False Evidence?

[Yore Huckleberry]

False Witness using False Claim would proc the Investigator’s “Stand Back: it’s evidence!” ability twice, right?

Its not two auras affecting the same event; it’s one event affecting one aura twice, I think. Other auras have similar effects, but I’m having trouble finding an exactly-similar example.

[Yore Huckleberry]

Just now, Yore Huckleberry said:

False Witness using False Claim would proc the Investigator’s “Stand Back: it’s evidence!” ability twice, right?

Related: if you control both effects, could you move a model off the first marker, and then (assuming it’s within 3” of the next and the next is within 4” of the investigator), move it again? Niche utility, but I WANT TO DO THIS NOW!

[4thstringer]

35 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

False Witness using False Claim would proc the Investigator’s “Stand Back: it’s evidence!” ability twice, right?

Its not two auras affecting the same event; it’s one event affecting one aura twice, I think. Other auras have similar effects, but I’m having trouble finding an exactly-similar example.

The example I give is if you pushed two models with scatter into a hazardous terrain aura.  They both take damage.

[solkan]

On 11/8/2019 at 11:17 AM, Yore Huckleberry said:

Related: if you control both effects, could you move a model off the first marker, and then (assuming it’s within 3” of the next and the next is within 4” of the investigator), move it again? Niche utility, but I WANT TO DO THIS NOW!

There's two somewhat independent points that need to be made:

1.  The game really doesn't have any notion of "simultaneous" that doesn't break down into "repeat X times".  For False Claim you drop one marker, resolve all of the consequences, and then drop the next one.

2.  Mechanically, "Stand back!  It's evidence!" is a mess, but the push is almost certainly subject to the Aura stacking limits.  But the aura is being set off twice.

That much shouldn't be controversial.  What would be controversial is if you tried to have to Investigators push the same model in response to a particular marker being dropped.

[Yore Huckleberry]

11 hours ago, solkan said:

There's two somewhat independent points that need to be made:

1.  The game really doesn't have any notion of "simultaneous" that doesn't break down into "repeat X times".  For False Claim you drop one marker, resolve all of the consequences, and then drop the next one.

2.  Mechanically, "Stand back!  It's evidence!" is a mess, but the push is almost certainly subject to the Aura stacking limits.  But the aura is being set off twice.

That much shouldn't be controversial.  What would be controversial is if you tried to have to Investigators push the same model in response to a particular marker being dropped.

So ... it seems from these that you’re saying it WOULD work to push the same model twice (by 1, you’re resolving in order and by 2, each instance sets off the aura) but that players would find it controversial?

I would agree that two investigators would not be able to push the same model off a single scheme token from an interact, for example, but if the game’s fundamental timing rule isn’t “simultaneous,” then maybe this niche case does work out if the ranges line up properly?

Edit: The closest thing I can think of timing-wise is attacks and damage triggers. It’s all clearly part of the same “instantaneous“ event, but you go in order of effects on the card (barring timing triggers), so for instance you might lose an effect if damage kills the model. Similarly, then, it seems like going in order of resolving things, the aura is being set off twice if you or an opponent drops False Claim markers (though something like an errata that reads “whenever one or more markers” would clarify that this does not happen), so resolving the effects in order (presumably order of the choice of the controlling player) could allow each instance of the aura to target the same model, and obviously it would have to target it from whatever position it is in at the end of the first targeting (Eg, you couldn’t simply push it six inches; you’d have to move it 3, and then if it’s still within the aura, you’d have the option to Target it again). Does that seem right?

[solkan]

8 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

So ... it seems from these that you’re saying it WOULD work to push the same model twice (by 1, you’re resolving in order and by 2, each instance sets off the aura) but that players would find it controversial?

Here's the sequence I'm talking out, to be clear.  But I'm going to discuss Interact instead to limit the number of moving parts:

• Model A takes the Interact Action and drops a scheme marker.  There are two Guild Investigators nearby, the scheme marker is in both auras.
• Guild Investigator 1 resolves its aura and pushes Model A.
• Guild Investigator 2 resolves its aura and pushes Model A.

Doing this violates the Aura limitation rules.  The controversy is caused by people urging that the Guild Investigator ability isn't properly written as an aura affecting models, and I'm only using the word controversy out of charity.

When you resolve False Claim you drop one scheme marker, resolve the consequences, and then drop the second scheme marker.  So you've still got the situation that a model can be pushed at most once each time; but you're doing it twice.  So you can push a model twice as a result of False Claim, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The minor amount of controversy concerning this is just for people trying to figure out how to make the game mechanics resolve "drop two scheme markers" at the same time; and it's probably more a matter of "I'm now going to resolve an action in a way you weren't expecting because the rules don't work how you thought they did."  So a proactive outreach effort (explaining what that interaction is going to be before the game, if you have time) should be encouraged.

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, solkan said:

The minor amount of controversy concerning this is just for people trying to figure out how to make the game mechanics resolve "drop two scheme markers" at the same time; and it's probably more a matter of "I'm now going to resolve an action in a way you weren't expecting because the rules don't work how you thought they did."  So a proactive outreach effort (explaining what that interaction is going to be before the game, if you have time) should be encouraged.

The problem is the bit of the rules covering this kind of interactions can't be more ambiguous:

Quote

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

How is effect defined? Must we drop 1 marker at a time or both at the same time as the wording suggest? I agree with your reading, but I can see easily players arguing it both ways (saying the push is an effect that must be delayed until the initial effect resolves, being this the drop of both markers).

 

[Myyrä]

On 11/11/2019 at 12:39 AM, Ogid said:

How is effect defined?

It isn't.

I believe I have mentioned it "a few times" before.

[Ogid]

I know, those were rhetorical questions

[isilmeon]

Guys, do I understand correctly that 2 investigators, after false evidence, can theoretically push the model 4 times?

[Morgan Vening]

34 minutes ago, isilmeon said:

Guys, do I understand correctly that 2 investigators, after false evidence, can theoretically push the model 4 times?

Nope. Auras don't stack. So you would only get the effect of one Investigator.

[Regelridderen]

Makes sense. Their investigators, they’ll make use of any evidence, they find to get their man, but they can’t use the same evidence twice. 

[isilmeon]

1 hour ago, Morgan Vening said:

Nope. Auras don't stack. So you would only get the effect of one Investigator.

In this case, what does the aura affect? On the model? No - there’s a 3 "distance wording, not an aura. To the marker? Also no - the game state of the marker does not change.

 

[Morgan Vening]

4 hours ago, isilmeon said:

In this case, what does the aura affect? On the model? No - there’s a 3 "distance wording, not an aura. To the marker? Also no - the game state of the marker does not change.

You may be right, in that the added finikiness of the rules that added the "change in game state" clause, that was to fix a different problem (I think it was Mah's Scamper?) has lead to this being yet another "Is this the intent, or just a poorly formatted rule/ability?" again.

Not sure how the timing would work, along with the "within 3" of the Marker" to allow this to move a model the entire 4 times. I'd have trouble explaining the billiard ball physics to an opponent with a straight face though.

[Ogid]

This interaction is tricky... I'd say each time the aura triggers (each time a marker is droped) 1 model may be pushed by each aura; that means that 1 False evidence (2 marker droped) will trigger both auras twice (so 4 pushes in total). However the rules that prevent an aura to stack is still there, so 2 models could be pushed twice, but 1 model couldn't be pushed 4 times.

[Mortarion]

Regarding "Stand back..." and Aura stacking, see this thread: