Timing of at the start of activation

[gelter]

Hi,

 

rulebook page 35, activation phase c1:

 

how works it with two actions in this phase. In this case collette unbury at the start of her activation. Inside 6“ of hamelins aura. Does she geht blighted?

[santaclaws01]

44 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Hamelin's ability:

It doesn't say "during the start activation phase for a model, give it a blight token if it is within 6"". It just says that if they start their activation near him.

No, it says Enemy models that start their activation with 6 gain a Blight Token, and we know that effects that happen at the start of an activation are resolved during the start activation phase, so all you did was rephrase it in a way that makes C1 redundant.

[LeperColony]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

So using the rules what is your argument for being in the Start Activation phase and not resolving an effect that you are told to resolve in the Start Activation phase.

You misunderstand.  I'm not saying you don't resolve start activation abilities during the start activation subphase.

I'm saying abilities that wouldn't apply when you start the model's activation do not qualify.

46 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

So the reasoning would be that you check for all the 'models that start their activation' effects at the start of the start activation phase, figure out which are relevant, and then resolve them in order.

That's a correct statement of my position.

47 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

It's not ironclad reasoning/unambiguously correct. But neither is the other interpretation unambiguously correct.

Completely agree here too.  I'm not saying I'm necessarily right.  I'm saying the interpretation that the start phase extends as far as other people are claiming is unsupported by the text of the rules.

[santaclaws01]

15 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

You misunderstand.  I'm not saying you don't resolve start activation abilities during the start activation subphase.

I'm saying abilities that wouldn't apply when you start the model's activation do not qualify.

When there are unresolved effects in the start of activation phase that the model is meeting the criteria for, that's exactly what you're saying.

16 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

That's a correct statement of my position.

So, as I said earlier, you're trying to say that there's actually a C1i and C1ii, where you would independently check and then resolve start of activation effects as two distinct steps.

[LeperColony]

7 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

When there are unresolved effects in the start of activation phase that the model is meeting the criteria for, that's exactly what you're saying.

I have a simple yes or no question for you.  You're going to be resistant to answer because you think if you do it'll mean "I'm right" or whatever, but it's not a trap.  It just illustrates my position:

1.  I declare I activate Colette.

2.  Colette is buried.

3.  Yes or No:  Is Colette within 6" or Hamelin?

I believe "start" means "start," as in at the beginning.  So every effect that would qualify at step 1 of the process I outlined above is resolved.  

But not any effect that would come about after resolving them, because these subsequent effects are no longer at the start.  The start has happened.

10 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

So, as I said earlier, you're trying to say that there's actually a C1i and C1ii, where you would independently check and then resolve start of activation effects as two distinct steps.

I don't know why this concept has captivated you so.

"Check" is no more than to describe the mental action of attempting to discern if an effect applies or not.

I asked this earlier, but you didn't reply.  So I'll ask it again:

If you don't check to see if Colette is buried, how do you know to unbury her?

If you want to use another word than "check," go crazy.  If for whatever reason it bothers you to think of it as an intentional process, don't.  But clearly something has to be happening in order to determine if you do something or not.

[Kadeton]

You guys are going nowhere with this back-and-forth. There's no point asking for "authority", since the rules are the only authority and they're open to interpretation. I'm hesitant to wade in to the discussion, but I figure I'll give it a shot.

3 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Checking to apply is a continuous process.

This is key, I think. As long as there are effects that might occur in the current timing step, you should be checking for them.

3 hours ago, LeperColony said:

C1 is a subphase.

The question is what the duration of the "start" of a model's activation is.

The "start" of a model's activation is either a single instant in time, or the entire duration of the C1 phase (i.e. it is still the start of the model's activation until there are no more start-of-activation effects to resolve). There isn't enough detail in the rules to definitively argue for either interpretation. Either choice has significant consequences.

However, we do know that there is no true simultaneity in the rules. The simultaneous effect rules are actually a way of sequentially ordering effects with the same timing point - the resolution of each effect is based on the current game state (modified by any previous "simultaneous" effects in the sequence), not on the game state as it existed at the timing point when it was put into effect.

Given that events in the game can be simultaneous and yet resolve sequentially, it is also true that events can conversely be resolved sequentially and yet be simultaneous. This collapses the C1 phase to a single instant of time, the "start of the model's activation", in which all possible simultaneous start-of-activation effects are resolved sequentially. As you noted earlier, checking to apply is a continuous process - even though it's the same "instant", you still need to continuously check to see whether any new simultaneous effects need to be resolved whenever you change the game state.

