Revelation after Accomplice

[Rex4r]

Had next situation:

1. Mouse (or any other model with Accomplice) start Activation.
2. Mouse do something.
3. Mouse end Activation and use accomplice to activate Mechanical Rider via Chain Activation.
4. Mechanical Rider start Activation.
5. Mechanical Rider do something.
6. Mechanical Rider use Revelation on third model.
7. Mechanical Rider end Activation.

Question: is it possible to activate the third model through Chain Activation from Revelation or not?

[Adran]

No you can't activate a 3rd model via chain activation. So if You have activated the mech rider as a chain activation then you can't get any effect out of revelation. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I'm not sure, but I would default to the chain rules (aka, no you cannot activate a third model).

Which would leave the question as to what happens to the second activation. I would assume so, since it gives you the second activation as one effect, and then requires that one of its activations must be immediately after the rider as a second effect I think?

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I'm not sure, but I would default to the chain rules (aka, no you cannot activate a third model).

Which would leave the question as to what happens to the second activation. I would assume so, since it gives you the second activation as one effect, and then requires that one of its activations must be immediately after the rider as a second effect I think?

Second sentence is a qualifier on the first sentence.  If the first sentence does nothing, then the second can’t do anything, either.  Especially when it’s trying to impose an impossible qualifier.

Edit:  Let me rephrase that.  The second sentence is qualifying the first sentence (that’s the only way to get non-gibberish out of “One of which...”).  It’s what makes the effect of the first sentence become impossible.

Just like it had been written more clearly as ”The target model can activate a second time, but one of its activations must be a chain activation”.  The end result is nothing if the rules prohibit the chain activation continuing.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 minutes ago, solkan said:

Second sentence is a qualifier on the first sentence.  If the first sentence does nothing, then the second can’t do anything, either.  Especially when it’s trying to impose an impossible qualifier.

 

I'd be pretty content with that ruling, but worth noting the qualifier can apply to either activation (first or second), but the first sentence just creates a second activation. So they don't have to be linked, but I can't think of any other comparable rule. Chain gang comes close but is different.

I don't really know of any other clear-cut examples of two separate sentences that are dependent on each other, but I'm sure there must be some. Originally I thought Bete Noire's was one of them.

[solkan]

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I'd be pretty content with that ruling, but worth noting the qualifier can apply to either activation (first or second), but the first sentence just creates a second activation. So they don't have to be linked, but I can't think of any other comparable rule. Chain gang comes close but is different.

The first sentence does create two activations (or rather, it creates the permission for two, because they were trying to cover both the cases of “the target hasn’t already activated yet this turn” and “the target has already activated this turn”.  The second sentence says “Oh, but you have to use one of those activations right now.”  

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I don't really know of any other clear-cut examples of two separate sentences that are dependent on each other, but I'm sure there must be some. Originally I thought Bete Noire's was one of them.

There’s probably some summoning related stuff, where stuff applies back a sentence or two.

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

The model chain activating after Mechanical Rider in the situation can’t occur, and in doing so makes it so that you would ignore the second effect of Revelation because it cannot be resolved.

It is exactly like Bete in my mind, all effects of an action don’t fail if one cannot occur. If there has been two chain reactions, Revelation just becomes “chosen model may activate a second time”.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

The model chain activating after Mechanical Rider in the situation can’t occur, and in doing so makes it so that you would ignore the second effect of Revelation because it cannot be resolved.

It is exactly like Bete in my mind, all effects of an action don’t fail if one cannot occur. If there has been two chain reactions, Revelation just becomes “chosen model may activate a second time”.

Sorry this sounds completely wrong. This isn't creating 2 effects it's one effect with extra rules. If you can't follow those rules then you can't do the effect.

Otherwise it's like saying I can ignore the section on the interact rule that says I can't drop a marker within4" of another because then I couldn't do it. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Sorry this sounds completely wrong. This isn't creating 2 effects it's one effect with extra rules. If you can't follow those rules then you can't do the effect.

Otherwise it's like saying I can ignore the section on the interact rule that says I can't drop a marker within4" of another because then I couldn't do it. 

Is it? I think it is creating an effect, and then a time-delayed thing you have to do.

Let's compare it to False Claim. With False Claim, you make two scheme markers but MUST remove a scheme marker later on.

If you fail to meet the requirement later on, you still get the original effect.

This creates an effect (get an extra activation) and then gives a time-delayed thing you have to do (you must use one of your activations immediately after this one).

Both interpretations make sense to me, so to me it is a TO's call thing (or a discuss with opponent thing...)

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

Sorry this sounds completely wrong. This isn't creating 2 effects it's one effect with extra rules. If you can't follow those rules then you can't do the effect.

Otherwise it's like saying I can ignore the section on the interact rule that says I can't drop a marker within4" of another because then I couldn't do it. 

For Interact, the ‘drop a scheme marker in base contact and not within 4” of a friendly scheme marker’ as a whole is a distinct impact, so you would ignore the whole effect not just the portion which prevents the effect.

@Maniacal_cackle voiced exactly why I think Revelation has two distinct impacts.

 

 

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Let's compare it to False Claim. With False Claim, you make two scheme markers but MUST remove a scheme marker later on.

There's no must in false claim. You just do A, then you do B later. Revelation is imposing a restriction on how the chosen model is allowed to get a 2nd activation, it's not just a 2nd effect.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

There's no must in false claim. You just do A, then you do B later. Revelation is imposing a restriction on how the chosen model is allowed to get a 2nd activation, it's not just a 2nd effect.

 

But the restriction can apply to the first activation, so the restriction can be entirely independent of the second activaiton.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

 

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But the restriction can apply to the first activation, so the restriction can be entirely independent of the second activation .

To go further, if you attempt to use the first activation to chain activate but can’t because of the chain activation rules, does the model count as having activated? Just doesn’t make sense that you’d count a model as activating if it couldn’t activate.

[santaclaws01]

9 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But the restriction can apply to the first activation, so the restriction can be entirely independent of the second activaiton.

I mean to have a 2nd activation. Not that the 2nd activation is the one that needs to be the chain.

[Adran]

On 9/3/2021 at 10:18 PM, Maniacal_cackle said:

Is it? I think it is creating an effect, and then a time-delayed thing you have to do.

Let's compare it to False Claim. With False Claim, you make two scheme markers but MUST remove a scheme marker later on.

If you fail to meet the requirement later on, you still get the original effect.

This creates an effect (get an extra activation) and then gives a time-delayed thing you have to do (you must use one of your activations immediately after this one).

Both interpretations make sense to me, so to me it is a TO's call thing (or a discuss with opponent thing...)

As said, there is no MUST in false claim. You don't even need to remove one of the markers created by the false claim.  It does create 2 effects, one of which is dropping 2 markers. One of which is removing a friendly scheme marker from play.

Its possible that you can do one part without doing the other. If, for some reason, you couldn't drop markers within 3" you would still have to remove one at the end of turn.

So False claim is not a very good ability to compare it to because it bares no relation to revalation. 

 

Lets see if we can see a better example

Elemental Vision:Enemy only.Look at the top X cards of this model's Fate Deck, where X is equal to the number of friendly Elemental models within LoS. Place the cards back on the Fate Deck in any order, then draw a card.

This is an effect that it tied across more than 1 sentence. the first sentence tells you what cards to look at and the second sentence is clearly refereng to those cards from the first sentence. But the second sentence will happen even if the x is 0 so you look at 0 cards. (where as if it was worded place one of the cards in your hand and the rest back on the top of the fate deck in any order, it would be identical for ever instance except the one where you draw 0 cards)

 

Its not a great example, but I would say its more relevant that False claim. (Likewise my interact wasn't a great example, but it was still more relevant).

