Jump to content

Kadeton

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Kadeton last won the day on July 3 2018

Kadeton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,918 Grand Vizier

About Kadeton

  • Rank
    Angst Bunny
  • Birthday 12/29/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's a fascinating question. I think it would certainly require an implicit assumption that each ability (or whatever) can only come into effect in reaction to any specific event once, in order to not completely break the game. I'll be honest, the Vogel example has thrown me for a loop a bit.
  2. That's why some commenters are accusing you of setting up a separate "checking" step to determine which effects to resolve. You're essentially saying that as you're resolving effects, you don't want to re-check the updated game state for new simultaneous effects. You're looking for the passage of time - Colette unburies, then afterwards she gains Blighted - where it doesn't exist. Instead, at the start of Colette's activation, she unburies within Hamelin's aura and gains Blighted at the same time. No time passes, and it's still the "start". You don't check once, then resolve all. You check, resolve one, check again, resolve one, check again, resolve one, etc... until there's nothing left to resolve. That's how all simultaneous effects happen in this game. (More accurately you check continuously, since you can also create new effects within the resolution of effects, but it's harder to get across in context.)
  3. You guys are going nowhere with this back-and-forth. There's no point asking for "authority", since the rules are the only authority and they're open to interpretation. I'm hesitant to wade in to the discussion, but I figure I'll give it a shot. This is key, I think. As long as there are effects that might occur in the current timing step, you should be checking for them. The "start" of a model's activation is either a single instant in time, or the entire duration of the C1 phase (i.e. it is still the start of the model's activation until there are no more start-of-activation effects to resolve). There isn't enough detail in the rules to definitively argue for either interpretation. Either choice has significant consequences. However, we do know that there is no true simultaneity in the rules. The simultaneous effect rules are actually a way of sequentially ordering effects with the same timing point - the resolution of each effect is based on the current game state (modified by any previous "simultaneous" effects in the sequence), not on the game state as it existed at the timing point when it was put into effect. Given that events in the game can be simultaneous and yet resolve sequentially, it is also true that events can conversely be resolved sequentially and yet be simultaneous. This collapses the C1 phase to a single instant of time, the "start of the model's activation", in which all possible simultaneous start-of-activation effects are resolved sequentially. As you noted earlier, checking to apply is a continuous process - even though it's the same "instant", you still need to continuously check to see whether any new simultaneous effects need to be resolved whenever you change the game state. So that's my understanding: all the events in the C1 subphase occur simultaneously, at the same instant ("the start of the model's activation"). However, resolving effects always happens sequentially, re-checking for additional simultaneous effects after each is resolved, until there are no more effects that can be resolved. Only at that point has the instant passed, and we move on to C2. Hope that makes sense.
  4. I'm honestly not clear what makes Flight more explicit. If Blade Rush were worded in the same style, something like: Blade Rush: When resolving the Charge Action, instead of this model's Push being interrupted by other models normally, this model may Push through them and inflict 1 damage to them. Would that be equally explicit, and therefore modify the Action? I'm not sure what part of the rule text you're focusing on as explicit.
  5. I'm interested in the comparison. What's an example of an ability that explicitly modifies an action?
  6. I'm not sure how you reconcile the idea that "resolve any heal effects on the killed model" overrides "fully resolve an effect before moving on to the next", but all the other "resolve ... now" instructions in the damage timing don't. By that, I don't mean to say that you're wrong, just that I can't quite follow the logic.
  7. I think the contention is: Resolve damage effect on Black Blood model Step 5: Black Blood adds a damage effect on Viktoria to the resolution stack Step 6: Into the Fray adds a healing effect on Viktoria to the resolution stack Finish resolving the effect (model is removed, etc) Now resolve damage effect on Viktoria Viktoria is killed and removed from play Now resolve healing effect on Viktoria ... but she's already dead and gone So either way, she still dies.
  8. Interesting responses. I would have assumed the opposite interpretation to what seems to be the consensus: that Blade Rush modifies the Charge action (allowing the Charge to be made through other models, and dealing damage to them), and it is the modified Charge action which is dealing the damage in that case.
