Jump to content
  • 0
Voodoo Specter

Revisionist History Vs Gamble Your Life

Question

To me it is pretty clear that the damage flip on gamble your life may not be cheated however I have encountered a couple of Nellie players including a taunement organiser who ruled against one of my friends who claime that revisionist history can be used by Nellie to cheat the damage she suffers from it.

The wording on Revisionist history is "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models. This model may cheat damage flips against it, regardless of any :-fate or jokers."

To me this does nothing to get arround damage flips from gamble your life not being cheatable. But there are a players out there who think it does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 8

I am in your camp, you can cheat flips ignoring negatives and jokers making it impossible but if an attack specifically says it can't be cheated I don't think Nellie can either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5

I would agree that she can't... Although this could be my personal hatred of Nellie speaking!  But lets look at it this way:

Nellie's says ...may be cheated regardless of :-fate or Jokers... But this isn't either of those cases.  Gamble states: ...Damage flips generated by this Action may not be cheated...

Seems pretty clear to me.

No Revisionist History for you Nellie!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3

This isn't a case of which is more specific, this is just what restrictions are being placed and ignored. Cheating rules have a general restriction of you can't cheat on a negative and you can't cheat if you flip the Black Joker. Nellie's ability allows her to cheat damage flips against her even if it's on a negative or a joker is flipped. Gamble Your Life adds a restiction that it can't be cheated. Nellie's ability makes no mention of ignoring such a restriction, so it doesn't ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2
7 hours ago, wizuriel said:

Impossible to Wound I would argue is a more specific rule than Flay and that interaction makes sense. Imo the flay ruling is a favour to Nellie. Flay lets you cheat the damage flip regardless of :-fate modifiers against any models if you have the trigger. Impossible to wound gives you a :-fate to the damage flip and prevents you cheating damage against that model. Impossible to wound is more specific so trumps flay

 

Ulix ability still doesn't let you use Mi if the model is prevented from doing so, it just lets you take one.

 

Nellie's ability specifically says she can cheat damage flips against her which is creating the conflict. 

Nellie's ability is the more specifc of the two, but it specifically excludes being able to cheat when an effect forbids cheating. It gives exactly two instances where it is able to cheat that a model without the ability wouldn't be able to cheat; jokers and negative flips. If anything else prevents cheating, Nellie's ability specifically does nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
Just now, wizuriel said:

I think she can cheat it. Her ability is more specific letting her cheat damage flips against her (regardless of joker's and :-fate) than the stitches more generic the damage flip can't be cheated.

I would have said her ability doesn't trump Stiched. It is less specific, in allowing her to cheat regardless of jokers or negative flips. The Gamble your life damage flip can't be cheated for the specific statement of "this Damage  Flip can not be cheated" on the attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
1 hour ago, wizuriel said:

I think she can cheat it. Her ability is more specific letting her cheat damage flips against her (regardless of joker's and :-fate) than the stitches more generic the damage flip can't be cheated.

It's more about no being stronger than a yes. It isn't explicitly stated in the rules that it is so, but all the rulings ever reflect on it being a thing.

I think you wouldn't argue that a pig could ignore Uppers condition (that prevents it from taking any actions other than Walk and Interact) when Ulix uses Prod (which lets a Pig take Ml action) on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

You can't cheat regardless of restrictions, you can cheat under certqin consition qhere you are normally not allowed. The flay ruling is that way because flay lets you ignore the :-fate but not the part that says you can never cheat. It's more or less the exact same interaction and a strong case as to why Nellie can't cheat it, she isn't allowed to cheat trumping everything, she is allowed to cheat ignoring certain very specific hindrances but not "no cheating" stipulations in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
1 hour ago, Voodoo Specter said:

I didn't think about comparing it to flay but thinking about it. Its probably the best example to use as it brings up the issue of flay vs revisionist history if the can cheat regardless of :-fate meant you could chaet flips that you wouldn't normally be able to it would also mean that flay would allow the attacking model to ignore the  "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models" part of revisionist history meaning both models may cheat the damage flip making the whole thing a total mess.

@wizuriel as you are in the pro being able to cheat camp (or anyone else who also is) can you how you would resolve the interaction between Flay and Revisionist History 

 

 

Quote

Revisionist History: Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models. This model may cheat damage flips made against it, regardless of any - or jokers.

 

Quote

Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more :-fate.

 

Flay does not work against Nellie since "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models."  Flay only allows you to ignore damage flip restrictions due to :-fate's.  So it can't cheat damage against Nellie for the same reason she can't cheat damage flips against Gable Your Life.  

If Flay did work against her Flay (a trigger) would resolve before Revisionist History (an ability) since "Whenever any Ability happens at the same time as any Triggers, the Triggers are resolved first."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

Haha, it's the exact same thing! Flay can't cheat against Nellie because she specifically tells you that you can't do that! Flay only ignores negatives, it doesn't make you magically able to cheat anything uncheatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think she can cheat it. Her ability is more specific letting her cheat damage flips against her (regardless of joker's and :-fate) than the stitches more generic the damage flip can't be cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
51 minutes ago, wizuriel said:

I think she can cheat it. Her ability is more specific letting her cheat damage flips against her (regardless of joker's and :-fate) than the stitches more generic the damage flip can't be cheated.

Suppose Nellie's ability had been worded:  "This model may cheat damage flips against itself, even involving jokers and :-fate."  That's saying the same thing, right?  That's not "more specific" to the interaction of the two rules.

The effect saying that it cannot be cheated is the more specific rule in this interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So Nellie's ability only works on herself, but lets her cheat damage

Gamble your life doesn't let you cheat damage for that action, but affects all models equally. 

 

Personally I still feel it is at best a toss up on which way you read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

It's more about no being stronger than a yes. It isn't explicitly stated in the rules that it is so, but all the rulings ever reflect on it being a thing.

I think you wouldn't argue that a pig could ignore Uppers condition (that prevents it from taking any actions other than Walk and Interact) when Ulix uses Prod (which lets a Pig take Ml action) on it.

I don't have my rulebook on me, but it does mention in the rules that if there is a conflict the more specific rule wins.

Game your life: You can't cheat damage for that action, but it works the same against every model

Revisionist History: Lets only this model cheat the damage flips against her, but it works against everything (and trumps the rules regarding Jokers and :-fate flips).

Personally in regards to the damage track of this ability I feel Nellie's ability is the more specific between the 2 and would say it trumps the can't cheat damage clause on Gamble your Life. Though I agree it is a toss up and end of the day it will come down to the individual TO as imo there is no way to definitely say one way or the other which ability is stronger.

 

Ulix interaction is completely different.

His ability lets the Pig take a Mi action, Upper prevents the pig to only take walk and interact actions. Nothing in prod says you can't take the action regardless if it is blocked or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, wizuriel said:

I don't have my rulebook on me, but it does mention in the rules that if there is a conflict the more specific rule wins.

Game your life: You can't cheat damage for that action, but it works the same against every model

Revisionist History: Lets only this model cheat the damage flips against her, but it works against everything (and trumps the rules regarding Jokers and :-fate flips).

Personally in regards to the damage track of this ability I feel Nellie's ability is the more specific between the 2 and would say it trumps the can't cheat damage clause on Gamble your Life. Though I agree it is a toss up and end of the day it will come down to the individual TO as imo there is no way to definitely say one way or the other which ability is stronger.

 

Ulix interaction is completely different.

His ability lets the Pig take a Mi action, Upper prevents the pig to only take walk and interact actions. Nothing in prod says you can't take the action regardless if it is blocked or not. 

I don't see how that is so different. You have one ability saying that you can take a Ml action and another saying you can't. With Nellie you have one ability saying you can cheat and another saying you can't. It would also be easy to argue that the Ulix ability is the more specific one as it mentions Ml actions and Uppers doesn't.

