Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Aemaru

At the start of the activation

Question

Hello 

It s just to have a certitude i had several different answers yet

i play Tara and i buried a guy with fast condition.

so at the start of his activation i choose to unbury that ennemy model near a model engaged with Tara.

do the Tara ability « ennemy models with fast start their activation within 4 suffer 2 damages » activate ?

If « start of the activation » is viewed as a phase i think it should works. 

Second question those 2 damages, coming from an ability are reduced by armor even it’s not during an Attack action ?

 

thank for your answer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 2

Yes, the older discusions about this ended up in a deadlock.

In my opinion it's a point, at the start of the activation all effects are "noted" and then resolved using the simultaneous rules; any effect that is added after that point won't be resolved in that start phase (for example entering in the range of one of them while resolving another).

Reading it as if any effect added is also resolved creates situations like Yan-Lo healing from 2 sources in when attaching "Flesh Ascendant" or Ferdinal Vogel shapechanging several times at the start of the activation healing and moving at the cost of tossing a few cards. Effect that I think aren't intended. But this is pending of a FAQ.

Main thread: https://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/146742-timing-of-at-the-start-of-activation/

Related thread: https://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/145614-yan-lo-and-flesh-upgrade/

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Whether "start of activation" is an event (the conditions that exist at the actual beginning of the model's activation) or a period (everything that can happen before the model takes an action, including effects that would not have been legal at the actual beginning) is ambiguous.  It's been argued here without a clear consensus, so ultimately you will need to discuss it with your opponent.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No one from wyrd never answer this ?

It’s absolutly absurd to leave something like this without a clear answer given it might reproduce with many other profils ...

in my case the answer was like « yes both activate so your guy dies » or « no so he can activate 3 times »

the impact is huge !

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

According to the Detailed Timing chart (pg. 35 of the downloadable rulebook) Start Activation is a timing step that takes place after an unactivated model has been chosen (step C1)

 

But, I would argue that the only effects that apply to a model at the start of its activation are those that would affect it at that exact point. If there is more than one thing that would affect it at this point, those effects would be "generated" (for want of a better word) then the active player decides which order to apply them. Once something has happened to the model, it is no longer the start of its activation, but is instead mid-activation

 

So, in the case of Tara and her Bury nonsense, I would think that any effects that would affect the Buried model at the start of the activation would be generated, then applied by the active player.  Once the Unbury effect has resolved, the step for generation of "start of activation" effects would have passed and so Tara's damage ability wouldn't affect the model as it did not start its activation within 4" of Tara.

 

I would compare that to the mantra's of the Academic Keyword.  If an Elemental model within 6" of a Shastar Vidya Guard, and within 7" of Kudra would take the Concentrate Action, would it be able to gain a 2" push from the Shastar Vidiya Guard's Mantra (Traveler) to move within 6" of Kudra and gain the benefit of Kudra's Mantra (Protection) and gain Shielded +1?  Personally, I wouldn't have thought so as Kudra's Mantra wasn't an eligible effect at the time the Concentrate Action was taken.  But I'm no expert so I hope you get a more authoritative answer!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Problem is people telling the opposite are credible too

we go for something like my interpretation versus yours and that’s a nonsens

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Aemaru said:

No one from wyrd never answer this ?

That's not how Wyrd operates their rules support.

Rules support is given by the publication of periodic errata and FAQs.  During the previous edition, that was done every six months.  According to the old schedule, there should be an errata and/or FAQ addressing various questions in January.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, theamazingmrg said:

But, I would argue that the only effects that apply to a model at the start of its activation are those that would affect it at that exact point. If there is more than one thing that would affect it at this point, those effects would be "generated" (for want of a better word) then the active player decides which order to apply them. Once something has happened to the model, it is no longer the start of its activation, but is instead mid-activation

The problem with that argument is that it's demonstrated as false for every other comparable timing point.

  • If a model gains an "end of turn" condition during the end of the turn steps, that condition must still be resolved.  Established both as a FAQ during M2E and as a specific exception in the Replace rules to prevent things like Burning getting resolved twice due to Demise replacements.
  • Effects that resolve in Step 6 of the Action resolution process can generate other effects that specify Step 6 as their timing.  Because Step 6 is still part of the action resolution process, those generated effects are still resolved.

