November FAQ

[trikk]

4 minutes ago, Kogan Style said:

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.

But when and after do now have a stated point in time (in the rules) to check them. 

There is no "after a model is killed" step in the timing rules and the general timing rules do not state when do we resolve schemes so there is a fixed moment in time where huggy is dead.

 

But this debate has no sense now because we got a very good ruling on an exploit that was possible but (most likely) unintended

[Math Mathonwy]

No clarification on what is a flip  

(re:Lucky Effigy's Condition)

[lame0]

2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

No clarification on what is a flip  

(re:Lucky Effigy's Condition)

That one was the saddest for me because both effigy and emissary have an effect like this....and not having clarity makes it tough to take either. 

Somer+ encouragement with charging should have been answered since it's been out their for a year and a half and has no answer.

[trikk]

4 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

No clarification on what is a flip  

(re:Lucky Effigy's Condition)

Quote

(1) OBJECTION!!! (Ca 6t / Rst: Wp / Rg: y1): Target suffers 2/2/2 damage. If
Moderate damage is flipped or cheated target gains Slow, or Paralyzed in the case
of Severe.

Since things like Lawyers OBJECTION!!!! or Molly`s Revelation mention cards "flipped" as in the ones that are used, I`d assume you have to use the  to get the benefit.

[Math Mathonwy]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

Since things like Lawyers OBJECTION!!!! or Molly`s Revelation mention cards "flipped" as in the ones that are used, I`d assume you have to use the  to get the benefit.

If you wish to discuss the subject, I suggest going here:

 

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

If you wish to discuss the subject, I suggest going here:

 

You can go support team Myyrä, so that I don't get so much shit for being "alone" with my opinions. Although, I actually suspect the people who have been complaining to me about this just assume everyone who disagrees with them is an outlier.

[Math Mathonwy]

9 hours ago, Myyrä said:

You can go support team Myyrä, so that I don't get so much shit for being "alone" with my opinions. Although, I actually suspect the people who have been complaining to me about this just assume everyone who disagrees with them is an outlier.

Wait, are you saying that you don't consider yourself an outlier? 

[santaclaws01]

19 hours ago, trikk said:

But when and after do now have a stated point in time (in the rules) to check them. 

There is no "after a model is killed" step in the timing rules and the general timing rules do not state when do we resolve schemes so there is a fixed moment in time where huggy is dead.

 

But this debate has no sense now because we got a very good ruling on an exploit that was possible but (most likely) unintended

Yes, when and after are not game terms, so we use standard English to determine what they mean. "When" means the effect happens when it's condition is met, and "After" means the effect happens after it's condition is met. When comes before after, and if you need any further proof of this:

Quote

70) If a model with the Eat Your Fill Ability kills a model with the Explosive Demise Ability, which Ability occurs first? Does the Attacker heal from Eat Your Fill first, or does the Defender deal damage with the Explosive Demise Ability first? The Defender would deal damage with the Explosive Demise Ability and then the Attacker would heal due to Eat Your Fill. Explosive Demies happens “when” the model is killed and Eat Your Fill happens “after” the model is killed.

 

[trikk]

24 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yes, when and after are not game terms, so we use standard English to determine what they mean. "When" means the effect happens when it's condition is met, and "After" means the effect happens after it's condition is met. When comes before after, and if you need any further proof of this:

 

Wow. Thanks. I'm now convinced that you are right, the faq entry was required and that the timing rules are even more messed up than I thought

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Wait, are you saying that you don't consider yourself an outlier? 

In many senses, yes. I also don't consider being or not being an outlier relevant to being able to make expert judgements about the states of the world. When it comes to assessing the factuality of a claim, evidence is much more important than popularity. 

[Kadeton]

22 hours 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.

Errata'd to what purpose? The FAQ confirms that the interaction doesn't allow Death Contract to come into effect before Eternal Darkness. Changing the wording of the rules won't alter that.

Yes, it stops Huggy from using Death Contract with Rising Sun. My suggestion would be to avoid taking those upgrades together. It can't really be considered an over-nerf, because it was never intended to work that way.

[tmod]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Errata'd to what purpose? The FAQ confirms that the interaction doesn't allow Death Contract to come into effect before Eternal Darkness. Changing the wording of the rules won't alter that.

