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.

[Maniacal_cackle]

If hazardous terrain kills you, nobody gets kill credit. If a condition kills you, nobody gets kill credit. Those are both 'neutral'.

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

As a side note, someone cited that where a rules interpretation would break the game, that interpretation should be disfavored. I don't think resolving question 2 to say that bad juju is perma-buried effectively is a "break the game" resolution. The player hiring bad juju could also hire a model that unburies. Alternatively, the player must weigh opportunity costs in hiring bad juju once the opponent declares not only a faction, but a master who will have access to bury mechanics.

Neverborn and Bayou don't have any models that can unbury other models. I don't think any crew does that isn't Tara. However burying is significantly more common, and you're basically saying that Bad Juju(and the Emissary and Waldgeists) just can't be played into most factions and that that is an absurd position to take.

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Got it. Thanks! I was expecting the verbatim wording you had posted so didn't see it and was pulling at my hair a little bit because it was eluding me.

The quote in that post was copied from the document directly.

[benjoewoo]

On 11/1/2019 at 11:04 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

If hazardous terrain kills you, nobody gets kill credit. If a condition kills you, nobody gets kill credit. Those are both 'neutral'.

The examples you give are specified by the rule book not to give credit to anyone, e.g. poison.

 

@Myyrä When I copy-pasted your text I couldn't find it.

 

@Ogid to prevent a massive quote I'll address your points in order. Again I'm not trying to be confrontational--I want to get to the heart of why you say my points are not supported by the rules text. Each time someone has brought up a point, I refer to the rules text in some way or to existing models to ground my thoughts, because Malifaux rules shouldn't be arcane theory crafting or philosophizing as the rules forum dictates--this has an in game application that matters when a player hires models that could be affected by this interaction or could affect players who believe they're going against such models. 

With regards to source I'm concluding that's the case because currently the game is played that way. Without going into the details of the example again, Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time vs. the Evasive ability is such an example. If you don't track source, then Evasive does not prevent the damage from it. If you do track source, Evasive does prevent the damage. I don't think anyone disagrees Evasive is supposed to prevent the damage from the simple duel caused by the pulse because no one has said such, but I think this is a necessary conclusion if you argue tracking does not exist. It also necessitates the answer to Question 1 as the Bandido takes damage instead of Zoraida. Ruling as such would make Evasive weaker (also one of those abilities that has a list of caveats) and make the new text of Idols relatively avoidable.

With regards to your misaki example, it would resolve as follows: (1) active player resolves their at start of activation effects; (2) non-active player resolves their at start of activation effects. (1) would resolve first because the Misaki model, on activation, would unbury within range of a smoke marker, provided at least one was in play. (2) would become non-relevant by result of that. Provided that no shadow marker was in play, Misaki would be placed by its owner in the owner's deployment zone, barring something prevented such from happening. If something doesn't, then Misaki places as such according to the rules on her card because as described, the resolving action was (1), a friendly effect. Provided she can't, for some reason, she would stay buried--I can't think of how you'd accomplish this but it may somehow be possible. It's essentially order of operations here and tracking keeps it tied to the source of the model.

Damage caused by the rule book, e.g. falling as you cited and conditions as more than one person has referenced, have rules stating they do not give credit, e.g. poison. Even if they did,  the GG 0 and rule book strategies and schemes are worded so you generally could not score off that. The one exception I can think of is Take Prisoner, which could potentially have the end of game VP denied by saddling the model with poison to kill it, thus avoiding the "killed by a friendly model" requirement for that situation. I don't believe the rule book exhaustively states for each source of damage caused by "neutral" sources, e.g. fall damage, does not give credit, but the rule book states that for at least conditions per page 25 of the E-rule book under the definitions for "Killed Models," models do not count for killing the model. The exception to this rule is on the conditions section on page 29 of the E-rule book where the rule book provides that if something dies to a condition caused by another model, e.g. Catalyst on McMourning, then the model generating that ability/action would count as killing the model. The interactions of these definitions and exception require tracking--if you can't track, these sections don't affect the game state.

If you read my "assumptions," they are not all "just" assumed for purposes of argument--how you have to read the rules, as noted before, is attempting to put an "ideal" reading methodology on the games, but I don't think they're conceptually wrong or anyone disagrees you should read rules for consistency. As for how to read the rule book a certain way, those thoughts each have examples/reasoning to support them--if you take issue with it, please explain why for a specific point(s) as opposed to blanket saying they're incorrect by way of "you're assuming wrong." A couple posts have done this and it may be this discussion has to dive into the nitty gritty of the premises in order to find that no, you can't effectively perma-bury juju. 

As to the break the game comment, I think you're taking the look at the very end of the interaction, after the counter-play and pro-active choices have been made. If you choose to hire models that can have this done to them, you did it knowing your opponent has chosen not only a faction, but specific leader with access to those mechanics. If you choose to hire a model that could be perma-buried anyway, you accept the risk of counter play because you want the benefits that model(s) can bring. M2E has a number of examples--a number of the old schemes and strategies, including the always available scheme Claim Jump, were literally unable to be scored if your opponent picked a particular master, e.g. Hamelin, and you had less knowledge then, but it was part of the risk of planning your games and hiring the crews you did to play into that/counter play it. 

Additionally the security check is an alternative likely originally thought in case the initial placement was illegal for physical placement, e.g. juju being 50mm is potentially much more restricted in where he can place, especially given the clarified terrain set ups GG 0 brings up. As that's not explicit in the rules though, the rule book covers those situations an situations where model interactions prevent each other from being buried with a blanket modification of the original ability. The check just doesn't matter unless a model is attempting to unbury a model, and this game doesn't generate its own unbury effect by default, so it changes an existing one--I don't think anyone is disagreeing as to the first part, but we are getting hung up on whether it's a modification or a new effect. It's kind of a "the rules activate at this point in time" argument, but that seems an artificial and arbitrary divide because for a game like Malifaux, the rules are always in effect. You can't take walk actions without the rules telling you that you can--the models just tell you how far to prevent you from walking an unlimited distance in one action.

Another note is even if this interaction may seem distasteful, if it is the right conclusion to maintain stability of the game, similar to M2E's true infinite combo with Mei Feng, it should be ruled as such until it is changed or clarified via FAQ/Errata. Otherwise players undermine the usefulness of the same and the authoritative sources and we're back at playing kitchen gaming Malifaux instead of a one rule set game.

I generally don't post much on the weekend, so sorry for taking so long to reply. GTFO alpha was up over the weekend so wanted to play some metal gear whack-a-mole.

[benjoewoo]

@Ogid I'll avoid massive quoting and go in order again.

The tracking for Evasive isn't with regards to friendly/enemy, but rather whether the damage was caused by the pulse or the simple duel. The game either tracks or it doesn't. If it tracks, then Evasive stops damage from the accelerate time's pulse, friendly or enemy status being irrelevant. If it doesn't track, then Evasive does not stop damage from accelerate time because the damage is caused by a simple duel, not the pulse directly.

 

I actually do not believe Misaki can choose whether she unburies or not. Her ability is not a may--she will attempt to unbury on her activation and cannot choose to avoid unburying to her own ability. Order of operations demand the active player resolve any "at the start of activation" abilities first, so Misaki's ability would resolve first. 

 

I don't think I have the "burden" so to speak at this point on showing the rule book is NOT modifying the effect as my position is exemplified in the game already via other more "easy" rulings. I've also provided the rules citations and examples multiple times over. There are multiple instances where the game tracks, and my thought process relies upon that being consistent in the game's application of the rules and how models interact. I think arguing the rule book replaces the effect requires support as you are stating something is now no longer the effect of a model after a model initiated the effect--this replacement of an effect in its entirety requires support because at least so far, there are no other "easy" examples provided or rules cited for that proposition.

To make the above a little more clear though--@Ogid, would you rule that Evasive prevents the damage from Nothing Beast's accelerate time? If you say yes, you necessarily acknowledge the game tracks because if it didn't, it would only look to the simple duel causing the damage and apply it. If you say no, you can argue the game does not track, but I do not think people would agree that is how Evasive works, intended or as worded on the ability and with how the rule book operates. The game tracks over the course of multiple turns who killed particular models--this is how reckoning scores each turn and ultimately whether take prisoner determines if the end of game VP is granted or not--and it tracks how models died--e.g. Catalyst vs. the Poison condition--so non-stat tracking is a thing. NB's growth mechanic for nephilim crews explicitly relies on the rule book and individual models interacting for non-stat tracking, i.e. the growth tokens and credit for kills, in order to work intuitively.