And, more importantly, the wording for Fast was this:

Quote

A model with the Fast Condition generates 1 additional general AP when it Activates.

and the very famous upgrade said this:

Quote

This model may discard this Upgrade at the start of its Activation to gain Fast.

and the step after "Start of Activation" was when it actually mattered whether the model had Fast or Slow.

Note that the same "I would argue that Activating is a point in time" arguments recurred at various times during M2E.  

Edit:  Note, by the way, that effects that are concerned with a model activating are divided into groups:

1.  A model's own abilities, which will say "At the start of this model's Activation".

2.  Pine Box and Arcane Conduit, which refer to "when [other model] Activates"

3.  The "models that start their Activation" effects.  This, by card count, is the majority of the effects.

Given that the step is listed as

Quote

Start Activation: Resolve any effects that happen at the start of a model’s Activation.

It certainly appears that Group 1 and Group 3 are in the same timing step.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I tend to agree with the single-point crowd.

It also seems mechanically-similar to things like a pulse going out and then being resolved sequentially, rather than existing in some sort of lingering moment as other factors like replaces are resolved, or like actions-from-triggers not being able to declare triggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I tend to agree with the single-point crowd.

It also seems mechanically-similar to things like a pulse going out and then being resolved sequentially, rather than existing in some sort of lingering moment as other factors like replaces are resolved, or like actions-from-triggers not being able to declare triggers.

How are any of those related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

I tend to agree with the single-point crowd.

It also seems mechanically-similar to things like a pulse going out and then being resolved sequentially, rather than existing in some sort of lingering moment as other factors like replaces are resolved, or like actions-from-triggers not being able to declare triggers.

I assume what you’re trying to say is that you figure out all of the “start of Activation” effects that the model triggers once, and then apply Simultaneous Effects to that fixed list.  

For confirmation, do you think that “model Activates”, “at the start of this model’s Activation” and “models that start their Activation” effects are resolved in a specific order or are they all referencing the same event from different perspectives?

Remember that it’s possible to model with multiple “start of Activation” effects.  Such as Medical Automaton with Diesel Engine, so that according to Simulaneous Effects, the model has to choose the order in which Emergency Mode and On The Move resolve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, solkan said:

I assume what you’re trying to say is that you figure out all of the “start of Activation” effects that the model triggers once, and then apply Simultaneous Effects to that fixed list.  

This is what seems similar to me, yes. 

 

10 hours ago, solkan said:

For confirmation, do you think that “model Activates”, “at the start of this model’s Activation” and “models that start their Activation” effects are resolved in a specific order or are they all referencing the same event from different perspectives?

So far as I know, there is nothing clear in the rules differentiating them, so yes. I’d view that as a matter of (understandable) imprecision in technical writing in a complex game.

 

10 hours ago, solkan said:

Remember that it’s possible to model with multiple “start of Activation” effects.  Such as Medical Automaton with Diesel Engine, so that according to Simulaneous Effects, the model has to choose the order in which Emergency Mode and On The Move resolve.

I agree here as well, but it seems to me that there’s a single moment where you check for effects, but then they’re resolved in order (which the player controlling the effects will probably determine). I’m reminded of the recent discussion of False Claim’s interaction with the guild Investigator, where the effect that creates multiple procurements of the “Stand Back, it’s evidence!” pseudo-aura is resolved piecewise (marker by marker) but was all triggered by a single initial event that is then held-in-awareness by the players as they go through the steps of resolving it.

12 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

How are any of those related?

As I wrote, they seem “similar,” in the sense that pulses are moments in an activation that occur once, but may change the position/existence of models that would be in the pulse in the course of resolving their effects: however, the new positions/models are not considered affected. It’s a timing instance in the game that provides an established reference point for how to resolve things as @Ogid and others have described this.

All of that said, I also agree that this is not clearly described (one way or another) in the current rules and could use clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It seems to me that if they wanted it to be a single timing point at which effects are checked, they would have included such a point in the detailed timing chart.

Treating it that way seems like you're inventing rules out of whole cloth.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

As I wrote, they seem “similar,” in the sense that pulses are moments in an activation that occur once, but may change the position/existence of models that would be in the pulse in the course of resolving their effects: however, the new positions/models are not considered affected

The pulse rules don't agree with that.

"All models inside the Pulse’s area or overlapping the object generating the Pulse, excluding the object that created the Pulse, are affected by the Pulse as long as they are in the generating object’s LoS."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The pulse rules don't agree with that.

"All models inside the Pulse’s area or overlapping the object generating the Pulse, excluding the object that created the Pulse, are affected by the Pulse as long as they are in the generating object’s LoS."

@santaclaws01 -- are you saying that if a model is killed by a pulse and replaces into another model, that the new model will be affected by the pulse as well? My understanding has been that the rules don't work that way, but I'm still learning the ruleset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

@santaclaws01 -- are you saying that if a model is killed by a pulse and replaces into another model, that the new model will be affected by the pulse as well? My understanding has been that the rules don't work that way, but I'm still learning the ruleset.

That depends on your interpretation of the replace rules rather than just the pulse rules. I would lean towards no to keep it consistent with how replace handles conditions but it's a blind spot in the replace rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

That depends on your interpretation of the replace rules rather than just the pulse rules. I would lean towards no to keep it consistent with how replace handles conditions but it's a blind spot in the replace rules.

Yeah -- that's the kind of precedent I'm wondering about with Start of Activation things like the Vogel/Beast Within back-and-forth.

Edit: to be clear, it isn't an exact precedent and it doesn't deal with the same timing -- just one way of trying to get at what the designers intend to be the formal way to deal with timing windows in Malifaux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Yore Huckleberry said:

Yeah -- that's the kind of precedent I'm wondering about with Start of Activation things like the Vogel/Beast Within back-and-forth.

Edit: to be clear, it isn't an exact precedent and it doesn't deal with the same timing -- just one way of trying to get at what the designers intend to be the formal way to deal with timing windows in Malifaux.

The vogel thing is pretty easily chalked up to an unintended interaction, especially as it's the only case of a model even starting to break the start of activation being a phase rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The vogel thing is pretty easily chalked up to an unintended interaction, especially as it's the only case of a model even starting to break the start of activation being a phase rule.

This very much depends on your definition of "break," and further more, "start of activation being a phase" isn't a "rule," it's an interpretation.  

This can be argued until you're blue in the face, but the reality is the wording is ambiguous, so you have to decide which resolution procedure you and your group prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
39 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The pulse rules don't agree with that.

"All models inside the Pulse’s area or overlapping the object generating the Pulse, excluding the object that created the Pulse, are affected by the Pulse as long as they are in the generating object’s LoS."

Wait, so you are saying that if a 50 mil was blocking LoS to a 30mil, but was killed or moved by the pulse now the 30 mil is affected by the pulse when it wasnt originally? Similiarly, if the pulse moves a model out of its range it no longer is considered in the pulse's effect for things like Chiaki's Spirit Flute?This is not how we have been interpreting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

This very much depends on your definition of "break," and further more, "start of activation being a phase" isn't a "rule," it's an interpretation.  

This can be argued until you're blue in the face, but the reality is the wording is ambiguous, so you have to decide which resolution procedure you and your group prefer.

I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the Ferdinand loop “breaks” the game when the loop is clearly limited by how many cards you have in your hand. I do think the loop is unintended.

As to your point about us only interpreting start of activation as a phase since it is not explicitly described as such, that is true. We interpret it as such since in every other phase of the game you constantly check for new game states and effects. This interpretation is line with how the rest of the game is played, and I would argue, much more likely to be correct than the opposite view which relies on making up new rules for the game entirely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the Ferdinand loop “breaks” the game when the loop is clearly limited by how many cards you have in your hand. I do think the loop is unintended.

I don't argue that it breaks it.  Even though I don't agree with the claim that Colette takes damage when unburying in Hamelin's aura, if it did, I wouldn't say it breaks the game either.  It's not about one breaking the game and the other doesn't.  It's a question as to what does a particular term used on the cards mean.

Although, I would say that if a game breaking interaction is possible, it's much more likely under a system that allows unlimited stacking of subsequent effects (despite those effects not being legal at the start), than one that limits the effects to those that exist only at a single point in time.

27 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

We interpret it as such since in every other phase of the game you constantly check for new game states and effects.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our position, and it makes me wonder to what extent you actually grasp the distinction.

The question is not do you continually check.  In fact, I was the first one to state you continually check in the last thread, then the word "check" bothered some of you.

