PDA

View Full Version : Curiously Counterintuitive?



quindraco
01-08-2011, 10:47 PM
It is the consensus over on the Khador boards that epic Sorscha can use her bond on Beast 09, and allocate 4 focus to him. Here are the facts:

Epic Sorcha has a rule that looks like this:
Warjack Bond: One non-character warjack in Sorscha's battlegroup begins the game bonded to her. [[Insert specific benefits of this bond.]]

Beast 09 is a character warjack. He has this rule:
Affinity [Sorscha]: [[Insert specific benefits of this affinity.]]

Page 82 of Prime says this:
A character warjack with an affinity can be bonded to that warcaster (see Appendix B).

Appendix B lists specific bonding benefits, *different* from epic Sorscha's listed bond. It also stresses that bonding is optional, and best suited to campaign or league play, although if both players consent, you can begin the game with bonded warjacks. One of these benefits is 4 focus allocation.

Page 26 of Prime says this:
Special rules stating that something cannot happen override rules stating that the same thing can or must occur.

As far as I can tell:
*The rule on page 82 allowing bonds to jacks with affinity is referring to the bonds in Appendix B, NOT to special bonds from other sources. This is doubly relevant, as it applies to both of my questions.
*The rule on page 26 means that eSorscha's rule saying she cannot bond to a character jack overrides the rule on 82 anyway.

Additionally, I asked a Privateer Press press ganger about this, and he concurred that Beast 09 can't be Sorscha-bonded. I didn't bring up the 4-focus issue.

I'm asking here because I'd like to understand the rule, and this is the rules forum! Could someone please explain if/why my understanding is flawed?
A) Why does a rule apparently about Appendix B bonds apply to caster card bonds, and B) Why doesn't a caster's negative rule override another positive rule, when neither specifically mentions the other?

Cloud-Gatherer
01-08-2011, 11:00 PM
A)There is no reason to assume that rule only applies to Appendix B bonds. The premise of your question is flawed.

B) The rule doesn't say "This model cannot bond a character jack." It simply sets a requirement (non-character) which is then overridden by the Affinity rule. The "cannot trumps must" principle specifically refers to when the rules specifically say you cannot do something.

TheUnknownMercenary
01-08-2011, 11:00 PM
Beast 09 can be bonded to Epic Sorscha by her Warjack Bond on her card and this is because of Beast 09's Affinity with Sorscha.
Beast 09 when bonded will be able to be allocated 4 focus because it is bonded to Sorscha.
The only thing you do not do is roll for a random bond ability because the card is the special bond ability.

DustyKB
01-08-2011, 11:09 PM
The rule you mentioned says "cannot" with the example of a model being knocked down. If a model cannot be knocked down then it isn't knocked down when an effect would knock it down.

The cards don't specifically state that Beast 09 cannot be bonded to her. It just states that a non-character warjack is eligible to be bonded. I think the argument in favor of bonding Beast 09 with that special bond is that the wording of the Affinity rule allows the character jack to become the target of a bond. Can would overrule the normal options in this case because there is no cannot.

Obviously if that was the case it would just be a rule clarification issue, as you're right about the table of bonds that can be issued. The special bond isn't anywhere on that list if I remember correctly. The table itself doesn't really come into play in this scenario because it doesn't change whether or not a character jack can receive a bond, which it can as long as it has an affinity. ( and the bond is to the warcaster with which it has the affinity )

Also if memory serves, all bonded jacks can receive one additional focus (4) per turn. I might be thinking of Mk1 or I might just be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

quindraco
01-08-2011, 11:22 PM
I greatly appreciate the response. The issue appears to be with my interpretation, but even after that is fixed, I remain confused. I have two more questions which arise from the perspective advocated by the thread posters. Also, I misquoted the page, the rule about negatives is on page 29. I apologise.

1) The belief that, quite simply, the rules in Appendix B apply to all bonds, is pretty problematic. On what basis is it believed that eSorscha's bond grants some benefits beyond what it explicitly states it grants, but not other benefits? The sentence typically cited to justify giving her 4 focus is followed by a filler sentence and then a sentence clearly asserting that when a bond is established you must roll dice and consult a table, which is not done for her bond. Why does one rule apply to her bond but not the other?

2) Focusing on her rule as positive instead of negative, as has been suggested, still leads to a problem. Page 29 says that rules directing or describing circumstances are treated as if they used 'must'. That seems to be the case here, so surely Sorscha's rule can be read as 'one non-character warjack in Sorscha's battlegroup MUST begin the game bonded to her'. If Beast 09 and a Kodiak are both in her battlegroup, and Beast takes the bond, then Sorscha could have obeyed the rule, but did not. Where is there a negative rule overriding her positive one? [Note: While I think her rule is negative about characters, I also see how you could interpret it this way, as positive about non-characters. I don't see any way to interpret it as positive about characters.]

