Lilith vs. Silurids LoS Question

[E.T.A. Hoffman]

Hi all,

So Silurids have the Silent trait: Models cannot ignore LoS or cover when targeting this model.

Lilith has Master of Malifaux: This model... ...and does not need LoS to target models with Charge or Ca Actions.

So, who's rule do we use when Lilith tries to Ca on a Silurid when she cannot see him? The wordy is not 100% consistent. Silurids says models may not 'ignore' LoS, while Lilith says she doesn't need it. It's arguable both ways here. I think Silent is more specific but I need a real ruling.

What yall think?

[dgraz]

I vote Silent is more specific. 'can not'

[rancor709]

I would agree Dgraz but there is no formal definition within the rules of more specific therefore we have no answer other than then fighting to the death for lack of a specific definition.

[Eyefink]

I don't know that Silent is worded "more specific" than Master of Malifaux, but it would make absolutely no sense for Silent to exist if it didn't trump abilities or traits that allowed models to ignore LOS in the first place.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Eyefink

[dgraz]

I do agree that there is room for debate. But I agree with Eyefink.

[The Godlyness]

Swear i read some where "cannot" trumps "can" but i can find it. But I also believe slurids trump lilith.

Now Sonnia to me a flaming slurid should not be silent but as it stands trumps her too.

[Hateful Darkblack]

The "cannot" versus "can" was v1.5. But I believe the principle still applies here.

Silent doesn't do anything except cancel other abilities. If those other abilities actually override Silent, then Silent doesn't do anything.

[Hotpants]

Lillith does not ignore los. Her card says she does not need line of sight. No where in master of malifaux does the word ignore come into play. Silurid specifically mentions ignore.

[Sevorin]

Good catch, Hotpants. I tend to agree.

[baskinders]

Don't the words "you don't need a prerequisite" and "you may ignore a prerequisite" mean the same thing? And given that the word "ignore" is not a defined term in the game like "attack", we're just talking plain language that means the same thing.

So Lilith does actually need LoS against Silent models because she can't ignore LoS...

Austringers are worded the same btw (don't need LoS) but they would against Silent models.

[Sharp_GT]

This same question came up several months ago. Lilith wins as she never needs LOS in the first place, Silurids simply prevent models from ignoring LOS ala Sonia's ability.

[The Godlyness]

Austringers are worded the same btw (don't need LoS) but they would against Silent models.

I find this funny because in 1.5 Austringers got versus them and gremlins lol.

[baskinders]

This same question came up several months ago. Lilith wins as she never needs LOS in the first place, Silurids simply prevent models from ignoring LOS ala Sonia's ability.

Was that the official word? Because that doesn't really make sense to me?

All models need LoS to target according to the rules. Lilith has an ability that says she doesn't need LoS, breaking this rule (or ignoring the rule, whatever you like). Silurid have an ability to stop other abilities ignoring this rule. That seems pretty clear cut to me, what's the argument for otherwise?

[Ryoken]

I think the argument for for otherwise lies in the fact that the word "ignore" is in certain abilities. Sonnia, Sam Hopkins, Austringers, and the Freikorps Specialist all have this word either as part of an ability or an attack. I think Jug Rocket also says this, along with a few other things here and there.

Since Lilith does not have the word "ignore" in her ability, it can be argued that she is exempt from the exact letter of the rule. It also may be worded like this so Lilith can use the Silirud for the "Tangle Shadows" action, allowing her to have some synergy outside of the Nephilim.

I cannot say that I am right or not, but it is an argument for otherwise.

[baskinders]

Fair enough.

So it boils down to whether the word Ignore is a defined game term that needs to be referenced, or if it's a common language use of the word in which case it's the effect that matters rather than the word of the law (which is what I think)

I've not noticed the word Ignore being a definitive game term like Attack, Ability, Opposed etc? Could be wrong?

[Hateful Darkblack]

So, for Silent to work it would need to use that exact wording then?

"Models cannot ignore or not need LoS or cover when targeting this model."

That seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure that any attack that "doesn't need" LoS is also "ignoring" LoS, even if it uses slightly different phrasing.

[Joel]

I've been playing this as "silurid wins" and that silent counters the ability. As a Lilith player myself it seemed the most logical and appropriate interpretation of the interaction of the two abilities.

personal view, of course.

[Csonti]

It seems we have a FAQ-candidate, although I would like that to be a broader explanation about "more specific". The rule got some flak during Wave1 beta because it is vague and forces players to debate on linguistic interpretation. Exactly the thing we have here...

I wish we would have the good old can't trumps can rule in M2E.

