Unburying Planted Roots and similar, Corrupted Idols interaction

[benjoewoo]

2 Questions:

 

1. Assume the strategy is Corrupted Idols as stated in the Gaining Grounds Season 0 document. Zoraida obeys an opposing bandido to use the At Gunpoint action on a qualifying model in Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker. The model in Zoraida's crew is then forced to take the interact action  to move the idol marker. Who takes the damage? A search did not yield any relevant results--unsurprising given how new the GG Season 0 document is.

2. Assume a death marshal buries Bad Juju. When Bad Juju unburies, does he get placed in the owner's deployment zone or is he kept buried because Planted Roots says he cannot be moved by an enemy effect? A search on this forums showed one thread discussing this but the answer was an after thought on this issue with no further discussion.

For reference, I originally was going to have the questions ordered in reverse, but my thoughts for question 2's answer as I understand it are very long, and I think the relatively easier question 1 answer will guide discussion and finding (hopefully) a solid ruling for question 2. It may seem backwards because I posted the questions in reverse order originally, so Question 1 now refers to tracing without a detailed discussion of why I assume it is there, but that shouldn't be too difficult to search down into Question 2's thoughts.

Question 1 thoughts

I think the answer is Zoraida. Corrupted Idols now checks, via tracing, what model is controlling the model that takes the interact action to place a strategy marker within X". The model that controls the action has to take the damage, so for example Zoraida using obey on an opposing death marshal to move an idol marker would result in Zoraida taking the damage. This interaction is only possible if the game "traces" control of the model.

 

I'll preemptively refer to the thoughts that models override rules and rules apply consistently to create a default situation until otherwise changed, typically by a model(s). If a Zoraida obeys a Bandido to take the "at gunpoint" action on a qualifying model that Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker, causing the model from Zoraida's crew to interact to move the idol marker, who takes the damage? I believe the answer is Zoraida, because the game initially traces the model controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to the bandido, and the game traces control of that model to Zoraida. I think ruling this way may seem to contradict the text on the bandido that it controls the action taken by the model that is being controlled by the "at gunpoint" action, but it shouldn't because that action is controlled by Zoraida, and control is necessarily traced to Zoraida from the interacting model.

 

I think ruling the other way also essentially negates in some situations--because obey like effects s are not particularly rare in the context of malifaux--what the change to corrupted idols was trying to prevent. Additionally, ruling the other way seems to arbitrarily cut the traced chain of control without a good reason why. If it's a strong argument to say the bandido is controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to move the idol marker, it's just as strong to say Zoraida is in control because both Zoraida and the bandido's actions that cause a model to take an action include the text that the action is controlled by "this model." The games rules provide only that the controlling model takes the damage, so there is no rule book source of change in control--this interaction must be governed by the models barring an FAQ/errata.

 

Question 2 thoughts

This one will be a doozy. I'm writing this in a different format because it'll probably be easier to discuss and refer to subsequently this way.

 

Premise 1. The rulebook and various models "trace" effects to their source. The rulebook's discussion of conditions that cause damage shows this explicitly because the damage "source" is typically the condition, not the ability/action that placed poison on the model. This is important for discussions on whether VP is scored when a model dies from poison.

Premise 2. Models "trace" effects to their source. Using models with "Evasive" (the ability to ignore damage froim shockwaves, blasts, and pulses) as examples, they trace the source of the damage--I believe people here/on the Wyrd forums have ruled/indicated their ruling that if a pulse causes a TN 14 WP duel that does damage (e.g. Nothing Beast's Accelerate time which causes 2 damage and grants Fast), even if an Evasive model fails the duel, they will not suffer the damage because the damage from the failed duel was caused by a pulse.

Premise 3. If tracing is present, it must be present consistently. This premise is more from logic rather than example, because to say tracing can be present inconsistently detracts from the informative and guiding nature of rules/model action or ability applications.

Premise 4. Models override the rules when in conflict. This is an explicit rule in the rule book.

Premise 5. Where models have publicly available (for review) different wordings on comparable abilities, different applications must be applied to give effect to the distinct wordings barring typographical errors. This is a tenet of reading comprehension so that reading rules, actions, abilities, etc. have consistency as opposed to whatever the moment dictates is the better resolution. It also helps prevent resorting to TO discretion on rulings, a positive thing for game reliability and playability.

