Controller chooses and activates another nominated model. Continue activating the nominated models until all nominated models have completed their activations.

Then the Rules Manual has an example, which I will not add here. My concern is based on two points.

First Concern:

The first is about the very first clause is "before activating a model with Companion," but people often dont follow this requirement. For instance, you can not choose a model with companion, then it would be impossible to begin the companion chain.

To illustrate this, if you have a Totem who has Companion (Master) that has been the victim of Pacify, the Totem must activate last. You also have a Master. You would have to activate the Master first, and therefore would not be able to start companion as you would not be "before activating a model with Companion." And you could not choose to activate the Totem legally at this time. But I have heard and read arguments based on Rules Marshalls saying that in effect the Master is granted the ability to Companion the Totem.

People often reference this as the "two way street" that Weird_Sketch affirmed. Although this would be an addition to the rules, and not merely a clarification. Personally I thought that the "two way street" referred to your ability to start with any of the nominated models, and that you are not limited to a specific order. But that is already clearly explained under the Companion rules and under the rules for activating models simultaneously (page 31).

(Perhaps related, can Lord Chompy Bits activate a Daydream when he activates? Its not on his card, nor allowed under the Companion Rules).

Second concern:

This is also based on having a broad definition for the "two way street." This came up with several Daydreams and The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits. The daydreams have Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits), and thus when they activate can look around for any of those models, and in this case they will find one. But they do NOT have Companion (Daydream), and nor does any other model, so additional Daydreams would not be eligible to be nominated as part of the Companion chain.

Specifically, Companion says "Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another." So if its says a Model, like it does in this case, listing either The Dreamer or Lord Chompy Bits. If it said a characteristic, like Family, then you would look around for models with that characteristic.

But it has been said that Companion allows a third option, that is not in the rules. That you can choose a Model or Characteristic, or any model that could companion the Model or Characteristic. For example, you could look around for The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits, but also any model that has Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits). This would not be allowed, but has been assumed. So is this allowed?

Those are the two issues I cant seem to resolve. I'd LOVE for a Rules Marshal to read and respond. If you need more info, just ask. If these two things are allowed, why? Was this some intent that was not written in the Rules Manual? Or have we taken some clarifications too far?

In short:

If it is true that you can start a Companion when you would activate a model who does NOT have the companion talent on their card, then it should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification.

And if you can companion anything beyond a listed Model or Characteristic beyond those listed in the Companion Model/Characteristic), that should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification.

By the way, I do not see any official errata, nor could we find one. We see the rules section, with the Rules Manual and the clarifications and errata for the cards, but is there an Errata for the rules?

[nachtnebel]

see 1st and 9th posting: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24299

[Hateful Darkblack]

The list of model fixes is here: http://www.malifaux.com/Fixes.php

It doesn't include every official ruling, just errata to existing models and cards.

[Commander_Jay]

The list of model fixes is here: http://www.malifaux.com/Fixes.php

It doesn't include every official ruling, just errata to existing models and cards.

Exactly. If Companion is supposed to allow these two new features, I think it should be included on that page.

see 1st and 9th posting: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24299

That is the cause of my concern. Look also at all the posts up to #16. Sketch declares it a legal "two way street." But what is the wording of the new addition to Companion? Can you choose a Model or Characteristic, AND any model that could companion the Model or Characteristic?

The Rules Marshalls say it's ok, but why? Thats my big question.

[Omenbringer]

First Concern:

The first is about the very first clause is "before activating a model with Companion," but people often dont follow this requirement. For instance, you can not choose a model with companion, then it would be impossible to begin the companion chain.

You haven't commited to activating the model with companion yet only that you will activate a model/models. By chosing a model that either has companion (whatever) or is the companion of whatever you are choosing to activate both (all of them) simultaneously. The only caveat is that you get to choose the order.

