"!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.

[LeperColony]

8 hours ago, Ogid said:

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.

The problem with this claim is that all those other instances already fall into defined timing sequences.  In fact, this only strengthens my position, because unlike "after resolving" or "after killing," which Wyrd did explicitly place into timing steps, "after this model ends its Activation" is not placed into one of the defined timing steps.  You've both brought up these other instances of "after" as though you think it helps your case.  Then, when I demonstrate the clear distinction, neither of you address it.

The failure to treat this instance of "after" in the same pre-defined way as "after killing" or "after resolving" indicates, though certainly does not prove, that Wyrd did intend "after" in the English sense of being subsequent to another event.  In this case, the end of the model's Activation.  However, what is admittedly unclear is whether Wyrd intended the word "Activation" to be the entire sequence of the model's Activation (and so extend past C4, if C4 is part of the model's Activation), or if they want "Activation" to mean up to the point where the model counts as having been Activated.     

This is one area where the FAQ muddies the waters.  Since they treat a model as having been "unactivated" (for instance, for Manipulative) up until C3, I have no clue whether they mean for C3 to simply turn off any abilities that require the model to be unactivated, or if they mean C3 to be the end of the model's Activation.  It is entirely possible for a model's Activation to be longer than the period the model goes from unactivated to Activated.  However, no matter where you put the end point of the Activation, "after this model ends its Activation" must come after it.

Also, while I don't know exactly what the logical foundation of your position is, @Maniacal_cackle has stated he believes this issue is due to Wyrd being sloppy with wording, so the choice of "after" does not really have the significance to which I am attaching.  To be clear, this could certainly be true.  But it's a claim that I can't really evaluate.  So absent some indication that Wyrd really was just imprecise, I have to look at what the implications of "after" are, since Wyrd could have used "at" if they wanted it to work the way you guys assert.

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

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.

C4 can be part of the model's Activation because that's the phase in which the model is Activating.  Then you move on to C1 and resolve any "At the start" effects.

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

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.

So this language is good for you, because it does support the idea that C4 is in the original model's Activation.  However, again, even if C4 is part of the original model's activation, all that does is push any "after this model ends its Activation" to after C4 since "after" the Activation must come, by definition, subsequent to whatever is the last thing in the model's Activation.

To get the timing you want, Wyrd would need to define "after this model ends its Activation" to mean "after this model becomes/counts as Activated."  This would make these effects happen after C3, but within the model's Activation, if the model's Activation extends to C4 (though even in this case, it's not clear what step these abilities would happen in, so it would still have the phase hole problem that could make Once per Activation's arguable).  It is entirely possible that Wyrd intends this timing to exist.  But currently there is no mechanical framework that establishes it.

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Also, while I don't know exactly what the logical foundation of your position is

Basically, it seems to me the 'cleanest' resolution to all this is to treat step 3 as 'do all the stuff for the end of the activation":

• If a model uses the Lie Down and Nap trigger to end its activation, its activation isn't suddenly over - it still has to go through all the stuff at step 3 (such as losing staggered).
• If a Shieldbearer used Plant the Shield, this generates an effect in Step 3 to gain staggered (which resolves last, as per its wording, after resolving things like removing staggered for end of activation).
• If a model generates an action like Abuela, it is generated here (although has to resolve after everything else resolves as per the action rules, etc).

Step 3 seems like the clearest step for anything to do with the end of an activation (and is labelled End Activation, so it seems very unlikely that these actions happen after step 4).

[Ogid]

13 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Also, while I don't know exactly what the logical foundation of your position is,

Mainly experience, it's not my first rodeo XD. I'll try to elaborate:

• Rules coherency/consistency: Usually rulesets tend to use the same logic for simmilar scenarios. In this game "after X" is generaly resolved after the fact, but in a cleaning step still part of that timing/sequence. So I think a non-defined "after X" has a high chance be intended to work like that (in this case still in the turn, but after the acting model is done)
• Ghost steps generates problems: In general games tend to try to follow an structure and rules are writen to use that structure as an "scaffolding", things breaking that structure may generate unintended rules interactions and in general that tends to be avoided. In this case resolving in step C3 instead of in a strange nobody's turn step generates less problems rules-wise and keep things in the structure. So for me C3 makes more sense.
• Keyword coherence: Sometimes developers introduce anti-synergies to keep powerful things in check; but in general keyword models tend to work well with each other. The extra action forbiding both concentrate (which has extra rules for this keyword) and the Family Values triggers seems like a very unlikely choice.

This could be ruled both ways tho, but for the above reasons the extra action still happening in abuela's activation is the one that I think that has more chances to be the one. And as I don't play Family but some friends do there is also this:

• Gaming ettiquete: If an interaction might go 2 ways, both seems likely and neither breaks the game; then it's generally better to let the other player use the better reading of that rule until it gets FAQed/clarified. In this case, Perdita keyword is far from broken and keeping that extra action in an activation let her crew take more actions and triggers, so that's fine by me.

I don't see myself telling a Perdita player he can't concentrate or charge during the extra action for some obscure technical reason... I'd get labeled as a huge rules lawyer and would have nobody to play with. Nah, they can have their charges.

[touchdown]

If A Por El! takes place in a nebulous time after one model's activation and not during the next model's, wouldn't that mean you can use one per activation abilities since there's not activation to be per?

[Ogid]

3 hours ago, touchdown said:

If A Por El! takes place in a nebulous time after one model's activation and not during the next model's, wouldn't that mean you can use one per activation abilities since there's not activation to be per?

That was ruled in the FAQ, once per activation doesn't work outside C1-C4.

Quote

12. Can Once per Activation effects occur outside an Activation, such as during the Start or End Phases?

a) No. Effects that are restricted to Once per Activation can only be used during a model’s Activation, i.e. Steps C.1 – C.4 of the Activation phase (pg. 21).

[LeperColony]

10 hours ago, Ogid said:

Rules coherency/consistency: Usually rulesets tend to use the same logic for simmilar scenarios. In this game "after X" is generaly resolved after the fact, but in a cleaning step still part of that timing/sequence. So I think a non-defined "after X" has a high chance be intended to work like that (in this case still in the turn, but after the acting model is done)

The very fact that Wyrd didn't make it work like some (we'll get to that below) of the other "after" is in fact a good indication they don't want it to operate in the same manner.

But also, "after X" is not at all just stuck in cleaning steps.  In fact, Wyrd uses this language quite a bit to refer to the period subsequent to a defined event.  Terrifying is "after."  Take the Hit is "after."  Trump Cards is "after."  Protected is "after."  Primal Domain is "after."  Etc.  There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of "afters" where the clear intent is to identify a timing window subsequent to a specific event.  In all of these, you'd use "after' in the commonly understood manner.  It's just here that you're trying to change what "after" means (or rather, you're trying to give it a specific meaning that other uses explicitly have defined, but this use was not).

10 hours ago, Ogid said:

I don't see myself telling a Perdita player he can't concentrate or charge during the extra action for some obscure technical reason... I'd get labeled as a huge rules lawyer and would have nobody to play with. Nah, they can have their charges.

The issue with this is that there are interactions that seem odd in the game, because this is a game of corner cases.  Telling someone they can't give Colette Blight when she activates and pops up into his aura because it's not the "start of Activation" doesn't feel great.  Telling someone they can't target the scheme marker behind the wall because the sight lines are technically blocked regardless of the model's height doesn't feel great.  Ricochet onto the original target feels bad.  However you use Scamper, there's feel bad potential.

Malifaux's rules, like most games with this degree of complexity, resolve easily and intuitively in the vast majority of cases.  But there are going to be some specific examples where that isn't true.

Now, actually at the table, I'm likely to agree with you.  That's why my argument is about how I think the rules resolve as written.  How I'd like them to work, or even how I play them at the table, are not the same thing.  If we don't discuss RAW on the rules forum, I don't think we're helping Wyrd highlight issues as well as we could.

None of my positions in these rules forums discussions are based on how I want it to be resolved.  When I read the first posts here, it was simply asserted that A Por El was in Abuela's Activation.  I pointed out reasons why I think that's not necessarily true, RAW.  But I'm not advocating for how it "should" work.  

18 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Basically, it seems to me the 'cleanest' resolution to all this is to treat step 3 as 'do all the stuff for the end of the activation":

I think it really depends on what Wyrd's goal is with these kinds of abilities.  If they want them to be subject to effects that key off the original model's Activation, then yes, making them work in C3 is probably the best way to do it.

If they want them to be part of an Activation, but not the original model's Activation, then divorcing C4 from the original model's Activation and making these abilities count as a kind of Chain Activation could work.

If they want them not to be part of any Activation, then they may need to make a new subphase that is excluded from any model's Activation.

I'll be honest, I don't really have any clue what Wyrd's intent with these abilities are.  

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

The issue with this is that there are interactions that seem odd in the game, because this is a game of corner cases.  Telling someone they can't give Colette Blight when she activates and pops up into his aura because it's not the "start of Activation" doesn't feel great.  Telling someone they can't target the scheme marker behind the wall because the sight lines are technically blocked regardless of the model's height doesn't feel great.  Ricochet onto the original target feels bad.  However you use Scamper, there's feel bad potential.

For me, there is a difference between something that is 100% clear and other things that may have different reading; in the case of someone that missunderstood a rule or interaction, I have no problem in stopping the game to go through it; but in a case like this where there are different possibilities not 100% supported by the rules it's more tricky.

In that case I'd use the above "gaming ettiquete" code. If my Perdita oponent really believes in the ghost step and insist in handicapping himself, he can be my guest; but for me, he can use the other reading of the rule (which I also think is the right one; but I'd be in this boat even if I were 50/50)

The ricochet case is a different history tho, that seems like a big overlook breaking the game a bit. In this case I do recommend people to consider that FAQ to apply to Nekima only and keep reading another like before (it's in the NVB part of the FAQ after all); and also TOs making a rule for their tournaments, but RAW is 100% legal to Ricochet/My loyal servant into the same target 

Ouch! The scamper one is a low blow XD.

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

Now, actually at the table, I'm likely to agree with you.  That's why my argument is about how I think the rules resolve as written.  How I'd like them to work, or even how I play them at the table, are not the same thing.  If we don't discuss RAW on the rules forum, I don't think we're helping Wyrd highlight issues as well as we could.

None of my positions in these rules forums discussions are based on how I want it to be resolved.  When I read the first posts here, it was simply asserted that A Por El was in Abuela's Activation.  I pointed out reasons why I think that's not necessarily true, RAW.  But I'm not advocating for how it "should" work. 

I agree with you here, I'm actually explaining which is the reading of this rule that I think is the intended/better for the game; but I'm also saying that this rule isn't clear so Wyrd FAQ team can take note and update this for GG2 however they think is better.

I do agree with you that going full RAW it creates a weird case for the unclear timming. For example, in case there is a chained activation... what happens? Does the action happens in a ghost step between C3 and C4 not considered part of any model activation? Does the chain activating model does his thing and then is when the Ghost step action happens? Going full RAW without applying some common sense creates problems.

Playing the devil's advocate and bringing those issues up is good to prove there is something to fix, but trying to apply that same logic in the table is another history.

[touchdown]

I just noticed I wrong can instead of can't