A theory of resolving effects.

[Maniacal_cackle]

One of the underlying issues for lots of the questions in the forums stem from the timing of effects. The precise ordering of effects can make a large difference in how things live or die. The rules of timing are on page 34 of the rulebook, but there is room for interpretation. There are currently two broad interpretations of how timing works.

Here I will lay out an analysis of how I think the situation should be resolved. It involves interpretation of the rules in a particular manner, and inferring things when the rules lack clarity, but I think is ultimately one POSSIBLE interpretation of the rules.

Two theories of timing

1. Effects are resolved when you are instructed to resolve them (one effect can resolve inside another).
2. Effects are resolved when you are instructed to resolve them, BUT you must wait until you have finished resolving the current effect. Only one effect can ever be resolved at a time (simultaneous damage to multiple models is a single effect).

I subscribe to the second theory, and it is what I focus on for this post.

Why does it matter?

A whole host of issues crop up based on exact sequencing of events. Some background reading:

• Exploding so hard you live: can a model explode on death and heal back to life?
• Black blood - if you are killed by an attack, can you heal up if your black blood response kills the attacker?
• Scorch the soul - does damage from a condition (caused by an attack) count as damage from an attack?
• Crooligans - do they steal a corpse marker before or after they teleport?
• Philip & the Nanny - do they have to be near a Night Terror at the start of its move, or the end of its move, to take its fading effect?

From the rules as they are written (RAW), there are ambiguous answers to some of these. In particular, damage resolution might involve resolving effects inside effects (depending on if you accept interpretation 1). Groups need to settle on an interpretation of the sequencing rules.

Why the second interpretation?

As seen from the reading on the exploding so hard you kill yourself, the second interpretation certainly feels a bit odd. If you accept it, then you get situations where you are instructed to resolve something (such as at damages steps 5 and 6), and you don't actually resolve it when instructed to do so. It feels odd to be instructed to resolve something and not follow that instruction!

However, I think that there are two arguments in favour of accepting the second interpretation. Note that nothing I will say here will demonstrate conclusively that the second interpretation is the correct one (we need to wait on a Wyrd ruling), but rather I simply present one possible interpretation.

First, everything about page 34 (timing) of the rulebook seems to be based on the idea that you resolve effects in an order (not one inside the other). If multiple effects occur simultaneously, there is still a rules mechanic to put them in order and resolve them in order instead. Interpretation 1 requires that you resolve effects inside of each other during damage, which I think the rules intend to avoid.

Second, though the interpretation can be a bit clunky, it ends up providing some intuitive results! If you explode and kill other models, you are already dead. There's no coming back after you explode in this interpretation.

Some shorthand:

The rules can be a bit tricky to talk about, as some effects don't seem to have any particular words with which we can refer to them. Here I am providing shorthand for existing rules in the book. The next stage shall involve inference, but for this section I'm only referring to existing rules.

'Discovering' an effect: Many things happen in the game that we might be tempted to call 'triggers' (such as black blood), but 'triggers' already refers to a unique game phenomenon: when you have a suited response to an opposed duel. What about things that happen in response to something, but are not these types of 'triggers.'? These include any mechanic on a front of a card that say "after <something>, do <X>." I will refer to this phenomenon as 'discovering' an effect. When an effect happens in response to something else, it is 'discovered.'

The resolution queue: Page 34 'Ability timing' and 'Sequential Effects' both create a situation where you're supposed to finish resolving the current effect and then proceed with the next effect. Whilie effects are waiting to be resolved like this, I refer to this phenomenon as the 'resolution queue.'

Note that the resolution queue in the way that I use it in shorthand here refers to existing game rules, but by applying theory 2 I will extend a particular interpretation to it.

Some precision...

So when I say that I apply the second theory, it still lacks a degree of clarity. Here I will attempt to establish precisely what I mean with the interpretation with a set of interpretations of the rules. For theory 2 to work, then I propose the following interpretations of the rules:

1. For an effect to be discovered, the range condition must be satisfied. After an effect is discovered, the range condition no longer matters.
2. When you are instructed to resolve an effect, you make note of who is affected (including measuring range) and to what degree (such as noting the incoming damage is a 1/2/4 flip with a -), and then place it in the resolution queue.
3. If there is anything in the resolution queue, resolve the next in line effect before moving on to anything else.

