Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
MrDeathTrout

Stones on the River Resolution Order

Question

Shenlong's Stones on the River heals AND removes one Condition, but in what order?  I'm guessing Shenlong chooses since it says AND instead of THEN, but I'm not sure about that.

 

Quote

(1) Stones on the River (Ml 6:ram / TN: 12 / Rg: 6): Target friendly model heals 2 damage and removes up to one Condition of this model's choice.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 2

I was hoping for something more definitive than the assumption that "and" and "then" mean the same thing, but if there is a consensus, that's what I'll go with.  It would be nice if there was an official ruling, but this doesn't seem like the type of thing that usually makes it into the FAQ.

 

Originally I figured I'd go along with the restriction that AND specifies order, but the more I think about it the more this seems like an arbitrary restriction with no basis in rules and little support from natural language.

I have found no rule that justifies, or even suggests a restriction on the order of game effects that contain an AND.  There are may that do specify THEN.  Which would suggest that AND and THEN are not the same thing.  I do concede the rules are riddled with identical game effects with different wording, so that is not a strong argument.

On the natural language front there people do tend to put things in chronological order when connected by an and in some cases.  "I went to the store and bought some eggs" for instance.  But just as often no order in implied.  "I want you to clean the litter box and feed the cat" for example.  If I punished my kid for feeding the cat before cleaning the litter box I'm pretty sure most people would call that unjust.  I'd say the natural language argument that AND restricts order is weak at best.

I did a search of AND to see if there was any consistency.  I only looked for rules where there was an AND that does (or might) imply order.  I ignored AND that was only used in a list (e.g. ...LoS and Cover...)  Also I did not search the entire rules set, once I finished Guild I felt I had a large enough sample size, so I may have missed some good examples (for or against) in other factions.

 

I found some cases were it coule be argued that AND was used to imply order, but in all these cases the order could not be done in any other way (e.g. resolving always comes after succeeding), or the first step is the cost for performing the second step.  So I consider these examples little or no support that AND is used to dictate order.
Death Marshal's
C Follow the Trail: After succeeding and resolving any resulting Action, take this Action again.Peacekeeper
(1) Chain Harpoon (Sh 6R / Rst: Df / Rg: z10): Target suffers 2/3/5 damage and gains the Slow Condition.

Thalarian Stone
Echo of Souls: When this model is targeted by an Action it may spend a Soulstone and flip a card to increase its Df and Wp for the remainder of the duel...

 

 

I found that where order is obviously important "AND THEN" was used.   There are several more draw and then discard examples I felt would be redundant so did not included them.

Perdita's
(0) Hero’s Gamble: This model discards its hand and then draws a number of cards equal to those discarded.

Pale Rider's
(0) Revel in Death (Ca 6 / TN: 12RR): Push this model up to 4" in any direction and then place a Scheme Marker in base contact with it.

Pathfinder
Scavenge Supplies: Once per Turn, when another model is killed in a6, this model may draw a card and then discard a card.

Austringer's
(2) Deliver Orders: One friendly model within 18” (regardless of LoS) may push 2" in any direction and then take an immediate (1) Interact Action.


 

Stone's on the River falls into the last group.  Two game effects linked by an AND that at first glance will have the same game effect regardless of order.  Most likely the game designers did not specify an order because it didn't seem like there would ever be an situation where order would be important.  If that is the case there was probably little or no thought given to the order the game effects were listed.  That provides no justification to dictate that the order the effects are listed in is the order in which they must be performed.

Justice Unleased
(0) Last Rites: Remove all Corpse and Scrap Markers within p6.

Sonnia's

R Absorb Magic: After damaging, this model heals one damage and draws one card for each R in the final duel total.

Hoffman's

RR Repeat Program: After succeeding, the target suffers 2 damage which may not be reduced and gains the Fast Condition.