To illustrate this, if you have a Totem who has Companion (Master) that has been the victim of Pacify, the Totem must activate last. You also have a Master. You would have to activate the Master first, and therefore would not be able to start companion as you would not be "before activating a model with Companion." And you could not choose to activate the Totem legally at this time. But I have heard and read arguments based on Rules Marshalls saying that in effect the Master is granted the ability to Companion the Totem.

Pacify should actually nullify companion altogether since it will result in a simultaneous activation (so the pacified model can not activate last as required).

People often reference this as the "two way street" that Weird_Sketch affirmed. Although this would be an addition to the rules, and not merely a clarification. Personally I thought that the "two way street" referred to your ability to start with any of the nominated models, and that you are not limited to a specific order. But that is already clearly explained under the Companion rules and under the rules for activating models simultaneously (page 31).

It is not an addition, it is actually in the description just the opening language is a bit wonky.

(Perhaps related, can Lord Chompy Bits activate a Daydream when he activates? Its not on his card, nor allowed under the Companion Rules).

If the Day dream has not already activated then yes Lord Chompy can activate with the Daydream because of companion from the Daydream.

Second concern:

This is also based on having a broad definition for the "two way street." This came up with several Daydreams and The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits. The daydreams have Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits), and thus when they activate can look around for any of those models, and in this case they will find one. But they do NOT have Companion (Daydream), and nor does any other model, so additional Daydreams would not be eligible to be nominated as part of the Companion chain.

How this works is that the Daydreams are companioned to the dreamer/ LCB, so if he is included in the simultaneous activation then the daydreams may companion off of him (i.e. daydreams and Dreamer/ LCB companioning fine, but no Daydreams companioning daydreams because as you point out they dont have companion daydreams)

Specifically, Companion says "Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another." So if its says a Model, like it does in this case, listing either The Dreamer or Lord Chompy Bits. If it said a characteristic, like Family, then you would look around for models with that characteristic.

You are getting stuck on the "before activating a model" portion at the expence of the rest. As I pointed out earlier you haven't actually activated a model yet so you are choosing to either activate the model singlely or as a portion of a simultaneous activation (via companion)

But it has been said that Companion allows a third option, that is not in the rules. That you can choose a Model or Characteristic, or any model that could companion the Model or Characteristic. For example, you could look around for The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits, but also any model that has Companion (The Dreamer/Lord Chompy Bits). This would not be allowed, but has been assumed. So is this allowed?

Yes it is allowed because of the daisy chaining of relavent models.

Those are the two issues I cant seem to resolve. I'd LOVE for a Rules Marshal to read and respond. If you need more info, just ask. If these two things are allowed, why? Was this some intent that was not written in the Rules Manual? Or have we taken some clarifications too far?

In short:

If it is true that you can start a Companion when you would activate a model who does NOT have the companion talent on their card, then it should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification.

And if you can companion anything beyond a listed Model or Characteristic beyond those listed in the Companion Model/Characteristic), that should be in an official Errata, not just a clarification.

By the way, I do not see any official errata, nor could we find one. We see the rules section, with the Rules Manual and the clarifications and errata for the cards, but is there an Errata for the rules?

It is actually pretty well spelled out in the description once you get around the "before activating a model" portion.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Omenbringer

[Kadeton]

I would very much like to see a re-worded (clarified) version of Companion in an official Errata. By the Rules Manual as it is written, the "two-way street" is not supported.

[Q'iq'el]

I'd like to point you to the very opening sentence of the paragraph you quote:

Before activating a model with Companion, nominate any number of the referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic within 6" of one another. These models activate simultaneously.

So you need a model with Companion rule to activate.... but you select all the models to activate simultaneously with it before you activate it. Once it comes to activation, you are already under SA rules, so the order doesn't matter.

How does Pacify matter, when you select all the simultaneously activating models before you activate the model with Companion? You don't nominate it, then activate it, then add up the companions. You select the companions, then you say "I activate them simultaneously with this model" and then they all do simultaneous activation (which also means the order of activation within the group is free now).