Note that for most effects in the game, step 2 and 3 happen at the same time. Most of the time you only have one effect happening as a result of some particular discovery, and so this distinction isn't relevant most of the time. However, occasionally it matters, as we will see in the next section.

Applications

So I've jumped through all these hoops to make a framework for resolving sequencing. Why? So we can work our way through some actual applications! Note several of the applications are identical to how things work with theory one, but I include them for a full picture of theory 2.

The case of the vanishing crooligan:

At the start of a crooligan's turn, it can discard a card to teleport. After it discards a card, its fading ability allows it to remove a nearby scheme marker. Does the crooligan remove a scheme marker from its starting location or the location it teleports to?

Applying this theory, we see that the effect is discovered at step 1 (the crooligan discards a card). Page 34 tells us that you finish resolving the current effect before resolving the discovered effect. So we finish resolving the teleport. Then we are instructed to resolve the effect, so we make note of what is affected (a scheme marker within 2" of the crooligan's new position) and place it into the resolution queue. The resolution queue is empty, so we proceed to resolving the effect and remove the scheme marker.

Note that theory 1 gives the same result.

A Nanny in the Night:

If a Night Terror discards a card, it gets to move 5". Philip and the Nanny gains the effect of friendly models and their fading (discard) abilities when they happen within 3".  Does the Night Terror have to be close to Philip and the Nanny before or after its move to share its fading power? Let's go through my system for interpreting the rules.

First, the effect is discovered. As a condition of discovering the effect, the model must be within 3". Following my first rules inference, this means that Philip and the Nanny must be within 3" when the card is discarded (before the move), not at the end of the move. The Night Terror finishes resolving whatever made it discard, which means its fading discard move is discovered. After the initial effect, the Night Terror starts resolving fading. This causes P&N to have a discovery of a fading effect. The Night Terror finishes resolving fading and moves, then P&N gets to move (which means that P&N may have mobility restricted by a Night Terror sitting in front of it).

Exploding so hard you live:

Here is where it gest interesting. I recommend reading the entire thread, but I'll try to give a shorthand account of it here. Model A has demise(explodes) on death (dealing damage to nearby enemies), but also has a discovery effect: after killing an enemy model, it heals. Model B attacks and kills A, then dies to its exploding effect.

Does Model A get to heal up from killing Model B (and no longer counts as dying)? In theory, could you drop a corpse marker from dying and have an effect then stop you from dying? Theory 1 says yes, while theory 2 says no. This is where they start to diverge significantly.

Read the larger thread for a breakdown, but here's how it works under theory 2:

1. Model B attacks and deals lethal damage to Model A.
2. Model A starts going through steps 1-6 of damage on page 34.
3. At step 6c, Model A explodes and deals damage to nearby models. Because we are using theory 2, this means that we have been instructed to resolve an effect, so we must place it next in line of the resolution queue until the current effect resolves. To place it in the queue, we measure distance from Model A (it explodes and damages anything within 2 inches), make a note of the effect (2 damage from exploding), and then proceed with resolving the current effect (damage on Model A).
4. We proceed with step 6d of damage (remove the killed model, Model A is taken off the table).
5. We are done with the initial effect. But there is something in the resolution queue, so we must resolve it.
6. We have noted all the models damaged by the explosion back at the last step 6c. We resolve all damage simultaneously as one effect, going through steps 1-6. At step 6c, anything that triggers off of Model B dying occurs, but it is too late for Model A to heal as it is off the table.

Though it certainly requires an unusual take on the rules (even if instructed to resolve an ability, you don't necessarily resolve it when instructed to do so. You have to wait until you finish resolving the effect you have already been instructed to resolve). However, the upside is you don't get models exploding, killing other models, then coming back to life.

How do demise abilities work then, if they can't resolve until the model is removed from the table?

If a model has demise (explosion), it still works because of step two of my theory (when instructed to resolve an ability, you make a note of all the relevant information and pop it into the resolution queue. Ordinarily this would be resolved immediately as the queue is usually empty, but in the case of damage resolution, more steps remain).

