Warrant Officer

I can't decide whether I like Warrant Officer or Military Attaché better. They give very similar benefits, so it kind of makes it a situational choice.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I have decided which one I like better, at least in the deck I just built.  I'm using Military Bike, so the Warrant Officer is the clear choice (and Marshall Greene loves it too!   ).

Question: does the Warrant Officer take the skull and book with him when he uses Military Bike?  I don't think he does, which makes me sad.  It seems like the skull and book are contingent upon the Warrant Officer being at the original story he committed to, and riding off to another story wouldn't allow him to take his added skull and book with him.  If the text said, "...until the end of the phase," I'd think differently.  I think I'd better just go with Snowmobile.

 

Even the flavor text seems to support my theory.  The warrant officer can't confer advantages upon the group when he's showing up to an arrest at the last minute on his bike.  It's like he served his one arrest warrant at the other story, and now he's just helping out at this other story in his spare time, all Johnny Come Lately.

 

Anyone agree/disagree?

Disagree. Military Bike says "exhaust ... to immediately re-commit attached character to another story." Warrant Officer says "After you commit Warrant Officer." I don't see any basis in that language for your "theory" that there's a special virtue in the first commitment.

 

 

 If the text said, "...until the end of the phase," I'd think differently.

 

But "until the end of the phase" is the default duration on effects of this sort.

On second thought:

 

Timing may put the kibosh on this ploy. The Military Bike effect is a Disrupt, and that's why it can happen during story resolution. The Warrant Officer icons gift is just a Response. It can take effect before story resolution starts, but not in the middle of story resolution.

 

So now I'm with you: Only at the initial story.

That's how my dad and I were thinking too.  I think the Warrant Officer could certainly trigger its Response again, but only after all the stories are done - at which point, who cares?

 

As you initially stated, "until the end of the phase" is the default duration of effects of this sort.  In this case, however, it seems like the omission of this key phrase is intentional.  I think the spirit of the card is for him to lead the troops into the initial story, all big and bad and bold.  Unfortunately, when that initial "arrest" is over, he hops on his bike and takes on more of a back-up role at other stories.  A literal reading of the Officer's text is very story-specific, and the flavor of the card supports that, IMO.

 

This is one of those cases where the game designers can't possibly anticipate every possible situation.  In this case, I think Warrant Officer is worded exactly as he should be, and only a literal interpretation of the card is appropriate.

 

Thanks for the insight, Carthoris!  I think Marshall Greene wants a Military Bike for his birthday, but every Warrant Officer would prefer a nice shiny Snowmobile.

Yes, he does grant the icons "until the end of the phase," but only for Agency characters "at that story." 

 

I agree it would be generous to assume that the characters could keep the icons if they move to another story. It is, however, a possible reading. It hinges on whether "at that story" is just a qualifying condition to get the icons, or a persistent condition for the icons to be in place. It's genuinely ambiguous, and I appreciate you asking the question!

The "each [Agency] character you control at that story" just tells us who gets the ©(A), there is no lasting interactions. When this Response resolves, they get the icons, and since it doesn't say how long, they get to keep them for the default period ie. until the end-of-phase.

 

There are several ways this kid of ability could have been written, but this writing places no obligation on the characters to stay at that story to retain those icons.

 

So, if Warrant officer goes elsewhere on the Military bike, he will usually have icons of ©(I)©(A). Two printed, two from the response triggering off his first commit.

 

The Military bike uses a Disrupt to do stuff during story resolution, but Responses can't resolve then, so he wouldn't get to deliver another new set of ©(A) icons to himself and everyone else at the new story for use at the new story's struggles.

 

Given all these, you might be marginally better of having the Bike on someone else with more printed icons, who is initially at the same story as the Warrant Officer.

 

As a minor note, the Response should still be valid for this second commit, so you could have it resolve during the post-story Response window, if there was any upside at that stage to your guys getting extra icons.

I guess we're not going to get a consensus. An hour ago, I was 55% sure that Carthoris and I had reasoned it out correctly. Now, your explanation has me 55% sure that your interpretation is correct. That's how confident I am with this card. Like Carthoris said, there seem to two possible interpretations here.

I guess if it were a passive effect, there wouldn't be any question. As it is, I'm starting to agree with you, RP. Not that I couldn't be convinced otherwise again!

Guess I'll put the Bike back in my deck then!

I am a little surprised at the debate on this one.

Every Response comes with a trigger condition, and an effect.

As a trigger condition "After you commit Warrant Officer to a story" is clear enough.

As an effect "each [Agency] character you control at that story gains ©(A)." is also pretty clear (footnoting its reliance on the implicit expiration duration)

 

Sure there are passive effect that care about current state, but on the whole, triggered effect are resolved in a single effect, and don't create a conditional

passive effects that require constant reevaluation.

So I think to try and tie this effect to some durational property left-over from the response trigger text would need substantive example references for comparison.

 

As for consensus, all I need is Carthoris to roll over and play dead, or a few other kind folks to like one my posts to show agreement. Give it a day and hopefully one of those will happen.

I think you're right , RP. If I played Scotophobia, and then I played Forced Compliance on your Cthulhu, the Cthulhu that I've taken wouldn't suddenly get his terror icons back just because you no longer control him. Like you and Carthoris said, the "until end of phase" is implied, so any additional conditions intended by the card designers would need to be provided in an errata. Otherwise, you're inserting an on-going re-evaluation of the Warrant Ifficer that is neither common to the game of CoC nor clearly defined in the Officer's text. I think I'm with you, RP, but I wouldn't fault anyone who interprets it differently. Like Carthoris said, it is genuinely ambiguous.

One last example that supports your stance, RP: if a character rode a bike INTO the Warrant Officer's story, that bike-riding character would not get the skull and book just because he's at that story now. It's not the story that the Officer affects, it's the characters at the story when the Officer committed. Since the bike rider wasn't there upon initial committing, he doesn't receive the benefits from the Officer's ability.

I capitulate to Richard's superior analysis.

 

A little late to the party, but I agree with RP's analysis.