Jump to content



Photo

Interaction of Lycanthropy with restrictive attack abilities(Knight/Chivalric Knight, etc)


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 zealot12

zealot12

    Member

  • Members
  • 742 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

If the Knight contracts Lycanthropy, does he attack other good characters when he encounters them, or not?

I'm guessing, he doesn't.



#2 The_Warlock

The_Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,733 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:09 PM

zealot12 said:

If the Knight contracts Lycanthropy, does he attack other good characters when he encounters them, or not?

I'm guessing, he doesn't.

Base Rulebook, pg. 15

Can vs. Cannot
In any instance where a card’s effect indicates that a character cannot perform an action or use an ability (such as casting a Spell or using an Object), the character cannot do so. In other words, the forbidding effects of cards override other abilities and effects.

I would say that the forbidding effect of Knight's ability overrides the imposition to attack other Characters, if they are of Good Alignment.



#3 Velhart

Velhart

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,210 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:19 PM

 If the Knight is a werewolf, and he land on a character when it is night, then he must attack the other character.

The Lycanthropy card overides the knight´s abilities. It´s a can vs cannot rule:)

 



#4 GrimGuvna

GrimGuvna

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:50 AM

Aye, Velhart is correct as usual.

Compare the text from the knights character card with the text on the Lycanthrope cards:

Knight

You may not attack other good characters when you encounter them, except on the Crown of Command space, where you must attack them as normal.

Lycanthrope

Whenever you land on a space with another character (except in the Inner Region), you must attack him instead of encountering the space.

The language is somewhat similar in both cases reagrding an absolute , in this case conditions where the knight must attack.  Using a sense of logic and spirit of the story, the Knight is quite capable of attacking good characters but because of his creed or code of honour he chooses not to hence the wording that he may not attack other good characters.

Now when the knight is a lycanthrope at night his code of honour and creed no longer apply as he is now compelled in a state of bloodlust and primal urge to attack another character regardless of alignment, hence the powerful must directive. This makes sense.

The same would apply to the chivalric knight.

Hope this helps.
 



#5 sanityismyvanity

sanityismyvanity

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:50 AM

To further muddy the waters here, I'm in agreement with Warlock on this ruling. The way I see it the Knight ability boils down to you cannot attack characters of Good alignment, whereas the Lycanthropy card says you can (and must) attack characters at night. Cannot trumps can in this case.

I can see where people would interpret the Lycanthropy card as being they cannot choose to not attack another character, but I struggle to find a justification where the Knight has any sort of can statement involved in attacking Good characters at all. Besides, "cannot choose to not" is a double negative and hence becomes a can statement .

As far as taking a roleplaying angle to the situation as GrimGuvna does, I would say this interpretation is similar to the Incredible Hulk. He is usually in a blind rage where he attacks everything and anything, but at times avoids attacking certain people despite his bloodlust as his intellect takes over a for a brief moment.



#6 zealot12

zealot12

    Member

  • Members
  • 742 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:27 AM

Thanks for the help, everyone!



#7 GrimGuvna

GrimGuvna

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:32 AM

sanityismyvanity said:

To further muddy the waters here, I'm in agreement with Warlock on this ruling. The way I see it the Knight ability boils down to you cannot attack characters of Good alignment, whereas the Lycanthropy card says you can (and must) attack characters at night. Cannot trumps can in this case.

I can see where people would interpret the Lycanthropy card as being they cannot choose to not attack another character, but I struggle to find a justification where the Knight has any sort of can statement involved in attacking Good characters at all. Besides, "cannot choose to not" is a double negative and hence becomes a can statement .

As far as taking a roleplaying angle to the situation as GrimGuvna does, I would say this interpretation is similar to the Incredible Hulk. He is usually in a blind rage where he attacks everything and anything, but at times avoids attacking certain people despite his bloodlust as his intellect takes over a for a brief moment.

A compelling and interesting theory if  complex but I had my omega 3 today and get what you are saying.

But i'll throw a couple more ideas onto the table.

Cannot vs Can is the general rule but the Lycanthrope card isnt a can it is a must.  Can is indicative of an optional or potential course of action whereas must is a compulsive focused course of direction.