If a model has a demise (eternal) ability and heals instead of dying, step 6a prevents you from finishing the dying sequence, as the instructions tell you the model is no longer killed if ability to be resolved is a heal.

Conclusion

What do you think? Does my theory 2 fit the RAW, if a bit of a quirky interpretation? Is it internally consistent with itself/doesn't contradict itself? Do you prefer it to theory one? How does your club resolve timing conflicts on page 34?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also, special thanks to @Adran and @santaclaws01 for helping provide challenges to my first few drafts. I hope this is a more coherent version of a possible solution.

[Kadeton]

I certainly follow "interpretation 1", where effects resolve when you are instructed to resolve them, even if that means nesting their resolutions. "Interpretation 2" seems unnecessary to me, and as you've pointed out, it gives a lot of similar results.

Crooligan: same result.

Philip and the Nanny: I don't agree with the rigidity of the timing from your interpretation. If the Night Terror discards a card and Philip is within 3" of it at that time, then both models will gain the Terror's Fading effect simultaneously. You could push Philip first, then the Terror, or the other way around if you prefer. (The need for Philip to be within 3" when the card is discarded, not after the Terror is pushed, is the same in both interpretations.)

Exploding so hard and Black Blood: These can be cleanly resolved under "interpretation 1" by making a different interpretative assumption (that the "If this effect would bring the model above 0 Health, it is no longer killed" timing listed under 6a on p. 34 is the only timing point at which a model can avoid being killed after being reduced to 0 Health).

Scorch the Soul: I'm not sure what this has to do with effect timing.

Given that "interpretation 1" resolves these, and is (IMO) more intuitive, I don't see the need for "interpretation 2".

[solkan]

I believe Theory #2 is impossible to uphold because doing so makes it impossible to apply abilities that modify other effects.

As far Crooligans go, I believe the two theory model is barking up the wrong tree.  Because the issue there is the claim that

Quote

[Do X] to [Do Y]

gets resolved as

• [Do X]
• [Do Y]
• [After X]
• [After Y]

because you'd rather it happen in that order instead of

• [Do X]
• [After X]
• [Do Y]
• [After Y]

on the claim that "Do X to Do Y" is an uninterruptible single effect instead of two effects.

The really big issue with Theory #2 is that it leaves out the big issues:

1. There are effects that apply when something happens and effects that apply after something happens.
2. The definition of Sequential Effects is there to deal with 'After' effects.

   1. "Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it resolves.

      In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved."

3. It would take at least an additional paragraph or two of rules to define the proper way of resolving effects under the No Nesting Effects theory.  As opposed to the "depth first" event resolution model that was pretty well accepted during M2E which pretty much just happens when you try to resolve effects that cause other effects as they happen.

The big problem Theory #2 is that it would be even more unwieldy than the No Nested Actions rule, but come up way way more often than No Nested Actions does.  How could a rule like that be true and not in the rules (or at least evidenced in an example in the rules) to explain itself?

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

17 hours ago, solkan said:

 

1. The definition of Sequential Effects is there to deal with 'After' effects.

Most of the effects in question are after effects though.

Nekima's Black Blood: after.

Nekima's heal on kill: after.

Crooligan fading: after

Note I prefer the crooligan grabbing the scheme marker pre-teleport as it makes the model stronger, so it is not just wishful thinking on my part.

I never played M2E, so all of this stems from a vacuum. If they use similar language to 2e, then there is a strong case to be made it works like in 2e. I'd certainly accept that as strong evidence of me being wrong.

Could you give a specific example of something that you don't think works? My Nanny example was from memory, so I'll look up the exact card rules if needed.

[Maniacal_cackle]

In fact, every discrepancy I have encountered so far has used the language "after" which is what is tripping me up. Demise effects are afters as well.

Page 34's explanation of after effects and sequential timing makes me think anything that says "after" is meant to be done this way.

[Adran]

I subscribe to 1 because as far as I can see the rules tell me to do that rather than disregard several other rules to just follow the sequential effects rule in an almost random choice of now or later. (Its not random, but trying to explain in rules text why some abilities apply at once, whilst others with similar wording don't apply until later doesn't seem to have any rule book grounding but only "common sense". )

I think the largest problem with your reading of the rules is you seem to have generalised "effect" to be the big thing, but it is a series of lots of little things.  Flipping the card to decide if the damage is weak/ moderate or severe is an effect. Determining  the amount of damage dealt is 1 effect. Reducing the damage is 1 effect. There are things that can happen after each of these effects that will alter the next effect.

