Mr_Smigs

so... no further clarity?

meh... why not make 'em a master and crew... there's a large enough cast... the princess, the plumbers, the mushroom, and the dragon... it's a "neverborn sympathizer" army...

An effect is something that is created by something else being activated or coming in to relevancy. For example in the book, Lifer (a talent) has an effect on the model that makes it immune to Morale duels caused by Terrifying effects (a Terrifying effect is what happens when you fulfil the criteria for the Terrifying talent to do something to your model).

Hard-Ass (+4wp) is a talent that creates an effect. When you cast Spellbreaker (which is a spell), Spellbreaker has the effect of ending all other effects on the target. The effect of Hard-Ass ends. The effect of his talent that grants the Slow to Die aura (ie, the aura itself) also ends, but is immediately reapplied because you do not have anything that stops his talent from exerting itself.

all of which conflicts with the very definition of effect in the book, and given by the rules guy above who said that a talent can be an effect

The state of the model is not something that we need to clarify further. If I was to clarify it I'd just be quoting an English textbook at you. I'm not sure why you're hanging on the word state so much when you can't provide a single example of where the supposed ambiguity of the term would cause a problem in game.

this whole discussion is an example.

every time the term "effect" is used is an example.

please do, quote another source. it might help clarify things.

this is covered in the follow-up thread.

I can see your logic, but you're inferring something that clearly doesn't exist. Something only has an ongoing effect if it alters the state of the model but has no specified duration.

Spellbreaker also doesn't have a duration,

Spellbreaker alters the state of the model implicitly by removing buffs but, explicitly, does not alter the state of the model - it explicitly alters the state of buffs, by ending them with it's immediate effect.

what is the state of the model?

No, it doesnt. It specifically says that effects end.

effects .... end

you need to review what an effect is...

you're splitting hairs between "effect", "talent" and "spell" as though they were different.

the book says they're the same.

the ruling above says they're the same.

these definitions are where the argument is running in circles.

What is an effect? (see above, and other post)

What is the State of the Model?

yes, i mean't Von Shill (sorry, couldn't remember his name off hand), thank you for that.

Fast is not an effect and Spellbreaker doesnt end it; it is a talent, and also an action modifier.

If you mean Von Schill, that is also not an effect, it is a talent too.

this disagrees with the current definition of Ongoing Effect

yes, it is a talent as well, that does not remove its status of being an effect.

If Student of Conflict said "targeted model gains UBERNESS. While a model has UBERNESS, it has (+1) Fast" then it would be an effect that you could end. But as it is, it gives Fast; see above.

Hardass (+4mp) is ended because it is an effect (it has a cost and a duration).

StD aura is not ended (it is a talent - see above).

Talent is one type of Effect by the rules manual, and the new ruling doesn't help clarify that.

Paralysis from a convict Gunslinger is a bad example. If you mean "it has been affected by Suppressing Fire" then the Suppressing Fire effect would end, yes. If the model has already been Paralysed because it activated then did not discard a card, then it is too late to do anything about Paralysed because the model already forfeited its activation.

I'm not sure if Paralysed or Defensive Stance are effects, to be honest. That's not clear at all in the rulebook anywhere I can see.

there is no definitive list of Effects and all the rulings are on just specific cases,

most of which conflict with the very definition of effect given in the book, or above.

which leads to people splitting hairs and cherry picking what they think an effect is.

so everyone has a different opinion

none of which seem to match what the game vocabulary uses.

if state of a model was clarified... then a "end all effects" power could be rephrased as "reset the state of the model" or something similar.

for example:

if state of the model is that the state of the model is exactly as it is printed on the card for Stats, aside from any wounds missing from damage.

then Spellbreaker could remain "End all Effects" as the book's definition of effects is "anything that changes the state of the model" (first sentence), so while Terrifying would not end if the model initially had it, any results of a spell that granted terrifying would end.

which seems to be the intent of the writers.

but since "state of the model" isn't defined, or is used very loosely to refer to "all the stuff on the model, right now, and what the model is doing" by some...

they end up making ruling after ruling that could be fixed by one piece of errata.

If something removed all effects, why would you think that it doesnt remove all 3?

I'm not clear on the difference between 1 and 2.

1. Student of Conflict gives Fast to a model

2. Perdita already has Fast

3. Freikcorps captain radiates Slow to Die

would immediately reapply because it's an aura from another model.

Which bit of that is unclear or am I being dumb?

I think you are overthinking this. I suggest you try and come up with a practical, in-game scenario that would illustrate whatever you think the issue is. If you cannot, then perhaps there is no issue after all.