So that's my understanding: all the events in the C1 subphase occur simultaneously, at the same instant ("the start of the model's activation"). However, resolving effects always happens sequentially, re-checking for additional simultaneous effects after each is resolved, until there are no more effects that can be resolved. Only at that point has the instant passed, and we move on to C2.

Hope that makes sense.

[LeperColony]

12 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

You guys are going nowhere with this back-and-forth. There's no point asking for "authority", since the rules are the only authority and they're open to interpretation. I'm hesitant to wade in to the discussion, but I figure I'll give it a shot.

I was asking for authority because some of the comments sounded like it was settled, so I thought perhaps I had missed something in the rules (not an unprecedented occurrence).

12 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

So that's my understanding: all the events in the C1 subphase occur simultaneously, at the same instant ("the start of the model's activation"). However, resolving effects always happens sequentially, re-checking for additional simultaneous effects after each is resolved, until there are no more effects that can be resolved. Only at that point has the instant passed, and we move on to C2.

I think we all more or less agree with that.

The question concerns the width of the "at the start" of activation window.

I believe it should only encompass those effects that are legally applicable at the time the model's activation begins.  This may very well include multiple simultaneous effects which, for reasons related to the nature of time, have to be performed sequentially.

But I do not believe it would necessarily include other "at the start of" effects that did not legally qualify when the model began, but would only potentially trigger based on the results of a previous effect.  This opinion differs with some other people, who are advocating for essentially construing "at the start of" to mean any effects that could occur before the model takes actions, whether or not those effects applied at the beginning of the model's activation or came to apply as a result of an effect that happened at the beginning.

To me, "start" means "start" in the absence of other guidance.

[solkan]

 For me what it comes down to is that once upon a time in M2E, there was upgrade that said "At the start of this model's Activation, discard this upgrade to gain Fast."  And Fast said "A model with the Fast Condition generates 1 additional general AP when it Activates."  That particular upgrade was the classic counter example to "start meaning start".

Although M3E made various changes in the mechanics, I don't have any evidence that the mechanics of "Start Activation" changed from M2E to M3E.  

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

I have a simple yes or no question for you.  You're going to be resistant to answer because you think if you do it'll mean "I'm right" or whatever, but it's not a trap.  It just illustrates my position:

I haven't been answering this because it's an irrelevent question. Yes the instant that you say you are activating Colette she is not within range of anything.

 

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

I believe "start" means "start," as in at the beginning.  So every effect that would qualify at step 1 of the process I outlined above is resolved.  

But not any effect that would come about after resolving them, because these subsequent effects are no longer at the start.  The start has happened.

No, the start is happening. That is what the Start Activation phase is.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

I don't know why this concept has captivated you so.

"Check" is no more than to describe the mental action of attempting to discern if an effect applies or not.

I asked this earlier, but you didn't reply.  So I'll ask it again:

If you don't check to see if Colette is buried, how do you know to unbury her?

If you want to use another word than "check," go crazy.  If for whatever reason it bothers you to think of it as an intentional process, don't.  But clearly something has to be happening in order to determine if you do something or not.

No where have I said or implied that you never check for abilities that need to resolve. I am saying that checking for effects that need to resolve is not it's own distinct timing point. You are continuously doing it at every point in the game after every time the state of the game changes. When you're saying that you only check at the very instant you declate you're activating a model, you are creating a distinct timing point devoted exclusivily to checking it effects resolve and then another distinct timing point where those effects are then resolved. This is not what the rules tell us to do.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

I am saying that checking for effects that need to resolve is not it's own distinct timing point. You are continuously doing it at every point in the game after every time the state of the game changes. 

Where does it say that in the rules? I've not seen that yet, so for the moment, both interpretations seem valid to me.

7 minutes ago, solkan said:

 For me what it comes down to is that once upon a time in M2E, there was upgrade that said "At the start of this model's Activation, discard this upgrade to gain Fast."  And Fast said "A model with the Fast Condition generates 1 additional general AP when it Activates."  That particular upgrade was the classic counter example to "start meaning start".

Although M3E made various changes in the mechanics, I don't have any evidence that the mechanics of "Start Activation" changed from M2E to M3E.  

This seems like a quite reasonable approach! If your playgroup is happy with that, seems like a reasonably coherent way to interpret ambiguities in the new edition (and it being a new edition, there are a lot of them!)