Premise 6. Where at least one model's ability conflicts with another model(s)' ability(s), the restrictive ability supercedes the permissive one. This has been a tenet of ability/action application in Malifaux for some time. It was explicit in M2E, but the M3E rule book does not make mention of this particular rule now. That being said, it logically should still apply because otherwise situations in which these interactions arise (basically every interaction for such restrictive abilities) could never resolve or would require TO ruling intervention, bringing instability to the game.

Premise 7. Where other publicly available (for review) intentional design elements or interactions provide circumstantial support for the way a discussed interaction would go,the discussed interaction should attempt to resolve so as to reinforce those design elements or interactions. Another reading comprehension tenet for stability and consistency in the game.

Conclusion. Planted Roots, which reads in relevant part: ""This model cannot be moved by enemy effects..." provides that if the effect moving the model with that ability is sourced from an enemy model, then the model may not be moved at all, no exceptions.

This compares to abilities like Laugh Off, which are similarly worded but are permissive in allowing the model with the ability to achieve a similar effect. In application, should you unbury a model with Laugh Off, the model may allow the unbury according to the unbury's effect, which would allow for first placement in the default area, and if non-legal according to the rules, then the owner of the model placing the model within the deployment zone.

With Planted Roots and similar mandatory abilities, however, there is no such permission, the effect is mandatory at all times. Initially you attempt to place the model according to the unbury effect, but Planted Roots overrides it as it is the restrictive ability vs. the ability attempting to change the game state. You then attempt to place the model in the deployment zone per the rule book, but the model with the ability (and the rulebook) trace the source of the unbury to the model that generated the unbury effect. That model is still an enemy (per section on friendly or enemy, this can never change), and the source of the unbury is still connected because the rules have not overridden this fact, only changed who controls the place. Thus, Planted Roots should apply to prevent the unbury in the deployment zone for source of the unbury effect, which is what the explicit text of that ability cares about--not who controls the unbury placement OR owns the model.

Planted Roots additionally overrides the rule book in this case because the rule book only changes the place for a contextual placement--I have not brought up the rules are looking at just physical placing, but placing at all--they were pretty clearly written with the idea there was no legal physical placement, but are worded for where model interactions come into play as well. The rule book only explicitly provides that in such a case the initial placement is not legal, then you resort to the deployment zone, switching control of the place to the owner of the model. (1) This did not change the source of the unbury effect, as mentioned, so Planted Roots should still apply. And (2) the design element to change the controller of the unbury effect was very likely to prevent the (relatively) automatic decision by the original controller of the unbury effect simply placing the model in the farthest reaching corner/area of the deployment zone to effectively achieve a relative insta-kill.

For example, see how long it takes for your average Mv 5 model to get back to the center and be effective after being placed in the furthest corner of corner deployment on turn 2. Barring built in movement actions/abilities, e.g. Leap or Incorporeal, or help from other models, e.g. Lure, it'll take about 2 turns (4 walk actions for 20" of movement, putting you at 8" outside of your deployment zone assuming you can straight light walk for maximum distance). The game at turn 2 is now top of Turn 5 and your model can finally be relevant again at the end of the game. This example can get more extreme in other deployment types, so it was logical the design element swapped the control so as to keep bury/unbury mechanics from being too powerful given their relative rarity.

This matters because there may have been a distinction in who controlled where the model unburied--if the player who owned the model with Planted Roots generated the unbury effect, then the placement would be legal in the first instance before referring to the deployment zone. But, if the unbury effect was sourced from the enemy model that initially buried the Planted Roots model, Planted Roots has application.

Additionally, this ruling is in line with the design element for Planted Roots vs. Laugh Off. Planted Roots is on a 6 SS cost minion model. Laugh Off is typically on higher priced models that are usually higher in station, e.g. Fuhatsu, a 9 SS henchmen model. Laugh Off is currently (though this could in theory change) strictly better than Planted Roots because you can choose to take the same interaction path as Planted Roots or you can allow the qualifying move effect to resolve so that you can achieve better position, e.g. shooting range or as this discussion implies, avoiding effective (and ultimate) death by being buried. Malifaux as a game is an inherent game of risk (heavy elements of chance via 54 card fate deck, many mechanics to stack odds, etc.), so this makes sense in line with how the game is designed--you bring a model that has a silver bullet type defensive ability, it can backfire if I counter that ability with another relatively esoteric interaction. 

