Jump to content
Aaron

November FAQ

Recommended Posts

Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, does no. 9 have any implication for Sidir's By Your Side, both actually taking attacks and pulling tricks like taking the attack but managing to place just outside of the charging model's :meleerange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pyrflamme said:

Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, does no. 9 have any implication for Sidir's By Your Side, both actually taking attacks and pulling tricks like taking the attack but managing to place just outside of the charging model's :meleerange?

By your side makes Sidir the target, so this shouldn't make any difference. He doesn't need to be a legal target for it to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How will the new FAQ change the below FAQs?

24) If a model moves (or is Pushed, Falls, is Placed, etc) 0" (zero inches), does it count as having moved? No. Same answer for Pushing, Falling, Placement, etc.

 

140) If a model is targeted by a Charge Action and Sidir uses By Your Side to intercept it, but would not be within range to be Charged, what happens? Sidir successfully uses By Your Side and is placed into base contact, becoming the new target. Then, if the Charging model cannot end the Charge within range of Sidir, the Action ends with no further effect (note that the AP has already been spent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thimblesage said:

 

How will the new FAQ change the below FAQs?

24) If a model moves (or is Pushed, Falls, is Placed, etc) 0" (zero inches), does it count as having moved? No. Same answer for Pushing, Falling, Placement, etc.

 

140) If a model is targeted by a Charge Action and Sidir uses By Your Side to intercept it, but would not be within range to be Charged, what happens? Sidir successfully uses By Your Side and is placed into base contact, becoming the new target. Then, if the Charging model cannot end the Charge within range of Sidir, the Action ends with no further effect (note that the AP has already been spent).

It will not effect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oo! A general answer instead of a 'what did the Hoffman players break this time *sigh*' answer! :lol:(Even though 99% of us planned to behave properly even before then.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gnomezilla said:

Oo! A general answer instead of a 'what did the Hoffman players break this time *sigh*' answer! :lol:(Even though 99% of us planned to behave properly even before then.)

I have no idea what you mean. For me the Wastrel thing was obvious and was a pretty bad rules-lawyering attempt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general comment on #10  ->  I agree in this case it plays out very strangely when Huggy is killed and two simultaneous effects trigger (upgrades), but it seems like a more intense analysis of Timing is required instead of a simple "one example" ruling. 

That is -- the rules on timing is very clear in the core rulebook(46), and when two things trigger simultaneously, the controller determines the order of effect.  And it follows textually (even if not cinematically) that you could choose death contract to resolve THEN choose Eternal Darkness.    Game fixing-wise, the change may be good -- but if this continues the precedent of pick-and-choose timing "fixes"  it feels like something that's just going to open up. 

For a single example, pulling from this "Huggy-Override" (Killed becomes Not Killed for instances of abilities):

If the Blessed of December kills Huggy - the timing of abilities in the rulebook(46)  indicates that Eat Your Fill will trigger 1st, then all of Huggy's abilities.  BUT, if the ruling is that Killed->Not Killed regardless of timing, then does the Blessed NOT heal to full?  Because Timing as written would say YES (much like the Death Contract/Eternal Darkness interaction) - but this ruling would indicate NO to me.

Thanks,

Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrTroglodyte said:

As a general comment on #10  ->  I agree in this case it plays out very strangely when Huggy is killed and two simultaneous effects trigger (upgrades), but it seems like a more intense analysis of Timing is required instead of a simple "one example" ruling. 

That is -- the rules on timing is very clear in the core rulebook(46), and when two things trigger simultaneously, the controller determines the order of effect.  And it follows textually (even if not cinematically) that you could choose death contract to resolve THEN choose Eternal Darkness.    Game fixing-wise, the change may be good -- but if this continues the precedent of pick-and-choose timing "fixes"  it feels like something that's just going to open up. 

For a single example, pulling from this "Huggy-Override" (Killed becomes Not Killed for instances of abilities):

If the Blessed of December kills Huggy - the timing of abilities in the rulebook(46)  indicates that Eat Your Fill will trigger 1st, then all of Huggy's abilities.  BUT, if the ruling is that Killed->Not Killed regardless of timing, then does the Blessed NOT heal to full?  Because Timing as written would say YES (much like the Death Contract/Eternal Darkness interaction) - but this ruling would indicate NO to me.

Thanks,

Jo

I think it makes sense actually. Else you could argue you killed him so you get a VP from Dig for example. I agree that the whole timing thing should be reworked but I think the consensus is "on-killed abilites do not work if there are abilities that prevent the target from being killed" so Eat You Fill also doesn`t work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I do hear what you're saying, trikk.  But I think that the wording of this errata needs to explicitly call out "retroactive board states"  if that's what Aaron is going for.  

