ophelia's "eyes closed"

[icebreaker]

Sorry to duplicate posts, but there is a greate argument in our club that is out of bounds of Gremlins theme. The start is there - http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/99573-ophelias-eyes-closed/

 

Ophelia's WIth My Eyes Closed! reads

"For the rest of this model's activation, its Sh attack actions gain .  ... "

So we have 2 question:

Does Ophelia get  only to Attack flip on to Attack flip and Damage Flip?

Does Ophelia get   to "on declare" duels like terrify and so on?

 

 

[Myyrä]

On 7/17/2017 at 2:09 PM, Ludvig said:

You don't get it to the damage flip. The core rules specifically state that you need to have a bonus specifically mention the damage flip so that's an easy question with a right and wrong answer. Don't know the page number by heart but you will find it if you read through the section on attack actions and duels.

It's page 52 of the rules manual.

 

Edit: As for the terrifying, the answer is no, because Horror duel is not Sh Action. It works with some other similar abilities like Sonnia's Ancient Runes, because that one gives to duels during Ca actions (and Horror duel can be taken while the Ca action is in progress).

[Ludvig]

You don't get it to the damage flip. The core rules specifically state that you need to have a bonus specifically mention the damage flip so that's an easy question with a right and wrong answer. Don't know the page number by heart but you will find it if you read through the section on attack actions and duels.

Terrifying is a bit trickier, some believe it is a part of the action and some say it's a separate resolution of the ability terrifying. I personally don't think it's a duel that is part of the action, it's just resolved during the resolution of the action. But I kind of drift between the two interpretations on this, both have merit.

[Adran]

39 minutes ago, Rostislav said:

The correct question here is "What is considered to be  or   to Attack action".
Most models have abilities with   or  to Attack flip, but some has  or   to Attack action.

Was it written this way intentionally because there is difference or is  Attack action =   Attack flip?

Aaron has said there is no formal way short of an FAQ for him to answer this. 

The rule book refers to both in its worked examples. And it has them both meaning the same thing. (For what its worth the example on page 28 is the only time the rule book refers to  to attack action. Choosing to ignore this because its only an example seems silly if you can't then show it means something else).

English is not the most exact language, and if this was intended to be a difference they ought to have told us so in the rules. Since the rule book has both doing the same thing, I think it is very hard to try and claim they are different

 

[icebreaker]

16 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

You don't get it to the damage flip. The core rules specifically state that you need to have a bonus specifically mention the damage flip so that's an easy question with a right and wrong answer. Don't know the page number by heart but you will find it if you read through the section on attack actions and duels.

Some people cling to words "mention the damage flip" and say that "any action сontain the damage flip so it mentioned" and to prove self cleaver say: "if it would be true the TT's Recalled training which give " to all flips" won't affect damage flips because it is not mention directly the damage flip"

P.S. I believe that (0) gives  only to the Attack flip. I'm not trying to boring anyone, I've just trying to find words to prove it.

[Myyrä]

8 minutes ago, icebreaker said:

P.S. I believe that (0) gives  only to the Attack flip. I'm not trying to boring anyone, I've just trying to find words to prove it.

Go check back on the original thread. I can't be bothered arguing this in two different places.

[Adran]

13 minutes ago, icebreaker said:

Some people cling to words "mention the damage flip" and say that "any action сontain the damage flip so it mentioned" and to prove self cleaver say: "if it would be true the TT's Recalled training which give " to all flips" won't affect damage flips because it is not mention directly the damage flip"

P.S. I believe that (0) gives  only to the Attack flip. I'm not trying to boring anyone, I've just trying to find words to prove it.

That argument doesn't allow them to gain positive on the damage flips of Ophelia. Worse case is that it means Recalled training doesn't give them (and here I would argue that the wording of the 2 abilities are completely different, so just because damage flip is an allowed subset of all flips, it is not a subset of attack flip or attack action). Granted, that's just changing the argument, but its still one where Ophelia doesn't get positives to damage. 

