Rune-Etched Ice

[Nagi21]

So a question on one of Euripides abilities, specifically his ice pillar generation, which states:

"Create a HT, 4 Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker anywhere within range.  Then, other models within 2 of one or more Ice Pillars created this way must each pass a TN 14 Mv duel or suffer 2 damage."

My question is, since the ability only creates one pillar at a time (the trigger is when resolving so would happen AFTER this entire sentence resolved), the only reading i can see from the line "within 2 of one or more Ice Pillars created this way", is that every time he uses this ability it would cause every model within 2 of every ice pillar created in the game via this ability to take the mv duel and damage.  Since actions are resolved in the order of the card, the way the card is written the damage happens before the second pillar is spawned, so the only reason I could see to have "one or more" would be that it applies to all rune etched pillars currently in play.

[Maniacal_cackle]

This has come up before, and note that the ability can create two pillars with its tome trigger.

It is unlikely you're meant to have two different type of ice pillars with the same name, so it probably means 'this use of the ability'.

EDIT: Since the trigger is when resolving, and the part that talks about one of the ice pillars says "then", it is likely the 'then' is supposed to happen last.

[Nagi21]

14 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

This has come up before, and note that the ability can create two pillars with its tome trigger.

It is unlikely you're meant to have two different type of ice pillars with the same name, so it probably means 'this use of the ability'.

EDIT: Since the trigger is when resolving, and the part that talks about one of the ice pillars says "then", it is likely the 'then' is supposed to happen last.

I'm not saying it's not a typo, but that's how it's written on the card, and until we get a response from wyrd on errata and etc, we really can only go by how it's written not how it's intended.  And the thing is there's not any other way for that sentence to be construed since there's no other way to get more than one pillar before the damage happens RAW.

[Maniacal_cackle]

10 minutes ago, Nagi21 said:

I'm not saying it's not a typo, but that's how it's written on the card, and until we get a response from wyrd on errata and etc, we really can only go by how it's written not how it's intended.  And the thing is there's not any other way for that sentence to be construed since there's no other way to get more than one pillar before the damage happens RAW.

Well, Malifaux rules typically require a bit of reading between the lines.

Here's some justifications on a rules basis for my interpretation:

• Sequential effects allows for queuing effects.
• The 'then' shows that the second part of the effect is meant to happen last (while the 'when resolving' in the trigger means it is supposed to happen with the main effect).

Here are some common sense reasons why it should work the way I have outlined. If it doesn't work the way I have said (and it is any ice pillar created 'this way')...

• Rampage (like on Arcane Emissary) becomes insane, as every time you use the trigger, every model ever hit by the ability is affected.
• Blade rush - you do 1 damage to every model that has been charged through 'this way', so you'd do one damage to every model ever charged through with that model?
• Ice path (on ice dancer) again, uses 'this way'

If you look at all the 'this way' examples for cards, the game quickly breaks down if you're supposed to track them for every instance of the ability instead of the current instance.

[Nagi21]

2 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

• Sequential effects allows for queuing effects.
• The 'then' shows that the second part of the effect is meant to happen last (while the 'when resolving' in the trigger means it is supposed to happen with the main effect).

If you look at all the 'this way' examples for cards, the game quickly breaks down if you're supposed to track them for every instance of the ability instead of the current instance.

My issue is that there is no clear delineation of when effects go off aside from "Sequential order".  I don't disagree with your case on "this way", it's the "one or more" that throws things around, but he needs clarification desperately because it's either a typo, or a completely different mechanic than originally thought.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Nagi21 said:

My issue is that there is no clear delineation of when effects go off aside from "Sequential order".  I don't disagree with your case on "this way", it's the "one or more" that throws things around, but he needs clarification desperately because it's either a typo, or a completely different mechanic than originally thought.

Understandable!

The rules are not nearly as polished as something like Magic: The Gathering for instance. There's a lot of areas where some clarity would be useful (particularly for timing).

Which isn't a criticism of Wyrd per se - a wargame is significantly more complex than a card game (since you're dealing with 3ish dimensional space in addition to timing). But it does mean things get quite murky.

For ambiguities like this, I find it best to talk to a playgroup (or tournament organiser) before games to make sure everyone is on the same page for how an ability works.

[Nagi21]

 

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

Which isn't a criticism of Wyrd per se - a wargame is significantly more complex than a card game (since you're dealing with 3ish dimensional space in addition to timing). But it does mean things get quite murky.

I would stick typos squarely at Wyrd's feet.

[Adran]

Every pillar created this way will only refer to pillars created by this action, not any other instance of rune etched ice. 

I think you are right, and by the timing and current wording the trigger happens after the damage, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine other rules to get extra advantages. 

 

[Nagi21]

15 minutes ago, Adran said:

Every pillar created this way will only refer to pillars created by this action, not any other instance of rune etched ice. 