Let me give an example that's completely different, just so we can see other models operating at this level. And again, referencing the general timing on pg 46.

Scenario: Kirai Crew vs. Tara Crew

Datsue Ba attacks and Kills a Void Wretch with Weigh Sins, declaring the Condemned trigger.   

According to general timing - Datsue ba's triggers go first.  (Killed enemy -> summon a Gaki)

After all triggers are resolved, we go to abilities.  Datsue Ba's first.  She has Spirit Beacon so utilizes Spirit Anchor (discarding a card in the order the ability triggers) and summons a Seishin as well.

Then, enemy abilities - the Void Wretch has none.

Then, friendly model Abilities - let's say none.

Then enemy model Abilities -  we have Karina with Long Forgotten Magics.  Since the ability has now triggered- Karina NOW chooses to discard a card to make the Void wretch count as being sacrificed, INVALIDATING the "killed" effects.

Timing says that it doesn't matter - the Seishin and Gaki have already appeared.  This ruling indicates otherwise.


Point:  If we are supposed to CHECK BOARD STATE before doing any abilities - we still have to resolve who throws away cards first, who gets order of operations.  This is all crucial to the game and absolutely has cascading effects.  

So I just need more from this FAQ, is the main thing.

Jo

Edit:  And if Karina is able to invalidate the previous board state - what happens to the card Datsue Ba discarded?  Does she pull it back in hand?  Is it lost?  etc. etc.




 

Share this post


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

I think it makes sense actually. Else you could argue you killed him so you get a VP from Dig for example. I agree that the whole timing thing should be reworked but I think the consensus is "on-killed abilites do not work if there are abilities that prevent the target from being killed" so Eat You Fill also doesn`t work.

It seems like abilities that are worded like "When X in play is killed, it is not killed ..." should actually be read as "When X in play would be killed, it is not killed ...". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It seems like abilities that are worded like "When X in play is killed, it is not killed ..." should actually be read as "When X in play would be killed, it is not killed ...". 

That doesn't address the problem that an attacking model will still resolve any on killing effects (triggers or abilities) before this ever takes effect. It also doesn't change the fact that it is an ability on the defending model and therefore resolved in the order that the model's controller chooses, ergo changing nothing.

You're right that it would clarify intent, but a game - like any system of rules - can't be adjudicated based on intent. There are timing rules in place, therefor all models in the game must refer to those timing rules in every instance otherwise we're just playing really expensive make-believe.

Share this post


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

So, I do hear what you're saying, trikk.  But I think that the wording of this errata needs to explicitly call out "retroactive board states"  if that's what Aaron is going for.  

Let me give an example that's completely different, just so we can see other models operating at this level. And again, referencing the general timing on pg 46.

Scenario: Kirai Crew vs. Tara Crew

Datsue Ba attacks and Kills a Void Wretch with Weigh Sins, declaring the Condemned trigger.   

According to general timing - Datsue ba's triggers go first.  (Killed enemy -> summon a Gaki)

After all triggers are resolved, we go to abilities.  Datsue Ba's first.  She has Spirit Beacon so utilizes Spirit Anchor (discarding a card in the order the ability triggers) and summons a Seishin as well.

Then, enemy abilities - the Void Wretch has none.

Then, friendly model Abilities - let's say none.

Then enemy model Abilities -  we have Karina with Long Forgotten Magics.  Since the ability has now triggered- Karina NOW chooses to discard a card to make the Void wretch count as being sacrificed, INVALIDATING the "killed" effects.

Timing says that it doesn't matter - the Seishin and Gaki have already appeared.  This ruling indicates otherwise.


Point:  If we are supposed to CHECK BOARD STATE before doing any abilities - we still have to resolve who throws away cards first, who gets order of operations.  This is all crucial to the game and absolutely has cascading effects.  

So I just need more from this FAQ, is the main thing.

Jo

Edit:  And if Karina is able to invalidate the previous board state - what happens to the card Datsue Ba discarded?  Does she pull it back in hand?  Is it lost?  etc. etc.




 

Just going to nip this in the bud, Long Forgotten Magics triggers first. It has an earlier timing point than the Condemned trigger (when vs after).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrTroglodyte said:

So, I do hear what you're saying, trikk.  But I think that the wording of this errata needs to explicitly call out "retroactive board states"  if that's what Aaron is going for.  

Two things for the record:

  • This is a FAQ, not an errata.
  • This is the second FAQ entry to veto a retroactive effect.