I'd say, as is, simultaneous activation overrides Pacify, not the other way around, but I'm not 100% sure.

But it perfectly explains why Companion is a two-way street - as long as there's at least one model with companion in the group, you select all the other models before you activate, not after, so it doesn't matter which one is selected first.

This is also why chained alpha strikes are possible (which seem to be the problem you have with the Dreamer) - once you choose the model that can be simultaneously activated, you may find there are several models within 6" that can companion it. Because you choose the SA group first and then start the SA itself, you can point at both the models with different Companion rules (that still could companion your initially selected model) and have them both form up the group (daisy-chaining the SA further).

The devil is in the first sentence. It essentially says the order doesn't matter here, everything is set before you activate and any activation within the group falls under SA rules - so the normal activation order doesn't matter anymore at that point.

[Omenbringer]

I would very much like to see a re-worded (clarified) version of Companion in an official Errata. By the Rules Manual as it is written, the "two-way street" is not supported.

How would you suggest they reword it that would make it clear for everyone (I dont think it needs any but am not opposed to correction if it benefits the community).

And of course while I hem-hawed on what I was going to post for 45 minutes (there was quite a bit more), Q'iq'el comes in and says pretty much exactly what I was going to say (though much simpler).

Edited December 29, 2011 by Omenbringer

[Omenbringer]

How does Pacify matter, when you select all the simultaneously activating models before you activate the model with Companion? You don't nominate it, then activate it, then add up the companions. You select the companions, then you say "I activate them simultaneously with this model" and then they all do simultaneous activation (which also means the order of activation within the group is free now).

I'd say, as is, simultaneous activation overrides Pacify, not the other way around, but I'm not 100% sure.

The problem interaction with Companion and Pacify is that companion may result in a Simultaneous activation of all the models in the group, but the pacified model must activate after any other model in the crew that has not been affected by pacify. Since a companioned model is participating in a simultaneous activation it isn't considered to go after any model in the group, they are all going at the same time. The only exception is if by some wyrd chance the entire companioning group is affected by Pacify (in which case it would work, though the group has to go after all non-pacified models in the crew.

I love the subtlety of the rules for this game.

[Kadeton]

How would you suggest they reword it that would make it clear for everyone (I dont think it needs any but am not opposed to correction if it benefits the community).

Clear for everyone is a very tall order.

This would make it clear for me:

Companion (Model or Characteristic)

When this model, any referenced model(s) within 6", or any model(s) with the referenced Characteristic within 6" activates, the Controller may simultaneously activate this model and any number of referenced models or models with the referenced Characteristic within 6". Models activated via this ability may simultaneously activate additional eligible models through the use of Companion. Resolve the activations in any order, completing each model's entire activation before moving on to the next model's activation.

[Q'iq'el]

The problem interaction with Companion and Pacify is that companion may result in a Simultaneous activation of all the models in the group, but the pacified model must activate after any other model in the crew that has not been affected by pacify.

This is in the normal activation order.

What I'm saying is that once models have been nominated for simultaneous activations, there is no normal activation order, any after or before between them. This is a defined exception in the rules, so, IMO, you play it as an exception.

Now there is a possibility there are other models in the crew that are not part of SA but should still activate before that model. That is why I think SA overrides Pacify restriction. You have a mode of activation that is exceptional and does not follow standard activation rules - it may happen it breaks some of them. Since Pacify (and Incite) works on standard activation order, it gets overridden by the exception.

But I can see a ruling going other way - the rulings can be unpredictable sometimes. That's why I've said I'm not 100% sure. RAW I see no issue at all, because RAW you get permission to activate within SA group, period.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Kadeton]

Q'iq'el's explanation is excellent, and explains perfectly how the wording in the RM can be used to support the "two-way street" ruling.

I still have an issue with the lack of clarity in the RM wording, though... I feel that it is very unlikely that anyone who has not read the rulings on this forum would come to the correct conclusion as to how the ability actually works simply by reading the RM.

[Kadeton]

This is in the normal activation order.