Concluding thoughts

I think the questions are important because at least for how corrupted idols scores, zoraida can circumvent the intent of the strategy text change if the ruling goes the other way a little more easily than intended, or really any obey vs. obey type interactions. 

Question 2 is particularly interesting to me because it'll be informative on whether the rule book and any other official documentation in M3E will be interpreted by the TO community, now that we know the TO golden rule is back in at least GG season 0. Specifically, whether the rules will be interpreted more readily with implied rulings than not.

Any rules reference input appreciated. I think this discussion is informative because answering one provides insight to answering the other.

[Myyrä]

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

It's inclusive of both. I think you are discounting the sentences in step 1 providing, "Then, that player chooses another of their models with unresolved effects  and resolves those effects the same way...(even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player)." Page 34 of e-rule book. Those two sentences together I don't think could be taken together without being inclusive of models generating unresolved effects (explicitly included in step 1, to which step 2 is a subsequent duplication from a different perspective,)

Additionally the first sentence of that section unequivocally encompasses "effects that generate multiple effects that occur at the same time." There is no qualification that the effect must affect a model versus an effect that does/does not affect a model. 

Your tendency to use big words in very "creative" ways and obscure references to parts of rule book without quotes make your text nightmarish to read. It's impossible to read your post without having the rule book open, and even with it, it's much slower than it should be.

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Step 2 as you quote is in line with step 1 but does not repeat all the text and shortens to effects affecting their models. There is a logical disconnect in saying step 2 actually further defines step 1 and the opening sentences of the section--a shorter section of text is reading as changing multiple sections despite essentially just saying the non-active player then resolves their effects.

No one is claiming step 2 further defines step 1. Step 1 is written ambiguously and we're just using the context to deduce the most likely intended meaning.

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Not as a stab at Wyrd, but it's a bit of lazy writing to avoid writing extra text and/or a combination of thinking that people will understand this section is to apply to any effects generated simultaneously to each other., seeing as though otherwise simultaneous effects that do not directly affect models belonging to the model(s) also in the same active vs. non-active player would be excluded and thus have no answer to timing priority for resolution, e.g. if there were multiple effects on models at start of activation a pulse was generated but no targets were factually in range at the time of activation, there would be no provision in the rules for which ones resolve first, important even if none of the pulses actually hit any other model since these types of abilities tend to be mandatory resolution.

This looks like you are telling what the rules should say, not what they actually say. The rules don't say that there must be a timing for all unresolved rules.

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

@Adran I think step 1's first sentence does factor source of effect because it specifically says, "The Active player...chooses one of their models with one or more unresolved effects..." Misaki's model has an unresolved unbury at the start of her activation. The unbury is the death marshal's unresolved effect. I think everyone accepts these two immediately preceding statements as true, because otherwise Planted Roots would never stop the unbury. I think it means Misaki's ability must resolve first because it's Misaki's unresolved effect vs. the death marshal's unresolved effect.

This is contradicting what you said at the start of your post. Although, I'm still not 100% sure you intended to say it.

[benjoewoo]

On 11/10/2019 at 2:21 AM, Myyrä said:

Your tendency to use big words in very "creative" ways and obscure references to parts of rule book without quotes make your text nightmarish to read. It's impossible to read your post without having the rule book open, and even with it, it's much slower than it should be.

No one is claiming step 2 further defines step 1. Step 1 is written ambiguously and we're just using the context to deduce the most likely intended meaning.

This looks like you are telling what the rules should say, not what they actually say. The rules don't say that there must be a timing for all unresolved rules.

This is contradicting what you said at the start of your post. Although, I'm still not 100% sure you intended to say it.