  9. I kind of agree, except that in this case I think it produces a result that seems bad for the health of the game. Killjoy should (IMO) be able to be killed via damage while Buried, because attacks that target Buried models are rare and highly specialised, and should have value in this situation. If that requires a generous interpretation of what constitutes a "Bury effect", then that's what I'd go with. In general, I'd suggest that anything which is a single sentence could be treated as a single "effect" - in the case of Immortal Soil, that would prevent it from working while Buried. If it had instead been worded as "After this model is killed, it Heals 4. Then, Bury this model." then each effect could be resolved separately. But "it Heals 4 and is Buried" can be both a heal effect and a bury effect.
  10. There are no negative values. The accuracy modifier, as written, is determined by subtracting the losing model's total from the winning model's total. IF we were to apply accuracy modifiers to Good Shot (still very much up for debate, it seems) then the accuracy modifier applied would be determined by that difference (winning vs losing), not by subtracting Ironsides' opponent's final result from her own. So if Ironsides successfully defended and beat her opponent by 1, Good Shot would be at a . If she got hit with an attack that beat her by 11, Good Shot would be at a . (In a way, I actually really like that interpretation, because it adds a touch of character to the Good Shot mechanic. If Ironsides gets hit really hard, she hits back really hard. If she takes a light tap, she goes easy on the counter. And if the opponent's wild swing doesn't come anywhere near her, it's a smirkingly ironic "Good shot" as she lays them flat.)
  11. The Action or Ability doesn't kill the model, it just Buries it. The Bury effect kills the model if it's still Buried at the end of the game. That's not substantially different to any other Action that causes an effect (e.g. "target gains Burning +1") that subsequently kills a model. No kill credit would be given in those circumstances either.
  12. Yeah, that might be the loophole I was searching for. It feels extremely tenuous (the opposed duel provides the suit for the trigger, so saying that the trigger and its damage flip isn't "resulting" from the duel feels like a real stretch) but it provides a resolution outcome that seems more in line with expectations.
  13. As someone who's recently taken an interest in Ironsides, that's a really interesting question. For reference: I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, gaining the Focused bonus on both the Df duel and the Good Shot damage feels powerful to a degree that seems like it couldn't have been intended. On the other hand, it's difficult to see how, even in the most restrictive and finicky interpretation, it would be possible to think of that as anything other than a damage flip resulting from the opposed duel. Basically, I can't see any sensible way to argue that it doesn't work. But I kind of feel like it shouldn't.
  14. I mean, it would be a bit funny if Grave Diggers were one of the most obstructive models in the game at Digging Their Graves. That seems more than a little counter-intuitive. Personally, I'd agree that they would be both Corpse and Scheme markers (they are Corpse Markers, and you also treat them as Scheme Markers). I'd draw the line at any suggestion that a single Corpse could be both a Scheme Marker and a Corpse Marker within 1" of that Scheme Marker - I agree with Adran that six Corpses would be required for Dig Their Graves.
  15. You wrote, "I'll play the devil's advocate," i.e. argue a position that you do not personally agree with. Perhaps you mistyped that, but I think it's worth explaining why we don't do this. In general, where there is ambiguity in the rules, we try to establish a consensus. If more than one interpretation is possible, but everybody assumes it works one way anyway, then the disambiguation isn't necessary. Natural language is inherently difficult to write unambiguously without being very verbose - trying to remove all possibility of alternative interpretation is a Sisyphean torment (even before we get into the difficulties of translation). Instead, the rules rely on a "reasonable interpretation", much like all laws. The rules are only relevant in terms of the gameplay effect that they produce. It doesn't really matter what the letter of the rule says, only how a given interpretation affects the outcomes of the game. This is where it is reasonable to disagree - if you feel that allowing someone to score Search the Ruins with a scheme marker in contact with an Ice Pillar represents a balance problem for that scheme, and I do not, then we can have a discussion based on the relative merits of our positions. But if you're saying "Well I interpret these words this way," and I disagree, then we're just arguing semantics and wasting everyone's time. Yeah, that's fine. I often do that too. But if that's all you're doing, then you're not actually adding to the conversation. There are any number of ways the rule could have been written differently (and none of them are flawless) but what's important is trying to reach a consensus on which interpretation produces the best outcomes for the game. Playing the devil's advocate is doing the exact opposite - it attempts to challenge the consensus to purposely create further debate. Literally: arguing for the sake of arguing.
×
×
  • Create New...