The Politian - Questions

Victimizer wrote:

mageith wrote:
The KH rules insist that only 11 allies should be in the game. In other words, the rules say both that the other allies are returned to the box and that they are out of the game. If they are out of the game, then they are clearly not available to Charlie.

Actually, it tells you to return the other allies to the box. To be exact:

"...shuffle it and deal out 11 cards faceup, returning the others to the box."

Quite clear on that account.

Not so: As I said and as I quoted earlier, KH says both:

"See the “Kingsport Horror Expansion Game Setup”
diagram on the next page for the placement of the new
Kingsport Horror cards. The new Special cards, in
particular, should be placed near the other Special cards.
Although 11 new Allies are included in this expansion,
only 11 total Allies should be used in each game. When
preparing the Ally deck, shuffle it and deal out 11 cards
faceup, returning the others to the box. Players may
examine the allies to see which ones will appear. Then turn
the Ally cards facedown and shuffle them again. Allies that
are taken as starting equipment in setup step 9 will come
from this deck of 11 cards."

As I said earlier, we've played it the generally accepted way and are totally unimpressed with Charlie. We played it the new way and he becomes an interesting character, but hardly over powered.

In addition, add in the "Join the winning Team" (sacrificing allies, who are NOT returned to the box) and you have the possibility of a totally self-serving, short-sighted glory seeking politician! I think Charlie's design is stroke of genius on the part of the designer.

What you say is correct in sofar that the method of removing things from the game is to return them to the box. A rule which Charlie Kane can circumvent.

I agree on the Joining the winning team thing, it's quite funny.

Well, either allies had been returned to the box, or they are in the game. And Kane's ability clearly refers to allies that had been returned to the box, no matter when that happened.

...in addition (as someone else mentioned), there is no evidence at all that his ability is triggered when an ally is returned to the box - the opposite is actually the case, since it says "had been returned", and not something like "when it is returned".

HÃ«llRÃ†ZÃ˜R wrote:Well, either allies had been returned to the box, or they are in the game. And Kane's ability clearly refers to allies that had been returned to the box, no matter when that happened.

...in addition (as someone else mentioned), there is no evidence at all that his ability is triggered when an ally is returned to the box - the opposite is actually the case, since it says "had been returned", and not something like "when it is returned".

Memory is so tricky:
"Any Phase: Charlie may gain Allies that have been returned to the box."
At any rate, under any scenario, the allies can't be taken until after (past tense) they're in the box. The question, if you want to rely on this part of grammar, is how immediately in the past is OK?

The evidence is the term "gain". This allows the phrase to be interpreted as something happening immediately or when the time comes to take an ally in an encounter.

But the main tricky concept IMO isn't how far in the past is in the past but the word "gain". The term "gain" an ally is only used in Charlies rule (at least I checked a few of the encounter cards and the term was always "take".

Maybe the term "gain" equals the term "take" and maybe it doesn't.

But the real bottom line is that everyone can point to something that the rule does not say to prove the other side wrong. What no one has done, IMO, is definitively say what the rule does say.

I agree that if Charlie's rule is interpreted in one spot to mean take an ally immediately, it would also mean to take all the other allies returned to the box at the beginning. But that would definitely be way out of line. But I think that outlandish interpretation is covered by the phrase that they should not be in the game at all.

I've been reading game rules for a long time and its not unusual when game designers forget their own somewhat exotic definitions. To me, its an exotic definition to use "returned to the box" when you may or may not mean "removed from the game." It's tough being consistent.

I hope my view prevails because I think it will result in a more enjoyable investigator, but whatever will be will be.

I don't think yer looking at it right. Pretty much everyone agrees that he shouldn't be able to grab all allies - from a purely game balance point of view.

The text is clear however: at any point in time, he may take those allies which have returned to the box. No "maybe it means something else" or some such. Also, changing "have been" to "had been" doesn't change what Hail Racer was pointing out (though that doesn't matter).

"Gain" isn't really such a tricky term. One could see a sort of involuntary action involved on behalf of the character, but that also doesn't change anything about him getting the allies. Whether he gains them or takes them is completely the same.