[Kadeton]

16 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

I believe it should only encompass those effects that are legally applicable at the time the model's activation begins.  This may very well include multiple simultaneous effects which, for reasons related to the nature of time, have to be performed sequentially.

But I do not believe it would necessarily include other "at the start of" effects that did not legally qualify when the model began, but would only potentially trigger based on the results of a previous effect.  This opinion differs with some other people, who are advocating for essentially construing "at the start of" to mean any effects that could occur before the model takes actions, whether or not those effects applied at the beginning of the model's activation or came to apply as a result of an effect that happened at the beginning.

To me, "start" means "start" in the absence of other guidance.

That's why some commenters are accusing you of setting up a separate "checking" step to determine which effects to resolve. You're essentially saying that as you're resolving effects, you don't want to re-check the updated game state for new simultaneous effects.

You're looking for the passage of time - Colette unburies, then afterwards she gains Blighted - where it doesn't exist. Instead, at the start of Colette's activation, she unburies within Hamelin's aura and gains Blighted at the same time. No time passes, and it's still the "start".

You don't check once, then resolve all. You check, resolve one, check again, resolve one, check again, resolve one, etc... until there's nothing left to resolve. That's how all simultaneous effects happen in this game. (More accurately you check continuously, since you can also create new effects within the resolution of effects, but it's harder to get across in context.)

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Kadeton said:

You don't check once, then resolve all. You check, resolve one, check again, resolve one, check again, resolve one, etc... until there's nothing left to resolve. That's how all simultaneous effects happen in this game.

Is it though? For most effects, something usually generates them, right?

For instance, if you attack a model with black blood, you get new effects generated during the attack. But those effects specify a specific occurrence that causes them to happen ('after this model suffers damage...").

From the effects in the game I've seen so far, one reasonable interpretation is that a given ability/effect specifies in its text when it is applicable and when to check for it. If something says "At the start of this model's Activation", you could interpret it as referring to a specific occurrence when you check if the conditions are met (aka, the model starts its activation).

In a game like Magic: The Gathering you continuously check for effects (with a system called state-based actions), so it is one system that makes sense. But I don't see that it is the only valid interpretation for the rules as they're currently written.

So just to make sure, everyone is referring to different (valid) interpretations here, right? Or are some people claiming there is a concrete right answer?

[LeperColony]

42 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

That's why some commenters are accusing you of setting up a separate "checking" step to determine which effects to resolve. You're essentially saying that as you're resolving effects, you don't want to re-check the updated game state for new simultaneous effects.

I specifically stated you check continuously.  I don't know how to quote from a previous page, but it's there.

The distinction is we're talking about two different periods of game time, and it's not clear whether "start of activation" encompasses both.

42 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

You're looking for the passage of time - Colette unburies, then afterwards she gains Blighted - where it doesn't exist. Instead, at the start of Colette's activation, she unburies within Hamelin's aura and gains Blighted at the same time. No time passes, and it's still the "start".

I'm not looking for a passage of time, there is a passage of time.

Note, this is the actual sequence.  Events that are simultaneous are listed on the same line.

1.  I elect not to pass (A)

2.  I select Colette (B)

3.  At the start of Colette's activation, she is buried.  Therefore, Showstopper applies.  

4.  Showstopper resolves, placing her within 6" of Hamelin.

5.  Now Colette is within the effects of the Source of the Contagion.  No previous check could have returned this result.

An entire ability has resolved before Source of the Contagion.  These were not two simultaneous abilities "on the stack," to borrow Magic terminology, and we just happened to resolve Colette's first.  Showstopper happens first in game time.  It has to.

Either effects are simultaneous or they're not.  And if they're not, some time must have passed by definition.  

There's no way Showstopper and Source of the Contagion could be simultaneous because Source of the Contagion depends on the resolution of Showstopper to be applicable.  If Colette went elsewhere, it wouldn't trigger.

I'm really not sure how you escape the conclusion that time passed.

The only question is if the span of "start of activation" is wide enough to cover the time.

Under my theory, it isn't because the process is:

1.  Declare model.

2.  Model's activation starts.  Check for any effects that have "start of activation" timing the model will be affect by.

3.  Resolve such effects.

Once you complete 3, you've completed the "start of activation" because "start," to me, means the effects that legally encompass the model at the beginning of its activation.

The other theory holds that "start of activation" extends up until the model takes an action.  

I am not saying this is an invalid interpretation of "start."  Start is often used metaphorically, such as "when I was starting out..." etc.  But it's not inevitable, and when I interpret rules, in the absence of other guidance, I tend to give words their natural meaning.  

