Dreamer / LCB reactivate

[calgary_cat]

If Kirai gives the dreamer reactivate in a brawl does that also give LCB another activation as well? I've been searching around all morning and haven't found an answer, thanks in advance.

[schristofersen]

No. What makes you think that it would give LCB another activation?

I don't mean to snarky there. I am legitimately wondering what you are basing that on.

[calgary_cat]

My local group felt like one master / shared actions might give LCB an additional activation with the Dreamer, it's been a topic of debate the last few games.

[schristofersen]

I see.

No. One master does not transfer any effects, such as poison or reactivate, to the other model. A search for the thread that talks about poison and the dreamer should reveal pertinant rulings should you require them.

[calgary_cat]

What about the rule that a model replacing another model gets the remaining AP? Still a no go because LCB has already activated once and was just buried?

[schristofersen]

Chompy/dreamer doesn't actually get the unused AP. They can only use up to3 general AP between them, they each in theory have 2 in addition to their melee/casting specific ones. Also you are correct that LCB has already activated and does not have reactivate and was buried as per the most recent bury rules he is done.

[WingerWanger]

I completely get Calgary_Cat's question. This game is great. That said, this game's rules exist over a spread of websites, books, manuals, character cards (including different iterations of those character's cards) and opinions from henchmen/marshals found in a variety of locations. This games rules fall far short from a work of art.

I think Calgary_Cat's question is completely logical and reasonable considering LCB's character card under "One Master :... must bury a friendly The Dreamer and this model activates immediately..." Pursuant to page 7 of the Rules Manual under "Breaking the Rules ... when a model's specific rule or ability contradicts these core rules, follow the specific rule rather than the core rules." (the "Golden Rule")

Each model only receiving one activation is a core rule. LCB's card, pursuant to the Golden Rule trumps core rules. A plain language reading of the LCB card rule leads one to conclude that if LCB is unburied it "activates immediately".

I appreciate that the spirit and aim of the Bury Errata (the "Errata") was to, in large part, end the ridiculous shenanigans associated with slingshotting the dreamer, but the Errata still suffers from one major issue.

While the Errata clarifies that a model's activation immediately ends once it is buried, it fails to address any situation in which a model "activates immediately" when it is unburied.

Further, the Errata specifies that it replaces the "Buried" entry on page 13 of The Manual. The "Buried" entry on page 13 of the Manual appears to form part of the "core rules" which the Golden Rule suggest is subject to a reading of LCB's card in any event.

While I agree this interpretation of the rules can lead to absurd results, I cannot see how the rules, as currently drafted, alter LCB's immediate activation upon becoming unburied. While the community appears to simply accept that the Errata means you cannot activate LCB if he has already activated, I cannot, like Calgary_Cat, find the logical authority for this acceptance.

[Korrosion]

Logic is a curious thing when you apply it everywhere equally, especially against what "you already know". I to am wondering if card > core rule in this case.

[psychocamel]

Logic is a curious thing when you apply it everywhere equally, especially against what "you already know". I to am wondering if card > core rule in this case.

As a general rule, card beats core rules, they even say that in the rules

Errata > Card > Core Rules

Ratty is probably > *

>_>

[Korrosion]

Ratty is probably > *

I can't argue with this. :-)

[Mach_5]

Rules manual pg 31: "Each model may activate only once during a turn unless otherwise indicated by a model's ability."

I don't see anything on LCB's card indicating he can activate more than once. He may activate immediately, rather than waiting for his turn in activation order as per the core rules.

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

As for the original question, LCB and Dreamer do not share spell effects or anything like that (which would require something like the Fates Entwined ability that the Viks have). So giving one Reactivate does not give the other Reactivate.

Further, per the core rules, each model gets 2 general action points per activation, but Dreamer and LCB abilities limit them to 3 general action points between them per turn (not counting pass actions). So if Dreamer gets Reactivate he would activate a second time but wouldn't get any general action points to start unless you hadn't already reached the 3-per-turn limit.