 

I don't think the argument that "current state doesn't allow unbury, therefore it must be ruled this way to account for that" is a good argument. It is always possible to release models with unbury tech in a faction, and much easier to do so if the situation calls for it than to release the answer in an online only document (FAQ/Errata document); doing the former avoids coordination issues and player base confusion more so than the latter because the former acknowledges a wonky result that followed consistency vs. changing rules or models to achieve a result (e.g. M2E's Kirai summon mechanic for Ikiryo and Mei Feng's infinite jump with the Arcane Emissary). Again, the right ruling may be distasteful in a particular circumstance, but if it's right then it should be ruled that way to maintain consistency and stability in the game. If people started playing more bury tech, which is fairly rare outside of Tara and Lady J led crews (by rare I mean only 1-2 models may have it compared to 3+ in the crew) currently, then Wyrd would have a guiding direction to design more models given how players are playing. I'd prefer models released to present play and counter play than random abilities/actions that just seem cool but are not necessarily designed for a purpose other than providing "more options"--e.g. kabuki warriors for Qi and Gong, a keyword in desperate need of a good in keyword scheme runner but the unreleased model is a "self-sufficient" melee beater minion to complement the already full line up of henchmen beaters already released at comparable costs. I appreciate more options, because the game is expanding, but I want options that I can strongly consider for higher level of play at times.

Additionally, I think Waldgeists and Bad Juju punch above their weight in a number of situations, the former for cost and having a silver bullet ability found typically on more expensive models like bad juju itself or models with the similar ability Laugh Off like Fuhatsu. Bad Juju will often be in Zoraida's crew, and she gives him action efficiency via obey (w/ or w/o trigger) to get more oomph from his attacks, which are nothing to sneeze at. He also has above par defensive abilities (both for count and strength of the same) and an excellent Wp 7 which should make most of the bury mechanics easy to get by--as far as I've seen most bury mechanics require failing a Wp 14 duel, meaning Bad Juju only has to flip minimally above average to pass. Actually, if the crew with Waldgeist/Bad Juju are trying to score outflank, pretty much the only ways of denying the points are (1) killing both, which isn't easy given their other defensive abilities, or (2) burying them. If I tech to counter their ability, I should get a big payoff for it--that's interactive play and counter play. If my only real hopes are just to go forward and smash them, I have less control of my fate and my investment into my results will lessen for it. If you chose another model without such an ability, now I can counter with movement manipulation. Interaction--why we play the game (in theory).

I don't think having a way to silver bullet bad juju or similar models that can punch above their weight is absurd, as @santaclaws01 puts it. There is literally a model in Guild, the Jury, who silver bullets Tara's entire main crew mechanic and her play style. It's not a new thing to happen, not only in M3E but M2E as well (I didn't play M1E or M1.5E), and it's not absurd that after getting by the terrifying test and getting off the attack that can attempt to bury him, which bad juju then fails the subsequent relatively easy simple duel for, that there is a high pay off. It's the same as an execute trigger except bad juju isn't even dead until the end of game. It's weaker than an execute even because you can always flip well and the plan fails, compared to the execute that I can set up so it's guaranteed, and if it becomes a problem, Wyrd can always release a model in NB/Bayou that unburies and voila, issue solved. It would even go a long way to helping differentiate playing Zoraida out of Bayou vs. NB, as you could make it a NB only model so NB gets a faction buff only vs. Bayou or vice versa as the situation calls for. 

 

Perma-bury is already achievable--Killjoy is an example. If Killjoy gets killed and the other model(s) with the blood sacrifice upgrade are also killed before they can unbury Killjoy, Killjoy is perma-buried. That situation exists now. Does that make Killjoy unplayable and an absurd model because the situation exists? I don't think anyone has argued that should this situation arise, Killjoy simply unburies in his own deployment zone because his unbury mechanic failed. It was a designed risk-reward of hiring him and I think calling similar situations absurd detracts from the game's stability.

 

Again, I have cited the rules and provided examples of why I think the rules work the way they do. I don't think anyone here can really contest that I haven't--asking me to continue to do so will simply repeat the examples I'm presenting along with the same rules citations. I've asked for rules citations or examples, and for rules citations I've primarily seen one to where TO rulings are final and to the same section I referred to in my initial post. The former provides what is likely the practical answer as opposed to the theoretical "right answer," and the latter citation is followed by a conclusion that isn't otherwise supported by examples or explicit text in a game that only enables game state change by inclusion. However, the examples provided have been off point--Misaki being an order of operations question and Killjoy being an example of how perma-bury is already an achievable game state. I don't think saying I need to continuously provide new citations and examples is going to progress the discussion--I think presenting a counter-argument based in the rules, even if it's the same rules section as previously cited, with solid examples will help move it forward. Finally, I don't think "rules as intended (RAI)" is a good argument--RAI not only cuts both ways in that reasonable minds can differ, but it explicitly overrides the actual authoritative sources in solving rules questions; a number of posts have been about how ruling bad juju/planted roots models could be perma-buried essentially goes against RAI, but considering there is already at least one model that can cause itself to be perma-buried, I don't think RAI should be applied here.

[santaclaws01]

25 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

There is literally a model in Guild, the Jury, who silver bullets Tara's entire main crew mechanic and her play style

No, the Jury just makes it harder for Tara to play normally. It doesn't make any models literally useless.

 

29 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

Perma-bury is already achievable--Killjoy is an example. If Killjoy gets killed and the other model(s) with the blood sacrifice upgrade are also killed before they can unbury Killjoy,

That requires 2 other models also being killed and KJ potentially being killed 3 times over. This isn't just KJ fails 1 simple duel or gets hit once is and now out of the game.

[solkan]

On 11/4/2019 at 11:20 AM, Ogid said:

However if permabury something would be OK for the developers. What would be the point of that rulebook unbury in the first place? If a model can't be placed, then it should remain buried the rest of the game it that's a balanced thing. If that's ok for models with Planted roots, it should be also ok for the rest of the models... However that rule is there to prevent that, another hint permabury something isn't intended.

There's also the fact that the designer commentary concerning that rule in Unbury exists.

At best, this is all just an argument over how many "for any reason"s and "instead"s a sentence in the rulebook needs to have to be absolutely clear.

[Ogid]

@benjoewoo. For me the big problem here is you are applying a double standard. You ask us to support all our claims with the rules while you defend your theory without citing a single rule (seriously, not a single cite in these 2 pages) while also use fallacies to support your point. 

I'll skip your points about why you think it's that balanced (it's not) and I will focus in the rules and the fallacies:

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

The tracking for Evasive isn't with regards to friendly/enemy, but rather whether the damage was caused by the pulse or the simple duel. The game either tracks or it doesn't. If it tracks, then Evasive stops damage from the accelerate time's pulse, friendly or enemy status being irrelevant. If it doesn't track, then Evasive does not stop damage from accelerate time because the damage is caused by a simple duel, not the pulse directly.

First fallacy: "False dilemma". It's this or that. There is a third option, some things are "tracked", other don't. However there isn't usually tracking beyond what is stated in a model's card and when something needs tracking beyond that, another card is added (For example summon upgrades or Myranda shapeshift upgrade to name 2).

About the above: Shockwave rules are in the pg31, there it's expained how it works. There is no tracking beyond the action, just a model attacked by a kind of attack defined in the rulebook and another effect reducing damage from that kind of attack.

 

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

I actually do not believe Misaki can choose whether she unburies or not. Her ability is not a may--she will attempt to unbury on her activation and cannot choose to avoid unburying to her own ability. Order of operations demand the active player resolve any "at the start of activation" abilities first, so Misaki's ability would resolve first. 

This ilustrate quite well my point. This isn't about "believe", it's about what the rules say. Let's go to the rulebook again (simultaneous effects pg34):

Quote

Occasionally, an effect will generate multiple effects that occur at the same time. If this happens, they are resolved in the following order:

1. 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. Then, that player chooses another of their models with unresolved effects and resolves those effects in the same way, continuing in this manner until the player no longer has models with unresolved effects. When an effect resolves, the entire effect resolves (even if it also affects a model controlled by the non-Active player).

This means Misaki may order the effect placed on her that try to resolve at the same time; the logical choice is using her unbury because she will have more control where she is placed; but if for some reason Misaki wants to be placed by the other player, she can do it.

With your main point it happening the same, look for what the rules say, not how you think it should work.

 

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

I don't think I have the "burden" so to speak at this point on showing the rule book is NOT modifying the effect as my position is exemplified in the game already via other more "easy" rulings. I've also provided the rules citations and examples multiple times over. There are multiple instances where the game tracks, and my thought process relies upon that being consistent in the game's application of the rules and how models interact. I think arguing the rule book replaces the effect requires support as you are stating something is now no longer the effect of a model after a model initiated the effect--this replacement of an effect in its entirety requires support because at least so far, there are no other "easy" examples provided or rules cited for that proposition.

Second Fallacy: Cherry picking. You are ignoring all the examples where the game doesn't track; so there is no consistency in your reading, it's biased. And again the core problem. I don't know why you think you don't have to support your claims with the rules like everyone else. I haven't seen a single quote of the rules yet.