Lycanthropy is a curse and seems to overide a chracters capability of using their special abilities concerning other characters.  A character must attack another character at night, to reiterate, that is attack, not use any special abilities.  For example the sorceress could not use beguile or the theif steal, because they have to attack.  Therefore it seems acceptable that the knights choice to not attack good characters becomes replaced by the directive to attack.  Else it's not much of a curse if it could be so easily controlled.  And it is a curse, as you may well be weaker than the character you have to attack (though with a +2 that may be rare unless they too are a lycanthrope) or the other character could roll a 6 on the chart and reap rewards..  I would also argue that the assassin could not assassinate under this theory as his innate character capabilities are warped by the compulsion to attack in a brutal savage fashion.  Again this would be seen as a curse by the assassin as opposed to a boon which is how it should be.

nice concept regarding the hulk, but the Hulk is a unique individual that doesnt fit into any commonly accepted stereotype of cliche whereas the Talisman world uses common fantasy themes and cliches which adds to it's strength and legacy.  It's safe to assume that the werewolf can be sterotyped into a bloodthirsty savage emotionless hunter that relentlessly stalks his prey.

The other viewpoint is not without merit but feels a little odd concerning the "nature of the Beast" 

I would love to see this clarified in the FAQ

 



#8 The_Warlock

The_Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,733 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

A Good Character that encounters Mephistopheles must change his/her Alignment to Evil. The Knight cannot do so, because there's a special ability that forbids changing his Alignment.

A Lycanthrope Character that lands on a Good Character at Night must attack him/her. The Knight with Lycanthropy cannot do so, because there's a special ability that forbids attacking Good Characters.

 

What's the difference between the first and the second statement?

Should we compare words like may, can, must, shall, should, might, and decide which one trumps the other, according to the English grammar? This may (or should) be necessary if the Rules hadn't already stated that forbidding effects prevail over other effects and abilities.



#9 GrimGuvna

GrimGuvna

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

Should we compare words like may, can, must, shall, should, might, and decide which one trumps the other, according to the English grammar? This may (or should) be necessary if the Rules hadn't already stated that forbidding effects prevail over other effects and abilities.

I agree with that and being a tryannical self confessed rules lawyer I would see it the same way, however……..

You may not attack other good characters when you encounter them, except on the Crown of Command space, >>>where you must attack them as normal. <<<<   (from the Knights character card)

The very concept falls flat when the all powerful Cannot superiority is trumped by a MUST command in the very sentence conferring the limitation.  By this logic it seems perfectly correct to believe that this limitation can also be trumped by the MUST command from the lycanthropy card which means that the Knight would have to attack. which also makes sense from a story perspective.

In effect I have more reasons to believe that the Knights limitation is overcome rather than the other way round.

I would be interested to read what other players think,  it's a rare grey area in this edition.
 



#10 sanityismyvanity

sanityismyvanity

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:27 AM

GrimGuvna said:

You may not attack other good characters when you encounter them, except on the Crown of Command space, >>>where you must attack them as normal. <<<<   (from the Knights character card)

The very concept falls flat when the all powerful Cannot superiority is trumped by a MUST command in the very sentence conferring the limitation.  By this logic it seems perfectly correct to believe that this limitation can also be trumped by the MUST command from the lycanthropy card which means that the Knight would have to attack. which also makes sense from a story perspective.

In effect I have more reasons to believe that the Knights limitation is overcome rather than the other way round.

I would be interested to read what other players think,  it's a rare grey area in this edition.
 

First and foremost, I see where you are coming from with your arguments for the Lycanthropy effect to trump the alignment issue in this case. Your preference is for the game to "make sense" from a position of how things work in a traditional fantasy realm. This is a perfectly reasonable wish to have, but in this particular case I would have to consider it a house ruling, and not how the rules as written are to be interpreted.

Now, I would argue that while there is a must statement included in the wording of the Knight's ability that trumps the forbidding effect, it is included as a sole exception to this restriction because if it didn't exist, the Knight character would be broken and be unable to win the game in the traditional manner. I don't feel that an exception that is built into being a part of the ability breaks the system and allows for other cards to have a similar effect by bypassing the forbidding effect. The exception exists inside the ability itself for gameplay reasons, but I don't view it as a loophole that opens up a Pandora's Box for other must commands to be able to trump forbidding ones.

Ultimately, this all boils down to semantics. The way I understand it is if anything restricts or forbids something (optional or otherwise), this effect is dominant over anything else that allows or compels an action (once again, whether optional or mandatory).

I think a good example of a similar situation that has been clarified previously is the Danse Macabre Ending, where the card states you must send the Grim Reaper to visit another character in Any Region. But the Reaper cannot move into the Inner Region, and it has been ruled that indeed the restriction on his movement into the Inner Region trumps the Any Region commandment on the Alternative Ending Card. The player must wait for the character to come to him in the Crown of Command space and resolve combat there without the assistance of the Reaper.



