Companion Shenanigans

[Glint-Eye]

In a game I recently viewed I saw an Arcanist player use a Mannequin to companion a Performer that was six inches away. However, he continued to chain the ability to two other showgirl models (which did not have companion) within six inches of the Performer, but not within six of the Mannequin.

My thoughts were that this activation was incorrect and that the only way he could have chained the companion chain from the Performer was if there was another model with Companion (Showgirl) as one of the other targets or if the Performer itself somehow had acquired the talent.

For reference, page 115 of the rules manual:

“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…”

[nix]

As I understand it you are correct. The further performers would have needed to be in range of the original mannequin in your example.

[Calmdown]

You are correct.

[dgraz]

I would definitely call Shenanigans. You can only continue a chain like that if all the models have Companion.

[Omenbringer]

I would definitely call Shenanigans. You can only continue a chain like that if all the models have Companion.

Or meet the Companion (requirement) of another model (that has Companion (whatever)) that is also in the chain and within the 6". Seamus' crew is a good example of this, a Rotten Belle 6" in front of Sybelle can companion her and she can continue the chain to another Rotten Belle that is 6" behind her.

In your example though that was illegal because all the showgirls that activated would have had to have been within 6" of the Mannequin and they weren't.

[Todd]

In a game I recently viewed I saw an Arcanist player use a Mannequin to companion a Performer that was six inches away. However, he continued to chain the ability to two other showgirl models (which did not have companion) within six inches of the Performer, but not within six of the Mannequin.

My thoughts were that this activation was incorrect and that the only way he could have chained the companion chain from the Performer was if there was another model with Companion (Showgirl) as one of the other targets or if the Performer itself somehow had acquired the talent.

For reference, page 115 of the rules manual:

“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…”

I think I'm the culprit.

Andrew, is that you?

Ok, nay-sayers.

“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…”

What I did (Stuff)

Before activating the Mannequin (a model with companion), I nominated 4 (any number of) Showgirls (models with the corresponding characteristic) within 6" of one another (notice the the phrase one another, not the model with companion). They activated simultaneously.

How is this wrong?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Todd
changed "referenced model" to "models with the corresponding characteristic"

[Todd]

Oh yeah, if that is you Andrew, and it was shenanigans, I apologize.

[Kadeton]

What I did (Stuff)

Before activating the Mannequin (a model with companion), I nominated 4 (any number of) Showgirls (models with the corresponding characteristic) within 6" of one another (notice the the phrase one another, not the model with companion). They activated simultaneously.

How is this wrong?

Well, by the wording as you've interpreted it, the models don't even need to be within 6" of the model with Companion, just with each other. They could be in a group on the other side of the board. I think most people are fairly clear that's not how Companion is supposed to work?

Anyway, there are lots of Companion threads on the forums that will clear this up for you. Suffice to say, you're doing it wrong.

[Todd]

Well, by the wording as you've interpreted it, the models don't even need to be within 6" of the model with Companion, just with each other.

Well, you said it, I didn't!

Companion is a poorly worded piece of poop, and I think we can all agree on that. However, I believe Wyrd has a very clear and specific idea of how the rule works. Why they don't write a rule that expresses that, I don't know.

Anyway, my interpretation is fairly straight forward and literal. Other than everyone just knowing it doesn't work that way, can you find fault in it?

I guess another interpretation could be that all the models need to be within 6" of one another. All of them within 6" of every other nominated model. No companion chains, more like clumps. It may be wrong, but read the rule and tell me it doesn't say that. But of course, we all "know" it doesn't work like that.

Anyway, there are lots of Companion threads on the forums that will clear this up for you. Suffice to say, you're doing it wrong.

Are there any that reference this specific case? I actually looked but couldn't find any.

[Kadeton]

Companion is a poorly worded piece of poop, and I think we can all agree on that. However, I believe Wyrd has a very clear and specific idea of how the rule works. Why they don't write a rule that expresses that, I don't know.

Anyway, my interpretation is fairly straight forward and literal. Other than everyone just knowing it doesn't work that way, can you find fault in it?

It probably takes the prize for the worst-written rule in the RM. Even though I think most people are pretty clear on how it works now, an official errata would be nice for new players who will inevitably go through the same tribulations we've had on these forums, wrestling with the differences between how it reads and how it's supposed to work.

And no, there's nothing wrong with the way you're reading it, except in the sense that the rule you're reading is not the rule that's played.

Are there any that reference this specific case? I actually looked but couldn't find any.

Now that you mention it, I also had a search and couldn't find anything.

[Todd]

And no, there's nothing wrong with the way you're reading it, except in the sense that the rule you're reading is not the rule that's played.

Then everyone else is cheating (themselves )

Now that you mention it, I also had a search and couldn't find anything.

Actually, I'm sticking to my guns on this.

The rule says I can do what I did. It says I can nominate any number of referenced/corresponding characteristic models within 6" of one another. Nowhere does it say that the referenced models have to have the companion ability. It doesn't even imply it.

