Obey and soul stone usage

[hypoking]

So this came up tangentially in another thread, I feel it's interesting enough to merit it's own discussion. Can a model use soul stone while under an obey or similar effect? If so where does it spend the stone from?

Basic architecture of the game has both crew creating their own distinct pool from which to spend. Note that this is refereed to as a crew's pool, not a player's pool. Some model's have the ability to spend stones from their crew's pool to achieve certain ends, most commonly this is a henchman or a master's inherent skill set. Note again that the rules refer to models spending from their crew's pool not players spending from their reserve.

Obey effects, explicitly, do not change a model's crew affiliation. Unless stated otherwise they don't even change who is considered friendly or enemy. Is there a substantive argument that an obeyed model is going to swap connections to ss pools without first swapping allegiance?

So if a model with the ability to use soul stone comes under the control of an enemy model through whatever means, can the controlling model cause the controlled model to spend soul stones out of his own pool?

[mpangelu]

Obey states that the other model gets an action controlled by this models controller. So, if he does use a soulstone, it is now from your pool as you qualify as its controller.

The pool itself I think is more figurative.

I think the rules for "Who Flips?" at the bottom of page 30 would be a good indication on the way control works. Otherwise why not flip the "crews" deck?

You control the model, so your pool, your cards.

[hypoking]

The rules are not a place for figurative or metaphoric arguments. When you start trying for an entirely interpretive argument, the whole thing goes ploin shaped very quickly. So if the rules say something happens in a certain way you sort of have to assume they're saying what they want to say.

The rules for spending stones say little to anything about control mattering. They do say a model spends out of its crew's pool and they also state that obey effects do not change crew affiliation.

Counter point, what reason is there to assume a model can spend stones out of the opposing crew's pool during an obey when it is explicitly not a member of that crew?

Edited October 2, 2013 by hypoking

[Fetid Strumpet]

Because YOU as the controller is who is spending the stones. When you take control of an enemy model, the only way I could see you making a logical argument for being able to spend the opposing crews SS on actions is if you also used THEIR deck to make any flips your controlled model would need to make, and used THEIR hand to cheat anything desired. Control of the model changes, not affiliation, but the CONTROLLER is the one who spends the stones, and they can only spend from their own Cache.

[hypoking]

The flaw in that argument Fetid, is that according to the rules players don't spend stones to enhance duels. Model's do, and they spend from their crew's pool.

The deck thing is interesting but you'll note that players are associated with their individual decks in the text. The rules give ownership of a specific stack cards to a player, the same can't be said for the soul stone pool. Models and pools unlike decks, are associated with crews.

[Jonasty]

In this particular case I personally would agree that the stones are from your own pool and not your opponents simply because you're obeying their model. We've already got a very clear idea of the cards usage during this time so I think it's pretty clear what the designers intended. I agree that there are certainly instances of RAW vs RAI being foggy and there being legitimate concerns but I'm not sure this would really fall into that category.

Usually when you see this type of discussion there are concerns of game balance or clarity but the overall game experience isn't really affected outside of a tournament or "official" setting. With the potential that you could arbitrarily bleed off your opponent's SS pool, I think that would clearly create an NPE regardless of setting or opponent which is why it's clear how it was designed to function.

Before anyone hops on me about it, to be clear I understand completely the RAW/RAI mentality and discussion points, at times they are helpful for clarifying issues. I'm just saying here that there are certain clear examples where it's not a 50/50 split in the discussion. In this case, IMO, we're talking 95/5 for RAI/RAW for this example.

[mpangelu]

Each player will be leading a crew. Each player will purchase a crew of models using their soulstones. Soulstones can also be added to the leaders cache to form the soulstone pool.

Enhance a duel: Some models can spend soulstones from the crews soulstone pool to increase their chance at success.

If you are controlling the model it is the players pool, and the players crew.

Its probably as explicit as it is gonna get. And the only figurative thing I meant was the "pool" of soulstones aspect.

[hypoking]

Each player will be leading a crew. Each player will purchase a crew of models using their soulstones. Soulstones can also be added to the leaders cache to form the soulstone pool.

