At the start of the activation

[Aemaru]

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

 

[LeperColony]

4 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

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.

The question is not which phase are we in.  It's what does the timing indicator "start of activation" mean.  C1 literally says "Resolve effects that happen at the start of a model's Activation."  So it's providing a resolution window for "start of activation" effects.  But it doesn't tell us how long a model's "start of activation" is.  And it's that distinction which you continue to fail to understand, as shown by the shifting explanations you've offered over the course of this thread.

Which, by the way, is another good indication of why we believe the "point" process is cleaner.  I've only ever needed one justification, and nobody disputes that I've properly identified the contrary position.  You, on the other hand, just in the course of the last six posts have claimed two frameworks that weren't anything like our position.

With your first mistated summary of our position, you tried to claim we don't "check" with no undertanding of the fact that checks is why we believe the subsequent effects fail.

With your second mistated summary of our position, what you've done is confused the resolution period with the timing requirement.  Christmas is in December, but December is not Christmas.

10 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

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.

First of all, this argument again displays your inability to grasp our position, because under our framework, the subsequent abilities are not "applicable" because they were not legal at actual start of the model's activation.  Thus, they failed the timing requirement built into it.

Second, the failure of the rules to directly address this is precisely what makes it a matter of interpretation.  The rules do not say that the "start of activation" isn't the actual start either.  

[Maniacal_cackle]

29 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

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.

Is that how other steps work? It'd be a bit weird if you can gain stunned or slow in an end step, and then the condition wears off immediately having had no effect.

[TheJoyInGaming]

@LeperColony

Again, I understand your position. I am asking you questions that you refuse to provide an answer for regarding the timing chart. A Start of Activation effect has to resolve at some point during a model’s activation. That is a given.

Our interpretation is that they start, and resolve, in Step C1, hence they resolve as I have described above. Your position has yet to identify when Start of Activation actually finish resolving. You cannot say C1, as then you would either have to start making up rules about why these abilities resolve differently, or our position is correct. You cannot say C2, as that would be arguing that the effects begin at one point and end in another (that would be making up rules). You cannot say Start of Activation purgatory, as that would be making up rules because that Step doesn’t even exist in the game. This is why in multiple threads effect resolution and timing have been quoted to you; because you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

I will not reply further as the only thing you have made clear in your stance is that you will argue “nuance” when you are confronted with very good critique of your position.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

@TheJoyInGaming

He is not ignoring the elephant in the room. We are suggesting that "start of activation" is a conditionality based on timing. This is similar to "non master only" being a conditionality on model type.

No matter how long step C1 lasts, the conditionality "start of activation" ceases to be met as soon as you start doing things within the activation is the argument.

The distinction between start of activation referring to a phase vs. Start of activation being a conditionality to be satisfied for the ability to work is critical to debate, which it seems you've missed? Nothing you have said address this issue.

Also I wonder what your approach to infinite looping abilities if using the phase method is? Nothing says "once per phase", and other abilities specify if they have a limit like "once per activation." So can you infinite loop, or do you make an assumption that those abilities are only once each?

[Maniacal_cackle]

In programming terms, a boolean operator (?) Is attached to the start of activation. If you pass that single point in time when the statement is true (there is only one point of time when 'start of activation = true'), then the condition isn't met. All that is left is to resolve those abilities in that phase.

[LeperColony]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

In programming terms, a boolean operator (?) Is attached to the start of activation. If you pass that single point in time when the statement is true (there is only one point of time when 'start of activation = true'), then the condition isn't met. All that is left is to resolve those abilities in that phase.

Yeah.  I mean, he just fundamentally does not understand the difference.  It's why he continues to try to ascribe the distinction to things like the phase or checking.  It's not like you can't scroll up and see the history of him claiming to understand perfectly and then asserting positions that demonstrate a complete lack of command over it.

His latest post when he's asking me what phase they happen in.  It's gotten to the point where it's frankly bizarre.  

14 minutes ago, TheJoyInGaming said:

Our interpretation is that they start, and resolve, in Step C1, hence they resolve as I have described above. Your position has yet to identify when Start of Activation actually finish resolving.

Not only is this assertion untrue, but just for convenience (though I know I'll have to repeat it like nine more times), they resolve in C1.  You select a model for activation.  Then, any effects that are "start of activation" and legal at that instant are resolved.  This is C1.  I am honestly at a loss here as to what can be confusing you.

I feel you're trying to prove this isn't a matter of interpretation, despite the failure of the rules to provide for this, by manufacturing qualities entirely inconsistent with our interpretation.

