Does the Graveyard Spirit effectively have Armor +2

[egoon]

The graveyard spirit gives Armor +2 to all friendly models in b2b with it.

My question is: Is a model considered to be in base contact with itself?

I can't find a specific ruling in the rulebook, and we had a minor disagreement about it last night.

[Barnaberible]

I've never considered it to have armour 2 as I dont see how it can be in base contact with itself, although I dont have my rulebook with me so have no way of proving this, its just how Ive always played it.

[Ausplosions]

I would say no.

[Omenbringer]

Though I would also agree that it shouldn't, I dont think it is very well defined as the ability is essentially a very small aura effect without the symbol and the model generating an aura is considered within the effect (page 50). Probably a good one for a FAQ.

[Mike3838]

In my opinion: "to be in base contact with" is something that requires two models.

I would say that I'm within an inch of myself (I'm zero inches from myself), but I can't be in contact with myself because that specifies the relative position of *two* objects.

[Omenbringer]

Though I agree that it shouldn't work, playing devils advocate here, can you be in LOS of yourself? The rules say a model is always considered within LOS of itself and the closet thing that can be referenced is the Aura effect (which the ability functions identically to despite the lack of the Symbol).

You also wouldn't think that you can discard a whole control hand of 0 cards to fuel an effect either and that has been ruled valid.

[Mike3838]

Of course I'm in line of sight of myself. I look down, and there I am!

[Justin]

You also wouldn't think that you can discard a whole control hand of 0 cards to fuel an effect either and that has been ruled valid.

Note here because there seems to be a lot of inferring about unrelated things: Tara's discard is not a cost, it is an effect.

[Mike3838]

The size of a control hand you can discard can be zero, because size is a measurement which is numeric and zero is a number.

To get in Base to Base require two bases, purely by the name itself

[Clement]

Though I agree that it shouldn't work, playing devils advocate here, can you be in LOS of yourself? The rules say a model is always considered within LOS of itself and the closet thing that can be referenced is the Aura effect (which the ability functions identically to despite the lack of the Symbol).

You also wouldn't think that you can discard a whole control hand of 0 cards to fuel an effect either and that has been ruled valid.

To be your super devil though, we cannot assume it works identically to an aura because of this exact scenario. And also if they meant for it to be an aura they could have just labeled it as such.

Isn't base to base actually specifically explained somewhere?

[Omenbringer]

To be your super devil though, we cannot assume it works identically to an aura because of this exact scenario. And also if they meant for it to be an aura they could have just labeled it as such.

Lots of things like this slip thru the cracks. Aside from the symbol the ability functions exactly like an aura with a range of 0. It is centered on the grave spirit, it radiates out in all directions from the grave spirit and it moves with the grave spirit.

Isn't base to base actually specifically explained somewhere?

I couldn't find it in the book or I would have referenced it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Ausplosions]

Note here because there seems to be a lot of inferring about unrelated things: Tara's discard is not a cost, it is an effect.

Indeed, otherwise the wording would be reversed.

---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

Lots of things like this slip thru the cracks. Aside from the symbol the ability functions exactly like an aura with a range of 0. It is centered on the grave spirit, it radiates out in all directions from the grave spirit and it moves with the grave spirit.

You're making some fairly tenuous links here.

A model is not in base contact with itself.

[Omenbringer]

Note here because there seems to be a lot of inferring about unrelated things: Tara's discard is not a cost, it is an effect.

Not that it matters but I still disagree that it isn't a cost of the effect just like having to include an enemy model would be. Semantics aside it no longer matters as it has been officially ruled on and is now doctrine.

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

You're making some fairly tenuous links here.

I have also stated that it shouldn't work that way and is one that probably needs a FAQ to prevent misunderstandings in the future since the book isn't providing clear guidance one way or the other and never says;

A model is not in base contact with itself.

Currently it is nothing more than your assertion.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Omenbringer

[Ausplosions]

If it was a cost it would say "Discards, then do this", not "Do this, then discard".

Regardless, even if it is a cost, sometimes things cost zero.

Please though, do explain how something can be in base to base contact with one base?

[Omenbringer]

Easy, the models base would always be in base contact with itself since it can't not be in base contact with itself.

Again I dont really care either way (though dont think it should include the grave spirit which is plenty durable with out it) however definitely think it warrants a clear decision one way or the other. If the issue was simple Justin would have passed a ruling when he commented rather than just dropping a blurb about the Tara ruling.