Perdita Spellbreaker's the Friekcorps commander.

What effects are ended until the closing phase

afterwards:

Can Perdita Spellbreaker the commander (possibly affecting a second target), then shoot another Friekcorps member without retaliation from Slow to Die...

Can she obey the commander without him getting a modifier to his WP?

Even if you could Spellbreaker Terrifying, it would be immediately reassert itself anyway since Spellbreaker doesnt remove it from the card.

why? the duration of a spell without a listed one is "until the closing phase" ... so Terrifying would be gone until the closing phase...

the problem becomes,

that "end all effects" is an effect in itself,

so Spellbreaker (by the current definition of Effect ends itself as well.

this creates a problem in that ongoing effects would turn off, then reassert themselves...

does this count as a model re-entering the ongoing effect if it's one that normally would only affect the model once (upon entering)?

technically, Defensive stance is an effect .

the question is, what is "state"... this ruling implies Defensive Stance affects State (or gives State) but doesn't define State (the "etc" leaves ambiguity that is troublesome, is "Charging" a State?)

And just because an effect is an ongoing effect doesnt make it no longer an effect.

and when something changes an effect

by your words, it would change an ongoing effect

yes. i believe further clarity is needed.

it seems there are threetypes of effects being argued with here...

1. ones that are applied to a specific model

2. ones a model has already

3. ones that the model arapplies to other things

but if something modifies "all effects" but the ruling is intended that they only modify case 1.

then clarity to avoid cases 2 or 3 is needed.

the problem arises when the book's general definition of effect conflicts with a ruling as to what is an effect

there are now two texts for effect and one is incomplete (not addressing pg 20)

ok... after having a day to mull it over... the ruling still has some notable questions... but I'll take those to a different thread...

using the definition above,

I'm still left to wonder, if "passive" abilities of the model that also apply effects to models around them (like Terrifying) are disabled by Spellbreaker (because they are an ongoing effect that applies immediate effects)

To use terms above, they (ongoing effects) are effects that change how cards read other than their wounds

for that matter, it also seems to conflict with:

an effect cna be directly referenced, such as .... Lifer indicates the model does not have to perform the Modal Duel required by Terrifying reguardless of its source.

that says Terrifying is an Effect.

by pg 20, Terrifying seems to be an Ongoing Effect that applies an Immediate game effect of the Moral Duel ...

[ignore... found my answer]

was re-reading this, and something hopped out at me...

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

wait...

states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.)

so... the "state of a model" is movement restrictions / moral restrictions?

this makes the whole first sentence in the definition of Effect in the rules manual seem.... wrong...

was "state" used as a game term in that ruling?

i use simple green (the heaviest concentrate i can find) and a sonic jewelry cleaner... takes about 2 hours for the heaviest stuff.. doesn't harm the plastic...

This pretty much takes you back to the start of this thread chain.

"Unless otherwise stated, only models in play can be affected by game effects and game events"

If you're buried, game effects cannot effect you unless they have some very specific wording that overrides the book (eg "even if this model is buried") and right now nothing like that exists (as far as I'm aware...).

you have a point there.

Yes, the term Token is only recent (with RM publishing) and there was before no term differenciation. "Counters" with regards to Dispell and such actually refer to tokens.

that is the assumption.

clarity would be nice, as Shrug Off has similar wording IIRC.

Being Buried means you do not resolve effects on the model that is buried. A new Turn starting is not an effect that you resolve on a model, it is a Phase of the game. So if you Bury a model on Turn 2 and unBury it on Turn 3, it is Turn 3 for all the models in the game. It is not Turn 2 for the Buried model and Turn 3 for everyone else, as Turns are not an effect.

this makes far more sense than "time stands still"

if the tokens resolve when they cause effects

and effects cannot be resolved on a model that is buried

that makes a simple conclusion that tokens do not resolve on a model that is buried

that's what I was asking. is that the flow of logic.

so the Closing Phase still happens for a model that is in the game but out of play

which leaves the question of,

if an effect says it lasts until a specific phase does it resolve on a buried model because of its special resolution condition?

or does bring buried override all special resolution conditions?

The passage of time does not effect a buried model. So you would not apply the effect or remove the counter as it does not experience the Resolve Effects Stage.

If it was unburied it would experience the next Resolve Effects Stage, and only then would you removes all Burning Tokens and either suffers 1 Wd or gains Slow.

if a model that is buried is not affected by the passage of time,

then the turn never ended for it while it was buried.

if the turn never ended,

then if it has already activated, then when it is returned from buried status, it cannot activate again.

unless it gains reactivate.