That's why I think "start of activation" effects are those effects that would apply given the game state at the time the model begins its activation, before any effects have been resolved.

[solkan]

 

2 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

This seems like a quite reasonable approach! If your playgroup is happy with that, seems like a reasonably coherent way to interpret ambiguities in the new edition (and it being a new edition, there are a lot of them!)

To be frank about it, that's the only option I've got--interpreteting M3E's rules informed by all of the interpretations that were necessary for M2E.

"Does start of activation mean a point or a phase?", "When Effect A causes Effect B, when do you resolve B?" and various other questions (like the dreaded Gamin chain reactions during the end phase) that had to get hammered out in M2E all the same as they're getting brought up again now.  

For some things, like "If a Poison Gamin explodes during the End Phase and puts Poison on bunch of new models, does that new Poison need to be resolved?" there's new evidence in M3E to indicate that the answer is still the same as it was in M2E:  "Yes, you do have to resolve the new conditions."  In this case, the evidence is the wording in the Replace rules to prevent the "Burning/Poison kills the model -> Demise causes a heal and Replace, and transfers Burning/Poison to the new model -> Burning/Poison on the new models" sequence.

I'll admit that I've haven't found the M3E smoke gun for "The Start Activation step is a phase, not an event" yet.  But I haven't found a counter example yet, either.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Additional theoretical question for the 'continuously check' - do you do it for abilities you've already done?

So for instance, say Molly is near an ice pillar and chooses to discard for it.

Quote

At the start of this model's Activation, it may draw cards until it has the same number of cards in its Control Hand as the opposing player.

Quote

If this model is this Crew's Leader, enemy models that start their Activation within 1 of it or an Ice Pillar Marker must either discard a card or gain Slow.

Would the order for continuous checking be:

1. Molly goes first as the active model, draws up until she has cards equal to Rasputina.
2. Then Molly has to discard a card to the pillar effect of starting an activation near a pillar.
3. Then does Molly get to draw up again, since it is still start of activation?

Or is there also an assumption of a rule of each start-of-activation only applying once? That'd be a pretty reasonable assumption to make, but curious if others would assume that as well if using the continuous checking method?

[LeperColony]

3 minutes ago, solkan said:

 

To be frank about it, that's the only option I've got--interpreteting M3E's rules informed by all of the interpretations that were necessary for M2E.

"Does start of activation mean a point or a phase?", "When Effect A causes Effect B, when do you resolve B?" and various other questions (like the dreaded Gamin chain reactions during the end phase) that had to get hammered out in M2E all the same as they're getting brought up again now.  

For some things, like "If a Poison Gamin explodes during the End Phase and puts Poison on bunch of new models, does that new Poison need to be resolved?" there's new evidence in M3E to indicate that the answer is still the same as it was in M2E:  "Yes, you do have to resolve the new conditions."  In this case, the evidence is the wording in the Replace rules to prevent the "Burning/Poison kills the model -> Demise causes a heal and Replace, and transfers Burning/Poison to the new model -> Burning/Poison on the new models" sequence.

I'll admit that I've haven't found the M3E smoke gun for "The Start Activation step is a phase, not an event" yet.  But I haven't found a counter example yet, either.

 

Using M2E to draw inferences is entirely legitimate.  As you've mentioned it isn't foolproof, and there are obviously going to be differences, but I do think all-in-all it's fair to say "X worked like this in M2E, Y in M3E is similar so I'm going to resolve them similarly."

So if you're relying on how similar language worked in M2E, I think that's definitely an argument in your favor.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Or supplementary, can Ferdinand Vogel/Beast Within heal themselves repeatedly during the start phase?

Quote

At the start of this model's Activation, it may discard a card to Heal 2 and Replace itself with The Beast Within/Ferdinand Vogel, without discarding any Upgrades.

So for instance if you start with Ferdinand, can you discard to turn into the Beast Within (healing 2), and then since it is still the start phase, discard a card to turn back into Ferdinand and heal another 2? In this case, it is two separate abilities (shapechange - Ferdinand and shapechange- Beast Within).

Most of my interpretations of the rules have been to avoid messiness, and it seems like interpreting 'start of activation' as a flashpoint/single point in time avoids a whole lot of mess.

[Mycellanious]

I think the first thing we need to do is define wordings, I think a significant amount of the disagreement in this thread is due to variations of wording. 

"At the start of this model's activation" / "When this model activates" / "Models that activate" / "Models that start their activation" 

Are these wordings synonymous? Do they differ functionally in any way?

