Start of Activation effects vs. Sweet Candy

[Tris]

Hi guys and gals, one quick question which came to my mind yesterday -

Seishins have the ability to place themselves in base contact with my leader when she/he activates.

Does this help me against Candys "Sweets", an aura which states  that my model is paralyzed if it`s the first model in my crew to activate?

The Seishins could block LOS to Candy thus preventing the aura to affect my leader, but what comes first?

 

Kind regards

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

If Kirai is not in Candy's LoS when it's Candy's turn to resolve her ability, the aura won't affect her. There is nothing in the rulebook hinting that there would be some kind of stack or something like that were all the unresolved abilities are added at the same time.

You say "There's nothing in the rulebook hinting that there would be some kind of stack or something..." but

Quote

If two Abilities happen at the same time, resolve them in the following order:

Whether you want to describe that as a stack or a list or whatever, that is describing a "something like that where all the unresolved abilities are added at the same time."

None of the FAQ scenarios dealing with events that have to go through the General Timing steps involve a scenario where the effect in question is invalidated by the previous simultaneous effects.

But, as far as I can tell, there are two options:

1. At the start of the activation, determine which abilities are triggered and then turn to General Timing to sort them out.  Determine "within 3 of this model" first.
2. Put every 'at the start of activation' in the game in a list, and go through them in the order determined by General Timing.  Determine "within 3 of this model" when you get to that point in the list.

Option #2 doesn't make sense because if the aura doesn't effect the model (because the model isn't in the aura), it's not a relevant effect, so there's no reason to evaluate it, and thus no reason to involve General Timing.

 

[lusciousmccabe]

I popped an response into the other thread.

[Tris]

7 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I popped an response into the other thread.

I know, got the notification, thank you  

[Tris]

So, as my question started a small discussion in a thread dedicated to asking about Kirai, I would like to direct the input to where it should be

Until now, we got this far:

- my question as above, can I block line of sight to Candy as a start of activation effect to stop her Sweets7Sours from happening? (in this case by placing some Seishin in base contact with my leader)

 

09.01.2016, Bengt:

- Kirai's controller gets to decide what order "start of activation" effects affecting Kirai are resolved, so yes, you can place Seishin between Kirai and Candy (assuming there is room) before resolving Sweets/Sours. Page 36

 

09.01.2016, jonahmaul:

- I would say no because Sweets specifies 'when a model activates' not 'at the start of activation' so would happen before you get to do start of activation effects.  It's the same with Fears Given Form which specifically states 'a model which begins it's activation' so even if you get a push out of the engagement of the model with FGF you would still have to take the test because you did begin your activation within it.

 

09.01.2016, lusciousmccabe:

- I think you're taking the damage from Sours regardless because you've already triggered Sours when the Seishin pops up and blocking line of sight at that stage won't stop it.

It's like if you had two models hit with a pulse and after resolving the first model Killjoy shows up to block LoS to the second. Normally he would stop the pulse, but the model behind him has already been tagged with it so it will suffers the effects when it's turn to resolve comes up, even though there's no LoS at that stage.

That's what I reckon anyway.

 

10.01.2016, Bengt:

- That's just an example of Wyrd's inconsistent language use. If you don't place them all in step 1 on page 36 we get chaos, e.g. why would "when" be before "start"?

There is no indication that the Sweet/Sours effects are two step, either you have LoS when you resolve them or you don't. Compare how some effects explicitly say that they are resolved after "the current Action", e.g. Misery. Sours even throws in an "immediately".

 

10.01.2016, lusciousmccabe:

- There's no step in Sours that checks for line of sight after the model has started activating but you are interrupting it to decide what order to resolve things in.

There's nothing in the Seishin's ability to say it stops other abilities resolving so it doesn't matter whether you drop a Seishin in the way at that stage as far as I can see.  You're choosing to resolve Sours after the other thing but you still have to resolve it and take the damage anyway.

 

 

So, thats it so far, thank you all for the input so far

 

Kind regards

[Tris]

Sorry for the doublepost, but I think its easier to read that way.

 

- I don`t think that I´m interrupting something as these are two effects which take place at the same instant in the game, both affecting my model, so the rb says on pg. 36 (big one)/ pg. 33 (small one) "resolve "activation" effects" that I as the affected models controller get to choose in which order they resolve.

I choose the Seishin first and if there is sufficient space and models for me I could place them to block line of sight to Candy, thus preventing her effect to affect me legally now.

 

-> the same thing should be doable (and I think it has been "officially" done before) with Sebastians/Mc Mournings Catalyst aura, where you take damage from poison if you begin your activation in an 8" aura - block los and you should take no poison damage.

 

But the problem is the exact timing, and I find it hard to prove either point....

 

Kind regards

[lusciousmccabe]

I think you can more or less ignore everything I posted because of this:

Quote

A model cannot be affected by an aura or pulse that emanates from a location out of LoS.

