When has a model activated?

[HalcyonSeraph]

Short version: Does a model count as "having activated" at the START of their activation, or not until they END their activation?

 

Two scenarios where this matters:

 

Model A has Manipulative and activates, and tries to walk away from Model B, triggering a disengaging strike. Does model B have to check Manipulative?

 

Tara has a buried Killjoy and a rat. The rat is the last model on the table for Tara's crew that has yet to activate (other than KJ who is buried) and tara has Eternal Journey up. The rat activates, does some stuff, and sacrifices, bringing out KJ. Did Tara gain reactivate at the start of the rat's activation, or does she now have to wait until after KJ goes becuase she suddenly has another model?

 

My own interpretation is that once you choose to activate a model, it has been activated. Others disagree and say you have not activated until you are DONE activating. 

 

I asked Justin on twitter and he said to bring it here, so here it is. 

[trikk]

Has it? I checked the FAQ, nothing about it there, but plenty about Tara.

 

Papa Smurf post:

 

"http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/101932-tara-bomb-doesnt-work/?hl=tara"

[Patzer]

Papa Smurf post:

 

"http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/101932-tara-bomb-doesnt-work/?hl=tara"

That explained everything. Thanks. Sure wouldn't have hurt with some additional clarity on Tara's card.

[Myyrä]

Because it is activating.

That doesn't sound right. How can an active model be activating?

[papa smurf]

In the course of a game If they say they have activated model x. Then that model is done doing anything do that turn.

If they say they are activating model x Then Model x will spend ap during its activation. After it goes to the end activation step Model x has activated.

@myrra. Active model does not necessarily mean that models activation. A model being obeyed performing a 1 action is the active model. So I am asking what you mean. Could you explain what you mean please.

[HalcyonSeraph]

So to be clear, everyone agreeing with Smurf woudl also say that Manipulative remains active during that models entire own activation, right? That is the same situation from the other side. Same with Oxford Mages pseudo-armor. 

 

To extend Kadeton's analogy, some people believe "has activated" to be analagous to "has lived", in other words "is done activating". I and others believe "has activated" is analagous to "was born", ie, has passed a singular point at which they can be said to have been activated, rather than has passed the complete phase in which the are active. 

 

This needs a FAQ answer, clearly, as "natural language" could be reasonably interpreted either way in this case. 

[papa smurf]

Why did you use "was born" shouldn't it be "has born" which makes no sense. Just like up above you used "has activated" to "has lived" both work and are natural.

Changing the words gives different meaning.

But yes could use a faq.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Why did you use "was born" shouldn't it be "has born" which makes no sense. Just like up above you used "has activated" to "has lived" both work and are natural.

Changing the words gives different meaning.

But yes could use a faq.

 

Because English is weird? "has been born" would be the way to word it if you insisted on using the same word (has/was) for both. 

[papa smurf]

Edit.

Smilely faces. ;)

English good stuff

[Myyrä]

@myrra. Active model does not necessarily mean that models activation. A model being obeyed performing a 1 action is the active model. So I am asking what you mean. Could you explain what you mean please.

You are technically correct, which is obviously the best kind of correct. However, my point was that model that in the process of activating (for the lack of better word) isn't exactly not activated anymore.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Yeah, that is what I am getting at too. A model has either activated or it hasn't - positing the existence of a weird quasi-state where it both has not activated and also is not unactivated is strange. 

[Kadeton]

Yeah, that is what I am getting at too. A model has either activated or it hasn't - positing the existence of a weird quasi-state where it both has not activated and also is not unactivated is strange. 

 

That "weird quasi-state" (i.e. the period during which a process is currently occurring) is exactly what the present participle verb tense is for. The model:

 

has not activated -> is activating -> has activated

 

The argument is about the portion of the Activation which the present participle covers - natural language says that while the process of Activation is occurring, the model undergoing that process "is activating".

 

However! On re-reading the book, I'm going to flip my position and say that natural language rules don't apply, because we're dealing with game terms. Activation and Activated are both capitalised and therefore game-specific. The section which describes Activation very clearly states that "The Activated model spends AP to perform Actions" (or words to that effect, I don't have it to hand - can someone quote the relevant portion of the Activation section?) which makes this unarguable, in my opinion - by the time it comes to spending AP (i.e. after the "beginning of Activation" step is resolved), the model is considered Activated.

[Bengt]

However! On re-reading the book, I'm going to flip my position and say that natural language rules don't apply, because we're dealing with game terms. Activation and Activated are both capitalised and therefore game-specific. The section which describes Activation very clearly states that "The Activated model spends AP to perform Actions" (or words to that effect, I don't have it to hand - can someone quote the relevant portion of the Activation section?) which makes this unarguable, in my opinion - by the time it comes to spending AP (i.e. after the "beginning of Activation" step is resolved), the model is considered Activated.

Reading page 36 "Activations" I can not find what you are describing. The closest is "Once an Activated model has spent its AP the opposing player then gets to Activate a model and spend its AP." which I think is ambiguous with regards to this discussion.

 

However on page 35 the last sentence in the "Activation Phase" section reads "The Activation Phase ends once both players have Activated all of their models." which obviously uses the word in the meaning that the models have finished their Activations.

[Kadeton]

Reading page 36 "Activations" I can not find what you are describing. The closest is "Once an Activated model has spent its AP the opposing player then gets to Activate a model and spend its AP." which I think is ambiguous with regards to this discussion.

 

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. You think it's ambiguous? To me, it implies pretty clearly that there exists a case in which an Activated model has not spent its AP.

 

Your page 35 quote definitely uses the other definition, so I guess we're back where we started.

[trikk]

I believe from my gaming experience that in this case Tara gets reactivate when Killjoy activates and the wording means "after all friendly models (in play) have finished their activation" even though the wording is creating a confusion.

 

I believe a bit of Aaroning or Justining is in place her to settle it ONCE AND FOR ALL

[Kadeton]

Which is possible. Models not spending ap and ending their activation are common.

A model spending its first ap and becoming paralyzed. Is just one example.

 

Hmm, be careful there. Remember, the actual quote is:

"Once an Activated model has spent its AP the opposing player then gets to Activate a model and spend its AP."

 

Technically speaking, that sentence mandates that if the Activated model doesn't spend its AP, the opposing player doesn't get to Activate a model. We know that's not the case, and anyway it's not especially relevant to the discussion.

 

For the first bit to make sense, however, there must exist a point at which an Activated model has not spent its AP and has not ended its Activation (because it still has the opportunity to spend that AP and fulfill the condition of the clause).

[trikk]

Also wouldn`t it mean that you can`t do Move, move, (0) action since after you spend both your AP your opponent activates a model?

[trikk]

Yes but this rule Book is not perfect. In the page before this is said: "Once the model’s Activation is completed, Activation passes to the Second Player who then Activates one of her models, and then back to First Player and so on, in order until all models have completed their Activations."

And in the end activation step this is said: "After effects are resolved any unspent AP are lost, and the model's Activation is over."

 

I`m just saying that applying sentences without "game logic" will make up for very weird effect "After all friendly models in play finish their activation this model gains Reactivate" would be a better wording but I still think that is the intention of the rule.

[Kadeton]

Yes but this rule Book is not perfect.

 

Indeed. So we come around to the same point that all arguments about semantic ambiguity end up in: the rules as written are internally inconsistent, and there's no recourse but to appeal to the designer. We're dealing with something that is designated as a Game Term but is not explicitly defined in the game rules.

 

Is there more to be said, or are we just going in circles at this point? I think the arguments for both sides are pretty clear.

[trikk]

Oh agreed. We have reached the waiting period.

I do enjoy a good debate though.

Clear rules > good debate

[trikk]

I actually think that most Mx rules are intuitive and there`s really not much to brag about (except vertical rules which are CRRRRRRRAZY) so I`m not going to whine.

[Kadeton]

My pet hate rules are Actions causing Actions (feels like every other day some new thing comes up where AcA breaks the game and has to be overruled yet again), Paralyzed, and vertical movement. Everything else is pretty much fine! M2E is a pretty incredible piece of rules architecture, all things considered.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Indeed. So we come around to the same point that all arguments about semantic ambiguity end up in: the rules as written are internally inconsistent, and there's no recourse but to appeal to the designer. We're dealing with something that is designated as a Game Term but is not explicitly defined in the game rules.

 

Is there more to be said, or are we just going in circles at this point? I think the arguments for both sides are pretty clear.

 

We are going in circles. To be fair though, I only even started this thread in hopes that there would be enough disagreement for it to land in the FAQ, so lets hope it does!

[Quasari]

Activated means to be made active. Its will have been considered to have been activated as soon as its able to do stuff. To be considered not have being activated until it's no longer is active is silly and against the definition of the word.

[Kadeton]

Activated means to be made active. Its will have been considered to have been activated as soon as its able to do stuff. To be considered not have being activated until it's no longer is active is silly and against the definition of the word.

 

Bit late to the party? Anyway, welcome to the forums.

 

Common definitions don't necessarily apply, because the term is capitalised, making it a Game Term. Also, a model's Activation is the entire period in which it is able to act, not some instantaneous event that makes it active (as in the common definition), so there's no reason to expect that the past participle of that same word would be based on a different definition.