So you could:

Dreamer activates with 2 general ap, a (0), and +1 Instinctual

Dreamer gains Reactivate somehow

Dreamer activates with 1 general ap, a (0), and +1 Instinctual

LCB Activates with 0 general ap, a (0), and +1 Melee Expert

or

Dreamer activates with 2 general ap, a (0), and +1 Instinctual

LCB Activates with 1 general ap, a (0), and +1 Melee Expert

Dreamer gains Reactivate somehow

Dreamer activates with 0 general ap, a (0), and +1 Instinctual

or some variation of the above.

[WingerWanger]

I hadn't considered the maximum 3 general AP per turn (The Dreamer's Shared Actions). Makes putting reactivate on The Dreamer somewhat less good.

LCB's card text essentially follows: if "brought into play" (unburied) then "activates immediately." Mach_5, you're suggesting: if "already activated" and if "brought into play" then "does not activate" pursuant to the core rule at pg 31. This, however directly contradicts the if/then statement on LCB's card. Accordingly, the card > core rule applies and the LCB text should take priority.

To clarify, I don't actually think LCB or The Dreamer should get an additional activation when they are brought into play. I think that is nonsense. I also agree that the spirit of the activates immediately text is to bump LCB up in the activation order. I just think the current rules text is ambiguous at best.

Edited September 5, 2012 by WingerWanger
added last paragraph

[Mach_5]

Alright, how about bottom of pg 31, "A model allowed to activate immediately by an effect does so before any other model activates, but after the current model's activation ends."

I think we can agree One Master allows LCB to activate immediately, and its an effect. It does not contradict the above statement in any way, so that core rule applies.

Further we have from the FAQ:

Q. I have an Ability that says "Target friendly Construct within 6" of this model activates after this model’s activation ends", can I use this on a model that has already activated?

A. Linked In and other abilities that allow you to activate a model after finishing a model’s activation can only be used on models that haven't activated or are waiting to Reactivate.

Emphasis mine. One Master is an ability that lets LCB (or Dreamer) activate immediately (ie after finishing the current activation ), so it can only be used if LCB (or Dreamer) haven't activated or are waiting to Reactivate.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

Also, there's this thread where WEiRD skeTCH rules:

Question 2: What happens when you must 'immediately activate' a model if it has already activated?

Nothing. The model cannot activate

[WingerWanger]

I'm not sure I follow your first point.

I would agree that LCB's "activate immediately" text means he would activate before any other model but after The Dreamer's activation ends. I do not see that as germaine.

I also agree that the faq and WEiRD's comment clearly state that a model that has already activated will not activate again if it "immediately activates."

With mass respect to WEiRD, Wyrd and the powers that be, I suggest that a faq post and comments from high ranking community members are not "rules".

Indeed, anytime Wyrd deems it necessary to alter or amend the rules, it issues an Errata. Even the Errata goes so far as to identify exactly which rules are being replaced or amended. The Errata specifically and deliberately alter the existing rules so that there is always only one set of current rules.

The faq post, as well as WEiRD's comment do not deliberately amend or alter any of the rules (model card, manuals or otherwise). And for good reason! It makes no sense to have two (or more) vehicles for amending game rules.

We are left with the conclusion that WEiRD's comment and the faqs are simply interpretative aids. Unfortunately these sources do not identify the specific rules they are attempting to interpret.

In the end, players are left with two options. They can either follow the rules as written (found in the manuals/books, on model cards and as amended by the Errata), or they can agree on alternative rules. Players may agree that the alternative rule is "models do not 'immediately activate' if they have already activated" or "anything WEiRD says is also a rule and will be paramount" or even, "any statement issued by Wyrd, a representative of Wyrd or community members of at least "x" rank will also be rules and will be paramount."

--- Coincidently, I try awfully hard to keep this type of rules lawyering to myself when playing with friends lest I find myself without friends with whom to play. Sometimes I can't help myself. I'm quite thankful I have patient friends.

Edited September 5, 2012 by WingerWanger
Added last paragraph

[Adran]

At the time of writing that comment I believe Wierd was a rules marshall, if not the rules Marshall.

