New Gamble Your Life aka We need Errata for an Errata!

[Domin]

Good time of the day. 

Last changes for a Stitched's Gamble Your Life action, TMM, brought them is some unpredicted state. 

In the cost of an action we see the following:

"If this Action fails, this models suffers the effects as though the defending model was taking this action targeting this model."

If we RAW, we can see that failing the action doesn't make Stitched suffer any harm - since while the attacker and defender were swapped, the action still counts as failed - and therefore can have no results. 

Moreover, if for example, Stitched tries to "gamble" someone, get a final duel total more then the target, but not enough to reach TN, then action will be failed - but there will be no any Accuracy Modifier since such things as "you win with lower duel total" wasn't even mentioned in rules.

Discussions?

[Pellow]

7 hours ago, Domin said:

"If this Action fails, this models suffers the effects as though the defending model was taking this action targeting this model."

I think the key part of this statement is "suffers the effects". The Action failed, thus when it would normally skip Step 5 of the resolving Actions it instead resolving step 5 as though the Attacking model were the defender and vice-versa.

The effects of the action are just "target suffers 3/4/5 damage". As the Stitched is now the target, it would just read "(The Stitched Together) suffers 3/4/5 damage". As for Accuracy, the only mention in the rules is:

Quote

The Accuracy Fate Modifier are determined by the differences in the final duel total based on the Breakdown below: 

It doesn't say "by how much the Attacker's duel total exceeded the defenders" , it just says the difference in the duel totals. Difference as per mathmatics is Absolute Value:  | X-Y | , so it doesn't matter who won the duel, just the how far apart the two duel totals were.

So as far as I can tell,

• if a Stiched were to have a duel total of 9 and the Defender a duel total of 14. The Attack would fail, and the Stitched would suffer a 3/4/5 damage flip (with an Accuracy of 5, ie a ).
• if a Stiched were to have a duel total of 11 and the Defender a duel total of 8. The Attack would fail (as the Stitched didn't reach the TN), and the Stitched would suffer a 3/4/5 damage flip (with an Accuracy of 3, ie still a ).

[solkan]

Player A uses Gamble Your Life on Player B's model.  Player A's attempt fails.  So you try resolving the action as if Player B had been the attacker (comparing Player B's card to Player A's card).

Yeah, that means that you pretty much have to resolve this part of the action during Step 4, rather than Step 5.  You can file the timing next to M2E Mei Feng's attack that had a push effect even if it failed.  🤷‍♀️

 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Nagi21 said:

So NC meta has ruled, based on a (currently paywalled) TFW podcast with a designer from before GG1 dropped, that if you fail a GYL flip for any reason, your opponent gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable damage flip against your stitched.  That's so far the most official thing I have.

That is basically what the card says.

The only remaining question I would have is about accuracy modifiers, which I would assume would apply if you had an opposed duel.

(so if you failed a terrifying test, there was no opposed duel so its a straight 3/4/5 flip. If there was a duel, then you can get an accuracy modifier, which is the difference between the totals, to apply, probably putting the flip on negative).

I would also say that the defending model won't be using the bloody fate trigger. But they also don't need to have reached the TN for the damage to occur.

 

So in short my suggestion is IF the stiched fails for any reason it will suffer a 3/4/5 damage flip.

If there was an opposed duel, then the difference between the totals will be used to determine the accuracy modifier. If there was no opposed duel its just a straight flip.

 

 

I would be interested to know when the interview took place, and can't see anything on the TFW homepage.

 

[Artiee]

On 3/6/2020 at 10:02 AM, Nagi21 said:

So NC meta has ruled, based on a (currently paywalled) TFW podcast with a designer from before GG1 dropped, that if you fail a GYL flip for any reason, your opponent gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable damage flip against your stitched.  That's so far the most official thing I have.

They mis-heard the designer.     He said.  "If the stitched together fails, you can probably equally cheat provided you don't, your not on that negative yourself."

This can be heard at 1:25:45-1:26:10

 

[Mycellanious]

If you flip attacker defender, you would then need to see if the new attacker meets the TN correct? So if a Stiched flips a 3 and his enemy flips a 5, the Stitched failed the Action, but his opponent didnt meet the TN so no one suffers damage?

[Artiee]

I think it was their way of saying the opponent flips for the damage done on the Stitched.  I think it was badly written.

[Paddywhack]

3 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

If you flip attacker defender, you would then need to see if the new attacker meets the TN correct? So if a Stiched flips a 3 and his enemy flips a 5, the Stitched failed the Action, but his opponent didnt meet the TN so no one suffers damage?

That's my reading. You reverse the roles of Attacker/Defender and re-check their Duel Totals. We know the new Attacker is Winning, but if they don't meet the TN the Action still fails. Then any Damage Flip is resolved with the new accuracy modifier.

My only question is about the Trigger. Since the new Attacking model is acting as if it took the Action, I'm guessing you could declare it since you are 'taking the action'. 

It's still a 3/4/5 attack on a 6SS model. It won't always be the attack you want to use, but it does target Wp which has its uses. I do wish they had done something to it's claws attack to even out the nerf - maybe a built in Mask to give them an interesting new use. 

[Artiee]

1 hour ago, Pellow said:

I think the key part of this statement is "suffers the effects". The Action failed, thus when it would normally skip Step 5 of the resolving Actions it instead resolving step 5 as though the Attacking model were the defender and vice-versa.

The effects of the action are just "target suffers 3/4/5 damage". As the Stitched is now the target, it would just read "(The Stitched Together) suffers 3/4/5 damage". As for Accuracy, the only mention in the rules is:

It doesn't say "by how much the Attacker's duel total exceeded the defenders" , it just says the difference in the duel totals. Difference as per mathmatics is Absolute Value:  | X-Y | , so it doesn't matter who won the duel, just the how far apart the two duel totals were.

So as far as I can tell,

• if a Stiched were to have a duel total of 9 and the Defender a duel total of 14. The Attack would fail, and the Stitched would suffer a 3/4/5 damage flip (with an Accuracy of 5, ie a ).
• if a Stiched were to have a duel total of 11 and the Defender a duel total of 8. The Attack would fail (as the Stitched didn't reach the TN), and the Stitched would suffer a 3/4/5 damage flip (with an Accuracy of 3, ie still a ).

Its the way I read it..

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yes, it says suffers the effects of so I think it just does the damage.

It does make for an awkward issue with the accuracy modifiers though.

[Nagi21]

2 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yes, it says suffers the effects of so I think it just does the damage.

It does make for an awkward issue with the accuracy modifiers though.

Supposedly the playtesters/designers went on TFW and said it's basically if you fail for any reason (terrifying, etc.), the opposing model gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable flip against the stitched.  I can't confirm this since supposedly that vid is behind TFW patreon wall until later.

[Maniacal_cackle]

10 minutes ago, Nagi21 said:

Supposedly the playtesters/designers went on TFW and said it's basically if you fail for any reason (terrifying, etc.), the opposing model gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable flip against the stitched.  I can't confirm this since supposedly that vid is behind TFW patreon wall until later.

I don't like the idea of rules information being behind a paywall.

If I was organising a tournament, I'd treat that information as if it doesn't exist unless everyone could access it.

[Nagi21]

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

I don't like the idea of rules information being behind a paywall.

If I was organising a tournament, I'd treat that information as if it doesn't exist unless everyone could access it.

I mean it's not rules information per se, it's an interview from a bit back.

Problem is there's multiple ways of reading this effect and there's no solid answer, and now we have speculation from interviews with the design team.

[Artiee]

1 hour ago, Nagi21 said:

Supposedly the playtesters/designers went on TFW and said it's basically if you fail for any reason (terrifying, etc.), the opposing model gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable flip against the stitched.  I can't confirm this since supposedly that vid is behind TFW patreon wall until later.

I don't remember any discussion like that on this..    But the designers (Wyrd) will only correct something in FAQ/Errata.   The only time in 5 years I have seen Wyrd correct something outside of a FAQ/Errata is the Iconic Deck mis-label.

[Paddywhack]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yes, it says suffers the effects of so I think it just does the damage.

 

Then what is the point of the "as though the Defending model was taking this Action targeting this model" bit? That's a lot of words when it could have just said 'takes a 3/4/5 dmg flip'. I'm not sure what that whole part is there for otherwise. For me thats a far more important part than just 'suffers effects', but there appears to be a lot of confusion already on this one. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Paddywhack said:

Then what is the point of the "as though the Defending model was taking this Action targeting this model" bit? That's a lot of words when it could have just said 'takes a 3/4/5 dmg flip'. I'm not sure what that whole part is there for otherwise. For me thats a far more important part than just 'suffers effects', but there appears to be a lot of confusion already on this one. 

The reason for that is probably so the non-stitch model gets kill credit (otherwise stitched would count as killing itself, which messes with schemes).

[Paddywhack]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The reason for that is probably so the non-stitch model gets kill credit (otherwise stitched would count as killing itself, which messes with schemes).

 

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The reason for that is probably so the non-stitch model gets kill credit (otherwise stitched would count as killing itself, which messes with schemes).

It still seems like a very convoluted way to word it. And if you are suffering effects as though the defender was taking this Action targeting this model, wouldn't you need to still hit the target number? If you were taking the Action and didn't hit the TN, the Action fails. 

I'm confused, but will wait to see if there is any clarification and hope I don't face any Stitched before then. I know it was too good before, but man, this new one is just annoyingly worded. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

 

It still seems like a very convoluted way to word it. And if you are suffering effects as though the defender was taking this Action targeting this model, wouldn't you need to still hit the target number? If you were taking the Action and didn't hit the TN, the Action fails. 

I'm confused, but will wait to see if there is any clarification and hope I don't face any Stitched before then. I know it was too good before, but man, this new one is just annoyingly worded. 

Yes, this one is certainly ambiguous. Can argue it all sorts of ways.

[Morgan Vening]

14 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Then what is the point of the "as though the Defending model was taking this Action targeting this model" bit? That's a lot of words when it could have just said 'takes a 3/4/5 dmg flip'. I'm not sure what that whole part is there for otherwise. For me thats a far more important part than just 'suffers effects', but there appears to be a lot of confusion already on this one. 

If it said that, wouldn't that allow the Stitched player to cheat the Damage Flip? Whereas the intent is to have the other player control the flip and possible cheat.

[Paddywhack]

4 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

If it said that, wouldn't that allow the Stitched player to cheat the Damage Flip? Whereas the intent is to have the other player control the flip and possible cheat.

You could make it uncheatable (more of a gamble in my mind) or call it out differently. But it's hard to know since we seem to all have slightly different interpretations and can't figure out exactly what the intent was. 

[Artiee]

3 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

You could make it uncheatable (more of a gamble in my mind) or call it out differently. But it's hard to know since we seem to all have slightly different interpretations and can't figure out exactly what the intent was. 

M2e it was uncheatable. 

[Nagi21]

Anyone having flashbacks to old Magic where they had cards with "Opponent loses next turn"

[Nagi21]

So NC meta has ruled, based on a (currently paywalled) TFW podcast with a designer from before GG1 dropped, that if you fail a GYL flip for any reason, your opponent gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable damage flip against your stitched.  That's so far the most official thing I have.

[Artiee]

1 hour ago, Nagi21 said:

So NC meta has ruled, based on a (currently paywalled) TFW podcast with a designer from before GG1 dropped, that if you fail a GYL flip for any reason, your opponent gets a 3/4/5 straight, cheatable damage flip against your stitched.  That's so far the most official thing I have.

Which podcast was it?  

[Artiee]

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

 

I would be interested to know when the interview took place, and can't see anything on the TFW homepage.

 

 

Me too since in the past Wyrd has always  been tight lipped about anything in development and reminded us on about the NDA to the testers.

[Nagi21]

28 minutes ago, Artiee said:

Which podcast was it?  

 

12 minutes ago, Artiee said:

 

Me too since in the past Wyrd has always  been tight lipped about anything in development and reminded us on about the NDA to the testers.

 

22 minutes ago, Adran said:

I would be interested to know when the interview took place, and can't see anything on the TFW homepage.

 

Apparently it's the most recent one, which is why it's currently behind a Patreon paywall.