The point is, under our interpretation, when you check you find in fact that Colette is within the radius of the aura, but (again to us) it is no longer the "start of activation" for her, so the effect doesn't qualify.  If the aura lacked that timing requirement, which is how we see it, as a timing requirement, then she'd take the damage.

27 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

This interpretation is line with how the rest of the game is played, and I would argue, much more likely to be correct than the opposite view which relies on making up new rules for the game entirely.

What new rule does our interpretation require?  Name it.

The distinction between the two questions is how long the span of time designated as the "start of activation" is.  The rules do not define it.  Thus, it is a matter of interpretation, and the two main positions that have emerged are:

1)  It is a single point in time.

2)  It is the period between selecting a model for activation and taking the model's first action.

That's it.  Neither interpretation magics in new rules.  It's just about what a particular timing step means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@LeperColony

I do understand your position quite well. You are arguing that the effects are generated at Start of Activation (C1) and then resolved at a different Step (C2). This is not stated in the game, and as far as I am aware, no other effects in the game resolve in such a manner.

Furthermore, your position cannot escape being involved with checking game effects as the Start of Activation abilities resolve, as I stated above. If C1 is where the abilities are generated, and you are not arguing that they resolve in Step C2 or in a weird resolution purgatory that is neither C1 nor C2 (either of which is creating new rules in the game btw), then as the abilities resolve it would still be C1 (Start of Activation). This means that any other effects still applicable at that timing Step would resolve ie if Misaki unburies in Nix’s Diseased aura she is gaining Blight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

I do understand your position quite well. You are arguing that the effects are generated at Start of Activation (C1) and then resolved at a different Step (C2). This is not stated in the game, and as far as I am aware, no other effects in the game resolve in such a manner.

No we're not.  So again, and I don't say this to be rude, but it appears you have an erroneous understanding of the distinction.

They both happen in C(1).  The question is what the timing requirement "start of activation" means. 

If it means only a single point in time, when the model actually begins its activation, then only the effects that are legal as of that instant occur.  Any others with that timing that are implicated subsequent to, and because of, the resolution of those effects are no longer happening at the "start of activation."  

If it means the period of time between starting activation and taking an action, then effects that were not legal at the model's actual start, but become legal thereafter, are resolved.

Whether or not it is a point or a period, effects are resolved in C(1).

When an effect in the game says "at the start of the model's activation" do X, we take "start of activation" as a timing requirement that the effect must meet.  Just like it might have to meet range or LoS or some other predicate condition.  This is why we do not believe subsequent effects can happen, because they are no longer at the "start of activation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Also don't forget that you have to make up the rule that if start of activation is a phase, you can only do each ability once. Otherwise you can do things like have molly discard to Rasputina's pillar, then draw cards, then discard on an infinite loop and she cycles her whole deck.

I think that is a reasonable thing to infer, but important to remember this rule needs to be assumed for the phase method to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
22 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

No we're not.  So again, and I don't say this to be rude, but it appears you have an erroneous understanding of the distinction.

They both happen in C(1).  The question is what the timing requirement "start of activation" means. 

If it means only a single point in time, when the model actually begins its activation, then only the effects that are legal as of that instant occur.  Any others with that timing that are implicated subsequent to, and because of, the resolution of those effects are no longer happening at the "start of activation."  

If it means the period of time between starting activation and taking an action, then effects that were not legal at the model's actual start, but become legal thereafter, are resolved.

Whether or not it is a point or a period, effects are resolved in C(1).

When an effect in the game says "at the start of the model's activation" do X, we take "start of activation" as a timing requirement that the effect must meet.  Just like it might have to meet range or LoS or some other predicate condition.  This is why we do not believe subsequent effects can happen, because they are no longer at the "start of activation."

Again, I understand your position quite well. You are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. To explain:

If it is still Step C1 as a Start of Activation ability resolves, then subsequent Start of Activation abilities can begin resolving even if they had not originally met the requirements of doing so. For example, if Misaki begins her Activation and unburies in Nix’s Diseased aura, she would still gain Blight because her ability resolved within his aura and it is still Step C1, the Start of Activation.

There has not been any evidence from the rules that has been cited so far in the threads about this that would support a reading that an ability can begin resolving in Step C1, finish resolving in Step C1, and yet not cause any other abilities to resolve that would be applicable in the same Activation Step. It would have to state so explicitly as resolving Start of Activation abilities in that manner would be contrary to how abilities are resolved at every other Step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information