#11 Velhart

Velhart

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,210 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

The question about the Knight has already been discussed a while ago.

Elliot said that the Knight must attack a other good character, if he has the lycanthropy curse.

See here



#12 GrimGuvna

GrimGuvna

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:47 AM

From a clinical rules point of view you are correct and if if  ever gets FAQ'd then probably it will rule in the favour of the Knight not attacking.

Til a shame though, feels odd.

 I had a good read of that Danse Macarbe thread concerning the Reaper appearing in the inner region and that too doesnt sit right.  (It's the old RPGer in me i think).  The only reason death cant go in the inner is because he is already there.  In that case the other player who is in the inner region should still roll on thr reaper chart to reflect deaths interest ( because he is actually there) but I would leave deaths figure where it was on the board.  The player on the CoC has absolute control over death so it would make sense that death couldnt be used against him………..but enough, tis an old thread and Can vs Cannot etc etc,

Good find velhart, .  Does Elliot get his facts direct from FFG

 



#13 sanityismyvanity

sanityismyvanity

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:14 AM

Sometimes trying to keep all these special instances straight makes my head hurt . I think ultimately whatever everybody at the table agrees to is the best option.

Having said that, I firmly believe that this case is simply a "Can vs. Cannot" instance, not a "Special Ability vs. Rule" case. SA vs. Rule only affects rulings between a conflict involving the basic rules. That doesn't exist here, since the Knight ability and Lycanthropy effects are both on cards (the domain of can vs. cannot), and neither is covered in the basic rules. So yes, I am going on record as disagreeing with Elliot in this one case .



#14 Velhart

Velhart

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,210 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

GrimGuvna said:

 

Good find velhart, .  Does Elliot get his facts direct from FFG

 

I don´t think so. But he knows a lot.

I can try to mail FFG about this question.

I have also check the can vs cannot rule again, and it seems that forbidding effects overide other ability and effects. So we can think that the Knight may  not attack good characters while he is werewolf.

I think it´s good to get a official answer for this.



#15 talismanamsilat

talismanamsilat

    Talisman Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

This definitely needs an FFG official answer. I now believe that the Knight cannot attack at night when he is a Lycanthrope, as his special ability which states that he cannot attack good characters except at the Crown of Command overrides the effect of Lycanthropy (Can vs. Cannot rule).

Ell.



#16 Nidhögg

Nidhögg

    Member

  • Members
  • 209 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:27 AM

I think the Knight must attack. How do you else handle the matter of the Knight being a lycan and the ending is Blood Moon Wherewolf where you have to attack other players? Pretty broken if all other characters are good and he can't do anything…



#17 talismanamsilat

talismanamsilat

    Talisman Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:53 AM

The Knight lands on the same space as another good character in the Outer Region. Howl of the Wendigo is in effect. The Knight cannot attack the good character period, irrespective of the effect of the Howl of the Wendigo card. However the Knight must attack evil or neutral characters that he lands on while the Howl of the Wendigo is in effect. The exact same situation occurs with Lycanthropy!!! The effect of the Knight's special ability overrides the effect of the Howl/Lycanthropy (forbidding effects take precedence).

Ell.



#18 sanityismyvanity

sanityismyvanity

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:03 AM

Nidhögg said:

I think the Knight must attack. How do you else handle the matter of the Knight being a lycan and the ending is Blood Moon Wherewolf where you have to attack other players? Pretty broken if all other characters are good and he can't do anything…

That isn't an issue since he can attack good characters when occupying the crown of command space. The Blood Moon Werewolf Ending card explicitly states that a lycanthrope character remains on the CoC space when choosing a character to attack.



#19 ososober

ososober

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:28 AM

in my opinion,

 

the knight card states that he "may" not attack a good player,

the word may, suggestsa choice and thus can choose to attack any character, but not choose to attacka good player.

the Lycanthropy card states must which infers no choice, so the knight has no choice to either attack or not attack, thus his choice is taken away, and must now attack



#20 talismanamsilat

talismanamsilat

    Talisman Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:12 PM

"May not" does not indicate a choice whatsoever! It means the Knight CANNOT/MAY NOT attack a good player outside the Crown of Command. Even if he is transformed into a Lycanthrope, he may not attack a good character! Someone shoot the question to John Goodenough.

Ell.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS