"!A Por El!" and Activation

[SirFoobar]

I have a question about "!A Por El!", its timing and which model's activation the action takes place in.

Quote

"!A Por El!":  After this model ends it's Activation, another friendly Family model within 6 with Cost equal to or less than this model may discard a card to take an Action.

Let's assume the following situation:

Abuela Ortega had a regular Activation (C1 - C3 in the timing chart in the rule book on page 21) and I use her "!A Por El!" on a Pistolero de Latigo.

According to @solkan's answer in a different thread concerning this ability, "!A Por El!" probably takes place somewhen between C3 and C4.

My question is: When the Pistolero takes the action generated by "!A Por El!", whose activation is this?

This is a relevant question for two reasons:

1) Abuela Ortega has the "Nice Shot, Dear!" ability

Quote

"Nice Shot, Dear": When taking Actions outside of their Activation, friendly Family models within LoS receive +1 to their duels.

So if the "!A Por El!" action does not count as part of the Pistolero's activation, the Pistolero will be able to take advantage of this ability.

2) Abuela Ortega also has the "Listen Up, Young'un!" ability (basically an obey on friendly models).

If the Action generated by "!A Por El!" is considered to be part of Abuela's activation that would mean that the "once per activation" limit on certain actions (e.g. concentrate) would not "reset", i.e. if I used the obey to make the Pistolero concentrate, I could not use the "!A Por El!" Action on the Pistolero to concentrate again.

[trikk]

1) A Por El takes place in Abuelas activation. 
2) Correct. You can't concentrate twice form Listen Up and A Por El on the same model.

[Angelshard]

But you can use bonus actions from A Por El! right? As it's still during an activation.

[trikk]

Yes. This gives some value to Abuela because each MH/Nino can A Por El abuela to Listen Up on Frank For Example

[LeperColony]

6 hours ago, SirFoobar said:

My question is: When the Pistolero takes the action generated by "!A Por El!", whose activation is this?

I'm not sure it's anyone's activation.

A Por El happens "after this model ends its activation," so it can't be Abuela's activation anymore (it has ended).   C3 is for abilities like Viktoria's Synchronized.

Treating A Por El as being part of Abuela's activation is erasing the distinction between "after" a model's activation ends, and "at" the end of the model's activation.  These are not the same thing, and if you treat "after" as meaning "at" then what other term are you going to use to cover effects you want to happen subsequent to the model's activation, but before another activation?

Now, admittedly, Wyrd may not have written the abilities with such specificity.  But absent an indication we should disregard the plain meaning of "after," I think the most natural reading is that it is no longer Abuela's activation.  And if it's not hers, and not another model's, then it isn't anyone's.

[Ogid]

AFAIK This case isn't clearly defined in the rules, but my bet is it's still that model activation (the model with the ability, not he model acting). Resolving actions, "after resolving" triggers, which happens after the action is completed, are still considered part of the action. It'd make sense if this case would use the same logic.

Also not being anyone's activation would cause weird interactions, for example abilities with "once per activation" (like concentrate) cannot happen outside of an activation (FAQ GG1, General nº12)

[LeperColony]

 

15 minutes ago, Ogid said:

AFAIK This case isn't clearly defined in the rules, but my bet is it's still that model activation (the model with the ability, not he model acting). Resolving actions, "after resolving" triggers, which happens after the action is completed, are still considered part of the action. It'd make sense if this case would use the same logic.

 

It's 100% accurate to say the rules don't provide a clear answer.  The problem with your "after resolving" analogy is that "after resolving" is specifically included in the Action resolution sequence (C2f).  Additionally, "after resolving" is trigger timing.  Triggers need to tell us at what point in the action you apply their effects, because they can modify the action itself.  They are not analogous to abilities, and their timing shouldn't really be used as a template for resolving abilities.

 

24 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Also not being anyone's activation would cause weird interactions, for example abilities with "once per activation" (like concentrate) cannot happen outside of an activation (FAQ GG1, General nº12)

These interactions are not weird.  They may even be intentional.  Wyrd has language that would have made A Por El in Abuela's activation unambiguously.  They didn't use it.  Your analysis pretends that's irrelevant.  I'm not so convinced it is.

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

It's 100% accurate to say the rules don't provide a clear answer.  The problem with your "after resolving" analogy is that "after resolving" is specifically included in the Action resolution sequence (C2f).  Additionally, "after resolving" is trigger timing.  Triggers need to tell us at what point in the action you apply their effects, because they can modify the action itself.  They are not analogous to abilities, and their timing shouldn't really be used as a template for resolving abilities.

I know these aren't comparable, my point was that as the same people wrote both rules, it'd make sense that for them "after something" is included in that something but they just didn't included the relevant rules for the abilities; give something for granted is easy in a 50+ pgs rulebook.

But that's circunstancial at best; without rules backing it up, it could go either way.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

These interactions are not weird.  They may even be intentional.  Wyrd has language that would have made A Por El in Abuela's activation unambiguously.  They didn't use it.  Your analysis pretends that's irrelevant.  I'm not so convinced it is.

Those interactions make things harder than it should be... it's not something that seems intentional; and especially in this case, indirectly forbiding concentrate during "A por el" actions in a crew around shenanigans with concentrate seems like a very odd design choice to me.

As you say there are timings that would had included it in an activation, but using a non-defined timing wording seems more like something that flew under the radar during testing than a willful choice. If they wanted it to be outside of an activation, they could had included it in the rulebook's timings (especially as this is an ability present when the rulebook was released).

I think my position is more coherent within the rules, will lead to an easier play not creating extra doubts with suddenly ilegal triggers/actions/abilities for being outside of a normal ativation and it's also better for the keyword outside that particular abuela interaction as it includes concentrate as a legal action for all models.

But without more rules to support my point, the best thing I can suggest is: discuss it with your oponent/TO and play as you consider it right until this get FAQed.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Given that activation steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 all occur within the activation of Abuela, I'm not sure how you can have an action taken as a result of step 3 and not have it be part of the activation. Here's how I would resolve it:

• Step 1: Abuela Starts activation
• Step 2: Abuela takes her actions
• Step 3: Abuela ends her activation, generating some effects
  • This generates an A Por El effect.
• Resolve A Por El
  • Model takes an action
• Step 4: Chain activations
  • Check if Guild Steward is chaining, if so, you now change what model is activating next.

I don't see how you'd resolve A Por El before finishing all the activation steps without it being part of the activation.

[LeperColony]

4 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Given that activation steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 all occur within the activation of Abuela, I'm not sure how you can have an action taken as a result of step 3 and not have it be part of the activation. Here's how I would resolve it:

• Step 1: Abuela Starts activation
• Step 2: Abuela takes her actions
• Step 3: Abuela ends her activation

At this point, Abuela's activation has ended.  If A Por El said "at," then you'd still be in her activation.  But it doesn't, it says "after."  Explain to me another use of the word "after" that doesn't require the preceding step to have ended.

Also, note, Abuela isn't doing anything.  Another model that is within her aura can discard a card to do something.  It's that other model that is discarding the card.  Abuela's end of activation isn't generating anything.  Another model is generating an effect within the timing window that exists after Abuela has finished, but before another model can act.

A Por El isn't the only ability with this timing.  Anyone with Accomplice has it.   Kin has it.  Frontier has it.  The idea that all of the Pathfinder's traps are taking their walk during his activation seems odd.  The fact that this wording exists in multiple instances undermines the idea that it's stray or sloppy wording (though doesn't disprove it, to be sure).

While it may be unusual for actions to happen outside activations, I don't know of any rule that prohibits it.  And in fact, there are actions that happen in the start and end phase, so the rules in fact do provide for it.

Out of curiosity, if you don't believe "after this model ends its activation" takes place after its activation, what language would you use to mean after the model's activation has ended?

[Maniacal_cackle]

On pages 21 and 35 of the digital rules, steps 1-4 are all included in the model's activation.

9 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

The idea that all of the Pathfinder's traps are taking their walk during his activation seems odd.

That's precisely how it works I think.

9 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

While it may seem unusual for actions to happen outside activations, I don't know of any rule that prohibits it.  And in fact, there are actions that happen in the start and end phase, so the rules in fact do provide for it.

Out of curiosity, if you don't believe "after this model ends its activation" takes place after its activation, what language would you use to mean after the model's activation has ended?

As far as I'm aware, nothing occurs between activations - if it did, it causes some very weird cases. For example, are you saying that if Pathfinder's traps walk through hazardous terrain and gain burning, they can't suffer Misery for example?

[LeperColony]

21 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

On pages 21 and 35 of the digital rules, steps 1-4 are all included in the model's activation.

That's not what page 21 says.  The model's activation ends in C3.  It specifically says:

"End Activation:  Resolve any effects that happen at the end of a model's Activation.  The model is considered to have Activated this turn."  (emphasis mine)

This completes the model's Activation.  C4 occurs after the model has completed its activation, but before play passes to the opposing player.

25 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

As far as I'm aware, nothing occurs between activations - if it did, it causes some very weird cases. For example, are you saying that if Pathfinder's traps walk through hazardous terrain and gain burning, they can't suffer Misery for example?

Correct, Misery wouldn't apply.  And although that might seem strange at first blush, it's an interaction that already exists in the game.  Battle Tempo wouldn't trigger Misery.  Deadly Pursuit wouldn't.  Herald wouldn't.  Etc. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

12 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

That's not what page 21 says.  The model's activation ends in C3.  It specifically says:

"End Activation:  Resolve any effects that happen at the end of a model's Activation.  The model is considered to have Activated this turn."  (emphasis mine)

This completes the model's Activation.  C4 occurs after the model has completed its activation, but before play passes to the opposing player.

The templating seems pretty persuasive to me. It goes:

• C Activation
  • 1 Start Activation
  • 2 Taking Actions
  • 3 End Activation
  • 4 Chain Activations

So all are under the umbrella of 'activation'.

It's the same system as actions - step six of resolving actions includes "any effects that happen after an action is resolved", but still count as happening during the action. Although there's an annoying typo at the start of page 23 for that one.

[LeperColony]

29 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The templating seems pretty persuasive to me. It goes:

• C Activation
  • 1 Start Activation
  • 2 Taking Actions
  • 3 End Activation
  • 4 Chain Activations

So all are under the umbrella of 'activation'.

The rules say in black and white that the model's Activation ends in step 3.  Anything after the end is, by definition, subsequent to the thing that ended.  

By your logic, the original model's Activation even continues into the Chain Activated model, because that's step 4, and it's during Step 4 that you "go back to the start of Step C."

The issue is you're conflating the Activation window with the model's Activation.  The Activation window extends past the model's Activation in order to provide a timing opportunity for effects that occur after a model has finished its Activation, but before the opponent has an opportunity to act.

I've asked these a few times now, and I still don't really understand your position regarding the following:

1)  "At the end" wording already exists.  How does your interpretation of "after" differ from "At the end"?  Put another way, why even have "after" if it doesn't happen after the model has Activated.

2)  How would you word an effect that happens after the completion of the model's Activation, but before the opponent gets to act?   

[Maniacal_cackle]

15 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

By your logic, the original model's Activation even continues into the Chain Activated model, because that's step 4, and it's during Step 4 that you "go back to the start of Step C."

Yes, that's how I'd play it, there's no gap between activations. So if a Necrotic Machine's accomplice causes a Night Terror to discard a card, that movement occurs during the Necrotic Machine's activation. Then it proceeds to the Night Terror's activation.

16 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

1)  "At the end" wording already exists.  How does your interpretation of "after" differ from "At the end"?  Put another way, why even have "after" if it doesn't happen after the model has Activated.

Wyrd isn't always consistent with their wording. For example see the start of activation which has at least 4 different wordings IIRC.

But 'After' is one of the few defined game terms:

Quote

Most Abilities are passive and always in effect, but some occur as a result of another game effect. In these cases, the Ability will use the word “After.” These Abilities happen after the effect in question is resolved.

So I'd view it as the ability happening after the activation has resolved, but you still gotta do the rest of the stuff that happens as a result of the activation (similar to actions and step 6).

21 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

2)  How would you word an effect that happens after the completion of the model's Activation, but before the opponent gets to act?   

Generally I don't think this kind of ability is going to exist very often, but there are likely a few. These would happen at step A, B, or D of the activation phase. So if someone uses a pass token and that causes an effect, or Pandora causes shenanigans at step B, etc. Anything that happens outside of step C is outside of Activations.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Although regardless of position, this statement will always be true:

• You definitely can't use a 'once per activation' ability if you've already used it in this case.

If I'm right, then you can't because you've already used it this activation. If you're right, then you can't use it because it it outside an activation and you can't use it outside that activation.

[LeperColony]

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Wyrd isn't always consistent with their wording. For example see the start of activation which has at least 4 different wordings IIRC.

Start of Activation didn't have different wordings, as far as I could remember.  That example is actually pertinent here, because many of the people who thought SoA effects extended past the actual "start" of the Activation ignored the meaning of the word "start," and they conflated the Start of Activation timing step with the C1 subphase.

A subphase is a window in which effects occur.  C3 is the subphase in which activations end.  Anything "after" a model's activation ends happens after C3.

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Wyrd isn't always consistent with their wording

This is our fundamental difference.  I agree it is possible Wyrd was not always as precise with their wording as may be desired.  But I'm not willing to ignore the plain meaning of the word "after" based on the possibility that they meant "at" and just didn't write at.

Your conclusion entirely ignores the word "after," and so it makes it impossible to really discuss the issue with a common frame of reference.  Because at the most basic level, I think "after" has to mean the preceding thing has occurred, and you think Wyrd didn't mean to say what it said.

I don't in any way mean that summation to be flippant or reductive. Just that our positions, because of the nature of their construction, are not really resolvable through debate because their underlying assumptions are not in any way compatible.  

Ultimately, this is just going to be another one of those "we need a FAQ" questions.

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 hours ago, LeperColony said:

 But I'm not willing to ignore the plain meaning of the word "after" based on the possibility that they meant "at" and just didn't write at.

Your conclusion entirely ignores the word "after," and so it makes it impossible to really discuss the issue with a common frame of reference.  Because at the most basic level, I think "after" has to mean the preceding thing has occurred, and you think Wyrd didn't mean to say what it said.

... 

Ultimately, this is just going to be another one of those "we need a FAQ" questions.

Demise - 'after' the model is killed, but actually occurs before the model is killed and removed from the table.

Scamper - 'after' resolving the current action, but still happens during the action (for example can't take hazardous twice).

Etc.

After is defined on page 34, and just means that it happens at a specific time rather than being a static ability.

But yes, agree to disagree

[LeperColony]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Demise - 'after' the model is killed, but actually occurs before the model is killed and removed from the table.

Scamper - 'after' resolving the current action, but still happens during the action (for example can't take hazardous twice).

Etc.

I don't really understand why you think this is helpful to you.  "After" does not create some impenetrable black box.  All it does is identify a timing window which is subsequent to something else.  Then you perform whatever else it is telling you to do. 

Demise says after the model is killed.  Then you do something.  Just because there is a triggering event, it doesn't mean the resulting effect that change it. 

Scamper is not helpful to your cause because "after resolving" effects (not triggers, which happen at a different time) have a defined step in the action resolution sequence (C2f).  In fact, Scamper can be used to draw an inference (but not establish conclusively) that Wyrd did mean "after" instead of "at" for Al Por El, because if they wanted it to fall within the Activation, they could have used the unambiguously defined term that would keep us there. 

The "after" in A Por El is after the activation has ended.  So we are now in a state where the model's activation is complete.  Another model may then do something.  

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

After is defined on page 34, and just means that it happens at a specific time rather than being a static ability.

Yeah, exactly...  And in this case, the specific time is after Abuela has ended her Activation.

I mean, if I said to you, "after the movie ends, I'm going to dinner," would you believe I was eating dinner during the movie?  Of course not. 

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But yes, agree to disagree

Well, yes, but the reason is that your position is not one that can be subject to logical determination.  You've decided to interpret this as a consequence of Wyrd being sloppy with their wording, and that despite using "after" what you're doing is treating it as "at."  And so long as your position is based on an interpretation of Wyrd's actual intent, there's no frame of reference in which the matter can be resolved.

[Maniacal_cackle]

16 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Demise says after the model is killed.  Then you do something.  Just because there is a triggering event, it doesn't mean the resulting effect that change it. 

Demise (eternal) happens 'after' a model is killed, but then prevents the kill from ever actually happening. You can have a demise happen when the model didn't die at all. 

EDIT: To elaborate, so the only way the demise can happen is if it happens during the killing process, instead of 'after' the killing process. Which is all detailed on page 34.

16 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

I mean, if I said to you, "after the movie ends, I'm going to dinner," would you believe I was eating dinner during the movie?  Of course not. 

That's a plain English interpretation, not an interpretation based on how they typically use after. But if you want the movie analogy, if you said "I'm leaving the movie theater after the movie finshes" and then you leave when the credits are still rolling... Technically you left while the movie is still rolling, but we'd all agree you left 'after' the movie as well.

[LeperColony]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Demise (eternal) happens 'after' a model is killed, but then prevents the kill from ever actually happening. You can have a demise happen when the model didn't die at all. 

EDIT: To elaborate, so the only way the demise can happen is if it happens during the killing process, instead of 'after' the killing process. Which is all detailed on page 34.

The model has been killed.  After that happens, do something.  There's no conflict.  Also, the game has a designated timing step that covers "after killing" effects and effects that would Heal.  These only begin after an effect that would kill the model.  I'm at a loss as to why you think this is helpful to your interpretation.

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Technically you left while the movie is still rolling, but we'd all agree you left 'after' the movie as well.

So what your example does is change the duration of the event, not the meaning of after.  You're just saying that the way we define "movie" doesn't include the credits.  I don't know if there's any official definition of "movie."  But in the Malifaux example, there is a defintion of when activations end.  It's C3, subsequent to resolving any At the end effects.  Anything that then occurs later is, by definition, "after" the Activation.

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 9/4/2020 at 4:26 AM, LeperColony said:

The problem with your "after resolving" analogy is that "after resolving" is specifically included in the Action resolution sequence (C2f). 

Could you clarify why C2f is part of the action (f is part of 2), but C3/4 is not part of an activation (3/4 is not part of C)?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also note the FAQ specifically includes step 4 as part of the model's activation when answering a similar issue:

Quote

during a model’s Activation, i.e. Steps C.1 – C.4 of the Activation phase (pg. 21).

 

[LeperColony]

7 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Could you clarify why C2f is part of the action (f is part of 2), but C3/4 is not part of an activation (3/4 is not part of C)?

C3 is part of the model's activation.  I've said that already.  It's when you resolve effects that happen "at the end of the model's Activation."  So the model's activation is not complete until those are resolved, then "the model counts as having Activated this turn."

C4 is not part of the model's Activation, because it happens after the model has Activated.  It is, however, part of the player's Activation step.  The player's Activation step is a subphase (actually a collection of subphases) of the Activation Phase.  A model's Activation occurs during this Activation subphase, but it is not co-terminal with it, because there is an additional window for effects the player generates before passing play to the opponent.  This is C4.

Note however, even if you were to stretch C4 as part of the original model's Activation, all that would happen is "after this model ends its Activation" would get put after C4 rather than after C3 (where I currently think it belongs).  This is because no matter what step you assign as the "end" of the Activation, A Por El and similarly worded abilities happen after that point. 

Again, this is a natural, if not quite inevitable, implication from the word "after" in "after this model ends its Activation."