Could you provide instructions then on how to do the cut and paste on the e-rule book? When I do it, these are my results for the first section of the "simultaneous effects" section:

"Occasionallyaneffectwillgeneratemultipleeffectsthatoccuratthesametime§IfthishappenstheyareresolvedinthefollowingorderÄ"

I'm not familiar with cutting and pasting from the e-rule book, so each time I've quoted the rules it's by typing out the section. If you could give me a step by step method for an easier way, I'd be happy to do it that way.

Also, while you see it as a negative effect, I think it should be encouraged to have the rule book open while reading what people say, because we're talking about multiple pages worth of references and nuanced textual interpretation. It's a leisure game, so we're all doing this in our personal time, barring you're part of Wyrd, but that doesn't mean we should discuss rules without the rules in front of us. 

I definitely don't think anything I've referenced in the rule book is "obscure." Including pages without content, the e-rule book is 54 pages, so not particularly long as a text in general. It has some lay out and organization issues, but considering it's written in plain English with elements of programmer/defined gaming terminology, that's expected.

Also I'm unsure how I'm reading it "creatively." I literally quoted the section and used an ellipses because again, I have to type out in full the quotes I want to use with my limited quoting capabilities. I then explained how I read it. I'd like to know more why you say that. 

I do find it funny though you reference me using "big" words, as though that should detract from the argument; I use these words because they're what come to mind and seem fitting given context, not because I like using big words--if I could I'd only write four letter words because it'd save me a lot of time and energy here and for daily life, but I can't get by like that T___T. Earlier you used the word "tautology," essentially a slightly higher than SAT level word. I accepted your statement because I know it to be true and you're right, no further justification was needed to show that particular statement was true. I later used a tautological statement, and it was argued my usage of such is a false dilemma argument.

Regarding step 2, the way I read your post and @Adran's post was that the opening sentence and step 1 texts were ambiguous because of step 2's sentence. If I misinterpreted, I apologize and would like to see why you say it's ambiguous. At least to myself, the text seems to be all encompassing because of the general language, which makes sense for future proofing and as a method of writing that section. 

I did make the comment that not verbatim repeating step 1's text for step 2 in the context of the non-active player was likely the result of something other than a motivation to further define step 1. However, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, and I did explain why I think it provides some context in that section's interpretation. Also I think you have to have timing resolution for any two or more effects that share the same resolution window. If you don't, rules questions without solid answers are an inevitable result, never mind the choke on future possible models. I could not quickly think of an example that fit into the fairly subtle divide you and @Adran were pointing out, i.e. "[t]his can mean that the model has unresolved effects affecting it or it is generating unresolved effects. It seems like you read it as model generating the effects, but I actually believe it refers to effects affecting the model, because step 2 says (quoted section)."

Both of you read that section in the sense that the rule only applies to simultaneous effects affecting the model that is activated instead of resolving it as the active vs. non-active player choosing which effects to resolve first. I could not then, and right now cannot either, so apologies, think of a currently existing on point example where this distinction currently comes into play. Both of you, based on the Misaki example, are saying it applies to the Misaki example, but I think applying it in that way effectively renders step 2 for the non-active player's choice meaningless. The way you resolve the Misaki example, provided @Myyrä is reading it the exact same way as @Adran, which I am assuming you are, so apologies if I am incorrect in that, the active player actually effectively makes the non-active player's choice for them in deciding which simultaneous effect the resolve as opposed to,"the active player resolved his/her unbury first, the non-active player then resolves his/her unbury, but because you cannot unbury, the effect fails."

I'll put up an example I think that may be informative. I think it's a relatively easy ruling, but if anyone would like to say I'm wrong, please explain why with rules citations so we can continue the discussion.

Nothing Beast uses is action Accelerate Time and succeeds the simple duel to generate the pulse (see the model's card). Assume at least two enemy models are affected by the pulse. Which player determines the order in which the models take the simple duel? With how I read the rules, I would answer the Nothing Beast because the active player is resolve an effect of his/her model (see simultaneous effects section, cited in earlier post). To quickly change the example, if the Nothing Beast was obeyed by a model enemy to it into using Accelerate Time, then the player that controlled the model that took the Obey action would do so (see simultaneous rules section again).