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

To make the above a little more clear though--@Ogid, would you rule that Evasive prevents the damage from Nothing Beast's accelerate time? If you say yes, you necessarily acknowledge the game tracks because if it didn't, it would only look to the simple duel causing the damage and apply it. If you say no, you can argue the game does not track, but I do not think people would agree that is how Evasive works, intended or as worded on the ability and with how the rule book operates.

False dilemma again.

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

The game tracks over the course of multiple turns who killed particular models--this is how reckoning scores each turn and ultimately whether take prisoner determines if the end of game VP is granted or not--and it tracks how models died--e.g. Catalyst vs. the Poison condition--so non-stat tracking is a thing. NB's growth mechanic for nephilim crews explicitly relies on the rule book and individual models interacting for non-stat tracking, i.e. the growth tokens and credit for kills, in order to work intuitively.

Cherry picking again.

There are things not tracked: When a model get a condition, the game doesn't track the source (there isn't friendly poison and enemy poison, just poison). In Reckoning the game only cares about how many points are worth for the strategy the enemy models who died, not about how or who. When a crew creates some hazardous terrain, it doesn't track who created him to give him credit for the kills...

I don't see how the Grow case is relevant here... A model kill another using one of his actions and that give them a grow token... all of that is stated in the card and the grow tokens are used to keep a count of past events. Why is that relevant for this case?

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

It is always possible to release models with unbury tech in a faction, and much easier to do so if the situation calls for it than to release the answer in an online only document (FAQ/Errata document)

I seriously doubt that a model that unburies will be ever released for NVB. Killjoy would be beyond OP with such model in the faction.

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

Perma-bury is already achievable--Killjoy is an example. If Killjoy gets killed and the other model(s) with the blood sacrifice upgrade are also killed before they can unbury Killjoy, Killjoy is perma-buried. That situation exists now. Does that make Killjoy unplayable and an absurd model because the situation exists? I don't think anyone has argued that should this situation arise, Killjoy simply unburies in his own deployment zone because his unbury mechanic failed. It was a designed risk-reward of hiring him and I think calling similar situations absurd detracts from the game's stability.

Yes it's achievable because the model is designed around that. You need to kill him 3 times to "permabury" him. Something quite different to use a random bury to efectively kill a model.

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

Again, I have cited the rules and provided examples of why I think the rules work the way they do. I don't think anyone here can really contest that I haven't--asking me to continue to do so will simply repeat the examples I'm presenting along with the same rules citations. I've asked for rules citations or examples, and for rules citations I've primarily seen one to where TO rulings are final and to the same section I referred to in my initial post.

And again, you have cited no rules. 

If you want us to take your argument seriously, then explain your point using the rules. Not what you think about how it should work. If you want to have a constructive discusion about this then you should drop that attitude of "I'm so right about this I don't even need to prove it". Everyone has to explain his point.

And that's not because I'm saying so, check the rules forum rules:

Quote

• Constructively:  Where there are several ways to interpret the rules; the one that doesn't break the rest of the game will be right.
• Explain:  Use quotes and page references and explain how you get to your opinion on the rules.
• The answers:  The answer will be explained in the rules, not hinted at. You don't need to invent your own terminology. 
• To rules Questions:  We're here to help people play this great game, not explore the rules as an arcane philosophy.

So a player here is expected to support his claims with the rules and that the answer of his question should be in the rules, not hinted at after jumping through 5 supositions.

 

Going back to the rulebook. The relevant part about friendly and enemy effect is this, which I cited before:

Quote

Friendly models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into your Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by your Crew.

Enemy models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into the opponent’s Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by the opponent’s Crew.

Every Ability, Action, and Trigger on a model’s Stat Card and Attached Upgrades treats the use of “friendly” and “enemy” from its point of view

So, if the effect come from an enemy card is an enemy effect. If it doesn't then it's something else unless there is a rule saying it is an enemy effect.

The rulebook unbury doesn't come from the enemy card. Can you cite the rules or explain quoting the rules why you think the unbury is an enemy effect?

[Maniacal_cackle]

I gotta agree with @Ogid. I'm well known for going on my own long rambles about inferring how the rules work, but that should still be solidly based in what the rules directly say.

I'm not sure I understand where you are saying the actual rules support you OP.

[Adran]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 6:24 PM, benjoewoo said:

Myyrä, I think your post indicates you view the rule book security check as the rule book generating a new effect by implication. The rule book does not have a default unbury effect that players or models can cause/enact in play to unbury their own models. This means models must provide a source of an unbury mechanic for any model to unbury after it is buried. 

The rule book, then, can only modify model(s)' unbury effects, and must do so by explicit text because otherwise there's either no (1) rule to guide play; or (2) no reference for change to the interaction as initially indicated by the models. The rule book only provides that if the model cannot be initially be placed by the unbury effect, be it for any reason such as no legal location to physically place the model or for another model's interaction such as Planted Roots, then the owner then controls the placement in the owner's deployment zone.

This only changes where the player can place the model, but not that the effect is still being generated by an enemy model--such a change would require explicit text stating the effect is now from the rule book instead of the model because we know the rule book does not by default provide a way for players/models to unbury models. 

 

 

As much as I'd like to find the "right" answer for RAW (rules as worded), the answer to 1 is likely dependent on the TO and the probable answer to 2 from TOs at any events is likely "place in deployment zone," even if the arguments otherwise cannot be contested via rules citation(s). If these rulings are wrong, though, by logic, it is informative, especially to newer players, on a mechanic that's relatively easily accessible in some factions. Until a FAQ entry that clarifies the interaction comes out, I'd like to figure out how the RAW works because it furthers competitive nature of tournaments and higher levels of play to find what "should" be the consistent ruling. It also encourages people to understand more on how to read the rule book (like myself, who did not actively participate in the beta testing).

 

Question 1 is fairly easy. I think the only two things you would need to quote are the obey text

"Target model takes a non- Action that does not Attach Upgrades or list a model by name, chosen and controlled by this model."

And the cursed idols rules

"If this Interact Action is controlled by another model, the model which controls the Action must choose to suffer the irreducible damage instead of the model taking the Action."

So lets write down what this means.

If model A obeys model B then the action choices (that are normally done by model B) are all chosen and controlled by model A.

If model B obeys model C then the action choices  (that are normally done by model C) are all chosen and controlled by model B.

Now if model B, whilst under model As control, obeys model C, then we can follow these two chains and clearly see Model A is the model that chooses and controls all of the choices.

 

Question 2 seems to be you trying to follow 1 set of tracking, and applying that logic to a completely different set.  (And the same box that gives you premise 4 actually covers your assumed premise 6, which you've got right, but appear to have not fully read the rules)

I agree that evasive will make you immune to damage from a simple duel that is generated from a pulse.

I don't agree that if a model is prevented from unburying from an enemy effect, then the new unbury effect is an enemy effect.

I believe a legitimate reading of the text in the game is that you attempt unbury from an enemy effect. Your own ability prevents this from happening. The core rules say

"When Unburying a model, the controller of the Unbury effect places the model back on the table as described by the effect. If the model cannot be Placed, the owner of the model instead places it anywhere inside their Deployment Zone."

So once your ability says this can not be placed, you have ended the enemy unbury effect. Instead the rules give you a different unbury effect. I don't believe this unbury effect is an enemy effect.

 

The effect chain you are trying to conduct here is more a case of Model A shoots model B. Model B has Vengences +2. Model A has bullet proof+1. You are trying to argue that the vengeance damage would be reduced by bullet proof because the action that started the chain is a .  This logic would have further issues based on Conflargration (on Kaeris, but also there are other similar abilities) which has the rule that models damaged by this action gain Burning+1. If this model Killed a model that happened to have an explosive demise, then I also don't think that all the models damaged by the explosive demise would gain burning +1, whilst this damage is caused during the Conflagration action, it was not caused by the conflagration action.

Similar things happen with regards to actions created by triggers, compared to actions created by actions created by triggers,  and actions created by triggers from actions created by charges. (the Ability Charge through gives actions generated by the charge on the damage flip. I don't thing this applies to an action that would be generated by the onslaught trigger from an attack that is generated by the charge).

 

[benjoewoo]

20 hours ago, solkan said:

There's also the fact that the designer commentary concerning that rule in Unbury exists.

At best, this is all just an argument over how many "for any reason"s and "instead"s a sentence in the rulebook needs to have to be absolutely clear.

I can't speak as to designer commentary--I don't know about it. I do agree an instance of one of these phrases would probably make it more clear--hard to say if it'd be absolutely but probably clear enough there'd be little question of the answer.  I'd rather pay +$5 for a a rule book that was more clear than save the $5 and have head scratching situations fairly commonly; the quality of life difference isn't worth it if I can help it. Funnily the rules section for burying does use the word "instead," but in a spot that I read as referring to the player controlling the place because the instead modifies that the controller of the place is the owner of the model instead of the controller of the enemy effect.