What one should be doing is either: a.) forget about the thing or b.) offer house rules on the subject. The text is clear in it's insane ramifications on character balance, and is simply (probably anyway) poorly worded by the designer - can happen to anybody. Does need rectification though.

Ok, all I can say on this topic is: we really, really need an official ruling on this. I presume it has already been requested, but maybe if we all send this question to FFG they will finally respond.

Dr. Rudolf von Richten wrote:Ok, all I can say on this topic is: we really, really need an official ruling on this. I presume it has already been requested, but maybe if we all send this question to FFG they will finally respond.

It's on my open question list: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/10131.page

I chatted with Kevin through email yesterday and he is fully aware of the thread. He is just trying to find the time to sit down and go through it.

We've all been missing the point.

He's a politician. He's supposed to be vague on details and cloud issues.

This way we don't notice he's taking bribes to pass corporate-centric legislation.

Fools, all of us!

Brilliant!

Looks like Jeffszusz has resolved the issue!

Victimizer wrote:I don't think yer looking at it right. Pretty much everyone agrees that he shouldn't be able to grab all allies - from a purely game balance point of view.

That's because all they've done is read the rule, not tried it. In addition, the weakness of Charlie argues for the other side.

The text is clear however: at any point in time, he may take those allies which have returned to the box. No "maybe it means something else" or some such. Also, changing "have been" to "had been" doesn't change what Hail Racer was pointing out (though that doesn't matter).

I agree it doesn't matter much. I think I said as much. Because neither of us are arguing for grabbing allies in the present. In fact, it means nothing at all to the argument, IMO.

"Gain" isn't really such a tricky term. One could see a sort of involuntary action involved on behalf of the character, but that also doesn't change anything about him getting the allies. Whether he gains them or takes them is completely the same.

Here we disagree. "Gain" is a really an unusual term to use in this rule. Even as you say its not tricky, you follow up with "One could see...", that is, you find it necessary to define the term away from its usual meaning. There's really no reason to have used it when in every other case I've checked the term is "take" an ally unless the designer is attempting to say something different. It is this term that causes the confusion IMO.

What one should be doing is either: a.) forget about the thing or b.) offer house rules on the subject. The text is clear in it's insane ramifications on character balance, and is simply (probably anyway) poorly worded by the designer - can happen to anybody. Does need rectification though.

As I said early on, we'll be playing it based on my wife's and Tamsyn's interpretation or house rule, if you will, which means about once every 8 games he'll be available for someone to choose. The investigators have wide range of skills are some really strong and some are really weak. I really don't think the argument lies in whether Charlie is out of balance with my wife's interpretation. I think the argument is that the designer couldn't possibley mean what is written, so just what did he mean? As I said a bit ago, I hope he means it Tamsyn's way because its much cleverer and more fun.

I love this game and there's so much to it. And I'm sure Kevin's a little insane from it. But there just so much in it and so much that's so seldom gets used or so seldom attacks us, such as: visiting out of the way locations. awakening the Dunwich horror, rift problems, Darke's blessing, joining the Sheldon gang, the ramifications of the Inner Sanctum, being Wanted for the murders we all commit on cultists in every game, making a deal with the black man and so much more. There's a lot of cleverness in it and lots of exploration to do that we never just seem to have time to do.

mageith wrote:

"Gain" isn't really such a tricky term. One could see a sort of involuntary action involved on behalf of the character, but that also doesn't change anything about him getting the allies. Whether he gains them or takes them is completely the same.

Here we disagree. "Gain" is a really an unusual term to use in this rule. Even as you say its not tricky, you follow up with "One could see...", that is, you find it necessary to define the term away from its usual meaning. There's really no reason to have used it when in every other case I've checked the term is "take" an ally unless the designer is attempting to say something different. It is this term that causes the confusion IMO.

I agree with most of your points, except here. What I did was to show an example of what gain can possibly mean besides "take" and how this does not affect the results of what we are talking about here. I followed it up with an example to show that it isn't tricky, which I believe I did. I don't think it's necessary to crack out a dictionary over this, as I'm pretty sure it won't change the result either.

Also, starting with 20+ allies is definitely unbalanced. I don't think the forumites need to try it to know that. Maybe you meant something else though, but it was what I was talking about, and you responded specifically to that.