Yes, it stops Huggy from using Death Contract with Rising Sun. My suggestion would be to avoid taking those upgrades together. It can't really be considered an over-nerf, because it was never intended to work that way.

But he's got a point that it can be confusing with an FAQ that seems to contradict the rules as written. I fully support the effect of the ruling, but when the rules as written, general timing, regular English etc is taken into account the rules support the Schrödinger's Huggy as legal and valid. Now we have the rules saying it's legal (at least in one, common interpretation) and the FAQ saying it's not. This is all fine and good, but a small errata on Huggy and/or Death Contract would make the rule set + FAQ more consistent as a whole...

[Ludvig]

There are already faqs contradicting the rulebook. McMourning healing full damage flipped and not what's actually caused and gremlin's using dumb luck taking full damage flip and not final damage caused are not supported by the rules. 

Huggy not taking death contract isn't a nerf. Using them together was an exploit not supposed to be possible, this clarifies that and basically tells you to not use them together. Sure, it would have been more elegant to fix it in another way but this is what we got.

[tmod]

3 hours ago, Ludvig said:

There are already faqs contradicting the rulebook. McMourning healing full damage flipped and not what's actually caused and gremlin's using dumb luck taking full damage flip and not final damage caused are not supported by the rules. 

Huggy not taking death contract isn't a nerf. Using them together was an exploit not supposed to be possible, this clarifies that and basically tells you to not use them together. Sure, it would have been more elegant to fix it in another way but this is what we got.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I think it's better for the game to use the next opportunity for errata to close this exploit then introducing what is basically an exception to the rules. Especially as this is not an interaction new players are likely to encounter until they show up for a tournament and feel screwed. Dumb Luck etc are, imho, situations more likely to attract the attention of players not knowing about it earlier... (Not sure I'm wording this in a good way, but hopefully it's understandable. Don't like that a specific use of models/upgrades are FAQed to not work, that's all. I get the feeling many would miss this)...

[50 SS Enforcer]

Can't say I'm too happy about the emmisary change, I always assumed it was the shards that summon the zombie. It made more sense like a demintion was opening up to release a zombie rather than the emmisary turning the shards into a zombie.

[SinJ]

On 11/1/2017 at 9:16 AM, Aaron said:

Hello,

The following questions have been added to the FAQ:

 

1. 9. Can Trixiebelle use "Don't Fight Over Me, Boys!" (or Burt use Slippery) to redirect Attacks from a Flurry or Charge Action?
   • No, as she can only redirect Attack Actions to other legal targets. Flurry and Charge set her as the necessary targets, therefore making no other model a legal target for the resulting Attacks

Can "Slippery" and "Don't Fight over me, boys!" be errata'd because the FAQ directly conflicts with how Charge and Flurry are worded in regards to targeting and resolving attacks.

something like adding "ABILITY may not be used when targeted by a Charge or Flurry"?

[trikk]

5 minutes ago, SinJ said:

Can "Slippery" and "Don't Fight over me, boys!" be errata'd because the FAQ directly conflicts with how Charge and Flurry are worded in regards to targeting and resolving attacks.

something like adding "ABILITY may not be used when targeted by a Charge or Flurry"?

They dont. Only legal target for a charge or flurry is the selected model.

[SinJ]

I understand now due to the "legal target" part of Slippery or Don't Fight.

[ArD]

Can we receive the clarify regarding relations between chain activations caused by abilities or actions and mood swing next time. Can the mood swing brake the chain or it can't?

[Artiee]

5 minutes ago, ArD said:

Can we receive the clarify regarding relations between chain activations caused by abilities or actions and mood swing next time. Can the mood swing brake the chain or it can't?

This is the first time I seen someone ask this.    It is best to ask this type of question in the Rule forum.    If there is a lot of discussion about it or it does seem like people are confused, then Aaron may look at it.  

[ArD]

 

10 minutes ago, Artiee said:

This is the first time I seen someone ask this.    It is best to ask this type of question in the Rule forum.    If there is a lot of discussion about it or it does seem like people are confused, then Aaron may look at it.  

I'll ask there.) The main reason I put this question here is to receive legal conclusion which will stop all discussions during the game. Thank you for your guidance.)