This moves into Adran's points regarding how I apply tracking--I also want to take a moment, @Adran, to thank you for going into depth on an analysis. 

I think your tracking for question 1 is both what is intended and what is worded, though you refer to the concept as the chain as opposed to tracking. Both terms are somewhat nebulous because they're essentially pronouns for a concept that is definitely used but not explicitly labeled as far as I can tell in the authoritative documents.

I do want to ask for more clarification on your thoughts for how I read the rules incorrectly for premise 6. Referring to premise 6, it was based on a prior rules thread or FAQ/Errata entry (I can't remember at the moment) that when abilities/actions conflict, the more specific one controls, and at the same level of specification, the restrictive one controls. That's why the effects of abilities like Gravity Well operate to stop qualifying enemy placement effects because they're at the same level of specification but are restrictive compared to the enemy placement effect which is permissive (in that it's attempting to change the game state subject to rule book limitations barring an interaction with Gravity Well).

Why do you say that reading that section of the rules regarding unburying being controlled by the owner of the model is no longer an enemy unbury effect? I maintain this is at least one of the crux issues (the other being whether the game tracks, based on prior discussions) because the game uses a permissive rule set, by which I mean you cannot take actions barring something explicitly allows you to do so. The game also tracks--we both agree on this @Adran--for a variety of purposes. The game thus tracks that the initial unbury effect is an enemy unbury effect. For this, we assume the initial unbury fails, which brings the rule book text related to the owner placing the model in the deployment zone into play. By the time you start reading and applying that sentence, nothing in the rule book or other authoritative source has changed whether the enemy unbury effect is now a rule book effect by explicit text. 

The main takeaway from the above paragraph is I don't know where you find the authority in the rules to conclude your reading is the legitimate reading and that how I'm reading it is a misreading. I think your example with vengeance and bullet proof is another example illustrating how models/rules will change the defining characteristic of an interaction for clarity of models' interactions. I'm not good with inserting the icons, so the gun icon is labelled "projectile attack," the claw symbol is labelled "melee attack," and damage without either indicator has no label.

Vengeance +1 reads: "After resolving an Action that targeted and damages this model, the Attacking model suffers +1 damage." I can't find an example of Vengeance +2 or more, but I think having Vengeance +1 only is fine even without the comparison. Vengeance actually is the source of the damage on the model that attacked it--normally the attacking model does not suffer damage for landing or missing attacks on a model, as the rules don't provide for it. Vengeance as an ability changes that and says you suffer +X damage, where X is the +X on the ability number (this is where having Vengeance +2 would be nice for confirmation, but based on how +X conditions work, this seems to be the format for this and similar abilities) and that damage has no label characteristic (as a projectile or melee). Bullet proof provides damage reduction against projectile type attacks only, and thus Vengeance bypasses it. Through the inclusion/exclusion of text/symbols, the models in that interaction define not only source (the vengeance damage from the attacked model) but also applicable/inapplicable damage (bullet proof not applying). The game tracks that the attack action was a projectile attack and that vengeance is a separate source of damage, otherwise there would be a possible argument that bulletproof worked the way you described.

I will preemptively answer the concern that this is possibly an arbitrary differentiation of tracking. I do not think so because in the bad juju example, the rule book does not allow you to unbury by default at all. Only models can unbury. That means the game tracks that initially until something changes that nature. The rule book uses the word instead as read in plain English that the owner instead of the controller of the unbury effect then controls the place in the specified area, i.e. the deployment zone. I imagine that decision was based on the idea the opposing player's decision would be relatively automatic--far back as possible to maximize required time/actions to return to game relevancy--whereas the owner of the model would have possibly real decision making in placing the model in various possible locations for tactical advantage or alternative plays, which the opposing player then has to interact with; one decision results in effectively killing the model possibly or irrelevancy for 20%+ of the game, the other in interactive play. The rules though do not inform on why the decision was made, just that the owner instead of the controller of the unbury effect places the model. I am not particularly familiar with Kaeris, so I might be reading how her action works incorrectly, but I do not believe that sequence of events you described would occur because Demise specifies a source of damage, namely itself. To count for purposes of Conflagaration would be to say the damage is cumulatively collecting traits, which goes against how you seem to answer whether you could take a melee action generated by a charge that was generated by a trigger; I use this example because I think referring to how you answered question 1 would still conclude yes regardless of whether you cumulatively collect traits or not. 

I think the conclusion that the existence of text in the rule book means it replaces model text is not correct because models override the rules by default. Viktoria Chambers for example overrides the rule book for giving credit on kills, which may be relevant for scoring purposes and is always relevant for her own healing ability. The rule book in fact goes against what that model does, but models override rules. Any effect the rules have upon that would be a modification so long as they did not conflict. If the rules were to replace the effect for some reason (e.g. a strategy/scheme that scored off the master getting a kill), it would have to explicitly state so and designate it as either a modification or replacement; we see this primarily as modification or nullification (model still gets credit for kill, but you just don't get to score off it). E.g. Vendetta, where the selected Viktoria Chambers is given a "free" attack by the other Viktoria Chambers, you can't score the reveal VP because it was not during the chosen Viktoria Chambers' activation; the scheme does not override what the model says (because it can't) but instead modifies scoring so that the scheme cannot score by using that "free" attack (because it's not during the chosen Viktoria Chambers' activation). This was an example on hand because I figured a killy scheme would be easier to discuss, but on trying to think of a better example I came up short on time and there are only three schemes that want you to actually kill a model, two of which do not care who killed the model in a way you can achieve now that would really bring it into question. My other example I thought of using was Zoraida obeying Mad Dog Brackett into shooting the Take Prisoner target for Zoraida, but that seemed to be inviting a somewhat unrelated rulings question; I think it's a more clear example, provided you rule Mad Dog Brackett was the model that killed the Take Prisoner target, but didn't want to invite possible tit for tat on that specific example.

@Adran If you can provide a more clear example of how the way I read tracking would result in an obviously wrong conclusion, I would love to read it. I think your vengeance example actually highlights a nuance of how the way I read tracking works because it shows a difference in modification vs. a new source. To complete the trifecta with an example of replacement, there is at least one ability that I can't name off hand (I think it's called "take the hit," and you can find the ability on the Ten Thunder's upgrade that lets a model with the upgrade become the target of an action that targeted another friendly model within a 2" aura) that replaces the target originally chosen by the action--Model A chose to attack Model B, and Model C, which is friendly to Model B, replaces Model B in the interaction for purposes of defending Model's attack, ignoring restrictions Model A would normally face in doing so. 

Also @Ogid, I have cited the rules. I cited the rules on page one and I've been citing to the same bury section people have referred to multiple times in this thread. As for some of the examples, e.g. poison, I've cited to the pages where I found the relevant text, e.g. where it says that dying via poison does not give credit to a model but if a model causes another model to die due to poison condition, e.g. Catalyst, it is counted as obtaining the kill. I don't think I've been just saying the rule book says X without citing a reference or supporting is as what I see as a logical inference. If you believe that to be the case, please refer me to a rules reference I have not at one point cited and I will get the citation. If it is a logical inference, I will show where I explained how I got there.

I'm not creating a logical fallacy by stating a tautology--tautologies by definition cannot create false dilemmas. I stated it that way instead of the longer, qualified sentence of "the game either has tracking as an element within the game to maintain consistency of models interactions or it does not track as an inherent element of the game, leaving any such instances where it is needed to models specifically, which is not inherent to the game itself but self-contained references on models' cards." Just as @Myyrä used the same phrasing for whether unburying is a movement effect or it isn't, the statement is necessarily true--I just chose to mirror his phrasing because it saves me time and effort in typing. Your third option fits within the tautology provided there is rules support for it.

Leading into your thoughts that questions must provide rules references and that the same will be explicit, not hinted at--I don't think I've avoided or tried to circumvent it. I have cited the rules that I refer to, explained what I think are logical inferences from those rules and/or grounded them in how people have ruled current edition examples with how rulings were conducted in second edition. I am not trying to avoid supporting my position, rather asking that if you reject my answer to question 2, because so far pretty much everyone agrees question 1 is Zoraida takes the damage, please explain with rule references why you see my interpretation, conclusions, etc. are incorrect based upon them. I've explained a few times that there is a jump in logic I don't see in how people seem to read the rule book section on unburying replaces the enemy-sourced unbury effect, and to that I am essentially receiving a "that's the way you read it" with no rules references for why. I asked for counter-examples, to which most responses were "to conclude your way would be absurd" despite there being an existing example of how you could achieve it now anyway. Adran has been so far one of the only people to provide a counter example other than yourself, him with Vengeance and Bullet Proof and yourself with Misaki--I've addressed how I see the first resolving the way people see it now with detailed explanation for how my logic reaches that result without any logical stretching, and for your own example that I think it's off point because it's more of an order of operations question that, provided Misaki had Planted Roots/Laugh Off/etc., it wouldn't be relevant because her friendly unbury effect would have to resolve first.