I think you are right, and by the timing and current wording the trigger happens after the damage, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine other rules to get extra advantages. 

 

A) It's not necessarily an advantage since it says other models... not just enemy models.

2) If the intention was for the trigger to happen after the damage, there would be no reason to put "one or more" in the text since you can only make one pillar for the damage, so the only logical explanations are either "it's a typo" and it happens off both pillars, or it happens off all ice pillars that have been summoned off Rune-Etched Ice (which is different from the other ice pillar summon the crew has).

[Adran]

I'm sure the intent was for the trigger to happen before the damage, but, as you say, the wording doesn't quite work. But it's a fairly easy thing to miss or accidentally mess up. 

[Nagi21]

4 minutes ago, Adran said:

I'm sure the intent was for the trigger to happen before the damage, but, as you say, the wording doesn't quite work. But it's a fairly easy thing to miss or accidentally mess up. 

Hence my point.  The wording works in several unintentional ways.  Maybe we can't come to an agreement in the forum but it should at least be noted as an issue for any upcoming FAQ.  I suppose TO's will have to guess on this... and hopefully not nerf Euripides...

[Maniacal_cackle]

Well, one of the reasons for the trigger phrasing is probably the fact that Rasputina has the trigger as well (they consolidated the triggers).

But I don't see how any reading other than "within pulse 2 of either of the two markers (the main effect and trigger)" works.

Also consider Colette Du Bois:

Quote

Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with the target. Place the target into base contact with a friendly model within range, then place the friendly model into base contact with the scheme marker dropped this way.

Tome trigger: when resolving, instead of dropping a marker, summon a mechanical dove into base contact with the target. The summoned dove is treated as the dropped scheme marker.

By the same logic, her trigger doesn't actually work (as you don't perform the trigger until after everything else). There's clearly meant to be some inferences made - some abilities only work if you resolve the 'when resolving' trigger alongside the other one.

In this case, there's a pretty clear inference you do both pillars at once (and they could have phrased it better, except again, the trigger is shared with other models). They couldn't use "immediately" language, because that would alter the effect (it would happen whether or not the duel succeeded).

The rules say:

Quote

When resolving: These Triggers resolve with the Action’s effects (Step 5 of Action timing). These Triggers, depending on effect, may modify the effects of the Action as listed or add a new effect, so they only occur if the Action was successful. Any new effects are resolved last, unless the Trigger specifies otherwise

From this, we might infer that the ice pillar is not a 'new effect' but rather 'modifies' the effect (and thus happens alongside it). And again, the word 'then' gives a pretty clear indicator that the pulse effect is supposed to happen last.

I agree this sort of stuff will ideally be cleaned up, but don't see how it is a problem in the meantime. I can't imagine anyone is seriously going to argue that you can only do it with the first pillar in an actual game. It clearly isn't meant to work that way.

[Ogid]

The wording is a bit messy, but I think the intent is clear. There is no tracking in the game about which pilars are created by each ability, so the reading of that affect to all pilars created by that particular ability just doesn't work.

The intent is that the pulse deal damage out of all pilars created in that action, and this is where things become murky. As the trigger is not modifying the first sentence but adding an aditional effect; that effect by default is resolved at the end (after the damage); but as the ability clearly say that more than 1 pilar may be the source of the pulse, then the only reading posible is that trigger is intended to be resolved before the "Then,..."

It require a bit between lines reading and could be rules lawyered, but I think most players will get the intent.

[Nagi21]

26 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 I can't imagine anyone is seriously going to argue that you can only do it with the first pillar in an actual game. It clearly isn't meant to work that way.

You underestimate tournament players lol.

[Adran]

28 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

 

By the same logic, her trigger doesn't actually work (as you don't perform the trigger until after everything else). There's clearly meant to be some inferences made - some abilities only work if you resolve the 'when resolving' trigger alongside the other one.

This is a trigger that has a specific timing in it so it does work. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Adran said:

This is a trigger that has a specific timing in it so it does work. 

It doesn't specify a timing though. It leaves you to infer the timing (that you should probably do the replacement effect before you drop a scheme marker, resolve the effects, then get to the instructions about replacing and get confused).

It would say a specific timing if it said something like "when resolving, before resolving any of the effects, replace the scheme marker with a dove."

[Ogid]

28 minutes ago, Nagi21 said:

You underestimate tournament players lol.

Fortunately only a minority of them; if a player really wanted to go that way, this case could be solved easily with a TO ruling in less than a minute. I really doubt a TO would rule against the intent; but I get you concerns tho.

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

It doesn't specify a timing though. It leaves you to infer the timing (that you should probably do the replacement effect before you drop a scheme marker, resolve the effects, then get to the instructions about replacing and get confused).

It would say a specific timing if it said something like "when resolving, before resolving any of the effects, replace the scheme marker with a dove."

it is altering the initial action. So at the time you should drop a scheme marker, you instead summon a dove. 