His answer Clarifies the rules as written.

Activates immedeatly does not confer the ability to activate if already activated. Any ability that allows it to activate after it has already activated explictily states that it does so. The rules for activating say this. I know that its easy to read it in other ways, but it has been frequently asked and answered.

It might not have been the clearest way of writing the rules, but putting the sentance "This ability does not work unless the target has not activated, or has re-activate and only activated once" on everything very quickly takes up card space.

I can see the reason people do misunderstand this rule, but there is no need for the rule to be errata'd, the rules do already state how it works, so a clarification in the form of a frequently asked question is sufficient

The biggest problem for re-activating the dreamer is the one master as pointed out.

An effect on the dreamer will not transfer to Lord Chompybits. The Pl

[Ozz]

I dont really have much to add to this thread that has not already been said, the only thing i can do is to state that WEiRD sKeTCH was at the time of posting a Rules Marshal, and an Wyrd Employee and has since moved on to other things. So his post is an official clarification for how the rule is intended to work.

But also as you stated, it is up to you and your friends if you take the rules as you read them, or if you use all the Marshal rulings as well for your games

[Sholto]

I have seen a few people misunderstand the role of Rules Marshalls on the forum. If a Rules Marshall gives a ruling, that is official, unless and until it is superceded by a later ruling or by an Errata or FAQ that contradicts it.

[WingerWanger]

Can someone point me to the rule that says that if a high ranking community member (a rules marshal) says something it becomes a rule?

The intention of the rule drafter is really, again, just an interpretive aid... a commentary that you find in the "developer's notes" on the "extras" portion of a DVD. WEiRD's interpretation (unless I am missing a rule) defies the language printed on the card. The card expressly says it activates.

I agree that it doesn't "reactivate" or that the "reactivate" on the dreamer does not transfer to LCB. It does not have to. It simply activates if it is brought into play. You cannot get more express than that.

Simply put, WEiRD's interpretation is wrong. The capital "R" Rules could not be more clear or explicit. The card says the model activates. That can only mean one thing... that the model activates. If you read in "only if it has not already activated" (something that does not necessarily take up too much card space if cleverly written) then why not also read in "only if The Dreamer is in base contact with a terrain feature" or just go ahead and read in "unless a "Marshal" says otherwise"?

Edited September 5, 2012 by WingerWanger

[Cunning]

The problem you have is that if there was a rule on the forum to say 'all Rules Marshall rulings are law' it would invariably be posted by a Rules Marshall.

Which wouldn't really help.

[Dracomax]

Rules martials aren't high ranking posters. they are specifically people who deliver the word from on high as to what the rules are, after having discussed it among the people who make the game. they are also explicitly the arbiters of the "capital 'R'" Rules. You don't have to follow what they say, just like you can use the free parking space in Monopoly as a lottery. You will, however, be using house rules, rather than "capital 'R'" Rules.

[rancor709]

You sir can collet $200 dollars because we play free parkiing the same way.

[Ozz]

As a general rule, there is no Ranking system to the people who post on the forums. There are the players, which is the people with no tags, and the henchmen.

Then there are the Wyrd Employee's. Only the Wyrd Employee's (or the odd henchman with the Rules marshal badge under their cards, though they are very rare people:) ) Will make a comment about a rule, and have it become gospel. What they say just is. They tend to discuss everything before making any big changes, and only 1 marshal will likely respond to a thread with a clarification

What they say on the forums, in response to a players question, is a clarification of what the rules were intended to be, rather than how you read the rules using "proper" English.

So as you said about Sketches response, it is correct, as that is the rules as intended, and he has stated it as such.

As far as the English is written though it is probably easy to see where you have come to just think that he was wrong with his ruling.

Hope that helps a little?