Under @Myyrä and @Adrans' reading of the rules, though, regardless of which player caused the Nothing Beast to take the Accelerate Time action, the owner of the affected models would determine the order. I don't think that's how the interaction resolves because in the first iteration it renders step 1 inapplicable despite the active player being the player that generated the simultaneous effects with his/her own model. This seems more to break the game by rendering that step only applicable when such effects affect friendly models. If this was the intended resolution, the inclusion of the word "friendly" would resolve this particular discussion, but it isn't, so it is logical this step applies to friendly and enemy models. There is additionally the parenthetical at the end of step 1 providing support for this conclusion saying the active player resolves all of his/her effects before moving to the non-active player even if those effects affect models controlled by the non-active player.

As a question to @Myyrä and @Adran, what do you guys think of Malifaux having an open resolution window, similar to Magic's "stack," vs. having a one check resolution where an effect generally cannot apply contingent upon another effect going off in the same timing window, e.g. Rotten Belle's melee attack vs. Gwyneth Maddox's Luck Thief? I don't want to get into it if you guys believe the rules follow a one check resolution effect, but if you look at it from an open resolution window, I think getting into that may be informative as well. I would use this as a second example, but it may not be relevant if we all agree it's the latter and not the former. 

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

Could you provide instructions then on how to do the cut and paste on the e-rule book? When I do it, these are my results for the first section of the "simultaneous effects" section:

"Occasionallyaneffectwillgeneratemultipleeffectsthatoccuratthesametime§IfthishappenstheyareresolvedinthefollowingorderÄ"

I'm not familiar with cutting and pasting from the e-rule book, so each time I've quoted the rules it's by typing out the section. If you could give me a step by step method for an easier way, I'd be happy to do it that way.

You have to put some effort into it and split it up yourself. That's just the price you have to pay if you want to be understood.

Quote

Also, while you see it as a negative effect, I think it should be encouraged to have the rule book open while reading what people say, because we're talking about multiple pages worth of references and nuanced textual interpretation. It's a leisure game, so we're all doing this in our personal time, barring you're part of Wyrd, but that doesn't mean we should discuss rules without the rules in front of us. 

It's one thing to read the rules before you respond and another having to reference another text to understand what you are supposed to respond to.

Quote

I definitely don't think anything I've referenced in the rule book is "obscure." Including pages without content, the e-rule book is 54 pages, so not particularly long as a text in general. It has some lay out and organization issues, but considering it's written in plain English with elements of programmer/defined gaming terminology, that's expected.

Also I'm unsure how I'm reading it "creatively." I literally quoted the section and used an ellipses because again, I have to type out in full the quotes I want to use with my limited quoting capabilities. I then explained how I read it. I'd like to know more why you say that. 

I do find it funny though you reference me using "big" words, as though that should detract from the argument; I use these words because they're what come to mind and seem fitting given context, not because I like using big words--if I could I'd only write four letter words because it'd save me a lot of time and energy here and for daily life, but I can't get by like that T___T. Earlier you used the word "tautology," essentially a slightly higher than SAT level word. I accepted your statement because I know it to be true and you're right, no further justification was needed to show that particular statement was true. I later used a tautological statement, and it was argued my usage of such is a false dilemma argument.

I didn't say anything about creative quoting, and I don't object to using big words, just using them "creatively" i.e. wrong.

Quote

Regarding step 2, the way I read your post and @Adran's post was that the opening sentence and step 1 texts were ambiguous because of step 2's sentence. If I misinterpreted, I apologize and would like to see why you say it's ambiguous. At least to myself, the text seems to be all encompassing because of the general language, which makes sense for future proofing and as a method of writing that section. 

I did make the comment that not verbatim repeating step 1's text for step 2 in the context of the non-active player was likely the result of something other than a motivation to further define step 1. However, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, and I did explain why I think it provides some context in that section's interpretation. Also I think you have to have timing resolution for any two or more effects that share the same resolution window. If you don't, rules questions without solid answers are an inevitable result, never mind the choke on future possible models. I could not quickly think of an example that fit into the fairly subtle divide you and @Adran were pointing out, i.e. "[t]his can mean that the model has unresolved effects affecting it or it is generating unresolved effects. It seems like you read it as model generating the effects, but I actually believe it refers to effects affecting the model, because step 2 says (quoted section)."