That's because all they've done is read the rule, not tried it. In addition, the weakness of Charlie argues for the other side.

Hve you tried your (wrong) interpretation with "The Southside Strangler Strikes"?

And Charlie is a fine investigator. He has high Will/Fight and if you send him to Kingsport with his (right) ability he usually ends up with a couple extra allies.

Victimizer wrote:Also, starting with 20+ allies is definitely unbalanced. I don't think the forumites need to try it to know that. Maybe you meant something else though, but it was what I was talking about, and you responded specifically to that.

Did I ever argue that? I didn't mean to. Sorry.
There are only 11 allies allowed in a particular game.

My house rule: Allies that have been returned to the box (usually through terror level raises) may be (immediately) gained by Charlie.
He doesn't have available to him allies that were removed from the game during setup even though they had been "returned to the box" during set up. I see the literal argument. I think its a mistake.

The alternative is the Charlie has an advantage over other investigators when he runs across allies in the encounter cards or when he buys an ally from Ma's. In my games, we almost never buy an ally at Ma's and sometimes never run across an ally in the encounter decks but sometimes we run across a bunch. There's nothing to indicate he get's his choice of ally's at the setup. There's nothing to indicate he gets his choice of allies when instructed to choose an random ally. Everyone gets their choice of the 11 allies at Ma's. I'd say, Charlie gets his choice of all allies if the alternative prevails.

I think the alternative is boring and weak except for the part where he gets his choice of all allies at Ma's. I think my wife's and Tamsyin's alternative is balanced and interesting and very characterful.

I really appreciate the civilized discussion and await the final outcome when revealed from high. I don't think I have any more say.

duplicate

mageith wrote:I think my wife's and Tamsyin's alternative is balanced and interesting and very characterful.

While it may be intersesting it's not balanced. There are too many cards that run up the terror level or just return allies to the box outright. There is even an AO that raises the terror level whenever a cultist is killed. Oh yeah, and when a monster jumps into a vortex the terror level rises... and when a Next Act card is drawn...

Compare your version of what Charlie gets when the terror level rises compared to Diana's...

So to recap, the various interpretations possible from Charlie Kane's abilities are (from worst to best):

The ability does not trump the rule that only 11 allies are used in the game, and only kicks in when an ally would be gained normally. Which means that the game is played essentially normally save that he personally is not affected by events such as the terror level increasing that reduce the size of the ally deck from the initial 11.

The ability trumps the 11 rule, but only does so when an ally is mentioned by name. So while it would allow you to get Ryan Dean when he wasn't in the game, it would only allow you to do so if Ryan Dean introduced himself to you in a bar. And not, for example, if Along Came Jones or Ma's Boarding House was visited.

The ability trumps the 11 allies rule all the time. If an ally is in the box for any reason, and yo are entitled to that ally or a choice of allies, you can get that ally and not the consolation prize for the ally being unavailable.

The ability doesn't trump the 11s rule, but it does straight up give you every ally that is put into the box as it is put in the box from play.

The ability entitles you to gain allies that weren't in the game to begin with as normal ally gains (ex.: Dr. Herbert West introduces himself at the little Kingsport hospital but he wasn't in the game), in addition, every time an ally card would be placed in the box (ex.: terror level increase, strangler strikes) you can take the ally card and have him join your team.

You can straight up take all 23 unused allies out of the box and append them to your character.
And yes, all of these are valid readings because English Grammar is really flexible and the past tense can be used in an immediate or indefinite sense. If you aren't Kevin, please don't insult us by claiming that you magically know which of these was intended. And really don't pretend that you know how any of this is supposed to interact with League Scenarios. Recall for the moment that Scenario 4 removes Legrasse "from the deck" but never mentions whether his physical card is in the box or not.

I personally play it by the third option. I have no idea if this was intended or not. I can make a semantic argument for it, but I can make a semantic argument for any of the other options as well.

-Frank

I still think the rule was purposely made vague to keep our attention elsewhere while Charlie... well, my attention was elsewhere, so I'm not sure what he is hiding...

*Goes in search of a few clue tokens so he can figure out what the heck Charlie has been doing in secret while this thread has grown.*

I would play it as the first option C.H.A.D mentions, but that's just me.