 

 

I interpret the rules as a set of restrictions telling you what you cannot do.  Even when the rules tell you what you can do they are also telling you what you cannot do.  If the rules do not say you cannot do something then you can.  The movement rules tell me for example if my Wk is 5 I cannot move more than 5" when taking a walk action, I cannot move more than at more than half speed in Dense terrain, etc.  The rules do not say that I cannot walk 5" in a circle and end up where I started, so I can do that.  The rules do not say I cannot do B before A if an effect says to do A and B, therefore I can do B before A.  Dictating the order is just as arbitrary as saying "You can't end a walk in the same place you started.  The rules don't say that, but it's just the way it is."

IMHO RAW wins over RAI without a very good reason.  In this case I see no rule that says you must apply the game effects in order, an no compelling reason to assume this was the intent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
6 hours ago, Bengt said:

Except that is not how the Malifaux rules are generally worded. The majority of them tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. E.g. severe terrain (42, 61) is only worded as costing double, not as a further restriction on your move distance. Sometimes a rule is written both ways (I assume for clarity), e.g. the Walk and Charge Actions (39) allows you to "move up to" and general move rules (42) further adds that you are not allowed go further.

So for "Stones on the River" to get around "Glimpse the Inevitable" you wound need a rule that allows you to change the order of effects.

"The majority of them tell you what you can do, not what you can't do."  I don't think I explained my line of thinking very well on that point.  When a rule tells you what you can do I assume there are no restrictions than are stated.

 

Stones on the River says you can do X and Y.  There are no other restrictions listed.

- My stand is if you are not restricted from doing something then it is legal to do so. Stones on the River does not say I can not change the order so I can.  

- Your stance is, it does not say you can change the order so you cannot.

 

I picked random rule (dropping a scheme marker) and applied both our assumptions to it to see how they would affect that rule.  I read the rules for Placing Scheme Markers (p 39) and Markers (49) in the big rule book.  To paraphrase when you take an interact action you drop a scheme marker in base with yourself and not within 4" of another scheme marker.  No where did it say the marker can be placed in base contact with another model or that it can be placed in terrain.

- My stand is since the rules does not prohibit you from dropping a scheme marker in base contact with another model, or from dropping a marker in terrain, so you can do so.

- If we apply the restrictions to dropping scheme markers that you have applied to Stones on the River then you cannot drop scheme a scheme marker if it would be in base contact with another model, and you cannot drop it in terrain of any type.  The rules do not say you can, so you cannot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
22 minutes ago, solkan said:

Double checked to make sure that there was a situation where the order would matter, and found one:

I think the end result is that (unless specified otherwise by a rule) you apply the effects in the order specified rather than being able to choose.  So the difference between "and" and "then" is a matter of emphasis, not actual semantic difference.

 

It never ceases to amaze me you always seem to find the one thing in all those pages that applies to a give situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, MrDeathTrout said:

I interpret the rules as a set of restrictions telling you what you cannot do.  Even when the rules tell you what you can do they are also telling you what you cannot do.  If the rules do not say you cannot do something then you can.  The movement rules tell me for example if my Wk is 5 I cannot move more than 5" when taking a walk action, I cannot move more than at more than half speed in Dense terrain, etc.  The rules do not say that I cannot walk 5" in a circle and end up where I started, so I can do that.  The rules do not say I cannot do B before A if an effect says to do A and B, therefore I can do B before A.  Dictating the order is just as arbitrary as saying "You can't end a walk in the same place you started.  The rules don't say that, but it's just the way it is."

IMHO RAW wins over RAI without a very good reason.  In this case I see no rule that says you must apply the game effects in order, an no compelling reason to assume this was the intent.

 

Except that is not how the Malifaux rules are generally worded. The majority of them tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. E.g. severe terrain (42, 61) is only worded as costing double, not as a further restriction on your move distance. Sometimes a rule is written both ways (I assume for clarity), e.g. the Walk and Charge Actions (39) allows you to "move up to" and general move rules (42) further adds that you are not allowed go further.