Thank you. This is kinda my point. The rules draw a distinction between the big chunk of stones that the player has to build his crew out of and the pool available for expenditure during the game. The big grubby chunk you get to build your army out of is not the same as your pool. The big chunk falls under explicit player control, the pool follows much more nebulous rules.

[mpangelu]

Thank you. This is kinda my point. The rules draw a distinction between the big chunk of stones that the player has to build his crew out of and the pool available for expenditure during the game. The big grubby chunk you get to build your army out of is not the same as your pool. The big chunk falls under explicit player control, the pool follows much more nebulous rules.

By that same logic, then henchmen who are in with a leader/models with use soulstone ability shouldn't be able to use if it is specifically belonging to the "leader".

Each crew will have a soulstone pool from which it can access soulstones for use during the game. The crews leader will have a soulstone cache value; this is the number of soulstones that are in the soulstone pool at the beginning of the game. Only the leaders cache influences the pool. The cache of non-leaders model is ignored. The crew may increase the soulstone pool, at a cost of one soulstone per point of increase, to a maximum of soulstone pool of seven.

The crew is controlled by the player, when you control the model, it has access to the players crews pool. It isn't specifically the leaders.

[hypoking]

No, not realy. The crew's pool gets created using the cache value of the leader but it's no tethered to the leader at the hip. That's even in the quote your using. Not sure about your reasoning here.

[mpangelu]

No, not realy. The crew's pool gets created using the cache value of the leader but it's no tethered to the leader at the hip. That's even in the quote your using. Not sure about your reasoning here.

Most of what I said was quoted from the book.

The crew belongs to the player. The pool is started by the leader, the quote also has that the "Crews" will have a soulstone pool from during the game. Not the leader has access to. I think my reasoning is pretty good.

[Dracomax]

By that same logic, then henchmen who are in with a leader/models with use soulstone ability shouldn't be able to use if it is specifically belonging to the "leader".

Each crew will have a soulstone pool from which it can access soulstones for use during the game. The crews leader will have a soulstone cache value; this is the number of soulstones that are in the soulstone pool at the beginning of the game. Only the leaders cache influences the pool. The cache of non-leaders model is ignored. The crew may increase the soulstone pool, at a cost of one soulstone per point of increase, to a maximum of soulstone pool of seven.

The crew is controlled by the player, when you control the model, it has access to the players crews pool. It isn't specifically the leaders.

Actually, I think the real issue is the bolded line. It doesn't follow. because obey specifically does not change the crew being specified, even though it changes control, and because the soulstone crew belongs to the crew, and not the player, I can see the justification in saying that an obeyed model uses the original crew's pool.

I think it's fairly obvious it wasn't intended, but there is definitely justification for reading it that way.

[hypoking]

I'm aware of your source material. I just don't think the quote facilitates your argument in quite the way you seem to think it does.

Edit: Unspoken intent and buck will buy you a can of green tea. If you have to consult the oracles to find out how a seemingly clearly worded rule actually works what's the point of having rules in the first place?

Edited October 2, 2013 by hypoking

[Rhonlore]

Some models reference a model discarding or cheating a card. Does that also mean that they have control of the hand or the deck?

I don't think this is a positive thing to debate. The intention is clear for this, and the negative repercussions of Obeying models being able to bleed off their opponents Soulstone pool will drastically and negatively effect the enjoyment of the game.

Do you really want your games to be Obey model vs Obey model seeing who can pin down a Henchman or Master first? Silly, silly, silly.

[hypoking]

I want the rules to work the way the say they work. I may be asking too much with that, but it's my request and I'm sticking to it.

[mpangelu]

I'm aware of your source material. I just don't think the quote facilitates your argument in quite the way you seem to think it does.

Edit: Unspoken intent and buck will buy you a can of green tea. If you have to consult the oracles to find out how a seemingly clearly worded rule actually works what's the point of having rules in the first place?

I believe it does for me. I feel that going further is a bit of a stretch. There are rules with ambiguity, and there are rules that are plain but to those who want to nitpick.