Both of you read that section in the sense that the rule only applies to simultaneous effects affecting the model that is activated instead of resolving it as the active vs. non-active player choosing which effects to resolve first. I could not then, and right now cannot either, so apologies, think of a currently existing on point example where this distinction currently comes into play. Both of you, based on the Misaki example, are saying it applies to the Misaki example, but I think applying it in that way effectively renders step 2 for the non-active player's choice meaningless. The way you resolve the Misaki example, provided @Myyrä is reading it the exact same way as @Adran, which I am assuming you are, so apologies if I am incorrect in that, the active player actually effectively makes the non-active player's choice for them in deciding which simultaneous effect the resolve as opposed to,"the active player resolved his/her unbury first, the non-active player then resolves his/her unbury, but because you cannot unbury, the effect fails."

I'll put up an example I think that may be informative. I think it's a relatively easy ruling, but if anyone would like to say I'm wrong, please explain why with rules citations so we can continue the discussion.

Nothing Beast uses is action Accelerate Time and succeeds the simple duel to generate the pulse (see the model's card). Assume at least two enemy models are affected by the pulse. Which player determines the order in which the models take the simple duel? With how I read the rules, I would answer the Nothing Beast because the active player is resolve an effect of his/her model (see simultaneous effects section, cited in earlier post). To quickly change the example, if the Nothing Beast was obeyed by a model enemy to it into using Accelerate Time, then the player that controlled the model that took the Obey action would do so (see simultaneous rules section again).

Under @Myyrä and @Adrans' reading of the rules, though, regardless of which player caused the Nothing Beast to take the Accelerate Time action, the owner of the affected models would determine the order. I don't think that's how the interaction resolves because in the first iteration it renders step 1 inapplicable despite the active player being the player that generated the simultaneous effects with his/her own model. This seems more to break the game by rendering that step only applicable when such effects affect friendly models. If this was the intended resolution, the inclusion of the word "friendly" would resolve this particular discussion, but it isn't, so it is logical this step applies to friendly and enemy models. There is additionally the parenthetical at the end of step 1 providing support for this conclusion saying the active player resolves all of his/her effects before moving to the non-active player even if those effects affect models controlled by the non-active player.

As a question to @Myyrä and @Adran, what do you guys think of Malifaux having an open resolution window, similar to Magic's "stack," vs. having a one check resolution where an effect generally cannot apply contingent upon another effect going off in the same timing window, e.g. Rotten Belle's melee attack vs. Gwyneth Maddox's Luck Thief? I don't want to get into it if you guys believe the rules follow a one check resolution effect, but if you look at it from an open resolution window, I think getting into that may be informative as well. I would use this as a second example, but it may not be relevant if we all agree it's the latter and not the former. 

Your easy example requires me look up the rules of another model and read a wall of text. No thanks.

[benjoewoo]

20 hours ago, Myyrä said:

You have to put some effort into it and split it up yourself. That's just the price you have to pay if you want to be understood.

It's one thing to read the rules before you respond and another having to reference another text to understand what you are supposed to respond to.

I didn't say anything about creative quoting, and I don't object to using big words, just using them "creatively" i.e. wrong.

Your easy example requires me look up the rules of another model and read a wall of text. No thanks.

@Myyrä I appreciate your candor in the conversation. I only ask for additional constructive criticism, such as basic instructions on how to format posts instead of effectively "figure it out." I'm following the rules forum guidelines and going beyond them by posting my thoughts preemptively and in detail instead of just asking "why and where's the rules reference?" to each question to put all of the thinking and research on people answering the questions. I could have run the thread like that and more or less achieved the same thing, and it would require significantly less effort while still complying with the rules. But, I am trying to actually get an answer because the issue has affected a game I played, which is why I posted question 2, and question 1 seems an obvious question to ask as GG 0 is the currently available competitive rule set document. It's also an interesting set of questions because I think the answer to one provides a great deal of rules infrastructure for the other. 

As you and at least another person have pointed out, Wyrd looks at the rules forum to see how they can change, improve, etc. the rules to better players' gaming experience. I think this conversation and how it is turning out can be informative on that issue.