 

 

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Yeah.  I mean, he just fundamentally does not understand the difference.  It's why he continues to try to ascribe the distinction to things like the phase or checking.  It's not like you can't scroll up and see the history of him claiming to understand perfectly and then asserting positions that demonstrate a complete lack of command over it.

No, we understand exactly what you're saying. What you don't understand is that you're proposing a timing rule that isn't represented by the timing rules. So despite that fact that the timing system gives us clear points to generate and resolve effects, for some reason you think that start of activation effects being generated is just not represented within the timing rules and continue to insist that any reply that actually puts it in the timing rules in the way you say the rule works is actually not how to rule works despite the fact that there is literally no mechanical difference at all, it is just providing a structure that follows how the entire rest of the game functions.

You can keep repeating the assertion that you're not adding a new timing point until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that is exactly what you're doing unless you want to say that for some unexplained reason this is special and doesn't follow how the rest of the timing rules work.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Well, given how often people disagree on this topic, I think this claim is a bit suss:

4 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

No, we understand exactly what you're saying. What you don't understand is that you're proposing a timing rule that isn't represented by the timing rules. So despite that fact that the timing system gives us clear points to generate and resolve effects

If the timing rules were as clear-cut as you say, I don't think there'd be this much disagreement. And you cite the rest of the clear-cut timing rules as evidence, but the rest of the timing rules seem pretty chaotic/not at all clear-cut to me.

None of which is to say that you're clear-cut wrong. But I think calling the situation ambiguous is pretty reasonable.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also, sorry I missed it in the rules, could someone direct me to where it says the other phases and steps work in this manner? I remember reading it somewhere, but can't remember if I read it on the forum or the rulebook. I remember that for instance if a model gains burning in the end step, they can take damage from the burning... But where does it actually say that? I'm having trouble finding it, and citing that could go a long way to shedding light on this debate.

[santaclaws01]

9 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

If the timing rules were as clear-cut as you say, I don't think there'd be this much disagreement

One look at the most recent underbrush thread would show how wrong the idea behind this statement is. 

39 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

And you cite the rest of the clear-cut timing rules as evidence, but the rest of the timing rules seem pretty chaotic/not at all clear-cut to me.

What about the rest of the timing rules is it not clear when an effect is generated or when it resolves(and no, your weird, untenable interpretation of damage timing doesn't count).

[santaclaws01]

52 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Also, sorry I missed it in the rules, could someone direct me to where it says the other phases and steps work in this manner? I remember reading it somewhere, but can't remember if I read it on the forum or the rulebook. I remember that for instance if a model gains burning in the end step, they can take damage from the burning... But where does it actually say that? I'm having trouble finding it, and citing that could go a long way to shedding light on this debate.

It's a combination of a carryover from an FAQ from last edition that is backed up by how replaced models in the end phase handles conditions(step 3 of replace)

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

One look at the most recent underbrush thread would show how wrong the idea behind this statement is. 

Okay, this one made me laugh. It's true that that much debate is not necessarily an indicator, but for this particular topic a whole host of people are confused by the issue and have different opinions (whereas I think everyone but one person agreed for underbrush).

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

It's a combination of a carryover from an FAQ from last edition

This part I struggle with, as so many things were purposely updated during the edition upgrade (and even in the beta upgrades), that I'm at least sceptical of this argument. And indeed, when I play against M2E players, I find they get all sorts of rules wrong (charge in particular seems to be an issue - did charge change functionality in the edition change? Did it need a target before?)

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

that is backed up by how replaced models in the end phase handles conditions(step 3 of replace)

This is a good point and I missed it during the rest of the threads. Step 3 of replace could be seen as an indicator that everything works one way and replace provides an exception, or it can be seen as a clarification that things work that way generally. On balance, I'd say it at least counts as some evidence in favour of your argument.

That's a recurring issue with the rules in general, though. When something is stated, it can often be interpreted as either a clarification or an exception. Which are opposite ways of interpreting! Looking forward to the first FAQ.

[Ogid]

I also see this as a point rather than as an entire phase.

Why I think it should be intended that way is for the few odds cases like the Ferdinand moonwalk scenario and also because all timings in the game are points where you order the effects and then resolve it. If for example a model moves and that triggers 3 different effects, those effects are queued and resolved 1 by 1 or all the "After resolving" and "After succeeding" triggers are declared at the same time and then queued to be resolved later.

The C1 phase (imo) should work the same, the condition triggers (the model activates) then you check which effects affect each model and queue them, then you proceed to resolve all those effects. However this isn't explicitly stated in the rulebook, so the other reading (new effects added are also resolved) could be true.