I understand the following are hyperbolas, but still:

Cheat fate, the model cheats fate? The model picks a card from its control hand. The model has no control hand, the model is not able to cheat as it is an inanimate object and incapable of choice? These are some similar logic and thinking that pushed me away from games like 40k where people would rules lawyer down such innate and silly things to gain some edge. I don't feel that you are intending to do so hypoking, but more just a petition for more clearly worded things.

In the end, we could have a manual the size of the bible with every little detail explicitly detailed, and all possible interactions composed and written. I'd prefer to have some leeway and constructive flavor to my rules. There are some issues that do need to be worded more clearly, and some that I think we could all agree on meaning. There are some things, its just a stretch, and a bad one at that.

[zFiend]

I want the rules to work the way the say they work. I may be asking too much with that, but it's my request and I'm sticking to it.

I think there has been quite a lot of argument over the rules already and most haven't even gotten the rulebook yet. They should be clear.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------

Also I think that people are just understanding the rules differently and want clarification as they might be misunderstood. It doesn't mean that people are nitpicking.

[CRC]

Clear rules are impossible in an ambiguous language.

M:tG only has clear rules because they explicitly define the meaning of almost all the words they use. Similarly law and programming both are written in things that are similar to, but not exactly like, normal language.

If you want to write rules in English, there's always going to be things that are unclear.

As I was reading through the rules, I did notice their use of "the crew's soulstones", and "the model's control hand", and so on. Neither construct made any sense to me from a strict point of view, but I didn't think it was going to cause any harm.

Apparently I was wrong...

[solkan]

Paging through the book looking for examples, here's one:

When this model declares an action, it may discard a card from its hand to add the suit of the discard card to the Action's final duel total.

Model's don't have hands. Which means that the rules are either complete nonsense, or that they're written in a formalized manner where jargon must be used to make sense of them.

Asking that the rules are consistent is reasonable (so that a model discarding a card means the same each time you see it), expecting that there's no jargon or bizarre phrasing isn't.

For example, clearly "its hand" has to mean the hand of cards of one of the players in the game. Which one? Probably the one controlling it.

This model may discard a card to remove one Condition from this model.

So we have multiple instances of models discarding cards, even though models don't have hands of cards. So we should expect that "discard a card" is going to be consistent for both abilities.

Obey says:

Target non-Leader model immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation.

My little copy of the previous edition was very explicit on this matter:

When the rules allow a player or model he controls to use a Soulstone, that player discards one Soulstone from his or her Soulstone Pool and resolves the effect.

Can you come up with a convincing argument why that would no longer be the intent?

Edited October 2, 2013 by solkan

[mpangelu]

My little copy of the previous edition was very explicit on this matter:

When the rules allow a player or model he controls to use a Soulstone, that player discards one Soulstone from his or her Soulstone Pool and resolves the effect.

Can you come up with a convincing argument why that would no longer be the intent?

I can actually. 2 different editions, and intent isn't rules. I'd agree with hypoking in that nature. Though I'm on your side, I've played many games where rules change and intent is one of the things that sometimes changes with it.

[Dracomax]

Personally, I see where Hypoking is coming from. I will agree that it could be read that way, and if you take a strict structural reading of the rules in question it probably should be read that way. I believe it goes against both the RAI and the gestalt of the other rules, though.

Every other effect that results in your enemy losing a soulstone give them the option to do so. The entire point of SS is that you bring your own to make your crew better. Allowing obey to let you use one of your opponents SS to hurt them more is both contradictory to the general direction of Soulstone use without anything explicit in the ability, and to the entire purpose of Soulstones. While it is possible it was intended as a way to make Obey the SS killer ability, it seems strange that it require very little resource comparatively from the active model, does less SS removal than every other ability designed to do so, and also serves more to make model spam desirable than anything else(already an acknowledged, if minor, problem with the edition).

I think it should have a quick FAQ or errata line. Even if it is just a quick general errata to the effect that "players can never spend soulstones out of any pool but their own" to shut this and any other wierd gestalt issues(as opposed to specific rules) down for good. I don't think discussion is going to change anyone's mind at this point.