I've followed the rules forum requirements, and am simply asking that if someone is trying to help resolve the discussion with an answer, that in their explanation they use the same authoritative sources available to everyone so that I can inform myself, and possibly other players inform themselves, of how we get there and why the method is the way it is. 

For your citation to the shockwave rules, I don't think what you're referring to is on the same point that I'm referring to. That being said, I agree the ruling would be Evasive stops damage from a shockwave action that causes a simple duel that could result in damage--I think tracking is how we get there and I don't see how we disagree on the method.

Reckoning does care because as it's written you cannot kill your own models to score it. I didn't make it clear that the strategy example doesn't care who killed the model and only references that the enemy crew counts its value towards possibly scoring the strategy, so it was my mistake for being lazy in typing. It doesn't care about who killed the model--if you kill your own entire crew, your opponent can potentially score the full 4 VP for the strategy--but the game tracks that enemy models were killed. Take Prisoner actually cares which reference is in place for the model that actually kills the target. I was just lazy in how I typed it because the reckoning text is very short.

Your second example of a false dilemma, which is inherently based on my point about the game tracking or not tracking, is also not actually a false dilemma in that if you track, the infrastructure of the rules as I've read them, which in that specific point I don't believe you were directly contesting, would necessarily result in your concluding the way I said I believed you had to. The opposing view I said would have to conclude otherwise as an inference because (1) why would you take that position if not to avoid the result; and (2) if you only look one step backwards by default, then that becomes the logical conclusion based upon that methodology. 

You can perma-bury KIlljoy on turn 1 provided you killed the 1-2 bearers of the upgrade and then "randomly" buried Killjoy, provided the crew hiring Killjoy attached that many upgrades. They could in theory attach 0 such upgrades and Killjoy is effectively killed until the end of the game with just a bury action, at which point he'll actually be killed. Until then he gets to be a punching bag for models that interact with buried models. The turn 1 set up could be more difficult or relatively easy depending on which non-insignificant models were given the upgrade; if the crew chose the leader and a hardy henchmen, not likely, but if they chose two terror tots, it's relatively easy. Even if it Killjoy was only buried turn 2, that's still 80% of the game he's down.

I'm pretty sure I've explained how I think that the unbury effect is an enemy one. In this game, models override the rules per page 3 of the e-rule book. The game does not provide for a way to bury or unbury by default--there is no page reference because reading every page will yield this result. This game operates on a permissive basis in that you are only allowed to take actions the rules or models grant you, so by default you cannot bury and/or unbury because absence of such action/ability is denial of such; the basis for this conclusion is logical inference based on existing examples such as the Walk and Interact actions as well as how the rules are phrased, which encompasses the rule book. Thus, models must be the source of any bury and/or unbury effects. Logical inference based on foregoing.

In the example of death marshal vs. bad juju, death marshal can bury another model using his pine box action, which also provides a source of an unbury effect--that model's card is the reference for such. Bad juju provides the reference for Planted Roots per his card. The rule book on page 33 of the e-rule book provides the default rules infrastructure for burying, unburying, and buried status models when effecting the interactions of the same. When death marshal effects its action to bury bad juju, the card provides the source of bury. For purposes of this discussion we have to assume the attack succeeds in all ways necessary to effect the bury, which then buries bad juju. Per the same section on burying models (pg. 33 of the e-rule book), burying is not a movement effect. Unburying models, per the same page, is a movement effect because it involves placing the model, which is a movement effect per page 15 of the e-rule book. Planted Roots, per the text of bad juju's card, prevents any enemy effect from moving it, which would include the placement from an enemy unbury effect. Thus, the initial placement via the unbury effect specified on the death marshal's card fails--we must assume at this point bad juju fulfills all the conditions, here a simple Wp duel, to cause the unbury effect text to be applicable.

At this point, the rules on the same page 33 modify the placement to be under the control of the owner of the model. We can conclude this because models override the rules (page 3), thus applying by default (logical inference based on page 3) that at the initial unbury step, the unbury effect is an enemy one based on the definition of enemy/friendly on page 26 of the e-rule book and its application on the reference context of the death marshal vs. bad juju. Because the initial unbury effect is rejected by another model's card ability effect (see bad juju, page 26, and page 33), the rule book text (page 33) applies, modifies the enemy effect to be under the control of the owner of the model in the owner's deployment zone (pg. 33). This is a logical inference because models override rules, so rules overriding models, a logically necessary logistics act to replace the original effect, which is what some seem to be proposing, must require explicit text, which is not present on page 33 as far as label in action; therefore, a rule must support this case because models take precedence, and where the model was creating the source of the bury/unbury effect, it is that model's effect as modified by the rules until otherwise stated. The proposition that  the existence of the text itself is replacement needs support because models override rules, so to do the opposite  requires explicitly overruling that rule; it can be a special rule to override the general, per the same page 3 reference, or in another form, but it needs to be explicit because there is a general rule that models override rules, so rules do not override models. Inverting the statement here is not a logical fallacy because it is a re-statement of the same proposition. Thus, the rule book modifies the unbury effect only to the extent explicitly stated.

Pg. 33 specifically states "the owner of the model instead places") in a different area than originally specified, i.e. the owner of the model's deployment zone, per page 33. Planted Roots, per the text of bad juju's card, continues to prevent the placement because the rules only modified who controls the placement and where the model is ultimately placed, but not the source of the unbury effect.

There are additional rules references/model cards to cite for the supporting examples, e.g. Willie's card for Evasive and Nothing Beast's card for Accelerate Time, but the above is the quicker version of the thought process for question 2. I explained my thoughts more in the initial post in case a particular nuance was to be discussed. With reference to why I used the examples I did, it was because they are commonly "ruled this way" rulings to highlight what I thought/think are the likely contested points in the discussion--the existence of "tracking" and the rules being modification/replacement text interactions.

Again, I labeled the premises "premises" to make it easier to read and streamline reference. If I had just written them in plain text without paragraph organizations it'd be intolerable to read in format. To be more formal and precise, I should have labelled them "rules text source 1," "logical inference 1 based on rules text source X," and so forth, but I was lazy and hoped that after the first few times of going over several points that it was clear I was citing rules authority(s), drawing what I see as logical inferences, and then applying them to real life examples.

[Myyrä]

TLDR

[Ogid]

14 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Also @Ogid, I have cited the rules. I cited the rules on page one and I've been citing to the same bury section people have referred to multiple times in this thread. As for some of the examples, e.g. poison, I've cited to the pages where I found the relevant text, e.g. where it says that dying via poison does not give credit to a model but if a model causes another model to die due to poison condition, e.g. Catalyst, it is counted as obtaining the kill. I don't think I've been just saying the rule book says X without citing a reference or supporting is as what I see as a logical inference. If you believe that to be the case, please refer me to a rules reference I have not at one point cited and I will get the citation. If it is a logical inference, I will show where I explained how I got there.

Maybe the problem is you do think you are building all your reasoning within the rules... up to this point I've tried to adress your points, but your reading is very different of mine because of how you think the game works.

So I'll focus in the source of that this time, your premises:

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

This is a very loose reading of the rules. There is no place where it says things get traced to the source. If there is, please cite.

An effect is generated by a model and has a target or generate an effect that affect stuff without targeting. The model generating the effect is responsible of that effect and there are also the rules saying what is a friendly and enemy effect.

Some abilities may keep the count of some events beyond an instance of an ability or action using tokens or cards (mutation upgrades or grow tokens for example) and some events needs to be keep in count for things like scoring reckoning. Those cases are explained in the relevant cards where it is stated how that works for that particular ability/action/strategy/scheme/whatever.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

Another very loose reading where you start to build your particular reading of the rules: Everything get traced or nothing is traced, no possible middle point.

Here you also use a reduction to the absurd reasoning where this "tracing" is needed for the game to "remember" the type of an attack being used by a model in that instant. Doing this you prepare the false dilemma you'll use later where or everything is traced to the source or the game just can't work properly.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

This is the idea where you base your entire point. A premise not stated in the rules and where you don't acknowledge things that doens't get traced as mentioned before (Conditions, fall damage, the owner of a Hazardous terrain doing damage, anything not relevant for an scheme/strategy...)

This premise and the 2 above are pure fantasy not based in the rules. if I'm wrong then please cite the relevant rules that support the above 3 premises.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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

This is correct and is stated in the rulebook.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

We must follow the wording, right.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

This is also correct, however this rule is explicit also in M3E:

Quote

If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something from happening take precedent over rules that allow something to happen.

It's in the "Breaking the rules" box in pg3

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

Consistency within the rules is important, right.

On 10/30/2019 at 10:42 PM, benjoewoo said:

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.