But if that "recursive" behaviour would be true, then most "At the start of the activation" effects should have a "Once per activation" trigger to instruct us that we shouldn't just regenerate a model again and again until it's topped up.

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

I also see this as a point rather than as an entire phase.

Why I think it should be intended that way is for the few odds cases like the Ferdinand moonwalk scenario and also because all timings in the game are points where you order the effects and then resolve it.

They're not though. End phase being referenced again. End of activation being another phase. Also going to refer back up to pulses with a sentence that would make literally no sense if it only had a instantaneous point it checks before resolving.

[Ogid]

49 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

They're not though. End phase being referenced again. End of activation being another phase. Also going to refer back up to pulses with a sentence that would make literally no sense if it only had a instantaneous point it checks before resolving.

Not sure if I'm following you... these are the rulles for the end of activation, phase A

Quote

END PHASE

A. Resolve Effects: All effects that resolve during the End Phase resolve now. If there are multiple effects, follow the timing rules on page 34.

END PHASE (timming chart)

A. Resolve Effects: All “Until the End Phase” effects end, followed by “During the End Phase” effects being resolved.

The pg34 rules are the simultaneous effect rules, so I think it's pointing toward something like this:

• Resolve first all the "Until the end phase" then all the "During the End Phase"
• If there is more than 1 of these types, use the simmulateanous rules to resolve them in the right order.

The simultaneous rules doesn't intruct to apply new effects added, just say the order in which we should resolve the queued effects.

does this work differently?

[LeperColony]

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Step 3 of replace could be seen as an indicator that everything works one way and replace provides an exception, or it can be seen as a clarification that things work that way generally. On balance, I'd say it at least counts as some evidence in favour of your argument.

I don't find the Replace rules are relevant at all.  The entire point of the Replace rules is to ensure that the new model is seen as the same "entity" as the old model.  It's also why it carries forward secret choices from schemes and the fact that it has activated.  

And aside from conceptual differences, mechanically the timing of Replace rules can't govern the rules for abilities, any more than it can for actions, triggers, conditions, etc.  Different parts of the game have different timing rules on purpose.

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, Ogid said:

Not sure if I'm following you... these are the rulles for the end of activation, phase A

The pg34 rules are the simultaneous effect rules, so I think it's pointing toward something like this:

• Resolve first all the "Until the end phase" then all the "During the End Phase"
• If there is more than 1 of these types, use the simmulateanous rules to resolve them in the right order.

The simultaneous rules doesn't intruct to apply new effects added, just say the order in which we should resolve the queued effects.

does this work differently?

A model that gains burning or poison in the end phase has to resolve it.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

A model that gains burning or poison in the end phase has to resolve it.

Well, you assume from M2E history and from the replace rules. Important to clarify this isn't an ironclad ruling.

[Ogid]

Ah ok, you are refering to this bit of the replacement rules:

Quote

These Conditions, if gained during the End Phase, do not resolve their effects.

It's hard to tell, it could be an statement to make it even clearer, but there is no statement saying they have to be resolved if they are gained during the end phase... but I see the reasoning tho.

Which effects could make a model gain Poison or Burning during the end phase?

[solkan]

7 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, you assume from M2E history and from the replace rules. Important to clarify this isn't an ironclad ruling.

If you want to ignore the fact that some of us on the forum specifically pointed the scenario out to the developers (a model with Burning and a Replace Demise ends up resolving Burning twice if the Demise gets invoked during the end phase); filed defect reports; and actually talked to the developers and were told that that’s what the change was made for.

Seriously.

 

[LeperColony]

17 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, you assume from M2E history and from the replace rules. Important to clarify this isn't an ironclad ruling.

Even if conditions gained during the end phase are still resolved, that wouldn't be pertinent here.

"During the end phase" is a period in which subsequent events can occur, because the resolution of one effect in the "during the end phase period" still leaves us in the end phase.  You can resolve an unlimited number of sequential effects during a period.

An effect that says "During the end phase, models within 2 gain Burning" happen during the same phase as Burning (which is a "during the end phase" effect).  

If the effect said "at the start of the end phase, if this model has Burning it takes 1 damage" and then it gained Burning later during the end phase, it wouldn't take the damage from the previous effect. 

This is because "at the start" is a single instance, whereas "during the end phase" is some span of time.

We actually see this in the card text itself.  Using the app, I found many "during the end phase" effects.  But not a single "during the start of a model's Activation" (there is "during the start phase," but that's entirely different).  Instead, text that talks about the start of activation always does so without "during."  Hamelin, for instance, says:

"Enemy models that start their Activation within 6 gain a Blight token."

