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]

On 12/3/2019 at 11:01 AM, 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.

This is not correct.

If "at the start" is a timing requirement, then any effect must meet that timing requirement.  C1 is the phase in which it is resolved, that's it.

On 12/3/2019 at 11:01 AM, 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.

There's no evidence that "at the start" is an indeterminate period either.  That's what makes it ambiguous.

What really gets me is your side is the only one claiming there's no ambiguity.  Despite the fact that every discussion has shown a roughly even division of opinion (if anything, more people have expressed a belief its a single point in time).

So are we just lying?

[LeperColony]

4 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

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.

Here's another:

Grave Golem starts activation buried.  It must unbury but there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So its Demise occurs.  So it is buried at the start of its activation.  So it must unbury.  But there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So its Demise occurs.  So it is buried at the start of its activation.  So it must unbury.  But there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So it must unbury...

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Here's another:

Grave Golem starts activation buried.  It must unbury but there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So its Demise occurs.  So it is buried at the start of its activation.  So it must unbury.  But there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So its Demise occurs.  So it is buried at the start of its activation.  So it must unbury.  But there are no corpse markers.  So it is killed.  So it must unbury...

 

I think this one can be negated by assuming only once per start phase for abilities (which is pretty reasonable, especially since you only resolve 'unresolved' abilities in the start phase), or that the killed in that sequence doesn't trigger demise (due to a few possible arguments).

[LeperColony]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think this one can be negated by assuming only once per start phase for abilities (which is pretty reasonable, especially since you only resolve 'unresolved' abilities in the start phase), or that the killed in that sequence doesn't trigger demise (due to a few possible arguments).

If "at the start" is a single instant, then of course they are all only once-per because the opportunity to do them subsequently has elapsed.  Otherwise, it requires a new rule.  It's also against the way the duration side has been reading it, since their response to Vogel is "well, you run out of cards eventually."

None of the arguments that it wouldn't trigger Demise are particularly persuasive either.  You might be tempted to think the "removed from game" language in Bury is significant, but it's the exact same language as used in killed.  The point is to draw the distinction that it wouldn't drop a marker.

It's essentially an infinite loop.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

25 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

If "at the start" is a single instant, then of course they are all only once-per because the opportunity to do them subsequently has elapsed.  Otherwise, it requires a new rule.  It's also against the way the duration side has been reading it, since their response to Vogel is "well, you run out of cards eventually."

None of the arguments that it wouldn't trigger Demise are particularly persuasive either.  You might be tempted to think the "removed from game" language in Bury is significant, but it's the exact same language as used in killed.  The point is to draw the distinction that it wouldn't drop a marker.

It's essentially an infinite loop.

 

No, the problem with Vogel so it is a new model doing the effect every time. So that is why it is a new effect every time.

The rules don't explicitly say once per start phase, but I think you have to assume that it works that way for the phase method to work. 

But yes, that is one of the ironies of this debate. You have to make up a rule (only once per start phase) for the game to not break. So the accusation of making up rules about timing is a bit off 😜

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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.  

It would help if you actually read the thread you were taking a part in rather than accusing my of not understanding people or of trolling. How do you actually expect to be able to participate in a discussion if you're just ignoring the context things are being discussed in.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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

It is also the phase where they are generated. Just like in c2 is the phase actions are generated.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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

Yes, it is c1, because c1 is the start of the models activation.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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.

Do not use English to determine what the definition of a game term is. This is you're entire issue with how this works. For example, I could have model A with poison and demise explosive, next to model B with demise flaming, next to model C. And then there's also model D with poison. I can now choose to resolve poison on model A or D. If I choose A and it dies to the poison, then model A's demise resolves which does damage to model B also killing it, which does damage and gives burning to model C. Now I can choose to resolve the burning on Model C, or the posion on model D first. These are still simultaneous effects despite the fact that Model C didn't have a condition to resolve when the end phase began.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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."

No, because it would be referring to a defined game term, just like start of activation is referring to a defined game term.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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

I'm not sure why exactly you're quoting this again, but you're not any more painfully wrong the second time around.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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.

Yes, it is in fact C1. The names aren't there just for fluff, they're telling you at what point of a model's activation it is in, and then what that model can do at that point of it's activation. I don't know why you think a word on a card holds more weight and the game term and it's definition written in the rule book.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

"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.