[Ludvig]

Didn't quite realise there was an open topic in the gremlin forum, thought it was an old post. I guess we can keep it there, maybe drop a line here for posterity

[icebreaker]

Is there any official and more direct channel to ask to do FAQ for this, because there will be local tournament in our club and there is a very small chance that the troublemakers will calm down?

[Adran]

21 minutes ago, icebreaker said:

Is there any official and more direct channel to ask to do FAQ for this, because there will be local tournament in our club and there is a very small chance that the troublemakers will calm down?

There is no known way to get something onto the FAQ. Rumours involving cookies and sacrifices are probably harkign back to the old rules. (Nowadays its probably more prosaic. I would imagine Aaron decides if the rules aren't actually clear enough on topics., and then asks a magic 8 ball for the right answer. Posts on the rules forum doesn't help in anyway)

Get the T.O of the event to make a ruling now, on how they are going to rule it at that event, then at least you all know how to play it for that event. 

[icebreaker]

It's not a problem to do a home-rule (unfortunately it will be a home-rule because "all not home-rules is in the manual and cards" ) and force to use its on tournament. But we have not big local community about 20 people, and an addition home-rule could be regarded as our whim and decrease the number of tournament participants. But the FAQ would clearly show that it is official rule interpretation.

[Lucidicide]

Not every question that gets asked makes it into an FAQ (in fact, very few do) because most are not, in fact, Frequently Asked. For example, this is the first time I've heard this question being asked (though I see it was asked over 3 years ago as well), and Ophelia has been around a long time.

There is no method for me to make a judgment on this outside of an FAQ (I've been yelled at by the community for doing it before). The best I can say is that I'll pay attention, and if it seems like a big enough issue, something may be added to the FAQ.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, icebreaker said:

Is there any official and more direct channel to ask to do FAQ for this, because there will be local tournament in our club and there is a very small chance that the troublemakers will calm down?

Even if you do not mention it before the tournament the interpretation of the TO superceeds everything else. If a TO is called over and makes a ruling that ruling will need to be followed for the rest of the match even if it is against the actual rules. Since this rule is clearly ambiguous to some they will need to adhere to the TO:s ruling. At least two people who often wheigh in on rules debates on this forum and have a keen grasp of the rules seem to think it is not ambiguous at all which is also a hint. Then again, if no opponent questions the ruling these players can play the rule as they wish the entire tournament and it doesn't need to be a problem for anyone. Qhen you as a TO get called over both players make their case and then you make a ruling that both players must accept without discussion ifthey want to stay i the tournament. If you want it to be more ofdicial and not personal you can go vy which interprwtation was backed by the most forum users in this yhread. That way every player knows what the global majoritys interpretation is.

Have a look at the rules discussions on this board and see how often Myyrä and Adran have been right about the rules they were discussing. That isn't official in any way but it should affect how heavily their opinion on the matter is considered.

[Lucidicide]

I'll also throw out there that house-rules are rules that change the way the game is played. You do not need to house-rule this. You need to house-interpret it.

[icebreaker]

@Aaron I think that this issue not such to easy say that it is not ambiguous at all, the part of interpretation based on the thesis that game use "the attack action" and "the attack duel" interchangeably. But this Interchangeability is based on manual examples, not on the rules. For me It's enough but it leaves the space from manipulations. And this manipulations will be used not by all players, few сlever guys who rise this theme at the middle of a tournament and TO will not have enough time to find right answer could give + to damage flip to Ophelia which you have to admit would be a huge boost.

What my point is - not only realy frequently questions worth to get to FAQ, but every what leave a space for manipulations. You only need to find out is there a space or not.

 

Anyway, thanks a lot guys!

[Rostislav]

@Aaron

The correct question here is "What is considered to be  or   to Attack action".
Most models have abilities with   or  to Attack flip, but some has  or   to Attack action.

Was it written this way intentionally because there is difference or is  Attack action =   Attack flip?