That's a single point in time.  Every other instance I could find was similarly worded.

If it said:

"During the start of an enemy model's Activation within 6, it gains a Blight token," then that would be analogous to the condition example.  This is because after Colette unburies within 6, you're no longer at the start of her Activation, but you are in C1, when it's being resolved. 

I doubt there's an explicit definition as to when subphases end, but it seems reasonable to believe that all effects that are resolved during that phase end before the phase itself. 

 

This is significant because, if you think about it, suppose the devs wanted an ability that was restricted to a single point in time.  What other language would you use other than "at the start?"  Conversely, since they already use the "during" language to refer to periods of time, if they ever want to add an ability that would apply Hamelin's aura to an unburying Colette, all they need to do is change to "during."

[Mycellanious]

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

Ah ok, you are refering to this bit of the replacement rules:

It's hard to tell, it could be an statement to make it even clearer, but there is no statement saying they have to be resolved if they are gained during the end phase... but I see the reasoning tho.

Which effects could make a model gain Poison or Burning during the end phase?

If a model with Demise Flaming dies to a condition, it pulses out burning to nearby models

[santaclaws01]

8 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Even if conditions gained during the end phase are still resolved, that wouldn't be pertinent here.

It is when someone claims that every timing is only a point where you check once and then resolve and that no timing in the game is a phase.

8 hours ago, LeperColony said:

"During the end phase" is a period in which subsequent events can occur, because the resolution of one effect in the "during the end phase period" still leaves us in the end phase.  You can resolve an unlimited number of sequential effects during a period.

The start of a models activation is also a period. It is called step c1 of a models activation phase. Also it's not any number of sequential effects, it's any number of simultaneous effects. Which also shoots your "how can they be simultaneous if they aren't generated at the same time" argument from the other thread down.

8 hours ago, LeperColony said:

If the effect said "at the start of the end phase, if this model has Burning it takes 1 damage" and then it gained Burning later during the end phase, it wouldn't take the damage from the previous effect. 

But if there was a specific timing step for doing things at the start of the end phase as opposed to during the end phase, everything that resolves at the start of the end phase would resolve then regardless of it was able to be resolved at the start of that specific step.

8 hours ago, LeperColony said:

This is because "at the start" is a single instance, whereas "during the end phase" is some span of time.

Nope, it's a defined sub-phase of a models activation.

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

We actually see this in the card text itself.  Using the app, I found many "during the end phase" effects.  But not a single "during the start of a model's Activation" (there is "during the start phase," but that's entirely different).

They're different rules referring to things titled differently, they don't need to have the same language. "At the end phase" doesn't feel right. "During the start of a model's activation" is also a sentence that doesn't feel natural.

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

"Enemy models that start their Activation within 6 gain a Blight token."

That's a single point in time.  Every other instance I could find was similarly worded.

No, it's not, it's a sub-phase of a models activation. If a model is still currently in step c1 then it is still the start of the models activation and is thus still eligible for any new effects that happen at the start of a models activation.

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

you're no longer at the start of her Activation, but you are in C1

 "You're no longer at the start of her activation, but you are in her Start Activation". ...

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

I doubt there's an explicit definition as to when subphases end, but it seems reasonable to believe that all effects that are resolved during that phase end before the phase itself. 

Is this supposed to somehow help your argument?

 

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

This is significant because, if you think about it, suppose the devs wanted an ability that was restricted to a single point in time.  What other language would you use other than "at the start?"

"After this model is selected to activate, but before it starts". You know, the same language that Mood Swings uses.

 

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Conversely, since they already use the "during" language to refer to periods of time, if they ever want to add an ability that would apply Hamelin's aura to an unburying Colette, all they need to do is change to "during."

 Or they could just change all the abilities to during, or change all the things that happen in the end phase to at, and there would be exactly 0 mechanical change.

[LeperColony]

Quote

It is when someone claims that every timing is only a point where you check once and then resolve and that no timing in the game is a phase.

Literally nobody has said that.  Statements like this lead to just one of two conclusions.  Either you fundamentally don't understand the concepts we're discussing, which given your continual misstatements of basically everything, may be true.  Or else you're just trolling.  

Whichever it is (assuming it's not both), it is very clear this thread has run it's course.  But because I think it's disrespectful of other people's efforts to not respond, I'll slog through the rest.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

The start of a models activation is also a period. It is called step c1 of a models activation phase. Also it's not any number of sequential effects, it's any number of simultaneous effects. Which also shoots your "how can they be simultaneous if they aren't generated at the same time" argument from the other thread down

C1 is the phase in which you resolve these effects.  Just like C2 is the phase in which you resolve Actions.