So for "Stones on the River" to get around "Glimpse the Inevitable" you wound need a rule that allows you to change the order of effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

During the Public Beta testing on Leveticus (and I think Bad Juju and Bete Noir), they changed the wording of the abilities so that the order was bury, remove conditions and then heal, because any other order would not have worked with decaying aura or Whispers from beyond. 

Now this was a couple of years ago, and I can't say that they did it as formal rules, or just because it was simpler to write it that way rather keep answering questions on how it should work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, MrDeathTrout said:

I picked random rule (dropping a scheme marker) and applied both our assumptions to it to see how they would affect that rule.  I read the rules for Placing Scheme Markers (p 39) and Markers (49) in the big rule book.  To paraphrase when you take an interact action you drop a scheme marker in base with yourself and not within 4" of another scheme marker.  No where did it say the marker can be placed in base contact with another model or that it can be placed in terrain.

- My stand is since the rules does not prohibit you from dropping a scheme marker in base contact with another model, or from dropping a marker in terrain, so you can do so.

- If we apply the restrictions to dropping scheme markers that you have applied to Stones on the River then you cannot drop scheme a scheme marker if it would be in base contact with another model, and you cannot drop it in terrain of any type.  The rules do not say you can, so you cannot.

The rules say that you can drop scheme markers and that is enough. There are some restrictions to dropping them, but outside those special circumstances it's always allowed. There is no need for an explicit rule allowing dropping scheme markers on Tuesdays.

On the other hand, there is no rule saying that you are allowed to choose freely in which order you want to resolve the effects of an attack action. I'm not too happy that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere whether you are allowed to do so or not. At the moment we only have one FAQ answer telling that one specific action's effects are resolved in the order they are written. That's not definite proof of anything but it's enough to cast doubt on the theory that you are allowed to choose the order of the effects freely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

51 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

The rules say that you can drop scheme markers and that is enough. There are some restrictions to dropping them, but outside those special circumstances it's always allowed. There is no need for an explicit rule allowing dropping scheme markers on Tuesdays.

On the other hand, there is no rule saying that you are allowed to choose freely in which order you want to resolve the effects of an attack action. I'm not too happy that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere whether you are allowed to do so or not. 

That is my point.  If the rules do not restrict you from doing so, so you can.  The same logic should be applied to all rules equally, and not be arbitrarily applied to some and not to others. Stones on the River does not say it can be used on Tuesdays any more than it says the effects must be performed in the order they are listed.

There is also no rule saying that you are NOT allowed to choose freely in which order you want to resolve the effect of an action.  I would also like it explicitly stated if you can choose the order or not, but currently it is not.  Just as it is not explicitly stated whether it can or cannot be used on Tuesdays.  Since it is not the assumption is you can use it on Tuesdays, so why is the assumption different for resolving the order of effects?

 

51 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

At the moment we only have one FAQ answer telling that one specific action's effects are resolved in the order they are written. That's not definite proof of anything but it's enough to cast doubt on the theory that you are allowed to choose the order of the effects freely.

This may change everything for me.  This is the first I've heard and any rule that backs up why there should be an implied restriction on the order the effects are resolved in.  Can you tell me which FAQ entry it is?  I have not been able to find it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, MrDeathTrout said:

 

That is my point.  If the rules do not restrict you from doing so, so you can.  The same logic should be applied to all rules equally, and not be arbitrarily applied to some and not to others. Stones on the River does not say it can be used on Tuesdays any more than it says the effects must be performed in the order they are listed.

There is also no rule saying that you are NOT allowed to choose freely in which order you want to resolve the effect of an action.  I would also like it explicitly stated if you can choose the order or not, but currently it is not.  Just as it is not explicitly stated whether it can or cannot be used on Tuesdays.  Since it is not the assumption is you can use it on Tuesdays, so why is the assumption different for resolving the order of effects?

The rules give you permission to drop scheme markers. That's why you are allowed to do so if another rule does not forbid you.

The rules don't give you permission to howl like a monkey and take a shit in the middle of the table. The fact that there isn't a rule to explicitly forbid it doesn't make it permitted.