THAT is why I ask about if a phase affects a buried model,

if you ignore one phase then all phases are ignored, as they are all classified the same.

If the model is still buried during the Closing Phase, the Burning Token/any effects remain on it.

so, do Phases only affect models in play?

Nothing. A Buried model is not "In Play". A model that is not "In Play" cannot be affected by "In Play" effects.

No. The Closing Phase is not an Effect. It is one of the game's Phases.

I'm confused.

Does the burning counter stay on because "effects" can't be applied.

why, if the closing phase is not an effect, do spells remain on the model that is buried? (as I've been told at tournaments)

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24273&page=5

The closing phase returns models to their stock card status by removing effects.

but an effect changes FROM the stats on the card.

so,

is the closing phase an effect?

based on: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24273&page=5

Burning is a token, which later causes an effect.

when a model is buried is becomes immune to effects

so when a Burning model is buried, what happens in the closing phase?

why?

An effect is something which changes model's status. Model's status is something changed by an effect.

again, fallacy of the converse. this is a logical error, you cannot define a word with itself.

when he mentioned definition being irrelevant for the rest of the game.

the game only has a limited number of terms to use, many are related.

thankfully in another thread, definition of "game effect" has changed, making things more clear.

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

a definition, which does not agree with yours.

there are a notable number of "changes" that do not count as "effects"

by your argument, change is now also an undefined term in the game...

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

see, this, clearer definition helps greatly.

why isn't it stated that clearly in the rules manual?

this implies that the "STATE" of the model is as it reads on the card without the activation of any talents, abilities, or spells.

To apply logic equation properly, you first have to identify the meanings of the words used - the entities they point at or their signifiants. What the signifiants are in the language is not always a matter of definition, but also context.

that last part is where we disagree. the use of context implies "rules as intended" as there is no evidence that clearly defines it.

Now let's try to apply logic properly, taking the custom into consideration. I'm working from memory here, so I may be wrong on particulars, but the general principle is as follows.

1. There's a group of rules in the Rules Manual which reference "effects." Effects can be applied, cannot be applied, are removed from the model etc. etc.

2. There's a general rule defining the effect as something which changes model's status. And particular rules defining types of effects and how they work (Movement Effects, Placement Effects, Immediate vs. Ongoing effects etc).

The general rule for effects is interacting with the third group of rules:

3. Rules that define how and with what to affect models (rules saying you may push the model 4 inches, or the rule giving target model Paralyzed). Please note, that this third group, just like the first group, contains both the general definitions from the Rules Manual (for example an explanation how you cast spells and apply their effects) as well as the special rules on the cards of the models.

Between these rules the logic becomes circular - one is not the effect of another, but they all describe different facets of the same game mechanic - changing models.

see there, nice flow of logic to define a term "changing"

So the operating word for the rule on the page 19 is "change".

Effect is anything that changes Model's Status.

Model's Status is anything that gets changed by Effects.

STOP

Point of Logic

you have committed the Fallacy of the Converse.

A --> B does not mean B --> A.

Obviously the rules writers could've defined model's status. The definition would have to be: "how the model is before it gets changed", as the status changes all the time.

ideally, they'd have two defintions:

a models "initial" state (as it is on the card, when deployed the first time)

and a model's "current" state (under the effects of any spells on it)

From this you can see there isn't really any need for defining Model's status - it references models (so you know effects applying to terrain do not count, for example) and that's it. Change is the defining act here.

again, based on an invalid use of the law of syllogism.

Circular logic is normally the defeat in a scientific argument.

circular logic is normally the defeat? no circular logic is the sign that there is a missing definition.

linguistic convention?

it's a rule set.

a series of instructions and definitions.

yes. we seem to have a very different view of how instructions and definitions should be written.

I expect well defined statements (ideally, ones that work as IF-Then statements to show a flow of logic)

and expect a rule set to follow a flow of logic without gaps.

I honestly don't know how you expect instructions to be given.

Ongoing Effects also mentions "Emotional Stress" (in addition to Armor, and spell caused effects)

How is Emotional Stress different from Terrifying? (in your definitions?)

from what I can see:

1. It is ongoing (by definition on page 20)

2. It affects another model, not the one it is on.

as it is an "Ongoing Effect" it is an "Effect" and thus it would be Spellbroken.

Armor +1 is in the same collection of examples under the stacking of Immediate and Ongoing effects. Armor, therefore is an Immediate or Ongoing effect. either way, it would be Spellbroken.

please,

Armor is a talent which auto-applies Armor effect on the model. There's nothing illogical here in gaming terms.

how is it not ended by Spell breaker?