Whoa! That's a hell of a conclusion!

Unfortunately your premises 1, 2 are 3 aren't correct, so neither is that conclusion.

In my other posts with the Misaki unbury example that was brushed off as an "order of operation question" I tried to make clear there is no conection between the source of the bury and the source of the unbury. These usually share the source because a card who buries something usually also include a way to unbury. But Misaki can be buried by a Death Marshal (enemy effect), unbury with her own ability (friendly effect) or with the "safety clause" of the rulebook after an unbury fails (non-enemy and non-friendly effect as it's not generated by neither an enemy or friendly card)

So now that this tracing to the source reasoning is debunked, the conclusion is the Planted Roots won't prevent that non-enemy and non-friendly effect to place the model.

[Adran]

The whole thread is basically down to 1 question based on this section of rules

"A Buried model can only be returned to the table via an Unbury effect. When Unburying a model, the controller of the Unbury effect places the model back on the table as described by the effect. If the model cannot be Placed, the owner of the model instead places it anywhere inside their Deployment Zone."

Is the fresh unbury effect a new effect, or still an enemy controlled effect.

I believe that it is a new effect. I'm not sure there is a formal rule anywhere that will show it, but I think the examples I showed previously, and these ought to provide a body of evidence.

I agree that the initial unbury is an enemy effect.

False Premise - effects caused by an effect retain the core information of that initial effect (using the game term effect to refer to actions, abilities or triggers)

Bring it Target moves its Mv +2" toward this model. Then, the target must take a Action that cannot declare Triggers targeting this model, if able. Any damage flips from the generated Action suffer a -. (ironsides)

The Target controls the attack action. even though the effect that caused the action was an enemy effect, the attack action would be a friendly effect.

Made to Kill Once per Activation. After this model is placed, it may take a Action after resolving the current Action. (Alp)

This is probably the critical example. If an Alp is unburied from a death marshals coffin, who would control the attack. I don't think you would find anyone that would expect it to be the death marshal. 

 

 

The designers commentary on bury is here

 

And the breaking the rules box says

If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something from happening take precedent over rules that allow something to happen, so the rules do completely cover your premise 6

[benjoewoo]

@Adran I think something you have tried to avoid is making super long posts like I've been doing. It makes responding to what you say incredibly easy to read, but I think for clarity's sake you may need to post a little more in your explanations. Please see below for examples of why I say this. Not a point of contention because I think you've provided reasoning each time and citations to examples/rules, but it may help further the conversation possibly more at each step if you post a little more explanation. 

If it is a false premise and effects do not retain core information from the initial effect, what, if any, information, is retained, to what extent, and how do we know that? I would like to ask you what part(s) are false and what is the statement that exists in its place? If nothing, please explain why Evasive would stop the damage from Accelerate Time, provided the model with Evasive fails the Wp duel caused by the pulse?

 

I will address your examples below. I'm not very familiar with the forum tools so I don't know how to section off the quotes--I tried quoting a special section and my draft post just blew up on me, so forgive the basic copy-pasting.

1."Bring it Target moves its Mv +2" toward this model. Then, the target must take a Action that cannot declare Triggers targeting this model, if able. Any damage flips from the generated Action suffer a -. (ironsides)

The Target controls the attack action. even though the effect that caused the action was an enemy effect, the attack action would be a friendly effect."

I'm not disagreeing your example works as you describe it. I also do not disagree that the target, provided it's an enemy, would control the action. That is the default state based on how the rules are written, which is why changes to that are explicitly written on a number of actions such as Obey or At Gunpoint, which change the default state by letting the model taking the action that generated the action to control the subsequent action. The action you've cited further changes the default accuracy modifier by adding a negative twist.

I do not see how it supports your position however regarding changing the nature, retention of information, etc. about which model did what and what model controlled what. The model with Bring it controls and takes the initial action, targeting (based on your example) an enemy model. This tells us the action is friendly to the model with Bring It and enemy to the model being targeted. In effecting the effect of the action, the target moves, which is a friendly move effect affecting an enemy model per the prior statement, and the enemy model (the target) is being moved by an enemy move effect. The target model then takes a melee action as dictated by the model enemy to it, which cannot declare triggers (per explicit change to rules by the card), and provided that melee action succeeds, applies an additional negative twist (per the explicit change to rules by the card). 

2. "Made to Kill Once per Activation. After this model is placed, it may take a  Action after resolving the current Action. (Alp)

This is probably the critical example. If an Alp is unburied from a death marshals coffin, who would control the attack. I don't think you would find anyone that would expect it to be the death marshal. "

I have  quick question regarding this because you aren't specifying how the Alp unburies--the Alp is in the unique position of being a model that can unbury to a separate friendly effect once buried, assuming certain conditions are met, though I'll address both cases on the point you're making with the example. Provided a Death marshal successfully buries the Alp, the action resolves once the Alp is buried, provided it failed the Wp test. Per the Death Marshal's pine box ability, the model would unbury on its activation provided it passes the Wp simple duel.

My question is whether the Alp can take the melee action assuming it unburies per the text of the Death Marshal card (as opposed to the Waking Dreams upgrade) because the requirements per Made to Kill specify after resolving the current action? There is no current action being resolved at the time of the unbury, i.e. the place effect, so Made to Kill's second requirement for the melee action is not met. 

Assuming you resolve the question as the Alp can take the melee attack, I will have to assume, based on my understanding, the reasoning is that the game either (1) considers the pine box action not resolved until the model buried by it is unburied, or (2) the game kept track of the information of the pine box action's resolution for purposes of made to kill and then once the was placed, fulfilling the first and last outstanding requirement, it was allowed to resolve.

Regardless of whether you choose (1) or (2), I think you have to reason that the game kept track of information about the pine box action in order to make your example work. At the very least the game had to keep track of the pine box action for purposes of determining whether there was an "at the start of activation" effect when the Alp next activates (we are assuming it does activate after), because regardless of whether you call it a lasting effect or something else, the game retains that core information about the action.

On the assumption you resolve the question as the Alp gets to take the melee action, the Alp controls it, because the rules provide that when models take actions their controller, by default the owner of the crew hiring/summoning the model, per page 26 of the e-rule book. 

I actually am unsure if the Alp gets to make the attack because I'm unsure of the reasoning that Made to Kill can proc after unburying to the simple duel at the start of its activation--there's no action being resolved at the time of the place, and duels in and of themselves are not actions as defined in the rule book on page 4 of the e-rule book or the page it references for general actions.

Regarding your link to the Waldo's Weekly, it describes the safety latch measure in the rule book using the verbatim language we've been discussing. Ironically I think the Colette example and the way the post is written supports that the rules change what happens as opposed to replacing the effect because Colette's unbury mechanic does not provide for a way for her to unbury if the ability's requirements are not met at that time. That post, which is publicly available information, pretty clearly shows the poster was thinking of that rule in the context of saving models from being perma-buried by way of not having a physical place to re-enter the board on. I do not think the poster was thinking this was there to guard against strategic play to attempt to perma-bury, again especially since Killjoy was explicitly designed to perma-bury himself--an advantage at times vs. others.

@Ogid, I'll go premise by premise instead of quoting because again, I'm terrible with the forum formatting.

Premise 1. Page 25 of the e-rule book specifies models killed by conditions such as Poison are not killed by a particular model for purposes of kill credit. Page 29 of the e-rule book tells us that models killed by their condition as a result of a model's action/ability are considered killed by the model generating the action/ability, regardless of the fact it references the condition. Because both the model's action/ability require the killed model to suffer X damage due to the condition, the effect that kills the model, page 25 results in no credit, but page 29 says there is credit as the more specialized rule. This is why catalyst works to give McMourning kills vs. Jakuuna's hazardous aura not giving her credit for killing models by way of the aura.

Premise 2. I'm unsure of the point your making. Tautologies are necessarily true statements. If you would like to contest that proposition, I don't have much to say. With regards to your point that tracing can be applied in X situation but not in Y situation, please cite rules support for that because you're making a statement on how the rules work without a citation; this is additionally needed because you're saying that there are situations in which the game acts differently compared to others, which players would need information to know when such behavior changes. I've cited the rules for why I think tracing exists and explained why as a matter of logic if there is tracing, then it must be applied consistently in order to maintain game stability.

Premise 3. See points on premises 1 and 2. That you label someone's thoughts fantasy despite providing rules citations, examples, answering counter-examples, etc. leads me to believe you may be bringing emotion into the analysis. If my thoughts are bringing out such, I apologize. It's why I've prefaced multiple times I don't mean to be abrasive in my posts because rules discussions, as I see them anyway, are supposed to bring out the "correct' ruling, not achieve a particular result. GG provides by default that if a particular result is desired in a ruling, the TO may make such ruling and there's no ifs ands or buts, no matter the validity or soundness of the counter argument--it can even go against the rules and GG provides the ruling stands.