From a callout box on page 50 of the rulebook. Reading that opens up something of a can of worms for me, but it does make this question a bit more cut and dried. 

The rules on page 36 don't give instructions for how to resolve activation effects with different language. It makes specific references to stuff that happens "at the start of this model's Activation" but there's nowhere else in the rules explaining how to differentiate between that and "when a model activates" or similar like you can for "when damaging" and "after damaging" for example. 

You could read it either way but I think the intent is to lump all these sorts of effects together. In that case you get to choose what order to resolve them in for Kirai so you can do the Seishin first and then she can't be affected by Sweets when its turn comes around. 

[jonahmaul]

I think I'm actually going the other way now after Bengt's response.  Although you could move the Seishin into LoS which would block the Aura the rulebook just says that you choose the order they resolve in so I think they would still have to resolve.  But I'm not 100% sure either way so would love to hear other people's interpretation.  I looked through the FAQ and there was nothing that pertained to anything similar.

 

We had a similar issue come up in a game the other day when I was using Jackdaw and how Fears Given Form would work.  Jackdaw can Push Tormented models 3" when they activate which would get them out of the FGF range but as the latter states 'models that begin their activation' we decided they would still have to take the duel even if the Push took them out of it.  However, Bengt is correct that Wyrd often use inconsistent language and start/begin etc. would all fall under Step 1 of the activation process so that even if you Push a model out of range or move a Seishin into LoS you would still have to resolve the effect.

[lusciousmccabe]

I think you're right for Fears Given Form. The only thing I can see which stops Sweets is that callout box on page 50 which wouldn't apply there.

[Myyrä]

There is only one step in which all effects that happen when a model is activated are resolved. pg 36.

As the abilities in question in this case are not on the active model, the first player resolves his abilities first. pg. 46

If Kirai is not in Candy's LoS when it's Candy's turn to resolve her ability, the aura won't affect her. There is nothing in the rulebook hinting that there would be some kind of stack or something like that were all the unresolved abilities are added at the same time.

[jonahmaul]

Would the same hold true for Fears Given Form? If you activate you choose the order of start/beginning of activation effects so if you Pushed then did FGF it wouldn't effect you because you're outside of the engagement range? Even though you did still 'begin' your activation in the engagement?

[Myyrä]

13 minutes ago, jonahmaul said:

Would the same hold true for Fears Given Form? If you activate you choose the order of start/beginning of activation effects so if you Pushed then did FGF it wouldn't effect you because you're outside of the engagement range? Even though you did still 'begin' your activation in the engagement?

Sure, as far as I can tell. Perdita, for example, could push away before it's time to resolve other models' abilities.

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, solkan said:

You say "There's nothing in the rulebook hinting that there would be some kind of stack or something..." but

Whether you want to describe that as a stack or a list or whatever, that is describing a "something like that where all the unresolved abilities are added at the same time."

None of the FAQ scenarios dealing with events that have to go through the General Timing steps involve a scenario where the effect in question is invalidated by the previous simultaneous effects.

But, as far as I can tell, there are two options:

1. At the start of the activation, determine which abilities are triggered and then turn to General Timing to sort them out.  Determine "within 3 of this model" first.
2. Put every 'at the start of activation' in the game in a list, and go through them in the order determined by General Timing.  Determine "within 3 of this model" when you get to that point in the list.

Option #2 doesn't make sense because if the aura doesn't effect the model (because the model isn't in the aura), it's not a relevant effect, so there's no reason to evaluate it, and thus no reason to involve General Timing.

 

The aura is part of the ability. Why would resolve checking what's inside the aura at a different time than the rest of the ability? What rule would support that?

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

The aura is part of the ability. Why would resolve checking what's inside the aura at a different time than the rest of the ability? What rule would support that?

I agree with this. The ability is more or less not considered to exist until you get to the point in the resolving order where you check range for it, you can't check for parts of the ability until it pops up in the resolution order.

[lusciousmccabe]

3 hours ago, Myyrä said:

The aura is part of the ability. Why would resolve checking what's inside the aura at a different time than the rest of the ability? What rule would support that?

What's the name of that dodge type defensive ability on Ice Dancers? I don't have the cards but I remember from the beta at least it said something like "if this moves the model out of range/LoS the attack fails", which to me implies that actions otherwise don't fail if the model they affect drops out of LoS before resolution. Randomising in close combat is another example where you need a legal target when declaring an action but can still resolve against an illegal one.  

4 hours ago, Myyrä said:

As the abilities in question in this case are not on the active model, the first player resolves his abilities first. pg. 46

It's not particularly relevant but the controller of the model gets to choose the order of activation effects - pg. 36.

 

2 hours ago, Ludvig said:

I agree with this. The ability is more or less not considered to exist until you get to the point in the resolving order where you check range for it, you can't check for parts of the ability until it pops up in the resolution order.

Surely you have to check the part that says "When an enemy model activates" before then? Otherwise you never add it to the queue to be resolved in the first place.  