I don't know how I could explain this any more clearly.

 

Quote

This may change everything for me.  This is the first I've heard and any rule that backs up why there should be an implied restriction on the order.  Actions are resolved in.  Can you tell me which FAQ entry it is?  I have not been able to find it.

5) Q: Wong’s Lightning Jump Attack can cause damage multiple times, first with the initial damage to the target, then with blasts, and finally with the pulse. How is the timing on this Action handled in regards to Abilities which react to damage, for example Black Blood and Malevolence? Can those Abilities be used multiple times in response to a single Attack?
A: Each portion of Lightning Jump which deals damage must be resolved separately. First the actual damage track is resolved, which involves Blast Markers (remember that in the case that the order in which resolving damage from Blasts matters, the Attacker decides the order in which models suffer damage, Core Rulebook pg. 50). Once that is complete, resolve the Pulse portion of Lightning Jump. Models with Abilities such as Black Blood or Malevolence may resolve them multiple times if the relevant models suffer damage multiple times, and they must be resolved in the order the damage is suffered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I don't know how I could explain this any more clearly.

Explain why you are adding a restriction that is not stated anywhere in the rules.  By removing the condition then healing I am doing what the rule explicitly told me to do and I am not doing anything any rule explicitly said I could not.  Which is exactly the logic applied to dropping a scheme marker.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

5) Q: Wong’s Lightning Jump Attack can cause damage multiple times, first with the initial damage to the target, then with blasts, and finally with the pulse. How is the timing on this Action handled in regards to Abilities which react to damage, for example Black Blood and Malevolence? Can those Abilities be used multiple times in response to a single Attack?
A: Each portion of Lightning Jump which deals damage must be resolved separately. First the actual damage track is resolved, which involves Blast Markers (remember that in the case that the order in which resolving damage from Blasts matters, the Attacker decides the order in which models suffer damage, Core Rulebook pg. 50). Once that is complete, resolve the Pulse portion of Lightning Jump. Models with Abilities such as Black Blood or Malevolence may resolve them multiple times if the relevant models suffer damage multiple times, and they must be resolved in the order the damage is suffered.

 

 

As for Wong, that seems pretty thin.  It does resolve the action in the order listed on the card, but the question has nothing to do with resolution order. I only asks if the damage is combined or taken discretely.  There may have been absolutely no thought given to the order when writing the answer.  I agree that we should apply the FAQ to similar situations, but in my mind since the two questions are completely different it make the connection very week.

 

If you are going to look to the FAQ then it makes more sense to apply entries that have to do with resolution order.

Quote

11) Q: If a model has multiple effects on it which end at the end of the Turn, in what order do they resolve?
A: The model’s controller chooses the order in which the effects resolve. See the End Phase section in the rulebook, pg. 35.


From the big rule book:

Quote

In situations where the order that models suffer damage matters, the Attacker may determine the order in which the affected models resolve the blast effects.


Neither of these give strong support to being able to choose A then B, or B then A, but Wong doesn't give strong support to a restricted order.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, MrDeathTrout said:

Explain why you are adding a restriction that is not stated anywhere in the rules.

Law lists things you aren't allowed to do. Game rules list what you are allowed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Law lists things you aren't allowed to do. Game rules list what you are allowed to do.

We're going around in circles at this point.  

We agree you can do what a rule allows you to do as long as you don't do anything the rules restrict you from doing.

You say since there is no explicit rule stating the order effects within an action are resolved you must resolve in the order listed.  There are no rules stating you can choose the order, so you cannot.  Even though this does not break any stated restrictions.

I say since there is no explicit rule stating the order effects within an action are resolved you can choose the order.  I would do what the action said to do without breaking any restrictions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
46 minutes ago, MrDeathTrout said:

We agree you can do what a rule allows you to do as long as you don't do anything the rules restrict you from doing.

You can do what rules tell you to do. There's a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

You can do what rules tell you to do. There's a difference.

