Multiple Insurance Aura's

[MortXII]

If two Explorer's Society models have the flush with cash upgrade and a third friendly model dies between both of their Insurance aura's to an enemy model. How many Soulstones is the controlling player meant to get?

For reference the Insurance rule reads;

 

Quote

Insurance: After another friendly model within 6 is killed by an enemy model, add a Soulstone to this Crew's Soulstone Pool.

 

The group I'm playing with are unsure which way to rule it due to a few rule examples we've found;

Pg 30 of the core says;

Quote

Auras are not cumulative. If a model would be affected by multiple Auras of the same name (i.e., if  the Aura would change its game state in some way), then it is only affected by one such Aura of its controller’s choice.

It then further goes onto elaborate below in the "In this Example" section;
 

Quote

Example: Bushwhackers have the Scamper Ability,which reads: “After an enemy model within 6 Cheats Fate, this model may Push up to 2" in any direction after resolving the current Action or Ability.”

If an enemy model Cheats Fate within 6" and LoS of multiple Bushwhackers, each such Bushwhacker could Push up to 2", as they are the models affected by the Aura (i.e., the models experiencing a change in their game state).

I think the answer lies in figuring out who is the affected model for how many stones should be generated? The current theories being either;

A: The Affected model is the model that is killed between the two aura's. Since Aura's do not stack one soulstone is obtained.

 - The main argument against this being, that the model that has been killed is the trigger for the Aura's effect and not the model experiencing a change in game state (As it has already experienced it's game state of being killed). Similar to the bushwacker example above. (The killed model being similar the model who cheated fate in the bushwacker example, not the bushwackers)

B: The Affected Model, is the model that has the Insurance aura. As such the model that has been killed changes the state of both models with the Insurance aura. Two soulstones are obtained.

- The counter argument for this being that Insurance does not state anything like "This Model", instead referencing "this Crew's Soulstone pool". So the only model we can determine to be affected by the aura is the model that has been killed.

I couldn't find any other similarly worded Aura's that could help resolve this sadly.
Thanks in advance!

[Azahul]

54 minutes ago, Varlkargus said:

I'm one of the associates of the OP involved in the initial discussion, and would just like to clarify why I think it would be just 1 soulstone.

Under Aura rules, it says the following

While most of the time, such as for the examples in the same section with Lynch and the Bushwhackers, the Aura is usually responsible for the change in game state the Aura rules don't say that the change in game state MUST be as a result of the Aura for a model to be affected. Certainly for some Auras the 'Change in Game State' is what activates the Aura, other Auras it is the result of the Aura and some are both.

So my stance comes from the understanding that the model "affected" is actually the dying model as that is the only model experiencing a change in game state and thus is the only model "affected" by the aura. Making this the model that the Aura cannot affect multiple times.

Further, the model with the attachment isn't getting the soulstones, rather its crew is which leads me to believe that the bearer of the Aura is not "affected' at all as its game state remains unchanged.

This does lead to further questions of what 'exactly' determines a "change in game state" (damage, healing, death and the like are a given but drawing cards, gaining soulstones, cheating? Are these 'changes in game state' or simply external forces that lead to changes, but are not themselves changes?) but perhaps that's a discussion for another time.

The rules are actually pretty clear on what they mean by a change in game state in that very paragraph:

 

 

The *Aura* has to be changing a model's game state in order for them to not stack. A model dying independently of the aura is not changing its game state. So in the OP's original question, the answer is B.

 

I like to think of Life Leech as the best way of remembering how this works. If a model activates in range of two Life Leech auras, the activating model only takes one damage. However both Life Leech models will heal.

 

Edit: It is worth noting that in the case of Insurance no model is actually being affected by the aura though, not even the model with the aura. My understanding is that it still stacks since you're not applying multiple auras to a single model.

[solkan]

Auras are not cumulative.  If two instances of an aura would do the same thing, only one of them does.

The rules are explicit about the fact that doing X to two different models is two different things, but the first sentence “Auras are not cumulative” still applies to everything.

You don’t have to struggle to find an “affected model” is there isn’t one.  “This crew’s soulstone pool” is what’s being affected by the aura, and the effects of the two auras isn’t cumulative on that thing.

 

[Azahul]

19 minutes ago, Varlkargus said:

Had I only done this prior but a quick google search shows the definition of 'Affect' is...

"have an effect on; make a difference to"

So for an Aura to affect something, it would need to be responsible for the change in game state directly as you pointed out. So I will say I was incorrect regarding the model being affected is the Dying model.