[Myyrä]

3 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

What's the name of that dodge type defensive ability on Ice Dancers? I don't have the cards but I remember from the beta at least it said something like "if this moves the model out of range/LoS the attack fails", which to me implies that actions otherwise don't fail if the model they affect drops out of LoS before resolution. Randomising in close combat is another example where you need a legal target when declaring an action but can still resolve against an illegal one.  

Whether abilities can fail or not is quite irrelevant when talking about whether they are triggered in the first place. (And the ability is butterfly jump.)

3 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Surely you have to check the part that says "When an enemy model activates" before then? Otherwise you never add it to the queue to be resolved in the first place.  

There is no queue.

[Ludvig]

I am less sure of this order the more I read it actually.

When a model activates within three could set off the ability only to be resolved by the player after other effects. If I pushed a model into Candy's aura it would seem intuitive to not take the paralyz/damage even if the push occured as part of a start of activation ability. By the same logic, it's hard to say your model didn't activate within 3" of Candy if it actually started it's activation in that place but instantly pushed out.

[lusciousmccabe]

 

39 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Whether abilities can fail or not is quite irrelevant when talking about whether they are triggered in the first place. (And the ability is butterfly jump.)

Thank you for this well supported rebuttal. What exactly suggests to you that Sweets doesn't trigger in this scenario? As far as I can see it triggers when Kirai activates but does nothing when it resolves because Auras can't affect a model out of LoS. LoS is gone because you resolved the other thing first, which you could do because they triggered at the same time. 

22 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

There is no que, I as the controller choose the order in which we check/resolve abilities. The ability text on Candy will need to be read when someone activates too far away also since we might need to refresh our memories on how far the aura stretches, otherwise you wouldn't know if you were inside or not. So I decide to push first, after that push we measure if I am in range of your ability. I am not so you can't affect me. 

I see it differently. On page 36 of the big rulebook it says.

"Some game effects state they resolve"at the start of the model's Activation". These effects take place now. A model's controller chooses what order these effects resolve on the model if more than one occurs at the beginning of the model's Activation."

This is the place where abilities hang out waiting to resolve. It's a de facto queue or stack, or whatever you want to call it. In this case Sweets won't do anything on resolution because of the callout box on page 50. If Kirai was pushed out of the aura instead of blocking LoS I'd still have her paralysed. 

Basically I don't see a general rule telling you not to resolve activation effects if they become illegal because of another ability with the same timing. 

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, lusciousmccabe said:

 

I see it differently. On page 36 of the big rulebook it says.

"Some game effects state they resolve"at the start of the model's Activation". These effects take place now. A model's controller chooses what order these effects resolve on the model if more than one occurs at the beginning of the model's Activation."

 

That just says that you don't resolve all the abilities at once. It doesn't say anything about how they can interact with each other. Assuming there is some sort of stack causes at least just as many problems as the alternative, so I prefer to assume that something that important would have warranted a clear explanation in the rules. Since there isn't one, there probably isn't a stack.

[jonahmaul]

I think the problem is that it doesn't say whether they all have to resolve or not  There is naturally some sort of queue/stack/order/whatever you want to call it and on the one hand you have the activating model choosing order of effects and then doing everything that is stated on the ability before checking the next one but if the requirements of the latter are no longer met (out of range, out of LoS etc.) then if doesn't resolve.  On the other hand you have that you queue/stack/order whatever all the abilities that can resolve and choose the order that they resolve in but must still resolve them all even if the requirements of the abilities may become unmatched by earlier resolving abilities.   Unfortunately it's not clear which one we are supposed to do.

[Adran]

We have had this discussion before, 

http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/104574-tengu-and-clockwork-traps/

and it didn't generate a FAQ but the general consesus was (as I understood it) that the effects effectively went on to a stack. (well that if a model had line of sight at the beginning of its activation, then even if other things happen at the beginning of its activation to remove that line of sight, it would still have to resolve the effect as it was true at the beginning of its activation). 

 

[Myyrä]

3 hours ago, Adran said:

We have had this discussion before, 

http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/104574-tengu-and-clockwork-traps/

and it didn't generate a FAQ but the general consesus was (as I understood it) that the effects effectively went on to a stack. (well that if a model had line of sight at the beginning of its activation, then even if other things happen at the beginning of its activation to remove that line of sight, it would still have to resolve the effect as it was true at the beginning of its activation). 

 

There most definitely was no consensus in a thread where myself, Godlyness and Ausplosions all posted. Wouldn't even have been necessary to read it. About the only thing that people agreed on in that thread was that FAQ would be nice.

[jonahmaul]

Would be nice if there was a FAQ confirming one way or the other. It's pretty frustrating that Wyrd seem to ignore things that would really be improved by having a FAQ (and I'm sure clarification on how thing stack would impact on a number of interactions so would be useful to know) yet are still prepared to put some very basic stuff in there when they often say the reason for omitting stuff is so it doesn't become bloated. Fingers crossed!