Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Platov

Wong. I need clarifications on "A Gremlin's Luck"

Question

Hello everyone. We had a little debate today, on wich flips are affected by "A Gremlin's Luck" upgrade, and I need some advice.

Wording is: This model gains plus flip to all flips it makes during it's Activation wich are not part of duel or damage flip.

1) Shooting randomization flips. That one is quite obvious.

2) Pulse flips from Lightning Jump. Quite obvious too.

3) Healing Flips from Quality Mash Liquor(or any other way to make healing flips during Wong's activation)?

4) Prevention Flips during Wong activation(from hazardous terrain for example)?This one is in question, because prevention flips are made by "player", not by "model".

5) Flips made for "Oooo... Ahhhh..." action, from "Behold my Effervescence!" upgrade? This one has strange wording. Not "This model flips", but " Flip a card for every model", that's why clarifications needed.

Thank you for your answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

4). It is still a model flip.  It says (SRB pg 53) the "model spends a soulstone to make a damage prevention flip."   I know it also says The Player flips a single card but it is using it interchanging.

5) This one I think is not the model flipping.  So no

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Artiee said:

5) This one I think is not the model flipping.  So no

But the action, resulting this flip, belongs to a model. Like, if you do some additional flips from trigger, it is considered that this model makes those flips, even if there is no reference in wording. That's why I'm a bit confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Artiee said:

5) This one I think is not the model flipping.  So no

How did you come to the conclusion that it's not the model flipping a card when an action tells a model to flip a card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
28 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

How did you come to the conclusion that it's not the model flipping a card when an action tells a model to flip a card?

The action tells simply "flip a card for every model". Compare it with Lightning Jump wording: "this model flips a card" and you'll see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
48 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

How did you come to the conclusion that it's not the model flipping a card when an action tells a model to flip a card?

Basically what Domin said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, Domin said:

The action tells simply "flip a card for every model". Compare it with Lightning Jump wording: "this model flips a card" and you'll see the difference.

And compare that with the wording on his Iron Storm trigger which just says flip a card. You want to try to argue that they intended his upgrade to only work on half of the things on his base card that it would help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Artiee said:

Basically what Domin said.

So then you're just contradicting yourself with prevention flips because it doesn't state that the model flips a card, and explicitly state that it's the player that does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
22 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

And compare that with the wording on his Iron Storm trigger which just says flip a card. You want to try to argue that they intended his upgrade to only work on half of the things on his base card that it would help?

Why not? I don't think that a 1SS upgrade should buff all of his attacks. Pos flips on randomizing and pulse flips would be quite enough for such price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Domin said:

Why not? I don't think that a 1SS upgrade should buff all of his attacks. Pos flips on randomizing and pulse flips would be quite enough for such price.

Except it wouldn't do randomization if we're being that specific with wording because the Random Determination callout box says that model's controller flips the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Except it wouldn't do randomization if we're being that specific with wording because the Random Determination callout box says that model's controller flips the cards.

You are mixing th Random Determination as a common term with a specific case of randomizing while shooting into engagement.

The exact wording of second thing says:

"The Attacker flips one card for each model within 2” of the target model, including the target model itself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, Domin said:

You are mixing th Random Determination as a common term with a specific case of randomizing while shooting into engagement.

The exact wording of second thing says:

"The Attacker flips one card for each model within 2” of the target model, including the target model itself."

The attacker, not the attacking model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
26 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The attacker, not the attacking model.

But Wong is the attacker. If you read the rules it switches between attacker and attacking model, but they mean the same. For example the defender takes the damage according to page38, which I expect everyone knows is the defending model not the defending player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Adran said:

But Wong is the attacker. If you read the rules it switches between attacker and attacking model, but they mean the same. For example the defender takes the damage according to page38, which I expect everyone knows is the defending model not the defending player.

That's my point. There's no reason to think there's a difference between "flip a card" and "this model flips a card".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think, I solved this one. Let me show you an example. 