I do wish it was a more common practice to be able to e-mail Wyrd for rules questions--if there is such a thing please let me know and I'll just get the answer straight from them each time I have a question rather than go through this process. 

Premise 4-7. We agree.

Conclusion. Your Misaki example was addressed as an order of operations question because I thought it was attempting to say that the safety latch could not apply for some reason or Misaki's unbury effect was ultimately an enemy one. I didn't see how it was on point and addressed it generally because I did not want to necessarily put words in your mouth, but I'll go over why I don't think your example applies.

Misaki's front of card ability provides an unbury effect. It is necessarily friendly to her because it's printed on her model's card, and her model is friendly to herself as part of the crew she was hired in. This means when the ability goes off, it is a friendly effect. Provided a death marshal buries Misaki, the bury effect is an enemy effect. When Misaki activates, order of operations require that the unbury effect of Misaki's model goes off first. MIsaki's unbury effect is a friendly effect. If her effect fails at the time of the unbury by its text, the rule book applies the safety latch text that provides Misaki's owner, also the controller of the original unbury effect, places Misaki in Misaki's original deployment zone.

The example does not care about tracing. If you wanted to discuss how tracing is used, Misaki would have to remove the unbury effect on her card, or some other model would have to do so. At that point, the game would trace the unbury effect as an enemy one because an effect is affecting Misaki, and there may be possible interaction with such status, e.g. Gravity Well (which I don't believe exists in Guild but I don't know off hand). But, because Misaki has that unbury effect and it must resolve first, she resolves a friendly unbury effect, which is important for the same sort of model interaction. 

Again, if you have a contested issue to bring up, I have no problem discussing it. If you feel I'm fantasizing about how the rules work, then I apologize for the presentation and ask you either refer me to the rules for why I'm wrong or some other authoritative source on the issue so I can become informed. If there's a better way to find such information and/or rulings, e.g. e-mailing Wyrd, let me know because I'd love to do that instead of essentially being called a hack. 

You essentially disagree tracing is a concept in the game. I'll ask again because I don't believe you did when I originally asked: how would you rule on whether Willie, a model with Evasive, interacts with Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action? Would Willie take the damage from the action provided he failed the Wp duel?

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

@Adran

If it is a false premise and effects do not retain core information from the initial effect, what, if any, information, is retained, to what extent, and how do we know that? I would like to ask you what part(s) are false and what is the statement that exists in its place?  

The rules don't say. Malifaux is terribly ambiguous. If you and your playgroup want to play perma-bury bad juju, power to you.

I think you'll have to get comfortable with ambiguity if you're playing Malifaux.

[Maniacal_cackle]

As for 'where' an effect originates, I use this general assumption: wherever it is printed or whatever model is given the action.

Condition damage, hazardous terrain, etc. Is all printed in a neutral place. So it is neutral.

Blade rush damage is printed on the card, so is damage from blade rush (not charge).

Unbury in deployment is a general rule, so is neutral.

Doppelganger takes actions from other cards, but is still a dopple action. They can also charge (granted by the neutral rulebook), but they are the one taking the action.

[Ogid]

I'm glad to see you quoting a bit more!

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Premise 1. Page 25 of the e-rule book specifies models killed by conditions such as Poison are not killed by a particular model for purposes of kill credit. Page 29 of the e-rule book tells us that models killed by their condition as a result of a model's action/ability are considered killed by the model generating the action/ability, regardless of the fact it references the condition. Because both the model's action/ability require the killed model to suffer X damage due to the condition, the effect that kills the model, page 25 results in no credit, but page 29 says there is credit as the more specialized rule. This is why catalyst works to give McMourning kills vs. Jakuuna's hazardous aura not giving her credit for killing models by way of the aura.

About the conditions. There is a nuance there, one thing is the condition itself, a "neutral" effect that the rulebook tell us that doesn't give kill credit to anyone (with exceptions granted by abilities like Pyromaniac) and another is an ability/action directly doing damage to an enemy. I've not looked at the Hazardous auras and kill credit in depth yet, I'll have to check the wording and look for older threads.

However nuances appart, my point about the premise 1 is the rules doesn't state anywhere you have to trace back all effects to their sources and that the new sources inherit that original source. As you pointed, in the pg25 text tells in which conditions a model get the kill credit, in the pg26 it's stated what is an enemy/friendly effect and there isn't much more rules about it. There are some effects with particular rules like the conditions and the hazardous auras as you pointed, but nothing more.

In fact Adran examples in the last post were very on point about it, there are enemy effect that may trigger friendly effects.

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Premise 2. I'm unsure of the point your making. Tautologies are necessarily true statements. If you would like to contest that proposition, I don't have much to say. With regards to your point that tracing can be applied in X situation but not in Y situation, please cite rules support for that because you're making a statement on how the rules work without a citation; this is additionally needed because you're saying that there are situations in which the game acts differently compared to others, which players would need information to know when such behavior changes. I've cited the rules for why I think tracing exists and explained why as a matter of logic if there is tracing, then it must be applied consistently in order to maintain game stability.

There is no true statement in premise 2. This premise isn't different for 1 and the rule support is there. What you claim in premises 1 and 2 isn't stated in the rulebook, I can't cite something that isn't stated. As pointed above the rules for how models interact with actions, abilities and kill credit are what they are, and nowhere is stated this "everything get traced to the source"; it's you the one that needs to cite the rules proving this works as you claim. I've mentioned examples before and Adran's ones are also on point, but naming them again:

• Conditions and Hazardous not tracing the source
• Buries and Unburies with different sources
• Enemy effects triggering friendly effects as friendly effect not as enemy effects.

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Premise 3. See points on premises 1 and 2. That you label someone's thoughts fantasy despite providing rules citations, examples, answering counter-examples, etc. leads me to believe you may be bringing emotion into the analysis. If my thoughts are bringing out such, I apologize. It's why I've prefaced multiple times I don't mean to be abrasive in my posts because rules discussions, as I see them anyway, are supposed to bring out the "correct' ruling, not achieve a particular result. GG provides by default that if a particular result is desired in a ruling, the TO may make such ruling and there's no ifs ands or buts, no matter the validity or soundness of the counter argument--it can even go against the rules and GG provides the ruling stands.

Np, It's true I'm bringing a bit of emotion because at some point I did thought you were trolling and got a bit frustrated.

About the premise: As happens with above I can't cite something that doesn't exit in the rulebook. The same points above sirve for this one, here you claim the (not-stated) tracing (not-)stablished in premised 1 and 2 must be present consistently... Why? We only have to follow what is stated in the rules, not stablishing new standards because we feel like it.

What the rules say is: What is an friendly and enemy effect (pg25), what are actions and abilities and how resolve them (pg 22-24) and how the bury effects works (pg 33). Nowhere say anything about this tracing outside of what is written in the card, hence that's not how it's suposed to work.

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Conclusion. Your Misaki example was addressed as an order of operations question because I thought it was attempting to say that the safety latch could not apply for some reason or Misaki's unbury effect was ultimately an enemy one. I didn't see how it was on point and addressed it generally because I did not want to necessarily put words in your mouth, but I'll go over why I don't think your example applies.

Misaki's front of card ability provides an unbury effect. It is necessarily friendly to her because it's printed on her model's card, and her model is friendly to herself as part of the crew she was hired in. This means when the ability goes off, it is a friendly effect. Provided a death marshal buries Misaki, the bury effect is an enemy effect. When Misaki activates, order of operations require that the unbury effect of Misaki's model goes off first. MIsaki's unbury effect is a friendly effect. If her effect fails at the time of the unbury by its text, the rule book applies the safety latch text that provides Misaki's owner, also the controller of the original unbury effect, places Misaki in Misaki's original deployment zone.

The example does not care about tracing. If you wanted to discuss how tracing is used, Misaki would have to remove the unbury effect on her card, or some other model would have to do so. At that point, the game would trace the unbury effect as an enemy one because an effect is affecting Misaki, and there may be possible interaction with such status, e.g. Gravity Well (which I don't believe exists in Guild but I don't know off hand). But, because Misaki has that unbury effect and it must resolve first, she resolves a friendly unbury effect, which is important for the same sort of model interaction. 

My point in the Misaki one were more disociating a bury and an unbury with the same source. My point was: If Misaki can be buried by an enemy effect and unbury with a friendly effect, Why can't she also unbury with a neutral effect?

The problem is you are following your tracing reasoning here and reading the rulebook rule "inherits" the source of the unbury, something that it's not stated anywhere. That's why I'm working in the premises now.

However as said above that's not how the simultaneous effects work, check the pg33 again. It's not "friendly effects first and enemy after them", it's all the friendly models resolve all the effects placed on them (both friendly and enemy) in the order they want (so Misaki may order them and decide to resolve the DM unbury before his own)

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

You essentially disagree tracing is a concept in the game. I'll ask again because I don't believe you did when I originally asked: how would you rule on whether Willie, a model with Evasive, interacts with Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action? Would Willie take the damage from the action provided he failed the Wp duel?