Whether or not "at the start" is an instant or a longer period, it takes place within C1, but it is not C1.

If you don't understand the difference between effects and phases, there's really no frame of common reference for further discussion.

Furthermore, you are correct that it would be any number of simultaneous effects.  However, by the very definition of simultaneous, effects that are only legal as a result of previous effects are not simultaneous.

Hamelin's aura can't be simultaneous with Colette's unbury, because it requires you fully resolve the unbury in order for her to be within it.  Time passes within the game's frame-of-reference, because an action was resolved.  Even if you believe it should happen, it would happen as a Sequential Effect.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Nope, it's a defined sub-phase of a models activation.

Even if "at the start" were a duration, the effects wouldn't be simultaneous.  

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

But if there was a specific timing step for doing things at the start of the end phase as opposed to during the end phase, everything that resolves at the start of the end phase would resolve then regardless of it was able to be resolved at the start of that specific step.

No, whether or not they resolved would depend on the individual timing step of the abilities.  If it said "at the start" then, again, it would be a matter of interpretation due to the ambiguous meaning of "start."

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

It is when someone claims that every timing is only a point where you check once and then resolve and that no timing in the game is a phase.

The more you say stuff like this, the more clear it becomes that you don't understand the difference between effects and phases.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

They're different rules referring to things titled differently, they don't need to have the same language. "At the end phase" doesn't feel right. "During the start of a model's activation" is also a sentence that doesn't feel natural.

Yes, they do refer to different things.  One refers to a single instant in time, the other to a duration which covers virtually the entire phase (it doesn't cover the entire phase because Until happens before During).

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

No, it's not, it's a sub-phase of a models activation. If a model is still currently in step c1 then it is still the start of the models activation and is thus still eligible for any new effects that happen at the start of a models activation.

As this is the entire point of contention, further elaboration would be useless.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

"You're no longer at the start of her activation, but you are in her Start Activation". ...

Another demonstration that you do not understand the difference between effects and phases.  Whether or not you believe "at the start" is an instant or a duration, it is not C1.  It happens in C1.  

Just like actions are not C2.  They happen in C2.  "During the end phase" effects are not End Phase A.  They happen in A.

The entire point of phases is to encapsulate a string of effect resolutions within a window.  But none of those effects, even if they extend through the entire phase, are the phase itself.  There is no more clear way to express this concept that I can think of.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

"After this model is selected to activate, but before it starts". You know, the same language that Mood Swings uses.

"Before it starts."  So, by definition, not "at the start."  Not only is not the same, it doesn't even take place in C1.  This would happen in B.  Effects with this timing would happen before "at the start," so before Colette unburies.

This is yet another timing point, and another instance of Wyrd using singular language to identify a point in time, rather than duration language to represent a span.

I'm truly baffled that you thought this helped you.

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Or they could just change all the abilities to during, or change all the things that happen in the end phase to at, and there would be exactly 0 mechanical change.

This is painfully incorrect.

By now, I have to think that the argument has become simply a matter of emotional entrenchment for you, as you've been reduced to clumsy strawmen and demonstrated at every turn a complete lack of command over the basic issues.  Given this, further replies seem unwarranted unless you can show clearer understanding of the concepts or have new evidence in the text.  Please do not take it as a disregard of your efforts if I decline to indulge this further.

I expect a mod will close this thread soon, as it has clearly run it's course.  But to summarize, in what should be clear to everyone except santaclaws01, the rules for "at the start" provide for two different interpretations.

Both have some issues, so as a group, you're just going to have to decide which you think works more like how you see the game.  If you're playing and you expect this might come up, you can always raise it at the start.  

[Maniacal_cackle]

For another concrete instance, how are people resolving this situation:

• A ronin (moves at the start of its activation) is at 2 life in a sorrow's life leech aura, and near (but not in) another sorrow's life leech aura.
• The ronin is the target of take prisoner and wants to die.

Can the ronin...

• Take damage from the life leech aura it is in
• Use its start of activation movement ability to move into the other life leech aura
• Take damage from the new life leech aura?

If there are two separate timing points/points you check, the 'auras are not cumulative' rule should not apply here. So this is presumably legal in the phase method?

Also, for the response "we talked to the developers in beta", that is some reasonable evidence, but also so many things changed during the beta (like nested effects being removed entirely) that old timing rules aren't fully persuasive.