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

I think the first thing we need to do is define wordings, I think a significant amount of the disagreement in this thread is due to variations of wording. 

"At the start of this model's activation" / "When this model activates" / "Models that activate" / "Models that start their activation" 

Are these wordings synonymous? Do they differ functionally in any way?

Off the top of my head, they all seem to refer to the same time in the game, but have a slight difference (some refer to this model, some refer to other models). So almost identical functions, with some variation based on to whom they refer.

[LeperColony]

8 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

I think the first thing we need to do is define wordings, I think a significant amount of the disagreement in this thread is due to variations of wording. 

"At the start of this model's activation" / "When this model activates" / "Models that activate" / "Models that start their activation" 

Are these wordings synonymous? Do they differ functionally in any way?

The difference in definition is the entire bone of contention.

I believe "start of activation" refers only to the instant at which the model becomes activated.  That is, the moment step B changes to step C1.  Only the conditions that exist at that instant, and only effects that would be legal under the situation as it stands right then happen. 

Anything else that is "start of activation" but not legally qualified under the conditions at that instant don't apply.

The other position is that "start of activation" is a period beginning at the instant I described above and continuing up until the activated model takes an action.  Therefore, any "start of activation" effect that wasn't originally legal, but becomes legal as a consequence of the resolution of a previous effect can occur.

And the problem is the rules do not clearly determine which is correct, and both seem to have the potential to lead to results which may not have been intended.

[Mycellanious]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Off the top of my head, they all seem to refer to the same time in the game, but have a slight difference (some refer to this model, some refer to other models). So almost identical functions, with some variation based on to whom they refer.

Well I think people are not reading them as synonymous. I think people are arguing that abilities that happen "at the start of a models activation" all fall into the category of resolving in the start activation phase, but abilities that happen "when a model activates" are only checked when the model is selected to go. In essence, many things can happen during the start of a model's activation, but it can only Activate (capital A) once during the start activation phase. Hamelin's ability has the later wording

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Mycellanious said:

Well I think people are not reading them as synonymous. I think people are arguing that abilities that happen "at the start of a models activation" all fall into the category of resolving in the start activation phase, but abilities that happen "when a model activates" are only checked when the model is selected to go. In essence, many things can happen during the start of a model's activation, but it can only activate once during the start activation phase. Hamelin's ability has the later wording

I could be mistaken, but I think everyone is treating the four phrases as almost identical meaning X. Or the four phrases as almost identical but meaning Y.

The problem is the disagreement between the group meaning X or the group meaning Y. It's not the specific language on each ability. It's all of those abilities having a consistent approach (one point in time, or continuously throughout a phase).

[LeperColony]

1 minute ago, Mycellanious said:

Well I think people are not reading them as synonymous. I think people are arguing that abilities that happen "at the start of a models activation" all fall into the category of resolving in the start activation phase, but abilities that happen "when a model activates" are only checked when the model is selected to go. In essence, many things can happen during the start of a model's activation, but it can only activate once during the start activation phase. Hamelin's ability has the later wording

The two abilities in question for the example (Colette's Showstopper and Hamelin's Source of the Contagion) use very similar wording.

This isn't a dispute over semantics.  Nobody is saying they work differently because of the wording within each ability.

The question is what exactly is meant by the "start" of a model's activation.  

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Additional theoretical question for the 'continuously check' - do you do it for abilities you've already done?

Or is there also an assumption of a rule of each start-of-activation only applying once? That'd be a pretty reasonable assumption to make, but curious if others would assume that as well if using the continuous checking method?

That's a fascinating question. I think it would certainly require an implicit assumption that each ability (or whatever) can only come into effect in reaction to any specific event once, in order to not completely break the game.

I'll be honest, the Vogel example has thrown me for a loop a bit.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

That's a fascinating question. I think it would certainly require an implicit assumption that each ability (or whatever) can only come into effect in reaction to any specific event once, in order to not completely break the game.

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise starting near Fire Elemental, they could just apply it over and over and give you a million burning potentially? Just seems intuitive that there is an implied "only once per ability" if you do use the continuous checking method.

[LeperColony]

50 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I'll be honest, the Vogel example has thrown me for a loop a bit.

It's also entirely possible (though horrifying to contemplate) that even though abilities have the same or very similar wording, they were actually meant to operate differently such that in some scenarios it works like I propose, and in others it's more like the contrary view.

Of course, without an ability-specific level wording clarification, even if that were the intention, the most sane option is to treat them all the same.