:mannequin ---6"---> :colette---6"--->:coryphee1= All Simultaneously Activating

Take the above diagram, how does it not fit within the criteria/framework of the written rule?

Link (specific) or Rules marshal please.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Todd
added pictures to diagram

[Todd]

Well, having looked back at previous threads, very few discussions even deal with models of corresponding characteristics that don't also have the Companion ability. Also, most seemed to be concerned with which models can companion with whom, rather than their physical orientation.

Pre-emptive questions (assuming the rule works the way everyone intuitively "knows" it does, rather than the way it is worded ).

If referenced/characteristic models being companioned have to be within 6" of a Companion model, but not a specific companion (there is no starting model for the companion chain- http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27730&highlight=Companion ), would the following examples be legal (why or why not)? All participants in the chain are within 6" of another model in the chain. All participants are either companions or within 6" of a companion. Assume the models are in a linear orientation.

Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Companion (Characteristic X)

...or this...

Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"---> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"---> Companion (Characteristic C) -- 6"---> Model (Characteristic X)

Some model specific examples (different companion issues though). While this is legal...

Daydream (Companion: LCB) -- 6"--> Lord Chompy Bits -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB)

...would the following be illegal...

Lord Chompy Bits -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB) -- 6"--> Daydream (Companion: LCB)

Sorry, I know this is a mess to look at. :imsorry:

[Glint-Eye]

...Andrew, is that you? ...

Nope, his brother .

I was told about the game and it was the description that made me wonder about it, so I posted it to the forums with hopes that a Wyrd employee would come out with a clarification.

This was of my own initiative, not his. (He has no hard feelings).

Edited January 18, 2012 by Glint-Eye
Irrelevant information removal

[Glint-Eye]

I believe I’ve figured out how to correctly interpret the intended ruling (the current way it’s played) from the mess of the companion rule. Let us begin by looking at what the actual rule says:

“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.”

Since most of this talks about how to activate, as opposed to what to activate (what we care about), we're going to cut it down to what we need for this discussion.

“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. “

For further analysis, we’ll do a simple replacement using the following:

X = “model with Companion”

Y = “referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic.”

So now our sentence reads:

“Before activating X, nominate any number of Y within 6” of one another.”

At this point, we notice that the sentence can read one of two ways:

#1: “One another” refers to any of Y within 6” of each other, regardless of the location of X.

#2: “One another” refers to X and Y, meaning regardless of the number of Y, they must be within 6” of X.

Let us break this sentence down with one more replacement:

Z = “any number of Y.”

So going back to the sentence we have:

“Before activating X, nominate Z within 6” of one another”

In this breakdown we see that the set Z is not checking to see if it within 6” of itself, but rather 6” of X and that “one another” refer to X and Z.

If further explanation is needed, I’ll be glad to provide it upon request.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Glint-Eye
formatting

[Glint-Eye]

Now that it’s established that in order to companion, you have to be within 6” of a model with companion, Let us look at some of the examples.

Example 1: Mannequin 6” from Collette which is 6” from Coryphée

The Mannequin would be able to companion with Collette, but the chain would stop there as neither Collette nor the Coryphée have companion.

Example 2: Companion (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Model (Characteristic X) -- 6"--> Companion (Characteristic X)

Rewritten as A1 -- B1 -- B2 -- A2

Where: A = Model with companion

B = Model without companion

I’m also assuming that in this example all of the models have characteristic X (including the companioning models).

In this case, A1 could companion with B1, but could not companion B2 as A1 was the chosen point of reference. Take note that while you don’t need to activate the model first that you choose, you still have to choose a reference point to start the companion “linking” hence the phrase “Before activating a model with companion;” you still choose where to start the chain.

On that note though, it would work the other way too. If you choose to start with A2, then you could link into B2 but no further.

[micahwc]

I believe I’ve figured out how to correctly interpret the intended ruling (the current way it’s played) from the mess of the companion rule. Let us begin by looking at what the actual rule says:

“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.”

Since most of this talks about how to activate, as opposed to what to activate (what we care about), we're going to cut it down to what we need for this discussion.

“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. “

For further analysis, we’ll do a simple replacement using the following:

X = “model with Companion”

Y = “referenced model(s) or model(s) with the corresponding Characteristic.”

So now our sentence reads:

“Before activating X, nominate any number of Y within 6” of one another.”

At this point, we notice that the sentence can read one of two ways:

#1: “One another” refers to any of Y within 6” of each other, regardless of the location of X.

#2: “One another” refers to X and Y, meaning regardless of the number of Y, they must be within 6” of X.

Let us break this sentence down with one more replacement:

Z = “any number of Y.”

So going back to the sentence we have:

“Before activating X, nominate Z within 6” of one another”

In this breakdown we see that the set Z is not checking to see if it within 6” of itself, but rather 6” of X and that “one another” refer to X and Z.

If further explanation is needed, I’ll be glad to provide it upon request.

How does converting this into a quadratic equation make it easier to understand?