I disagree about this beyond what it's stated tracing.

In this case the Nothing Beast is using an action, that action has an effect and Willie is in the area and he is affected by that effect. All of that is stated in the rules and in the cards. So a pulse being treated as a pulse and interacting with an ability that reduce the damage versus pulses is clearly how this is suposed to work.

Which is different that the rulebook unbury (something not in the DM card) being treated as an enemy effect where there is no place in the rulebook where this "surce tracking" or "friendly/enemy inheritance" is ruled.

[Adran]

Sorry I'm going to have to be brief, I'm on a phone for a few days rather than a laptop.

You may well be right on the alp action relying on the unbury to be an action. I'll need to look at it more. I'll get back to you. 

I don't think a kill from poison that catalyst caused counts as a kill for mcmorning, the rules again talk about actions so are talking about blood poisoning type actions. 

And ogid is right. You've got your order of operations wrong for the misaki example. The source of the effect makes no difference on the timing. 

[benjoewoo]

16 hours ago, Adran said:

Sorry I'm going to have to be brief, I'm on a phone for a few days rather than a laptop.

You may well be right on the alp action relying on the unbury to be an action. I'll need to look at it more. I'll get back to you. 

I don't think a kill from poison that catalyst caused counts as a kill for mcmorning, the rules again talk about actions so are talking about blood poisoning type actions. 

And ogid is right. You've got your order of operations wrong for the misaki example. The source of the effect makes no difference on the timing. 

With regards to catalyst and poison, you are correct the reference only refers to actions, so expunge (or the new name of it if it was changed) would be the example as opposed to catalyst. 

What did I get wrong on the Misaki example? Per the detailed timing diagram on page 35 of the e-rule book, start of activation effects occur in step C of the activation phase. Per page 34 of the e-rule book, the active player resolves his/her effects first provided there are multiple start of activation effects, i.e. simultaneous effects--the active player is defined on page 10 of the e-rule book as the owner of the model that is currently activated and taking/resolving actions. the portion I've discussed is that when Misaki starts her activation, if she is buried, she unburies to her own effect rather than resolving the unbury effect of the death marshal. 

Is that incorrect? Also source does matter because that's how you know which one resolves first--the unbury effect from Misaki's card being the source of that effect is the reason it resolves before the death marshal's unbury effect, unless I have read the rules wrong on that.

@Maniacal_cackle I had a longer post written but unfortunately editor decided to delete my draft and revert to an older one when I went to check a reference in this thread. Essentially though, yes, Malifaux can at times be ambiguous and sometimes the only way to know for sure what's going on is to e-mail the head TO of an event and ask so you can make a more informed decision about the event--I never got a good answer to a question regarding M2E Sybelle other than "this was how it was played in the beta," but I played the interaction the way everyone said it was played because otherwise it'd be a massive "gotcha" and possible negative play experience.  Same thing with playing M2E Kirai or Hamelin--you can play it and win, but you'll find yourself hard pressed to find games outside of tournaments fairly quickly unless everyone else you play is doing the same kind of thing; different strokes for different folks. That doesn't change though that pursuing rules discussions to their logical conclusion is ultimately better for the game, not just for stability of the game but also to bring up areas that could use touch up, be it through clarification such as an FAQ, or through power errata like the change to Kirai in M2E.

I haven't found too many instances of random ambiguity in M3E that I couldn't resolve by reading over relevant/pointed out rules sections a few times. I thought rotten belles vs. gwyneth maddox was an infinitely recurring cycle, but re-reading the simultaneous effects section a couple times and finding there's no "stack" like in Magic via the detailed timing page resolved that question pretty easily.

If anyone can point me to an easier way to get an authoritative answer, e.g. a way to contact Wyrd that gets an actual response and doesn't send an e-mail/message to the void, I'm all ears. 

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

What did I get wrong on the Misaki example? Per the detailed timing diagram on page 35 of the e-rule book, start of activation effects occur in step C of the activation phase. Per page 34 of the e-rule book, the active player resolves his/her effects first provided there are multiple start of activation effects, i.e. simultaneous effects--the active player is defined on page 10 of the e-rule book as the owner of the model that is currently activated and taking/resolving actions. the portion I've discussed is that when Misaki starts her activation, if she is buried, she unburies to her own effect rather than resolving the unbury effect of the death marshal. 

Is that incorrect? Also source does matter because that's how you know which one resolves first--the unbury effect from Misaki's card being the source of that effect is the reason it resolves before the death marshal's unbury effect, unless I have read the rules wrong on that.

I believe you got that wrong, but it's not crystal clear, because the rules were written somewhat ambiguously.

Quote

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.

This 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

Quote

The non-Active player resolves any unresolved effects affecting their models, as described above.

That is fairly clear, and it would be super weird if step 1 was referring to the effects generated by a model and step 2 to the effects affecting a model.

[Adran]

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

 

If anyone can point me to an easier way to get an authoritative answer, e.g. a way to contact Wyrd that gets an actual response and doesn't send an e-mail/message to the void, I'm all ears. 

Myrra has given the answer on Misaki, I have always read it as effects on the active model resolved in the order chosen by the models controller. So misaki can choose which unbury effect to resolve first. 

There is no official way to get a rules answer from wyrd. They do read the forums and I would expect them to consider several of the questions from here when they make the faq. But there is no way to ensure they answer your questions in particular. 

The current policy is that the developers will not post answers to rules questions in the forums as it leads to problems on people finding the ruling. We don't know what the M3 faq schedule is yet, but at the moment that is still the only way to have their answers. 

[Ogid]

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

What did I get wrong on the Misaki example? Per the detailed timing diagram on page 35 of the e-rule book, start of activation effects occur in step C of the activation phase. Per page 34 of the e-rule book, the active player resolves his/her effects first provided there are multiple start of activation effects, i.e. simultaneous effects--the active player is defined on page 10 of the e-rule book as the owner of the model that is currently activated and taking/resolving actions. the portion I've discussed is that when Misaki starts her activation, if she is buried, she unburies to her own effect rather than resolving the unbury effect of the death marshal. 

Is that incorrect? Also source does matter because that's how you know which one resolves first--the unbury effect from Misaki's card being the source of that effect is the reason it resolves before the death marshal's unbury effect, unless I have read the rules wrong on that.

The part of the pg34 needs a careful reading, I also read it like you the first time. @Myyrä covered it well above: It says the active player has to resolve the unresolved effects of his models first (not the friendly effect first), those include all effect waiting to resolve on them, both allied and enemies. After every of the active player models end resolving the effects placed on them, then the non-active player does the same.

Example: A model with only 1 Wds to his max health and with Regeneration+2 activates in range of a Sorrow with Life leech. He may order the effects like this:

• A (Life leech aura, Regeneration) --> He suffers 1 damage (and the Sorrow heals 1). His regen heals 2. A is at max Wds.
• A (Regeneration, Life leech aura) --> His regen heals 1. He suffers 1 damage (and the Sorrow heals 1). A is at max Wds-1.

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I haven't found too many instances of random ambiguity in M3E that I couldn't resolve by reading over relevant/pointed out rules sections a few times. I thought rotten belles vs. gwyneth maddox was an infinitely recurring cycle, but re-reading the simultaneous effects section a couple times and finding there's no "stack" like in Magic via the detailed timing page resolved that question pretty easily.

If anyone can point me to an easier way to get an authoritative answer, e.g. a way to contact Wyrd that gets an actual response and doesn't send an e-mail/message to the void, I'm all ears. 

In general the rules are solid, but there a few important points that I hope they get adressed in the FAQs. Until then it's about trying to find the more reasonable reading (like not permabury things if that is not especificaly stated in the card for example ).

Wyrd is supposed to be watching these forums, so using them to post your questions is a good way to "contact" them (if these questions cannot be solved with the rules, they will see them and adress it in a FAQ)

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

Wyrd is supposed to be watching these forums, so using them to post your questions is a good way to "contact" them (if these questions cannot be solved with the rules, they will see them and adress it in a FAQ)

These discussions don't only let Wyrd know that there rules questions that need addressing, but also help them figure out the right answer.

[benjoewoo]

On 11/8/2019 at 7:18 PM, Myyrä said:

I believe you got that wrong, but it's not crystal clear, because the rules were written somewhat ambiguously.

This 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

That is fairly clear, and it would be super weird if step 1 was referring to the effects generated by a model and step 2 to the effects affecting a model.

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. 

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. 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.

@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.

I also agree these rules questions let Wyrd know of possible rules issues. I was asking if there was a more direct and final resolution via direct contact with Wyrd, similar to other games. If they do it, great. If they don't, it's how Wyrd runs the game and we'll have to see where reasoning takes the discussion.