[Rufess]

On 1/18/2020 at 6:39 PM, Adran said:

it is altering the initial action. So at the time you should drop a scheme marker, you instead summon a dove. 

So it is the word "instead" makes the different. Then change the trigger to "create 2 Ice Pillar instead of 1" can solve the action and have no impact to Rasp.

But then the trigger cannot be reused in an action that does not create ice pillar.

[Ogid]

5 hours ago, Rufess said:

But then the trigger cannot be reused in an action that does not create ice pillar.

I think this is the key, M3E tend to reuse triggers as much as possible, which is good because you don't have to keep in mind minor differences between 3 or 4 almost identical triggers.

Frozen Domain is a Rasputina trigger, that works well for her because she doesn't deal damage when creating Ice Pilars, so the fact that the ability is: "Create Ice pilar. Create ice pilar." instead of "Create 2 ice pilars". is irrelevant, but that doesn't happen with Euripides and that trigger being pushed until the end of that action mess with how his ability is supposed to work. I guess that trigger could get rewrited and generalized (so if the ability create 1 ice pilar, it'd create 1 additional ice pilar and if not, it'd create 1 ice pilar; but that would require extra verbose...)

[Adran]

6 hours ago, Rufess said:

So it is the word "instead" makes the different. Then change the trigger to "create 2 Ice Pillar instead of 1" can solve the action and have no impact to Rasp.

But then the trigger cannot be reused in an action that does not create ice pillar.

Yes. "Do A instead of B" does mean that it has to happen at the timing of B.

 

9 minutes ago, Ogid said:

I think this is the key, M3E tend to reuse triggers as much as possible, which is good because you don't have to keep in mind minor differences between 3 or 4 almost identical triggers.

 

Malifaux has always reused triggers, right back from first edition. But it does mean that you need to look a little carefully at the words used, to make the trigger work on a wide variety of actions if you think its an effect that will be used by more than 1 model.

(So its hard to offer practical re-writes of the trigger, as if it is intended to appear on an action that doesn't normally create pillars you would need different wording, likewise if you want it to happen before part of the action, you want different wording.  "When resolving, Create an Ice pillar within range before resolving any other part of the action" is probably what they meant, but I don't know)

 

[Ogid]

37 minutes ago, Adran said:

So its hard to offer practical re-writes of the trigger, as if it is intended to appear on an action that doesn't normally create pillars you would need different wording, likewise if you want it to happen before part of the action, you want different wording.  "When resolving, Create an Ice pillar within range before resolving any other part of the action" is probably what they meant, but I don't know

I agree, the above is probably what they meant, but the wording doesn't work for Euripides. I was thinking that this kind of wording could work:

• "When resolving, Create an additional Ice pillar marker anywhere within range."

The additional part will make it being created at the same than other ice pillars (so it'd work for Euripides); the tricky part that will generate doubts is specify that if 0 Ice Pillars are created, then an additional one (so 1) is created at the end of the action; but I guess that would be easy to get from context if that trigger is used in an action that doesn't create Ice Pillars.

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, Ogid said:

I agree, the above is probably what they meant, but the wording doesn't work for Euripides. I was thinking in maybe using this kind of wording:

• "When resolving, Create an additional Ice pillar marker anywhere within range."

The additional part will make it being created at the same than other ice pillars (so it'd work for Euripides); the tricky part that will generate doubts is specify that if 0 Ice Pillars are created, then an additional one (so 1) is created at the end of the action; but I guess that would be easy to get from context if that trigger is used in an action that doesn't create Ice Pillars.

This wording seems like it would only work if the action already created an ice pillar, and is not as clear as I would like that it should occur at the same time as the first create, rather than at the end.

I had thought about the "create +1 ice pillar", using the damage template, but that would need further rules to clarify that the 2 are created in different places, and extrapolates the rules rather than fits within the already defined rules.

[Ogid]

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

This wording seems like it would only work if the action already created an ice pillar, and is not as clear as I would like that it should occur at the same time as the first create, rather than at the end.

It's kind of consistent enough (imo); abilities that drop shockwaves or other markers use this kind of wording to instruct player to drop additional ones at the same time, but I'm sure that wording would also generate cause extra questions, those timings are tricky.

9 minutes ago, Adran said:

I had thought about the "create +1 ice pillar", using the damage template, but that would need further rules to clarify that the 2 are created in different places, and extrapolates the rules rather than fits within the already defined rules.

This could also work, but as you said that would also require additional core rules (and probably review the wording of other abilities) so it's probably not worth it just to fix this trigger...

[Rufess]

The trigger is currently shared by only Rasp and Euripides so using the "instead version" is good enough for now. And if a new model in the future that can create ice pillar in its non-ice pillar creating action's trigger, then just give the model a brand new trigger to do so. Yes this way would create redundancy, but instead we saved a FAQ. Player can see an altered trigger directly in the apps, but not a FAQ.