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?

[Mastershake]

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

Actually it needs either a FAQ or and Errata.

If Master of Malifaux etc. is meant to defeat Silent, it needs a FAQ clarifying it was intentional. If they weren't meant to defeat Silent it needs an Errata changing the text of the ability.

Releasing a FAQ that says they don't defeat Silent sets the "because I said so" precedent where a rule interaction that by a strict reading works one way actually works a different way for no other reason than because a power from on high says it does which prompts a ton of other questions about similar abilities and interactions.

[E.T.A. Hoffman]

This is Me2, not 1.5. The aim was to reduce needless complexity. Therefore I do not think Wyrd intended to have a distinction between 'Does Not Require' and 'Ignore', it's too contrary to the design methodology. I think this is just a common language issue and inconsistency in the nomenclature.

The rules require a model to have LoS to use an Attack Action against it. Silurids have a rule that negates rules which remove the LoS restrictions. That's my view on it anyway. But, we could use a FAQ on diss.

[Sharp_GT]

If the game developers intended "does not require" and "ignore" to mean the same thing, they would have written them to say the same thing. Hell, just having everything say "ignore" would save a lot of space and a lot of ink, but they meant for Master of Malifaux and Raptor to function differently.

It actually adds complexity to the system if you now have to keep track of multiple things that are written differently but are treated the same. If you just have to keep track of things that are written as is, functioning exactly how they are written, you have a lot less to think about.

Saying that two different wordings function the same is, like mastershake said, forcing two different rules to work "just 'cus I say so".

[Justin]

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.

I'm quoting this post, because it's a good example, but am not directing this at you.

The terms "after succeeding," "after damaging," etc in regards to triggers are specifically spelled out in the book because they are game terms. We have a whole section devoted to them and the differences between them.

Ignore is not a game term. If it were, we would have defined it in the book, like we did with the trigger timing. As such, we are using the English language definition. And for that definition, in this context, it is analogous with "does not need."

To a certain extent, some of you have a point: it would be nice if the wording was more consistent. If we had unlimited deadlines and more man power, I'm sure we could have done a better job of combing the cards for this stuff. On the other hand, putting that limitation on also will make certain abilities totally illegible outside of the context of the game rules, making this game incredibly difficult to understand for beginners. Rules are written in the cleanest, easiest to understand way that still fits in the tiny space we are provided with. Sometimes, doing mental acrobatics to make sure they all sound the exact same either makes them too long to fit, or as stated above, totally nonsensical from an English language perspective (although not a game perspective). Given that choice, the English language wins, because it's what we speak.

This is hardly the only example in the rules, it's just the one the forums have latched onto for the moment. For example, a model which is inflicting damage usually "deals" damage. A model which is taking damage usually "suffers" damage. Ideally, these would have been the exact same term. But it would have lead to weird sentences like this:

"When another model is suffering damage, this model may discard a card to force the target to suffer 1 additional damage."

Compare this to:

"When another model is suffering damage, this model may discard a card to deal 1 additional damage."

You can see the economy of space there, if nothing else. And, before people pick this apart and start trying to show how they could have used the exact same wording while saving space AND making sense, keep in mind this is only one example. You would have to do that hundreds of times, no two the same, and screwing it up even slightly means nobody understands the rule.

In the Silurid vs. Lilith argument, I think everyone understands the rule. However, you are making guesses about the design intent. Ideally, it's the lesser of two evils.

If we said that "does not need LoS" is somehow different than "ignores LoS" then we have set a pretty terrible precedent that encourages a strict, lawyeresque reading of the rules that is simply incompatible with this game and, I would argue, incompatible with the limitations of the English language (particularly when the longest rules have to be capped at about 3 sentences). I do not want to force players to memorize a myriad of game terms where "Attack" is different than "attack" and "ignores" is different than "does not need."

The rules were not written to create a matrix of language codes that only make sense in the context of the game. When in doubt, assume that the rules were written to be understood in the context of the English language, and interpret them with a grain of common sense.

In summation: Lilith does need LoS when targeting a Silurid. This will be in the next FAQ.

[Justin]

I feel I should also note that I'm not trying to imply that this thread is full of rules lawyers with no common sense. I can completely understand how the rule is ambiguous, so it will be in the FAQ. I am just illustrating why I came to the ruling I did, and what the ramifications of a poor ruling on my part would mean.

I definitely never hold it against anyone for asking a question or throwing their own interpretation out there.

[Mack.Martin]

I, on the other hand, do hold grudges. I have a long list. It's on my desk. It's bound in leather and has the skull of a crow built into the binding.

I also wildly imply things like "all of you are very hard to buy shoes for."