The previous veto of a retroactive effect was this one:

 

Quote

114. If Sandeep has the To Behold Another World Upgrade and ips Moderate or Severe damage, does the target gain Paralyzed if the damage is completely prevented or reduced to zero (0)?

No, it doesn’t gain Paralyzed. To Behold Another World requires the target to suffer damage, which a model taking 0 damage is not (see FAQ #17). For example, if Seamus discarded his Mad Haberdasher Upgrade to reduce the damage to 0, he would not be Paralyzed. 

Mad Haberdasher is a "After this model suffers damage, this model may reduce the damage to 0.  ..."

Sunburst specifies "After a target suffers damage from ..."

It's the same sort of situation:

According to General Timing, Sunburst would resolve first and then Mad Haberdasher would resolve.  The FAQ vetos that sequence.

I don't think this is going to result in an errata switching the steps in General Timing.  I think it's instead that these two prevention effects were supposed to resolve before effects that happen due to the damage; just like damage modification effects are applied to the damage flip even though the effect may appear to specify another timing (*cough* Taelor's two "After succeeding" triggers... *cough*).

It might be harsh but fair to say that the two abilities for the FAQs have improper wordings to accomplish their intended timing.

Or this is a symptom that these simultaneous prevention mechanics in general need to go before Attacker abilities just like simultaneous Defender triggers go before simultaneous Attacker triggers; if the developers want to avoid descending into the bowels of English's atrophying subjunctive.  I mean, "If this model would suffer damage, ...." requires somewhat more explanation than just saying that prevention effects are expected to go first, especially if you've got multiple prevent effects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trikk said:

I have no idea what you mean. For me the Wastrel thing was obvious and was a pretty bad rules-lawyering attempt

Yes. If one's interpretation of the rules requires half an hour to explain and others are still doubtful, just let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aaron said:

If Hungering Darkness has the Death Contract Upgrade and Lynch has the Rising Sun Upgrade, does Death Contract come into effect before the Hungering Darkness is no longer killed from the Eternal Darkness Ability?

  • No. As the Hungering Darkness is not killed, the Death Contract clause does not come into effect.

While this is definitive for TOs and the like, the rules fully support this interaction. It could really do with being Errata'd, as this seems like an over-nerf.

If the intent is to stop Huggy from using Death Contract multiple times per game, then this is an over-nerf that stops Huggy from using Death Contract at all while Rising Sun is carried by Lynch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amayasu said:

While this is definitive for TOs and the like, the rules fully support this interaction. It could really do with being Errata'd, as this seems like an over-nerf.

If the intent is to stop Huggy from using Death Contract multiple times per game, then this is an over-nerf that stops Huggy from using Death Contract at all while Rising Sun is carried by Lynch.

I disagree. Death Contract should work on death. This is exactly how it should work and is pretty intuitive.

Otherwise I would argue I can score Dig Their Graves each time you use Rising Sun because there is a moment that you are killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, trikk said:

I disagree. Death Contract should work on death. This is exactly how it should work and is pretty intuitive.

Otherwise I would argue I can score Dig Their Graves each time you use Rising Sun because there is a moment that you are killed.

Please re-read. I'm not saying that it should or should not be allowed. General Timing rules state that the defending model resolves any effects before other friendly models resolve effects; Death Contract resolves before Rising Sun. Dig Your Graves is *after* a model is killed. Death Contract and Rising Sun trigger *when* a model is killed.

There is no ambiguity in the rules; this is a valid interaction, which is why i'd like to see it Errata'd and asked about intent. An FAQ ruling against a legal interaction just feels odd.

Either way the FAQ is the FAQ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when and after are not game terms there is a point in time where you are killed so I do not see a reason for this to not work.

You are killed. Death Contract pops. You are now killed. I score DtG. Then Rising Sun comes into play and you are no longer killed.

While this is not directly supported by the core rules it simplifies stupid interactions like Huggy and a few others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, trikk said:

Since when and after are not game terms there is a point in time where you are killed so I do not see a reason for this to not work.

You are killed. Death Contract pops. You are now killed. I score DtG. Then Rising Sun comes into play and you are no longer killed.

While this is not directly supported by the core rules it simplifies stupid interactions like Huggy and a few others

Respectfully, and with your own admission, what you've written is not supported by the rules, and is irrelevant.

Hence; Errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dig their graves checks After a model has been killed. While killing Huggy you go through the general timing steps and conclude that in the end, Huggy is not killed but buried. Rising Sun and Death Contract are both When killing timings.

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


×