[Mastershake]

It seems we have a FAQ-candidate, although I would like that to be a broader explanation about "more specific". The rule got some flak during Wave1 beta because it is vague and forces players to debate on linguistic interpretation. Exactly the thing we have here...

I wish we would have the good old can't trumps can rule in M2E.

Can't does trump Can, but in order for that to be the case, both abilities must use the same language. Silent says you cannot ignore LoS, Lilith does not require it. If Lilith "ignored" LoS then she'd be stopped by Silent, but she can't cannot ignore a requirement she never needed in the first place.

If the language is unintentional, the devs should Errata it. As it currently stands "Does not need" trumps "cannot ignore".

[vonevilstein]

It does seem somewhat rules lawyer-y to distinguish between the use of the need and ignore, but I guess until a faq is issued there is no way to tell what the actual intention is, so RAI isn't relevant here.

I also play Lilith and I have to say that personally I'd rule in the Silurids favour, purely on the basis that loads of people play Lilith so the poor bugger will keep getting spotted...

[sharpobjects]

Just to add another example, Austringers (1) Raptor states this Action does not require LoS to the target and ignores cover. So besides Lilith's wording of "Does Not Need LoS" we also have "Does Not Require". The sentence in the Raptor wording used ignore for cover so it could have also just as easily been worded this Action ignores LoS and Cover which would then have been trumped by the Silurids ability.

As pointed out in a few previous posts there are several models that use the wording "ignores LoS" which would be trumped by the Siliurds ability. There must be a reason why Lilith's and the Austringers were purposely worded slightly different and not just for the sake of using different words in the english language to compose a sentence. The reason may in fact be that these two models abilities were meant not to be trumped by things like the Silurids ability.

[Eyefink]

The language argument does make a lot of sense. Lilith really doesn't ignore LOS, she just doesn't need it. I suppose if Silent was meant to apply to something like Master of Malifaux, it would read "models always need," instead of saying "may not ignore."

[baskinders]

Just to add another example, Austringers (1) Raptor states this Action does not require LoS to the target and ignores cover. So besides Lilith's wording of "Does Not Need LoS" we also have "Does Not Require". The sentence in the Raptor wording used ignore for cover so it could have also just as easily been worded this Action ignores LoS and Cover which would then have been trumped by the Silurids ability.

As pointed out in a few previous posts there are several models that use the wording "ignores LoS" which would be trumped by the Siliurds ability. There must be a reason why Lilith's and the Austringers were purposely worded slightly different and not just for the sake of using different words in the english language to compose a sentence. The reason may in fact be that these two models abilities were meant not to be trumped by things like the Silurids ability.

I'd bet you the reason they're worded slightly differently but mean the same thing is that different people wrote the cards. Justin even mentioned during the beta that he could tell who had wrote which card based on the language and phrasing used.

Unless we're talking about a defined game term, there is absolutely no need for two rules to contain the exact same words. As long as they both are talking about the same thing then they're compatible.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I'd bet you the reason they're worded slightly differently but mean the same thing is that different people wrote the cards. Justin even mentioned during the beta that he could tell who had wrote which card based on the language and phrasing used.

Unless we're talking about a defined game term, there is absolutely no need for two rules to contain the exact same words. As long as they both are talking about the same thing then they're compatible.

That's bad game design though. If you mean two powers to work the same, word them the same, there's no reason not to. And there's ample reason to do it consistently, since it means you can use terms like ignore or move and have no one wonder what you meant.

[dgraz]

I think Csonti is right........this needs FAQ, or an errata. Even though I side (at this point) with the Silurid winning this, we don't know the dev's intentions. Lilith, as 'Master of Malifaux' may just instinctively know where anything around her is......she can sense their energy, the way they disrupt the flow of magic around them.....whatever. It could be a fluff thing that the devs have in mind, but hasn't been really spelled out anywhere in the fluff. There is no way for us to know without official word.

[Sharp_GT]

Unless we're talking about a defined game term, there is absolutely no need for two rules to contain the exact same words. As long as they both are talking about the same thing then they're compatible.

Actually there is very much a need for the rules to contain the exact same thing. There is a reason that rules are written a certain way: because if they were written differently they would mean something different.

Consider the vast differences between triggers that occur "after succeeding", "after damaging", or "after resolving". More often than not these all will have the same end result but they were worded differently because they are meant to (and indeed do) function differently.

If two different abilities are worded differently then they function differently; it is not 'close enough' if two things are functionally similar, they still do not mean the same thing.

Indeed Dgraz, this probably needs a FAQ entry since this has now come up twice in these forums.