The forged in Steel Trigger has a: when resolving  reduce the damage this model suffers by 1 for each  in the final duel total. You obviously have to completely resolve this trigger at the stage in the damage profile it tells you to and not wait until the end of the damage. Why then do I not resolve the effects that happen after a model is damaged at the point in the timing it tells me to.

Obviously if I don't resolve the damage reduction triggers at the specified point they won't do anything, but they use the same language in the timing document. So why do they happen exactly when the timing document tells me, but an effect that happens after damaging only looks at who it effects at the time we are told to resolev its effect, and doesn't fully resolve until later.

 

I also subscribe to 1 as that's been the breakdown of the timing for the last 2 editions, and generally how rules questions have been answered when required in the beta testing.

(I also don't think the scorch the soul question has anything what so ever to do with timing.)

[mythicFOX]

I agree with everything @Adran said, plus one key thing;

You've delivered a theory with zero rules quotes to support it, which makes it nearly impossible to follow how to find any grounding for your theory in the rules of this game.

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 7/23/2019 at 6:06 AM, mythicFOX said:

I agree with everything @Adran said, plus one key thing;

You've delivered a theory with zero rules quotes to support it, which makes it nearly impossible to follow how to find any grounding for your theory in the rules of this game.

Fair enough! I referenced a page, but here's some of the specifically relevant things:

Quote

Ability Timing
Most Abilities are passive and always in effect, but some occur as a result of another game effect. In these cases, the Ability will use the word “After.” These Abilities happen after the effect in question is resolved

Quote

Sequential Effects

Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

Even if you narrow my theory down to 'after' effects (the main time it makes a difference anyway), then this raises the question. Theory one ignores the instructions for after effects (that the effect 'happens' after the effect in question is resolved), why is that? To me there's a bit of a conflict between following the instructions for 'after' effects and the precise damage timing.

It seems logical to apply things that modify damage during timing (which do not say 'after'), while having 'discovered' events happen after (which do say 'after').

On 7/22/2019 at 8:22 PM, Adran said:

I think the largest problem with your reading of the rules is you seem to have generalised "effect" to be the big thing, but it is a series of lots of little things.  Flipping the card to decide if the damage is weak/ moderate or severe is an effect. Determining  the amount of damage dealt is 1 effect. Reducing the damage is 1 effect. There are things that can happen after each of these effects that will alter the next effect.

Narrowing my interpretation to only 'after' effects resolves this.

As for theory one being how it worked in beta... Then I'd say that's pretty solid evidence I'm wrong. I assume that forum has been deleted, though, so there's no threads to go check precise wording?

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Theory one ignores the instructions for after effects (that the effect 'happens' after the effect in question is resolved), why is that? To me there's a bit of a conflict between following the instructions for 'after' effects and the precise damage timing.

It doesn't though. After effects happen immediately after whatever causes them to happen.

[solkan]

3 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

As for theory one being how it worked in beta... Then I'd say that's pretty solid evidence I'm wrong. I assume that forum has been deleted, though, so there's no threads to go check precise wording?

Old threads wouldn't really give you the wording you're looking for.  If old versions of the rules PDFs existed, they would presumably still be under NDA.

But, after going back and checking, in good faith I am going to quote the open beta announcement:

On 1/7/2019 at 3:05 PM, Kyle said:

Hey Wyrdos,

We’re thrilled to announce that on Wednesday, January 16^th, we will be launching an OPEN BETA for Malifaux Third Edition!

Many of you have gone through the grueling process of testing the game to get its rules and models to this point, and we couldn’t possibly thank you enough for that. Rest assured that the vast majority of that work will remain intact.

The intent of the Open Beta is to get Malifaux Third Edition from where it is (a great spot) and bring it up one more level (to a fantastic spot). This means that our focus will be on polish. Clarity, grammar, theme, and fine tuning numbers are our targets this time around.