We also have this:

Quote

65) Can a model that declares the Flay Trigger cheat the damage flip against a model with Impossible to Wound? No.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Impossible to Wound I would argue is a more specific rule than Flay and that interaction makes sense. Imo the flay ruling is a favour to Nellie. Flay lets you cheat the damage flip regardless of :-fate modifiers against any models if you have the trigger. Impossible to wound gives you a :-fate to the damage flip and prevents you cheating damage against that model. Impossible to wound is more specific so trumps flay

 

Ulix ability still doesn't let you use Mi if the model is prevented from doing so, it just lets you take one.

 

Nellie's ability specifically says she can cheat damage flips against her which is creating the conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
42 minutes ago, wizuriel said:

Impossible to Wound I would argue is a more specific rule than Flay and that interaction makes sense. Imo the flay ruling is a favour to Nellie. Flay lets you cheat the damage flip regardless of :-fate modifiers against any models if you have the trigger. Impossible to wound gives you a :-fate to the damage flip and prevents you cheating damage against that model. Impossible to wound is more specific so trumps flay

How does

":-fate to damage flips and can't cheat this flip, vs can cheat regardless of :-fate"

not give you the same outcome as 

"this damage flip can't be cheated vs this model can cheat damage flips against itself regardless of :-fate and jokers"

Both have a can't cheat on one side vs, a can cheat despite some things that would normally prevent it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Adran said:

How does

":-fate to damage flips and can't cheat this flip, vs can cheat regardless of :-fate"

not give you the same outcome as 

"this damage flip can't be cheated vs this model can cheat damage flips against itself regardless of :-fate and jokers"

Both have a can't cheat on one side vs, a can cheat despite some things that would normally prevent it

I would say that they both get the same result; can't cheat.

In the first instance (Impossible to Wound vs Flay?) the cheat is allowed despite :-fate but the "can't cheat this flip" is not disregarded because it has nothing to do with :-fate.

In the second instance the cheat is allowed regardless of :-fate or jokers but the no cheating gives no conditions. It's just no cheating. The only thing that would allow a cheat against it would be something along the line of "this model may always cheat damage flips against itself regardless if it would normally be allowed to". This is of course a bit weird because you're normally not allowed to cheat damage flips against yourself, unless you're attacking your own model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I didn't think about comparing it to flay but thinking about it. Its probably the best example to use as it brings up the issue of flay vs revisionist history if the can cheat regardless of :-fate meant you could chaet flips that you wouldn't normally be able to it would also mean that flay would allow the attacking model to ignore the  "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models" part of revisionist history meaning both models may cheat the damage flip making the whole thing a total mess.

@wizuriel as you are in the pro being able to cheat camp (or anyone else who also is) can you how you would resolve the interaction between Flay and Revisionist History 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
54 minutes ago, Voodoo Specter said:

 

@wizuriel as you are in the pro being able to cheat camp (or anyone else who also is) can you how you would resolve the interaction between Flay and Revisionist History 

My best guess would be acting model acts first (just based on the general timing rules)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 hours ago, MrDeathTrout said:

Flay does not work against Nellie since "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated by other models."  Flay only allows you to ignore damage flip restrictions due to :-fate's.  So it can't cheat damage against Nellie for the same reason she can't cheat damage flips against Gable Your Life.  

If Flay did work against her Flay (a trigger) would resolve before Revisionist History (an ability) since "Whenever any Ability happens at the same time as any Triggers, the Triggers are resolved first."

 

 

14 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Haha, it's the exact same thing! Flay can't cheat against Nellie because she specifically tells you that you can't do that! Flay only ignores negatives, it doesn't make you magically able to cheat anything uncheatable.

That was the point I was trying to make if you think Nellie can cheat against gamble your life then you have to think flay can cheat against Nellie. But seeing as that is such a mess it makes more sense neither work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×