I never said it was the same, nor did I say it takes place in C1. You said that if they wanted something to be at a point that would be impossible if the start of a models activation is a phase. 

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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.

I... what? It being a timing point was the point.  You said that if the devs wanted to make an ability restricted to a single point in time that it had to say "At the start", and then in my giving you a method that is already in the game that you agree is a single point in time you want to say that somehow this doesn't shoot down your argument? Two times in the same post you very clearly fail to grasp what's being said and yet you still want to say it other people who don't understand what's being said.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

This is painfully incorrect.

No, it's not. Since you're so keen to throw around "you just don't understand my argument", I'm now going to ask you if you actually understand the arguments against you.

5 hours ago, LeperColony said:

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.

😆

[santaclaws01]

53 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

If "at the start" is a single instant, then of course they are all only once-per because the opportunity to do them subsequently has elapsed.  Otherwise, it requires a new rule.  It's also against the way the duration side has been reading it, since their response to Vogel is "well, you run out of cards eventually."

None of the arguments that it wouldn't trigger Demise are particularly persuasive either.  You might be tempted to think the "removed from game" language in Bury is significant, but it's the exact same language as used in killed.  The point is to draw the distinction that it wouldn't drop a marker.

It's essentially an infinite loop.

 

A healing demise effect doesn't save a model from death if that death wasn't because they were reduced to 0 wounds. "If a model was Healed after being killed by a game effect (as opposed to being reduced to 0 Health), then being Healed does not prevent it from being killed" page 25.

[santaclaws01]

25 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

No, the problem with Vogel so it is a new model doing the effect every time. So that is why it is a new effect every time.

The rules don't explicitly say once per start phase, but I think you have to assume that it works that way for the phase method to work. 

But yes, that is one of the ironies of this debate. You have to make up a rule (only once per start phase) for the game to not break. So the accusation of making up rules about timing is a bit off 😜

Yeah, there's nothing that says effects can only be resolved once during their respective phase, but that's also a bitch of a rule to make to cover cases when a model's ability affects multiple models while still being clear it means effects that affect a model on an individual case, and is really the baseline assumption so that burning isn't a death sentence at even 1 stack.

[Maniacal_cackle]

12 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yeah, there's nothing that says effects can only be resolved once during their respective phase, but that's also a bitch of a rule to make to cover cases when a model's ability affects multiple models while still being clear it means effects that affect a model on an individual case, and is really the baseline assumption so that burning isn't a death sentence at even 1 stack.

Yes, agree it is a reasonable assumption if using phases. But you still have to read between the lines a lot in Malifaux, very little seems clear cut to me.

[LeperColony]

36 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

No, the problem with Vogel so it is a new model doing the effect every time. So that is why it is a new effect every time.

I'm not so sure about that.  I think the intent behind the Replace rules is that the model is the same entity.  That's why conditions and scheme selections follow.  If Shapechange said Once per Activation, I don't think anyone would argue that the fact that it's a new model would allow you to keep doing it.

In fact, the very existence of Once Per Activation abilities is problematic for them, because the implication is that other abilities are not Once Per Activation (except where otherwise provided, like auras).  So if "at the start" is not a single point, then you do need a new rule.

With the Grave Golem situation, you have two separate abilities that just endlessly trigger off each other.  Since neither is limited in terms of applications, there's an infinite loop.

38 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The rules don't explicitly say once per start phase, but I think you have to assume that it works that way for the phase method to work. 

But yes, that is one of the ironies of this debate. You have to make up a rule (only once per start phase) for the game to not break. So the accusation of making up rules about timing is a bit off 😜

It's not that their argument completely lacks merit.  But because the only mechanical framework they've asserted is "start of activation" means C1 (which is frankly nonsensical, as no effect is a phase), they're left with no alternative but numerous individual jury rigged solutions.

Of course, as I've mentioned almost every time this comes up, I believe it's entirely possible that Wyrd was not as rigorous with this wording as we should have wished.  And so different abilities may in fact have been intended in different ways.

[santaclaws01]

4 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

With the Grave Golem situation, you have two separate abilities that just endlessly trigger off each other.  Since neither is limited in terms of applications, there's an infinite loop.

Again, unearth can't trigger demise immortal soil.


Or are you just flatly ignoring me now?

[Adran]

<MODHAT>

I'm not seeing this thread go anywhere new, its just the same people making the same points. So I'm ending it 

<\MODHAT>