If a rule says I CAN do (A and B ) then in my mind it is satisfied if I do (A and B ) OR (B and A ).  In both cases I did what is said I CAN do (A and B ) without doing anything a rule said I cannot (such as determine the order).

If a rule says do (A and then B ) then I must do (A and then B ).  Since there is an actual restriction to be obeyed in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 hours ago, MrDeathTrout said:

I picked random rule (dropping a scheme marker) and applied both our assumptions to it to see how they would affect that rule.  I read the rules for Placing Scheme Markers (p 39) and Markers (49) in the big rule book.  To paraphrase when you take an interact action you drop a scheme marker in base with yourself and not within 4" of another scheme marker.  No where did it say the marker can be placed in base contact with another model or that it can be placed in terrain.

- My stand is since the rules does not prohibit you from dropping a scheme marker in base contact with another model, or from dropping a marker in terrain, so you can do so.

- If we apply the restrictions to dropping scheme markers that you have applied to Stones on the River then you cannot drop scheme a scheme marker if it would be in base contact with another model, and you cannot drop it in terrain of any type.  The rules do not say you can, so you cannot.

 

No, that would not be my reasoning. The interact actions allows you to drop a scheme marker, only reading that far you can place it absolutely anywhere (it doesn't even say they have to be in the game area, but I think we can assume that :P), as we continue on there are further restrictions that removes some areas from the initial "anywhere", not within 4" of other friendly scheme markers, not under your own base (from the FAQ). Each other condition that could be conceivably imagined (which there are infinite) does not need to be specifically allowed since we have the original blanket permission to place scheme markers anywhere.

Getting back to Stones on the River, or order of effects in general. The effects are written in a certain order and in my opinion, for you to rearrange that order you would need a mechanic that describes a way to select the new order (as timing rules for other sections do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Bengt said:

No, that would not be my reasoning. The interact actions allows you to drop a scheme marker, only reading that far you can place it absolutely anywhere (it doesn't even say they have to be in the game area, but I think we can assume that :P), as we continue on there are further restrictions that removes some areas from the initial "anywhere", not within 4" of other friendly scheme markers, not under your own base (from the FAQ). Each other condition that could be conceivably imagined (which there are infinite) does not need to be specifically allowed since we have the original blanket permission to place scheme markers anywhere.

Getting back to Stones on the River, or order of effects in general. The effects are written in a certain order and in my opinion, for you to rearrange that order you would need a mechanic that describes a way to select the new order (as timing rules for other sections do).

I see your point, and I agree that you do need a mechanic to change the order of actions if the resolution order is restricted.  There are some Actions that clearly state "Do X and then do Y" (e.g. Rush of Magic).  They have a mechanic applied to them that says you must do the effects in a specific order.  So there is a mechanic used to restrict resolution order, and had been explicitly applied to some Actions.  Other Actions say "Do X and do Y" (e.g. Stones on the River) there is no explicit restriction on the resolution order.  So in my option there is no need for a mechanic to alter the resolution order since none has been specified.

I think we understand each other.  Where we differs is you say there is an implied restriction on the resolution order.  I say there is no general rule restricting resolution order, so I am free to resolve in the order I choose, unless stated otherwise.  

Would you say that is accurate?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, MrDeathTrout said:

I think we understand each other.  Where we differs is you say there is an implied restriction on the resolution order.  I say there is no general rule restricting resolution order, so I am free to resolve in the order I choose, unless stated otherwise.  

Would you say that is accurate?  

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1

Double checked to make sure that there was a situation where the order would matter, and found one:

Quote

(1) Whispers from Beyond (Ca 6:crow / TN: 13:crow / Rst: Wp / Rg: 10): Target model suffers damage equal to half of its remaining Wounds and gains the following Condition for the rest of the game: “Glimpse the Inevitable: This model may not be healed.”

I think the end result is that (unless specified otherwise by a rule) you apply the effects in the order specified rather than being able to choose.  So the difference between "and" and "then" is a matter of emphasis, not actual semantic difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...