There are still a few crews and models that need some final tweaks, so if you have more feedback, we’re still listening. We want to hear your thoughts on your favorite (and least favorite) characters before we officially launch Third Edition.

So, for those who have been rigorously playtesting our game, now is your chance to share your thoughts and enthusiasm with the rest of the community. Those NDAs that you signed? Consider them lifted. Let us know where you think M3E stands and what you think it’ll take to bring it across the finish line.

Henchmen, keep a close eye on the super-secret Henchmen forum in regards to running M3E events and tournaments. We’ll have some special announcements for you folks in the next few days.

That’s it from us! We’ve got to hunker down and iron out those wrinkles before next Wednesday. We’ll have more info for you at that time.

See you then!

(emphasis added). I believe that's permission to not beat around the bush concerning the former Nested Effects rules.  If the lifting of the beta NDAs was rescinded, would a moderator please delete this post?

According to my records, the Nested Effects were in the rules up to the 9.19 Core Rules (I can't confirm when they appeared originally), and then removed from the text from 10.13 and later.  (Disclaimer:  This is according to my records.)

Quote

Nested Effects

Sometimes, an effect occurs within a timing structure that creates new consequences (for example, a model that deals damage as a result of being damaged).

In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

If models are Killed during these steps, no models should be removed from play (step 6 of damage timing) until all of the effects are completed.

Damage Timing in something resembling its current form (where 'after killing' effects are resolved before the model is removed from the game) appears shortly after that.  

In any event, that rule existed for part of the closed beta and then went away.
 

[Maniacal_cackle]

@solkan that seems pretty clear cut in favour of theory 1 then?

Except the removal of the rules? Was that them moving away from that interpretation, or just rewording it into current text?

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

I think for non-damage effects, theory 2 is the correct way to resolve an effect. In the crooligan example, the discard causes another effect to occur. The sequential effects rules would cause the scheme marker removal to take place after. Theory 1 can cause a difference of opinion of if the second effect is resolved first or second, and would be at odds with the sequential effects rule if allowed to occur before moving the crooligan.

For actions/effects which cause damage, theory 1 is correct since the damage timing table states when an effect should be resolved. However, if an effect resolved in stage 5 or 6 causes another effect to occur, sequential effects would require the effect generated by an effect to occur once the current effect queue has resolved. So, any stage 5 effects would resolve, and any additional effects generated by those stage 5 effects would resolve after the initial, but before stage 6's four effects are generated. Really theory 2 only causes differences in effect resolution when a demise ability would cause another effect, since the additional effect would resolve only after all of stage 6's effects.

[Maniacal_cackle]

17 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think for non-damage effects, theory 2 is the correct way to resolve an effect. In the crooligan example, the discard causes another effect to occur. The sequential effects rules would cause the scheme marker removal to take place after. Theory 1 can cause a difference of opinion of if the second effect is resolved first or second, and would be at odds with the sequential effects rule if allowed to occur before moving the crooligan.

For actions/effects which cause damage, theory 1 is correct since the damage timing table states when an effect should be resolved. However, if an effect resolved in stage 5 or 6 causes another effect to occur, sequential effects would require the effect generated by an effect to occur once the current effect queue has resolved. So, any stage 5 effects would resolve, and any additional effects generated by those stage 5 effects would resolve after the initial, but before stage 6's four effects are generated. Really theory 2 only causes differences in effect resolution when a demise ability would cause another effect, since the additional effect would resolve only after all of stage 6's effects.

So would you say Nekima (damages stuff when she is hit by attacks and heals when she kills enemies) would survive being killed by a one HP enemy?

If you resolve black blood at initial step 5, you then go through the damage process of it and Nekima kills a model, so when you get to initial step 6a, Nekima heals? Is that how you'd apply your logic?

Sorry, not fully following it yet.

[mythicFOX]

<MODHAT>

So I've moved this thread from the rules forum because it's not really a rules question.  It's presenting a theory on how the rules should work, which has no basis in the rules of the game.  The rules forum needs to function as a place (often new) players can go to find answers to specific questions about rules, it's not there to enable academic discussions of the rules, such things are confusing.

I'm also locking the thread as I believe it's run it's coarse and is now only spreading confusion.

</MODHAT>