This was something that was also a bit of an issue in 1/1.5 and I dont recall it ever being definitively clarified one way or another.

At any rate I will sit this one out from hence forth before the personal attacks begin.

[Rhonlore]

I don't believe a model is capable in being of base contact with itself.

A base doesn't touch itself, it is merely a base.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Rhonlore

[Joel]

Being in base-to-base contact requires 2 bases. The grave spirit only has 1. QED

[mpangelu]

Easy, the models base would always be in base contact with itself since it can't not be in base contact with itself.

Again I dont really care either way (though dont think it should include the grave spirit which is plenty durable with out it) however definitely think it warrants a clear decision one way or the other. If the issue was simple Justin would have passed a ruling when he commented rather than just dropping a blurb about the Tara ruling.

This was something that was also a bit of an issue in 1/1.5 and I dont recall it ever being definitively clarified one way or another.

At any rate I will sit this one out from hence forth before the personal attacks begin.

I offer no personal attack mere thoughts and responses.

As far as Justin goes, if you look at the rules clarification sticky of this forum, it is specifically stated that they are doing away with rules marshalls. Any postings of rules on this forum are merely opinion and speculation. Instead they will be moving to a living PDF document to be updated the first of every other month starting in November. So essentially every odd numbered month the PDF will be updated.

In regards to LOS and Base to Base. It is defined on page 40 that all models have LoS to themselves. It is also stated that all models are placed on a base. If the distinction is made, why not specify that models are always considered in base to base with themselves?

I understand the role of Devils advocate, and I understand what you are saying. But I believe that for something to be in "contact" with something it must be touching. As there is no extra base to be in contact with, I don't believe a model can be in contact with itself. Also it would be interesting that a pulse would also include the originator because it is touching it.

My thoughts on it.

[Omenbringer]

As far as Justin goes, if you look at the rules clarification sticky of this forum, it is specifically stated that they are doing away with rules marshalls. Any postings of rules on this forum are merely opinion and speculation.

The Tara thread certainly casts skepticism on that. The fact is when a Wyrd Offical (in this case Justin) weighs in it is going to be viewed as an "Official" Ruling.

Instead they will be moving to a living PDF document to be updated the first of every other month starting in November.

Which is why I suggested it would make a good initial FAQ entry (keep in mind I didn't ask the question merely postulated how it is being interpreted as such).

for something to be in "contact" with something it must be touching. As there is no extra base to be in contact with, I don't believe a model can be in contact with itself.

First off this is an opinion (and one that is shared by others and to a large extent myself) however, holds no more merit than anyone other opinion (mine included). Second, the models base is always in contact with itself because it can't be otherwise. The base is part of what defines the models volume on the board. There is never a situation where a model could be considered not in contact with its own base.

Also it would be interesting that a pulse would also include the originator because it is touching it.

This is incorrect, a Pulse is a specifically defined rule and states in its description on page 51 of the M2E book that the originator is not included in the effect. Aura's (on page 50) on the other hand specifically state that the originator is included unless the ability states otherwise.

The main counter argument offered has been that everyone knows base to base requires two bases, obviously this isn't the case as the OP asked for clarification. In the absence of clarity everyone must make their own assumptions.

[mpangelu]

Would you not also offer that it is an opinion that a model is in base to base contact with itself? Unless specifically declared, would not both be opinions?

Justin's comments would be his own to remark on.

This, however was his quote and stands in line with exactly what has been stated about Tara.

First, and most importantly, there are not going to be any official rulings on the forums. We are moving away from the previous rules marshal system. If somebody official posts in this forum, it is not a ruling or an FAQ, it is simply their opinion.

I don't see the contradiction. His word may carry more weight in the regards of rules, but it was not an official ruling. We will see as of November 1st whether or not it is an official FAQ/Update.

But it seems that you are correct, and while you are stating everyone is making their own assumptions, until specifically clarified to meet the specific standards we won't know for sure.

However, I do fear the standard that this sets. Just because somethings won't be specifically defined, we will see the rules go back to the way they were, where everything has to be defined in infinite minutia. I'd rather give benefit to the doubt on some things, but at the same time I feel stretching to play the other side will not really gain much in the way of information and informative play. I feel instead it will only bog down things that really have little basis in concern.

As stated, this I suppose will be nothing more than my opinion.

[Omenbringer]

Would you not also offer that it is an opinion that a model is in base to base contact with itself? Unless specifically declared, would not both be opinions?

I have conceded several times in this thread that it is my opinion and of no more value than anyone else.