Old Cranky's "let me tell you a tale" says: "discard a card to draw a card". 

And if you do it near Sammy, or Crier, you can draw additional cards. Because it's obvious, that, even without reference, it's still Cranky, who discards a card. It's his ability, printed on his card. And there are a lot of such examples across every faction. 

Same applies to Wong. It's printed on his card. It's his ability. He flips those cards, even if there is no reference. 

UPD: I can even say: there is no "this model's controller flips a card" on said upgrade, either. And such reference exists too. And I belive, that if you flip a card from a model's action, during this model's activation, and there is no reference that this is model controller who makes this flip - it's models flip. 

Sorry for bad English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Platov said:

Old Cranky's "let me tell you a tale" says: "discard a card to draw a card". 

And if you do it near Sammy, or Crier, you can draw additional cards. Because it's obvious, that, even without reference, it's still Cranky, who discards a card. It's his ability, printed on his card. And there are a lot of such examples across every faction.

It's not obvious, since there are models, who have a written wording "this model discards": Sommer, Ma, Francois. 

So it seems to me that Crier works with them, but not with Old Cranky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
48 minutes ago, Domin said:

It's not obvious, since there are models, who have a written wording "this model discards": Sommer, Ma, Francois. 

So it seems to me that Crier works with them, but not with Old Cranky.

This in not convincing. 

And what about "there is no "this model's controller flips a card" on said upgrade, either. And such reference exists too. And I belive, that if you flip a card from a model's action, during this model's activation, and there is no reference that this ismodel controller who makes this flip - it's models flip. 

Because there is" model's controller " reference on Lynch Card, for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Platov said:

This in not convincing. 

And what about "there is no "this model's controller flips a card" on said upgrade, either. And such reference exists too. And I belive, that if you flip a card from a model's action, during this model's activation, and there is no reference that this ismodel controller who makes this flip - it's models flip. 

Because there is" model's controller " reference on Lynch Card, for example. 

So you have no arguements against my position except "this is not convincing"?

About your "the model's controller" arguement - so what? The upgrade has clear wording "this model flips". If the same wording comes into play - the upgrade works. Not same wording - doesnt come into play. If there were a wording "this model's controller flips" - then it would work in another situations

I understand, why you belive in a meaning that matches your needs) but your opponent may have other beliefs)

P.S. there are no "this model's controller" reference on Lynch's card.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Platov said:

 

UPD: I can even say: there is no "this model's controller flips a card" on said upgrade, either. And such reference exists too. And I belive, that if you flip a card from a model's action, during this model's activation, and there is no reference that this is model controller who makes this flip - it's models flip. 

 

I can't find anything in the rule book that backs up this assumption. 

Some actions tell us the model flips the cards, some tell us another model flips the cards, and some don't tell us. It's certainly possible that they expected the assumption that if they didn't clarify it defaults to the model, and the different wording on Wong is just a space or time of writing the rules thing. 

It's also possible they are deliberately different and if it doesn't tell us the model flips it doesn't

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
25 minutes ago, Adran said:

I can't find anything in the rule book that backs up this assumption. 

Some actions tell us the model flips the cards, some tell us another model flips the cards, and some don't tell us. It's certainly possible that they expected the assumption that if they didn't clarify it defaults to the model, and the different wording on Wong is just a space or time of writing the rules thing. 

It's also possible they are deliberately different and if it doesn't tell us the model flips it doesn't

That, exactly, is my point. Both opinions can be right, or wrong. Thank you. I guess, I'll ask my local henchmen on their opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

For what it's worth, I'd default to the view that it needs to tell us that it's a Wong flip, so no to Ooo.. Aaa, no to iron fan trigger, yes to soulstone prevention flips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Adran said:

For what it's worth, I'd default to the view that it needs to tell us that it's a Wong flip, so no to Ooo.. Aaa, no to iron fan trigger, yes to soulstone prevention flips.

Dunno. Maybe one day they will add this to FAQ.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×