7 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Also note the FAQ specifically includes step 4 as part of the model's activation when answering a similar issue:

Actually, it says "a model's Activation," not "the model's Activation" as you're asserting.  This is because C4, "Chain Activation" covers Activating another model.  This makes C4 part of a model's Activation.

So, for instance, if a model with Accomplice were to activate in C4 within Levi's Ruinous Repairs ability, he would get to trigger it.

EDIT:  Not a good example, since that would happen in C1 of the new model's activation.  However, something like Reva's Spirit in the Flames is a possible example, or Misery, Following Orders or anything else like it.  Though in practice, I think very few (if any) Once Per Activation abilities are relevant in C4.

If another model chain activates, C4 is the first step in its Activation, essentially replacing step B.  The newly activated model now proceeds through the C steps until they are all completed.

Now, a complicating factor in all of this is, as @solkan mentioned in another thread, A Por El and similar abilities (like Strike Team) seem to happen in between C3 and C4.  Holes of these kinds in timing steps make me nervous, because it is unclear how you're supposed to apply effects that otherwise have reasonably well defined resolutions.

Unless these abilities count as a kind of Chain Activation, which would put them firmly in C4.   But I don't think they do, absent an errata.

To me, the cleanest way for Wyrd to resolve these is to either:

1)  Get rid of "after" and just use "at."  This would place them all in C3.  The downside to this is if Wyrd wants the actions taken from these abilities to be outside the original model's Activation, then removing "after" gets rid of the only timing mechanism they have to do so.

2)  Create a new step (which would be C4, making what is now C4 into C5) to handle "after" to clearly exclude the previously activated model, but not yet advance to Chain Activations.  Though an issue here is that this new C4 would be in a kind of Activation void, so Once per Activation effects wouldn't be usable unless the ruling that made the new step also provided for it.

3)  Rule the actions taken through these abilities count as, or are resolved in, Chain Activation's C4.  If Wyrd wants to exclude the original model's Activation from the new effect, this is probably the cleanest solution.  Since C4 is already defined as within the Once Per Activation window, those abilities would also apply (though it would be a little unclear as to whose activation it is.  Maybe nobody's, but the window itself permits the use of Once Pers).

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Note however, even if you were to stretch C4 as part of the original model's Activation, all that would happen is "after this model ends its Activation" would get put after C4 rather than after C3 (where I currently think it belongs).  This is because no matter what step you assign as the "end" of the Activation, A Por El and similarly worded abilities happen after that point. 

Again, this is a natural, if not quite inevitable, implication from the word "after" in "after this model ends its Activation."

Mind this go both ways, there are instances where "after something" is still included in the resolution of that, like the mentioned above after resolving for abilities or after killed for the damage timing. It's important to separate how english is used everyday and how it's used within the context of rules. Again I want to make clear that without further rules you may be right, however there is strong evidence towards the other reading too.

 

Also from a more practical/design point of view, making that extra action happens in that "ghost" step would have the following effects:

• No model could Concentrate (which also implies no Bravado)
• No Family Values trigger
• No Charges

Perdita isn't doing that well AFAIK and Guild has already a lot of strong OOK/Versatile picks, weakening her keyword synergies would be the last nail in the coffin for that keyword. Also for this I like more the action happening in abuela activation... on top of being consistent with other uses of "after something" (and not having to check how not being in an activation mess with each ability, action and trigger), it's not breaking anything in that keyword and promotes list divesity.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 hours ago, LeperColony said:

If another model chain activates, C4 is the first step in its Activation, essentially replacing step B.  The newly activated model now proceeds through the C steps until they are all completed.

How can C4 (of the previous model) be the first step of its activation? Its activation doesn't start until C1. Otherwise you'd have all the start of activation stuff happening here.

Additionally there's the timing order here:

Quote

The chosen model activates (it is now the Acting model) and follows the steps below.

The original model (Abuela in this case) follows steps 1-4, which implies to me that all four of those steps are part of her activation.