What I'm saying is that once models have been nominated for simultaneous activations, there is no normal activation order, any after or before between them. This is a defined exception in the rules, so, IMO, you play it as an exception.

Now there is a possibility there are other models in the crew that are not part of SA but should still activate before that model. That is why I think SA overrides Pacify restriction. You have a mode of activation that is exceptional and does not follow standard activation rules - it may happen it breaks some of them. Since Pacify (and Incite) works on standard activation order, it gets overridden by the exception.

But I can see ruling going other way - the rulings can be unpredictable sometimes. That's why I've said I'm not 100% sure. RAW I see no issue at all, because RAW you get permission to activate within SA group, period.

This is a weird one! There's no actual "may" in the phrasing of Companion, so to argue that it's overridden by the "must" in Pacify is shaky. If anything, there's an implicit "must" in Companion: you "must" nominate the models that will activate (though you "may" nominate none).

Still, I'd expect that the explicit "must" of Pacify would kick in and prevent a simultaneous activation with anything except other Pacified models. Essentially, that activating simultaneously is not activating after, so you "must" elect to leave them out of the companion chain. However, I can agree that it could easily go either way!

[Q'iq'el]

This is a weird one! There's no actual "may" in the phrasing of Companion, so to argue that it's overridden by the "must" in Pacify is shaky. If anything, there's an implicit "must" in Companion: you "must" nominate the models that will activate (though you "may" nominate none).

Well, to begin with "must" overrides "may" applies to effects. We are not speaking about effects here.

Simultaneous Activation is one of the rules of activation and activation itself is not an effect either.

Pacify is an effect indeed. It can interact with other effects - once that cause a model to immediately activate perhaps. In that case there is the timing and the may/must issue to look at.

But we are speaking about another kind of interaction here - the rules defining SA as an alternative and exceptional way to activate models and the effect which limits your activating options if you activate models normally.

That's how I see it at least.

[Commander_Jay]

It has been previously ruled that Pacify makes you activate last, and can not activate sooner using Companion.

[Kadeton]

But we are speaking about another kind of interaction here - the rules defining SA as an alternative and exceptional way to activate models and the effect which limits your activating options if you activate models normally.

I think that's the hole in the argument, there: I don't believe SA is an "alternative and exceptional" way to activate models per se, and nothing in Pacify's text specifies that it only applies to "normal" activations.

Pacify is an effect which must be applied to all activations. Pacified models must activate after all other models in the crew. Simultaneous activation violates this restriction, therefore it cannot be applied.

To support this, the Multiple Activation rules explicitly state that each model in the SA is activated "as normal". There's no exception granted for overriding compulsory activation order from effects.

Anyway, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and it's a very cloudy issue. Hoping for some official clarification.

[Kadeton]

It has been previously ruled that Pacify makes you activate last, and can not activate sooner using Companion.

Would you be able to provide a link to a thread? I'd be keen to read it.

[Commander_Jay]

Here's Ratty's reply about Pacify:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25226&highlight=companion+pacify

In short, you can not companion, unless all the nominated models have been pacified, and there is nothing left to activate.

[Q'iq'el]

It has been previously ruled that Pacify makes you activate last, and can not activate sooner using Companion.

And doesn't it solve the problem then? Granted, the rules are not exactly clear here (as there's no clarity why exactly Pacify overrides SA rules), but the ruling shows the intention.

If a model cannot take part in SA, it cannot do this. It doesn't really matter if master can companion it or not, because that single model simply cannot be part of SA.

[Keltheos]

I think that's the hole in the argument, there: I don't believe SA is an "alternative and exceptional" way to activate models per se, and nothing in Pacify's text specifies that it only applies to "normal" activations.

Pacify is an effect which must be applied to all activations. Pacified models must activate after all other models in the crew. Simultaneous activation violates this restriction, therefore it cannot be applied.

To support this, the Multiple Activation rules explicitly state that each model in the SA is activated "as normal". There's no exception granted for overriding compulsory activation order from effects.