Still not entirely convinced that one would get 2 soulstones. Continuing with Life Leech the gaining of the soulstones seems closer to the dealing of the damage half (2 aura's affecting 1 'model') than it does the healing part (2 aura's affecting 2 'models') due to it saying "this models crew" rather than "this model". I'm inclined to agree with Solkan.

 

I think the argument with Insurance specifically is that a player or crew is not a model, so by necessity Insurance is an aura that affects no model at all. Which means it can stack freely.

[belorey]

1 hour ago, MortXII said:

I couldn't find any other similarly worded Aura's that could help resolve this sadly.
Thanks in advance!

You have the Chasing a Story abilitie from Journalist. If an enemie model resolves an Interact the Journalist gain Focus +1. So i would say the correct answer is B.

[fire5tone]

It would be B, you get 2 stones

[Varlkargus]

I'm one of the associates of the OP involved in the initial discussion, and would just like to clarify why I think it would be just 1 soulstone.

Under Aura rules, it says the following

Quote

The "Affected Model" in these instances is whatever model experiences some change in game state.

While most of the time, such as for the examples in the same section with Lynch and the Bushwhackers, the Aura is usually responsible for the change in game state the Aura rules don't say that the change in game state MUST be as a result of the Aura for a model to be affected. Certainly for some Auras the 'Change in Game State' is what activates the Aura, other Auras it is the result of the Aura and some are both.

So my stance comes from the understanding that the model "affected" is actually the dying model as that is the only model experiencing a change in game state and thus is the only model "affected" by the aura. Making this the model that the Aura cannot affect multiple times.

Further, the model with the attachment isn't getting the soulstones, rather its crew is which leads me to believe that the bearer of the Aura is not "affected' at all as its game state remains unchanged.

This does lead to further questions of what 'exactly' determines a "change in game state" (damage, healing, death and the like are a given but drawing cards, gaining soulstones, cheating? Are these 'changes in game state' or simply external forces that lead to changes, but are not themselves changes?) but perhaps that's a discussion for another time.

[Varlkargus]

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

The rules are actually pretty clear on what they mean by a change in game state in that very paragraph:

 

 

The *Aura* has to be changing a model's game state in order for them to not stack. A model dying independently of the aura is not changing its game state. So in the OP's original question, the answer is B.

 

I like to think of Life Leech as the best way of remembering how this works. If a model activates in range of two Life Leech auras, the activating model only takes one damage. However both Life Leech models will heal.

 

Edit: It is worth noting that in the case of Insurance no model is actually being affected by the aura though, not even the model with the aura. My understanding is that it still stacks since you're not applying multiple auras to a single model.

Had I only done this prior but a quick google search shows the definition of 'Affect' is...

"have an effect on; make a difference to"

So for an Aura to affect something, it would need to be responsible for the change in game state directly as you pointed out. So I will say I was incorrect regarding the model being affected is the Dying model.

Still not entirely convinced that one would get 2 soulstones. Continuing with Life Leech the gaining of the soulstones seems closer to the dealing of the damage half (2 aura's affecting 1 'model') than it does the healing part (2 aura's affecting 2 'models') due to it saying "this models crew" rather than "this model". I'm inclined to agree with Solkan.

8 hours ago, solkan said:

“This crew’s soulstone pool” is what’s being affected by the aura, and the effects of the two auras isn’t cumulative on that thing.

 

 

[fire5tone]

"...if a model would be affected by multiple auras of the same name..."

 

Regardless of the definition of affect it still needs to affect a *model* specifically, which your soulstone cache isn't, it's not affecting the dead (or dying) model, nor even the insurance model, so you get 2 just like the scamper example

[Adran]

4 hours ago, Azahul said:

I think the argument with Insurance specifically is that a player or crew is not a model, so by necessity Insurance is an aura that affects no model at all. Which means it can stack freely.

Doesn't that directly contradict the sentence" Auras are not cumulative."

If you are stacking its effect then it is being cumulative.

Yes all the explanation later talks about models, but I would have thought that the majority of confusion would be on auras that affect models, and it needs the explanation to show why multiple scamper can occur. ( which is an example to demonstrate multiple auras can be "triggered" off the same event as long as the auras each do something different, in that case they each move a different model, so they are not cumulative, so not like insurance at all. )

[Azahul]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Doesn't that directly contradict the sentence" Auras are not cumulative."

If you are stacking its effect then it is being cumulative.