And no, I'm not going to argue for it, as this thread proves, that is pretty pointless anyway!

FrankT wrote:
And yes, all of these are valid readings because English Grammar is really flexible and the past tense can be used in an immediate or indefinite sense. If you aren't Kevin, please don't insult us by claiming that you magically know which of these was intended. And really don't pretend that you know how any of this is supposed to interact with League Scenarios. Recall for the moment that Scenario 4 removes Legrasse "from the deck" but never mentions whether his physical card is in the box or not.[/list]

I personally play it by the third option. I have no idea if this was intended or not. I can make a semantic argument for it, but I can make a semantic argument for any of the other options as well.

-Frank

I don't think all of those are valid interpretations of the language used in the politician's abillity, but they are all valid house rules. The scenarios are probably the only instance where something is removed and not returned to the box (at least I haven't seen any other instance of something being removed and not being returned to the box).
Only the last point can be argued literally (and you forgot that even there he would gain the allies that were later returned to the box due to other means), as everything else creates strictures which are not in the rules of the game or in Charlie Kane's rules.
Again, I also play by option 3, as as house rule.

@Mageith
I see, you are talking about a house rule. I got confused because you seem to try to argue that your house rule is based on a literal rules interpretation (for example:

mageith wrote:here's nothing to indicate he get's his choice of ally's at the setup. There's nothing to indicate he gets his choice of allies when instructed to choose an random ally.

)
You don't have to argue any points when you are invoking a house rule - in that case, you are making the rules, so it'll always be correct and needs no justification.

I need to point out that it's not a houserule if it's an interpretation of the actual words that are written.

"Charlie may gain allies that have been returned to the box."

This can, literally, with no words actually added to make it a house rule, be assumed to mean either that he can take allies from the box whenever he wishes or when he gains an ally normally. Neither is written on the card and both can be inferred by the vague instruction on Charlie's card.

Neither is a house rule.

Both are valid interpretations of RAW with no house ruling.

One sucks butt because it's crazy overpowered.

One fits the power level of the rest of the character advantages.

It's not a house rule to choose the one that makes more sense

Correct in sofar that limiting yourself is not a house rule is perfectly legit. I.e. You could say that Joe Diamond's abillity only applies to Luck checks. If you only use it for luck checks, you aren't breaking any rules. This is what you are doing.

Enforcing that someone cannot take all of the allies though, is a house rule. You aren't really interpreting the text (though since you say that you "infer" different meanings, you must be aware of this), but are adding limitations not present in the rules. Hence, houserule.

I was confused about Charlies abilities before reading this thread, but it much clearer to me now. It is nice when a consensus arises.

Actually kidding aside, I think Frank made a remarkably fine job of summarising all the possibilities (& like Frank I'd also have picked option#3). But reasonable arguements made for all suggestions, even the outlandishly imbalanced. Unfortunately I'm just confrimed in my opinion that Caharlie is my least favourite investigator.

-Mariana the ex-nun cultist

I think it is very simple:

-When investigator may 'take an ally card', 'choose an ally' or 'gain ally' he does this from the remainings of the set up 11 ally cards. If an ally may be chosen it may be chosen amongst the available allies from the spesific ally deck. If spesific ally is named and it is not available then the investigator gains something else (described in the encounter card giving the opportunity to get the ally). If an ally is 'returned to the box' it is not available for investigators to gain. 'Charlie may gain allies that have been returned to the box.' So all allies are available for Charlie to take, choose or gain.

I know this is pointless but still wanted to post my opinion

I play #3 as well

Victimizer wrote:Correct in sofar that limiting yourself is not a house rule is perfectly legit. I.e. You could say that Joe Diamond's abillity only applies to Luck checks. If you only use it for luck checks, you aren't breaking any rules. This is what you are doing.

Enforcing that someone cannot take all of the allies though, is a house rule. You aren't really interpreting the text (though since you say that you "infer" different meanings, you must be aware of this), but are adding limitations not present in the rules. Hence, houserule.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

"Charlie may gain allies that have been returned to the box"

- whenever he wants.

or

- when he gains allies.

Neither of these is printed on the card, but the printed ability CAN mean either one, as written. There is no house ruling involved in either one because you don't have to change anything in order to interpret the rule either way.