[Glint-Eye]

How does converting this into a quadratic equation make it easier to understand?

Okay, the simple terms then.

The sentence is structured:

"Before activating group A, choose group B within 6" of one another."

Or

"Before activating group A, choose B within 6" of each other (A & ."

I'll ignore your slight against good math equations .

[Todd]

At this point, we notice that the sentence can read one of two ways:

#1: “One another” refers to any of Y within 6” of each other, regardless of the location of X.

#2: “One another” refers to X and Y, meaning regardless of the number of Y, they must be within 6” of X.

Your whole equation (while fun, I admit ) hinges on interpreting this a certain way (choice #2). I find this way to be a stretch, and just don't see it as the logical choice. Using a pronoun (one another) to describe different/multiple nouns already leads to ambiguity. This is compounded by the fact that they're in different clauses. The reciprocal relationship reads as being between the nominated Showgirls, not the Showgirls (noun in the main clause) and the Companion model (noun in a completely different clause- subordinate clause). I'm not sure you can even use a pronoun that way.

Nevermind variables, let's plug in the actual game terms that the rule is being applied to.

Before activating a model with Companion (Showgirls), nominate any number of Showgirls within 6" of one another.

Forget that we're trying to make the rule work a certain way. Do you really think that reads as the showgirls need to be within 6" of the Companion, and not each other?

[Kadeton]

I mean, even reducing that sentence to its simplest case:

"Before activating (A), nominate ( within 6" of one another."

If I was editing a document and I came across that, I would cross it out in red pen and write "rephrase" next to it. It's grammatically awful.

[Wolfgar]

Companion, the short answer:

Nobody knows how this thing works.

Really, I think there should be a sticky explaining it and containing all Companion questions, as that seems to be almost half the rules board.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Wolfgar

[Glint-Eye]

Firstly, let me say that I agree that the Companion is a very poorly worded rule. Secondly, let me also specify that I can see how it could be interpreted the other way.

However, my whole discussion didn’t hinge on interpreting the rule a specific way. Rather, it was a breakdown using formal logic and replacement. That it leads to the possible interpretation that I supported was the reason that I showed the logic pattern (hence, supporting my argument).

I will admit the pronoun usage is poor, but I’ll blame that more to the original writer of the rule rather than to the indented usage.

Going onto another argument though, there is a problem with the way you propose, and it happens when you add the next sentence of the ability.

“These models activate simultaneously.”

Given your interpretation, this means two things:

#1: The original model doesn’t need to be anywhere close to the companioning models so long as they are within 6” of each other. (Based off the already established pattern).

And, more importantly

#2: The original model doesn’t necessarily activate. (Based off the addition of the second sentence).

To explain this point further, the “These models” in the second sentence references the models chosen in the first sentence. If the model with the companion ability doesn’t have the referenced trait, or does but isn’t within 6” of the selected group, then it doesn’t get to activate that turn.

This brings me to my example: Rotten Belles with Companion (Sybelle).

With your interpretation, you go to activate the Belle, but before you do (if you wanted to use the Companion ability), you would select all models with the Companion characteristic (in this case Sybelle) who needs to be within 6” of herself (she is unique after all). After that, you would activate Sybelle, but no other model. Furthermore, the Rotten Belle that companioned wouldn’t even get to activate that turn since the companion ability replaced its activation. In this way, you might as well have just activated Sybelle and then later activated the belle.

I don't believe this is the kind of interaction Wyrd was trying to accomplish.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Glint-Eye
clarification

[Todd]

I don't believe this is the kind of interaction Wyrd was trying to accomplish.

And we won't know what Wyrd intended until they write a version of Companion that makes sense.

You're absolutely right, all of those other problems also exist within the wording of Companion. The only thing the rule actually conveys is that a model with Companion is necessary and some models get to simultaneously activate. We shouldn't need Wyrd to fill in all of the blanks, and basically forum rule the entire thing/process. That's the rule's job.

[nix]

actually, the intention is very clear on how this works. On page 115 of the Rules Manual, Companion says the following:

Companion Diagram:

It's Casey's turn to activate a model. Looking at her models, she sees that PErdita and Nino are within 6" of one another and Papa Loco is within 6" of Nino. She announces that she is activating all three of the models via Companion. She then chooses to complete Papa's activation first, next she choosed to complete Perdita's activation; and finally she completes Nino's.

There there is a nice picture showing

:perdita -6"-> Nino -6"-> Papa

Am I missing something? :doh:

[Dreygan]

Im pretty sure all the Orgegas have the Family trait and Companion (Family) so they can all trigger from each other. I may be wrong though.

[diehard]

Im pretty sure all the Orgegas have the Family trait and Companion (Family) so they can all trigger from each other. I may be wrong though.

In the original rule book they all have the Companion (Family) except for Perdita herself, who only has the Family trait listed. This could have changed on the V2 cards however.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

In the original rule book they all have the Companion (Family) except for Perdita herself, who only has the Family trait listed. This could have changed on the V2 cards however.

She has it on her V2 Card.