Justin's comments would be his own to remark on.

This, however was his quote and stands in line with exactly what has been stated about Tara.

I don't see the contradiction. His word may carry more weight in the regards of rules, but it was not an official ruling. We will see as of November 1st whether or not it is an official FAQ/Update.

Consider that all further debate stopped as soon as Justin weighed in because he is a known Wyrd Developer. Like it or not when he weighs in it is going to be taken as gospel. Until the FAQ/Errata/Clarification the community will be playing it exactly as he stated.

But it seems that you are correct, and while you are stating everyone is making their own assumptions, until specifically clarified to meet the specific standards we won't know for sure.

However, I do fear the standard that this sets. Just because somethings won't be specifically defined, we will see the rules go back to the way they were, where everything has to be defined in infinite minutia. I'd rather give benefit to the doubt on some things, but at the same time I feel stretching to play the other side will not really gain much in the way of information and informative play. I feel instead it will only bog down things that really have little basis in concern.

The issue is in the competitive environments where the minutia will cause severe headaches for organizers who have to make the decisions and also slow the events down. Though I have never really thought Malifaux fit these environments very well, there is a significant amount of the community that will play in these events. As for erratas/ faqs/ clarifications, all games end up with them it is inevitable, nothing is perfect at release or even long after. Also compared to many other popular game systems Malifaux 1/1.5 had significantly less rules and erratas/faqs/ model clarifications (hopefully M2E can follow suit). Lastly, some things do need to be spelled out to prevent the game from bogging down in actual play, especially where consistency is concerned. Rather than use an undefined descriptor for Strength from Below the simple addition of the symbol and a "this model is not included" (if it was not intended to benefit) would have provided all the clarity the OP needed to avoid the question.

Though it may seem like I am belaboring the point, often times it is these back and forth debates that fuel the improvement of the game. Again I dont really care how it ends up, I would just really rather avoid having the same questions arise due to lack of clarity (the old RAW vs RAI debates).

Hopefully in November there will be an answer.

[Morgan Vening]

Consider that all further debate stopped as soon as Justin weighed in because he is a known Wyrd Developer. Like it or not when he weighs in it is going to be taken as gospel. Until the FAQ/Errata/Clarification the community will be playing it exactly as he stated.

Well, debate stopped because Justin locked the thread immediately after making his "opinion" known. Hard to argue when that happens.

I can see stuff like this happening in the future, where Justin or Nathan or someone in a position to do so, gives their "opinion", and people arguing as to how official it is or isn't, due to the disclaimer.

Personally, I'd rather that those who are in a position to make rulings do so, formatting their response in a certain way (like I dunno, "Ruling - Q: Blah? A: Blah."), so it's easy on a bi-monthly basis to do a search for a string, so that the rulings can be extracted for a FAQ, without losing the ability to respond during that two month period without it being immediately up for debate as to validity. Because if an important question is missed by the FAQ collation, it could be over a quarter of a year before it's answered, and that's too long. Being able to insert with authority solves that.

Morgan Vening

[Iron Heel]

Personally, I'd rather that those who are in a position to make rulings do so, formatting their response in a certain way (like I dunno, "Ruling - Q: Blah? A: Blah."), so it's easy on a bi-monthly basis to do a search for a string, so that the rulings can be extracted for a FAQ, without losing the ability to respond during that two month period without it being immediately up for debate as to validity. Because if an important question is missed by the FAQ collation, it could be over a quarter of a year before it's answered, and that's too long. Being able to insert with authority solves that.

Morgan Vening

Back in Warmachine's infancy, "Swami" was their main rules clarifier on the forum. He'd post on stuff just as other forumites but would periodically weigh in on rules debates in his official capacity by marking the comments with..."Swami Says: (and the ruling)" It was very easy and clear.

Regarding this thread...

Is a model in contact with itself? A deep question better answered by a miniature psychologist perhaps.

My opinion: as others stated, "contact" in this game has to do with a relationship between two bases. The GS has merely one base so he is not in contact with himself.

Never the less, I agree that it could be in the next FAQ/rulings for clarity purposes.

[Kalkris]

Not to Rez but this is still relevant to my interests. Did we get an FAQ ruling on this matter? I can't find one offhand.

 

~Lil Kalki

[The Godlyness]

from the faq

 

Q: Can you define the terms “base contact” and “base to base contact”?
A: They both mean the same thing: “When the bases of two or more models are physically touching.”

 

2 or more models