Yes all the explanation later talks about models, but I would have thought that the majority of confusion would be on auras that affect models, and it needs the explanation to show why multiple scamper can occur. ( which is an example to demonstrate multiple auras can be "triggered" off the same event as long as the auras each do something different, in that case they each move a different model, so they are not cumulative, so not like insurance at all. )

The explanation for why multiple models can Scamper would also apply to multiple Insurance effects going off, wouldn't it? The effect of two Insurance auras is two separate instances of "Add one stone to the cache" being triggered by the same in-game moment. They aren't stacking because they're resolving independently and the game's own definition of what constitutes auras being cumulative relies on a model. Otherwise logically wouldn't you only get one Scamper?

[Adran]

20 minutes ago, Azahul said:

The explanation for why multiple models can Scamper would also apply to multiple Insurance effects going off, wouldn't it? The effect of two Insurance auras is two separate instances of "Add one stone to the cache" being triggered by the same in-game moment. They aren't stacking because they're resolving independently and the game's own definition of what constitutes auras being cumulative relies on a model. Otherwise logically wouldn't you only get one Scamper?

I don't think that your logic works, you are arguing that "aura A add a soul stone" and "aura B add a soul stone" are different effects when the scamper example just tells us that "aura A move model A" and " aura B move model B" are different effects because they affect different models. 

I'm not convinced by the argument that auras are not cumulative only applies to auras that affect models

 

[Azahul]

12 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't think that your logic works, you are arguing that "aura A add a soul stone" and "aura B add a soul stone" are different effects when the scamper example just tells us that "aura A move model A" and " aura B move model B" are different effects because they affect different models. 

I'm not convinced by the argument that auras are not cumulative only applies to auras that affect models

 

Because the definition we are given for cumulative specifically calls out models.

 

You could argue if we assume that definition only applies to models then Insurance will only ever add one Soulstone to a cache across an entire game. That would meet the strict dictionary definition of a cumulative effect if that's what we're going off.

 

And hey, maybe that is the design intent. Soulstone Cache and Flush With Cash do only cost 2 stones. Maybe you are only ever meant to get 1 stone from them.

[Azahul]

Also, the sentence "Auras are not cumulative" doesn't appear in isolation. Not only is the paragraph that follows discussing how this relates to models specifically, but so is the paragraph beforehand. That line about Auras not being cumulative appears in the middle of text discussing the interactions between auras and models, not at the start. It seems very strange to me to treat it as an isolated sentence out of context with the very part of the rules it is in. 

Just add in the bit immediately preceding the line about Auras not being cumulative and you get:

All models inside the Aura's area, including what is generating the aura, are affected by the aura as long as they stay inside the area and remain in LOS of the generating object. The "affected model" in these instances is whatever model experiences some change in game state.

Auras are not cumulative. If a model would be affected by multiple auras of the same name (i.e. if the Aura would change its game state in some way) then it is only affected by one Aura of its controller's choice.

 

Taken in context surely it's all part of this one big discussion on how auras affect models? The whole section flows as one topic without lifting that one sentence out and giving it an isolated interpretation. 

[santaclaws01]

Azahul has the right of it. "Auras are not cumulative" is vague to the point of uselessness when you take it out of the wider context the sentence exists in. In context it is perfectly clear that it is still referring to how auras affect models.

[regleant]

Insurance: After another friendly model within 6 is killed by an enemy model, add a Soulstone to this Crew's Soulstone Pool.

 

I agree with this generating 2 Soulstones, because each model with the ability generates an independent stone. If the wording were based on the dead model, e.g.:

• After another enemy model within 6 is killed by an friendly model, add a Soulstone to this Crew's Soulstone Pool.

Then I believe it would only add 1. This is similar to Pandora's Auras.

[Butch]

B

Not the killed model is affected but the models with the Insurence aura.

[Morgan Vening]

Really hope next Edition (or even this, if they're willing to Errata a couple cards), they go with *, or something.

"Auras don't stack unless they're marked with an asterisk (*)."

While I get that the rules do cover how they work, the fact that this thread is approaching a full page, and the question comes up frequently enough that it's clear that it's unclear unless you're incredibly precise at rules interpretation (such as what is and isn't "a change of game state").

Trying to explain to someone who is new to the game, or not wanting to get deep into the weeds, why Scamper (and apparently this) are exceptions to a simplistic reading of the rules, rather than just allowing some defined Auras to stack, and the rest don't, is one of those things that is way more confusing than it needs to be.

I get some people like the minutia of how rules work (like getting the most out of M1E yoyo Dreamer), but when a casual player's response to a rule is "Wait, what? How, huh? That's stupid.", maybe it needs to be rethought.