EDIT: Also, the press ganger I mentioned in my original post sets the rules for all games played in my local game store. If I'm going to disagree with him, I need to be able to prove I'm right, so I really appreciate your help, everyone.

DustyKB
01-08-2011, 11:32 PM
I really wish I had the book beside me right now. If you check bonds though, I'm pretty sure it says that the additional focus allocation is universal to all bonded warjacks. That would include her card bond, since as the card states, the warjack begins the game bonded to her. Aside from that her card bond doesn't really give her anything special. Just like eMagnus has a bond for a Warjack that gives it Backstab, said jack also benefits from being bonded, and can be allocated 4 focus.

For the second argument I'm not entirely sure. It's hard to pick apart without looking at it to determine the "circumstances" of something that is essentially a pre-game modifier.

Cloud-Gatherer
01-08-2011, 11:38 PM
1) Warmachine: Prime - p.83, Epic Warcaster Bonding

"These bonds follow the rules given in Appendix B: Warjack Bonding (p. 246) except as noted here. Do not roll on the bond effect tables for these bonds."

p.246, Effects of Bonding

"A bonded warjack can be allocated up to 4 focus points."

The rest of that section on p. 246 is superseded by the rule on p. 83, but there is no reason the first part of the rule would not apply.

2) You are trying very hard to disallow Epic Sorscha bonding Beast-09, aren't you? I suppose it's possible you COULD read the rules in the way you're describing, but that's not how it works. Affinity allows you to ignore the non-character requirement for bonding with regard to that specific jack/caster combination. This is the way it has worked since Legends, when the Affinity rule first appeared.

TheUnknownMercenary
01-08-2011, 11:46 PM
Okay one last time for all you kiddies at home!
Epic Sorscha has a Warjack Bond.
Beast 09 has an Affinity with Sorscha.
Under Character Warjacks (pg 82):

Due to their experimental nature, character warjacks cannot typically bond unless a special rule specifically allows them to do so. (For details see Appendix B: Warjack Bonding on p. 246 and "Affinities" below)
Under Affinities (pg 82):

A character warjack with an affinity can be bonded to that warcaster (see Appendix B: Warjack Bonding)
Under Epic Warcaster Bonding (pg 83):

These bonds follow the rules given in Appendix B: Warjack Bonding (p.246) except as noted here. Do not roll on the bond effect tables for these bonds. Their effects are described in the epic warcaster's special rules.
Under Effects of Bonding (pg 246):

A bonded warjack can be allocated up to 4 focus points.
The second part of the effects of bonding tell you to roll random on the table but because you are using the Epic Warcaster Bond, you do not roll instead you get the bond effect from Epic Sorscha's card.

So to sum it all up again:

Beast 09 can be bonded to Epic Sorscha by her Warjack Bond on her card and this is because of Beast 09's Affinity with Sorscha.
Beast 09 when bonded will be able to be allocated 4 focus because it is bonded to Sorscha.
The only thing you do not do is roll for a random bond ability because the card is the special bond ability.

TheUnknownMercenary
01-08-2011, 11:50 PM
2) You are trying very hard to disallow Epic Sorscha bonding Beast-09, aren't you? I suppose it's possible you COULD read the rules in the way you're describing, but that's not how it works. Affinity allows you to ignore the non-character requirement for bonding with regard to that specific jack/caster combination. This is the way it has worked since Legends, when the Affinity rule first appeared.

Actually Cloud-Gatherer, it is his local press ganger that is not allowing the bond with Beast 09, not quindraco, though s/he does seem to be fighting us over it. Quindraco is asking to try and get the right answer to be able to take it to his/her press ganger, which I think we have done a sufficient job of telling him/her the right answer.

FearLord
01-09-2011, 01:20 AM
The specific reason that 1) works has already been described (The Epic Bonding rule tells you to use the Appendix B rules with specific exceptions)

The reason 2) works is that the Rule priority rules on p.29 have a clause that applies before Cannot trumps can - namely that "If one rule specifically states its interaction with another rule, follow it"

This applies here - not the "Cannot vs Can" rule because (as TheUnknownMercenary quoted above) both 'Epic Bond' and 'Affinity' refer to each other and how they interact.

quindraco
01-09-2011, 09:52 AM
I think you guys and/or gals have done a wonderful job, but hats off to Cloud-Gatherer. I was unaware of that rule on page 83, which is what ties it all together. It's the key I was missing.

I apologise if I came off as 'trying to fight you'. I really was trying to understand, which I felt was best done by presenting my understanding so you lot could point out the flaws (which worked, cos you did it).