Edit: Ninjad but oh well

Edit nr 2:

They in short change the RAW (Rules as written) to RAI (Rules as intended) I think that sums up my entire post above

Edited September 5, 2012 by Ozz

[Cunning]

As part of the campaign of the poster ./open imaginary world....FREE INFINITE TURNS FOR CHOMPY! Let's make the tournament scene useless! Yay!!! close imaginary world

Ok so a lil bit more serious, it has already been explained that by the rules the wording on LCD/Dreamers cards does not give them another activation, it simply allows them to activate immediately into a pseudo companion effect. We have shown the rules and explained as to why it works that way.

So now my question is to the OP, why do you want an infinite combo in your crew so bad as to start this argument thread?

The OP's question was whether giving the Dreamer reactivate also gives it to Chompy. The other question that seems to have taken over the thread comes from a different poster.

[DarcXON]

Can someone point me to the rule that says that if a high ranking community member (a rules marshal) says something it becomes a rule?

The intention of the rule drafter is really, again, just an interpretive aid... a commentary that you find in the "developer's notes" on the "extras" portion of a DVD. WEiRD's interpretation (unless I am missing a rule) defies the language printed on the card. The card expressly says it activates.

I agree that it doesn't "reactivate" or that the "reactivate" on the dreamer does not transfer to LCB. It does not have to. It simply activates if it is brought into play. You cannot get more express than that.

Simply put, WEiRD's interpretation is wrong. The capital "R" Rules could not be more clear or explicit. The card says the model activates. That can only mean one thing... that the model activates. If you read in "only if it has not already activated" (something that does not necessarily take up too much card space if cleverly written) then why not also read in "only if The Dreamer is in base contact with a terrain feature" or just go ahead and read in "unless a "Marshal" says otherwise"?

WoW, I never thought I would see the day someone would stand up to the badges. I think you must be new here, so I will attempt to explain. Rules Marshalls are our Living FAQ of sorts. They have the authority to give clarifications and erratas on rule questions and problems.

I understand that this is something very new to people that come from other game systems so hopefully someone can prove this to you.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------

The OP's question was whether giving the Dreamer reactivate also gives it to Chompy. The other question that seems to have taken over the thread comes from a different poster.

I didn't delete that fast enough I see. Sorry Just woke up and before I realized what I wrote I had posted it >.<

It seems that I am not allowed to post until I have had my coffee....

Also that was towards WingerWanger who had ninja-ed the thread.

[Adran]

The Rules Marshalls are not just High Ranking members of the community, they are the people in charge of the rules of the game. They are the people who write the Errata and answer the FAQ. As such, if they write a definative answer that is the rule. They have been consolidating these into FAQ and Errata where required now, but that wasn't always the way.

I understand your reading of the rule, and can see why you read it that way, but it is not correct.

In the example The dreamer burys. Lord Chompybit unburys.

At the end of the Dreamers activation Lord Chompybit must activate.

But Lord Chompybit has already activated. He hasn't recieved permission to activate a second time this turn, so he can't activate.

Its as simple as that. Immedeatly activates does not come with permission to activate a second or third time in a turn.

A model that immedeatly activates becomes the next model in the activation chain.

Check page 31 of the rules manual which tells you what activates immedeatly does.

Just because there is a way of interpreting the english to mean one thing, the rules tell us something else (and the english still isn't wrong. Isn't it a funny language)

[WingerWanger]

The OP was:

If Kirai gives the dreamer reactivate in a brawl does that also give LCB another activation as well? I've been searching around all morning and haven't found an answer, thanks in advance.

Not:

(Does)...giving the Dreamer reactivate also gives it to Chompy.

I have read in to the OP that The Dreamer gains reactivate and then LCB is "brought into play".

I have argued that although it leads to absurd results, the Rules are clear that LCB would gain another activation in the OP scenario. The most compelling counter argument is that there is an faq post and a thread post from a Rules Marshall that say otherwise.

The alleged "ninja" is a request for clarification on edicts declared by Rules Marshals. This is relevant because if the word of a rules marshal is nota proper "Rule", then LCB still technically activates (pursuant to the current iteration of the rules) in the OP scenario. Unless, of course, the players have already agreed to adopt alternative rules.

Edited September 5, 2012 by WingerWanger
Grammar and last paragraph