Anyway, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and it's a very cloudy issue. Hoping for some official clarification.

It sounds like you guys have figured it out for yourselves, not that cloudy after all.

[Commander_Jay]

It sounds like you guys have figured it out for yourselves, not that cloudy after all.

Wait! This thread was not about Pacify originally, it just got derailed. We knew the how Companion interacts with Pacify from the beginning.

[Q'iq'el]

Wait! This thread was not about Pacify originally, it just got derailed. We knew the how Companion interacts with Pacify from the beginning.

Yup, but the other thing has been explained as well (partially by me - Pacify was the only thing I wasn't sure about).

Think about it that way - a model with Companion is an "enabler". You don't reverse-companion anyone, you select a pool of legible models, say "this is the model with Companion ability that enables all these models to SA", and you SA everyone.

This is what rules describe. This is the meaning of the first sentence you quote in your original post.

All the rest of your doubts, as far as I can see, is resolved once you take this approach, because you always select the models fist and then point at enablers who make the SA possible (and there can be several of them, daisy-chained) and only after that you activate.

And obviously, if a model is incapable of activating (not only because of Pacify, but for example because it already has activated or is Paralyzed), you obviously cannot point at it... so if that particular model is your only "enabler" with Companion ability, SA cannot happen.

[Kadeton]

Awesome, thanks Keltheos. Also, thanks to Commander Jay for the link.

[Commander_Jay]

I'm afraid you're missing the point about the cases when my doubts appear.

Take the Dreamer a 3 Daydreams. The Daydreams have Companion (Dreamer/LordChompyBits). So I start the companion chain by choosing a Daydream, and looking around for any model named "Dreamer" or "Lord Chompy Bits." I find one, obviously nominate the Dreamer. But then no model has Companion (Daydream), so no other Daydreams would be eligible to be nominated. And nothing grants a model Companion (Daydream), or Companion (*any model that can companion this model), or anything else. So I can only companion one Daydream and the Dreamer.

That's my point. Allowing more Daydreams to be eligible for nomination would be a new addition to rules. And it should be agreed upon, or not, and then added to the Official Rules Errata.

Because if you do not write this up, it is open for abuse. Could anyone Companion (*any model that can companion this model)? It should be written, and not left up in the air.

[Kadeton]

Q'iq'el's explanation back on page 1 of this thread showed the right way to read the rule as written so as to allow the kind of chaining you're talking about with the Daydreams.

Before anything activates, you say "I'm nominating this Daydream to activate simultaneously with this Dreamer using Companion. I'm also nominating this other Daydream to activate simultaneously with this Dreamer using Companion. And this other one as well." The three pairs of Companion activations all go off at once, and everyone activates simultaneously.

I agree that the rule as written is damn confusing, which is why we've got so much conversation mileage out of it today. I think we're slowly working our way to the bottom of it, though.

Did you find my reworded version at the bottom of page 1 any clearer?

[Keltheos]

You define the chain all at once.

So say you have a Daydream on one side of LCB/Dreamer and another Daydream on the other (both within 6" of LCB/D). All three could be Companioned. There's no starting point for the chain, it just materializes, linking them all together with happy funtime Companion activation goodness. There's no need to have the hip-daydream connected to the thigh-Dreamer, then connected to the foot-daydream, they're all 'leg' for the purposes of activation.

It's that 'where does the chain start' thinking which throws people off. This is how you should consider it:

Think about it that way - a model with Companion is an "enabler". You don't reverse-companion anyone, you select a pool of legible models, say "this is the model with Companion ability that enables all these models to SA", and you SA everyone.

And then the answer to what happens if one of those models has an adverse activation effect, say Pacify, is clear:

And obviously, if a model is incapable of activating (not only because of Pacify, but for example because it already has activated or is Paralyzed), you obviously cannot point at it... so if that particular model is your only "enabler" with Companion ability, SA cannot happen.