Ultimately, to me it comes down to the view that MUST is not a "do if you can", its a "this has to happen". If the ability says one of the activations must be a chain activation following this activation, then if you can't do a chain activation following this model, you can't just take a second activation when you like. 

Revelation doesn't create 2 effects. It creates 1 effect. That effect is allowing a model to take a second activation. It also puts a limit on the models activations, that one has to happen directly following this activation. Prior to the errata it was clear that this was how it worked, but it had the added extra downside that you had to have already activated. In the errata I believe that they tried to remove this restriction, but still with the same intent on activation numbers of the crew doesn't change. (The errata also did other things that aren't relevant here)

On 9/4/2021 at 3:40 AM, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

To go further, if you attempt to use the first activation to chain activate but can’t because of the chain activation rules, does the model count as having activated? Just doesn’t make sense that you’d count a model as activating if it couldn’t activate.

If I was writing the rules I would make it an illegal action to perform if you can't chain activate (although I know that this wouldn't really be practical), to try and avoid this sort of awkward question. It isn't really answered, because its the player entering an impossible situation entirely through choice. There is (to my mind) no advantage in declaring Revelation if you can't take the second activation, so there is no reason to do so, and so the question should never arise. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Hmmm.. that's quite the rabbit hole with the Elemental Vision, partially as there's nothing in the game that could prevent the first part, so the second part being dependent is a lot harder to tinker with.

But two points to raise.

1. Requirements are generally in italics. The effects are in regular text.

2...

Quote

The model performs the Action’s effects, as stated on the card, in the order they are listed. If any of an Action’s effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored.

So order they are listed, you would create a second activation, then create a requirement that the next activation be an immediate activation from the benefiting model. But you get to ignore that part because it cannot be resolved.

That said, I suspect everyone here already knew the above two rules, so it just comes down to whether you consider it two effects or one effect with an extra requirement.

[Adran]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Hmmm.. that's quite the rabbit hole with the Elemental Vision, partially as there's nothing in the game that could prevent the first part, so the second part being dependent is a lot harder to tinker with.

But two points to raise.

1. Requirements are generally in italics. The effects are in regular text.

 

Costs or special restrictions are in italics. Requirements for the action are generally written in the action. (Such as onslaught being the same action, pouncing strike targetting a different model, and even ambush not being engaged although that's quite a special case)

(I know it was a bit of a rabbit hole, but there is nothing in the game (other than the rules) that stops a model taking a second activation either. And it was the first action I found that was similar

Try this one, its a different rabbit hole, but also loosely connected to the same burrow

Negation Aura - Until the End Phase, enemy models within range must each discard a card to Cheat Fate. 

If I can cheat from the top of my deck can I even if I have no cards in hand? I would say no because I must discard a card to cheat fate, so the fact I can't discard a card means I can't cheat fate)

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

4 minutes ago, Adran said:

Costs or special restrictions are in italics. Requirements for the action are generally written in the action. (Such as onslaught being the same action, pouncing strike targetting a different model, and even ambush not being engaged although that's quite a special case)

(I know it was a bit of a rabbit hole, but there is nothing in the game (other than the rules) that stops a model taking a second activation either. And it was the first action I found that was similar

Try this one, its a different rabbit hole, but also loosely connected to the same burrow

Negation Aura - Until the End Phase, enemy models within range must each discard a card to Cheat Fate. 

If I can cheat from the top of my deck can I even if I have no cards in hand? I would say no because I must discard a card to cheat fate, so the fact I can't discard a card means I can't cheat fate)

 

That example doesn't have a timing issue, so I might say it is more like a Pine Box:

The target MUST attempt a TN 13 duel, but the bury happens whether or not the duel is attempted (for instance, if the model is killed before it activates).

But that comparison has other issues.

I don't think there'll be a perfect comparison in the rules, since it is quite a niche situation.