Also, in my prior post I referenced that a word was higher than an SAT level word, not considering that it is mostly a USA reference and that the person I was responding to is more likely in Finland. I'd like to see your examples of where I'm using words incorrectly and I can further explain, hopefully in shorter writing, what I intended to say in those posts. My SAT reference was that the word you used in that context is a higher level word for someone to know in the English language, likely in other languages as well when translated. 

Again, I don't think having rules open is a bad thing. We're talking about detailed readings of rules text, so having the exact text for reference is probably a requirement to understanding what anyone is saying. Grounding our thoughts in examples also helps write posts and give something solid to work with the prevent us going into arcane philosophy as the forum rules require, so I think reading the cards and rules other people reference is a better method than not doing so. Each example someone has given as a counter example for this thread has required I read the model's card and re-read a rules section before responding. I also have to do the same in order to provide examples that I think are as on point as possible. I originally was going to use Pandora's Misery ability instead of Accelerate Time, but the example didn't seem as on point because there is a rule specifically for Auras that might take the conversation in a different direction; rather than do that, I chose a model with a pulse action because the pulse rules seem to rely on the simultaneous effects section to resolve.

I couldn't have responded to the example with the Alp the way I did (pointing out that it may not work, which Adran acknowledged and is going to double check) without referring to a model's card that had prior to that point never been brought up. It doesn't take a lot of text to provide an example, and I could just write, "Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action shows I'm right," but then we'd have multiple short posts on what I meant by that, whether it's wrong or right, etc. That wastes time and energy to check, and considering the posters here are more or less posting once a day, it seems more practical to further the conversation along when the thought comes to mind instead of revisiting it to "get back" the context each time. 

Again, apologies if walls of text are appearing--I'm trying to work on it by writing shorter posts, but I want to be complete in my posts so that when you consider my thoughts, you have more context to evaluate and bring up arguments/examples. Again, Adran referred to his critical example in a body of evidence via the Alps example in essentially a one liner. I pointed out after reading the card and re-reading the rule book on when actions resolve that the interaction may not resolve the way he posted, to which he is know double checking and will explain how it works or provide another similar example. 

If you don't want to respond because my posts are long, then I apologize for how I post and thank you for your time and input so far.

[Adran]

Sorry, I’m trying to catch up with the posts after being away.

I had never even thought the words

“The Active player (or the player with Initiative, if there is no Active player) chooses one of their models  with one or more unresolved effects and resolves those effects in whatever order they wish.”

Would have applied to anything other than the effects that affected that model. So I don’t know if it’s a combination of the rules from the past two editions, or the various rules during the beta process, but I have always read and applied that as the effects that will affect the model, not the effects that the model created. The way they phrased part two certainly helped seal to me the meaning of part 1.

So, based on that that, the Nothing Beast question would have then enemy player choosing which order the two models had to take the duel.

 

The phrasing about

“When an effect resolves, the entire effect resolves (even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player).”

Was added in the beta following a discussion on an ability that would affect multiple models (I can’t remember the exact issue, but if an inactive players model had an ability that allowed it to heal at the end of turn (such as perverse metabolism, and the poison condition) but there was an effect that dealt damage to that model and also an active players model at the end of turn, the damage portion would be done first because it is done during the Section 1, and so potentially killing the model before it got its end of turn heal.

I can’t confirm that this was designer intent, but it certainly didn’t question my reading of the text.

 

 

“As a question to @Myyrä and @Adran, what do you guys think of Malifaux having an open resolution window, similar to Magic's "stack," vs. having a one check resolution where an effect generally cannot apply contingent upon another effect going off in the same timing window, e.g. Rotten Belle's melee attack vs. Gwyneth Maddox's Luck Thief? I don't want to get into it if you guys believe the rules follow a one check resolution effect, but if you look at it from an open resolution window, I think getting into that may be informative as well. I would use this as a second example, but it may not be relevant if we all agree it's the latter and not the former. “

 

Previous editions were certainly the case that if something occurred during a phase, then it could be included. So yes I think on the whole if an effect happens at the start of activation, then while you are in the start of activation step you can add things to the happenings.

 

I think you are right, my alp example is a poor one, because unburying from an ability doesn’t trigger its attack.

Its probably not going to help, but I cut and paste from the last beta version of the rules (after checking the wording is the same) because I can’t work out how to cut and paste from the final document.