Ungentalmanly Affairs, Luck Thief, and Runic Siphon

[TheUnseemlyOne]

Ungentalmanly Affairs on English Ivan allows certain to be treated as if they were .

Luck Thief makes an enemy treat all as  in an opposed duel.

Ivans Runic Siphon allows him to remove a to add a to his duel totals. 
 

So my question here is about timing.  Both Ungentalmanly Affairs and Luck Thief happen at the same timing step, making Ungentalmanly Affairs happen first and Luck Thief changing those to . If Runic Siphon removing a to add a happens during the same timing step as Ungentalmanly Affairs and Luck Thief, it should resolve before Luck Thief as the attacker does their modifying first.

Is this assessment correct?  If not, when does Runic Siphon modify the duel, and why would it not happen in the same step?

[santaclaws01]

Runic Siphon happens after fate modifiers have been determined, because you need to know if you have any positives to the duel before you can spend them.

[TheUnseemlyOne]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Runic Siphon happens after fate modifiers have been determined, because you need to know if you have any positives to the duel before you can spend them.

Yes, but not all modifiers happen at the same time.  The detailed timing chart on pg 35 says “Modify the Duel with Soulstones, Abilities, or other game effects (Attacking model first).”

The timing for simultaneous effects allows the model to resolve effects in whatever order the model choosers  

So if Ungentalmanly Affairs and Runic Siphon both modify the duel for the attacker, why wouldn’t/couldn’t the order be Ungentalmanly Affairs, Runic Siphon, and then Luck Thief?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

Runic Siphon resolves during step A, same as Ungentlemanly Affairs and Luck Thief. Your order of resolution is correct-ish. Ungentlemanly affairs would resolve first, which would trigger both Runic Siphon and Luck Thief to resolve as simultaneous effects prior to Step B (both require a model to have a positive twist). Ivan, as the attacker, would resolve Runic Siphon first and Luck Thief would then fail to resolve.

[TheUnseemlyOne]

8 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Runic Siphon resolves during step A, same as Ungentlemanly Affairs and Luck Thief. Your order of resolution is correct-ish. Ungentlemanly affairs would resolve first, which would trigger both Runic Siphon and Luck Thief to resolve as simultaneous effects prior to Step B (both require a model to have a positive twist). Ivan, as the attacker, would resolve Runic Siphon first and Luck Thief would then fail to resolve.

Thanks. That was my thinking as well. I left Luck Thief in the timing list because it’d still happen if there were any left after modifying with Runic Siphon, but it’s obviously moot if you remove the only one. 

[Adran]

6 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Runic Siphon resolves during step A, same as Ungentlemanly Affairs and Luck Thief. Your order of resolution is correct-ish. Ungentlemanly affairs would resolve first, which would trigger both Runic Siphon and Luck Thief to resolve as simultaneous effects prior to Step B (both require a model to have a positive twist). Ivan, as the attacker, would resolve Runic Siphon first and Luck Thief would then fail to resolve.

I don't think this agrees with the FAQ answer, which prevents you using focus to cancel out negatives. ( section12 q2). 

I don't think that the timing of runic siphon is the same as luck thief ( at least based on the faq) and I would assume that it basically says that there is never a time when facing a luck thief that you can count as having a to use. 

 

Edit-to clarify, I don't think if Ivan used focus against a serene countenance model he could use the from the focus for a before it was cancelled by the . And the faq already tells us that luck thief is even faster, switching the before things cancel. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Adran

[solkan]

For reference, the Luck Thief FAQ:

Quote

Gwyneth Maddox – Does the Luck Thief Ability apply before or after  and  modifiers cancel each other out?
a) Before. Modifiers to a duel (such as from Focused, Concealment, etc.) are generated during Step A of performing duels

(pg. 10). Luck Thief immediately applies to any  modifier generated changing it to a  modifier. Then, the duel proceeds to Step B, at which point  and  modifiers would normally cancel each other out.

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

I don't think this agrees with the FAQ answer, which prevents you using focus to cancel out negatives. ( section12 q2). 

I don't think that the timing of runic siphon is the same as luck thief ( at least based on the faq) and I would assume that it basically says that there is never a time when facing a luck thief that you can count as having a to use. 

 

Edit-to clarify, I don't think if Ivan used focus against a serene countenance model he could use the from the focus for a before it was cancelled by the . And the faq already tells us that luck thief is even faster, switching the before things cancel. 

I guess my disagreement is that I don’t see any reason why Runic Siphon would happen in step B and not step A. Runic Siphon changing a to a , like spending a stone or using Focus is making a choice to modify and makes the most sense to happen in step A.

The and canceling each other out in step B seems to be incidental cleanup.

Is there any rules justification to not treat Runic Siphon as modifying the duel in the same timing as using Focus or a Soulstone?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

Edit-to clarify, I don't think if Ivan used focus against a serene countenance model he could use the from the focus for a before it was cancelled by the . And the faq already tells us that luck thief is even faster, switching the before things cancel. 

I would say Serene Countenance cancels Runic Siphon because it is slower. Focused and Serene would generate at the start of Step A. Runic Siphon is generated as a sequential effect after the is gained, and therefor resolved after Serene.

Luck Thief is not a trigger, so the “immediately” shouldn’t be treated as the trigger related game term. The FAQ is simply specifying that Luck Thief resolves in Step A after every gained. Sequential and Simultaneous effects should still apply to it since Luck Thief is still an effect. Using the same sequence above: Focus would generate and cause Ivan to gain a . Then Luck Thief and Runic Siphon would generate as simultaneous effects, Ivan as the attacker would get to resolve Runic Siphon first. Luck Thief would trigger on any additional gained but Runic would not since the effect is singular. 

Luck Thief resolving outside the bounds of sequential/simultaneous effects before Runic Siphon would require a more detailed timing chart for Step A imo. 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

26 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I would say Serene Countenance cancels Runic Siphon because it is slower. Focused and Serene would generate at the start of Step A. Runic Siphon is generated as a sequential effect after the is gained, and therefor resolved after Serene.

I don’t agree with this. Serene Countenance is modifying the duel. With the Detailed Timing that we have, that would put it after the Attacker modifies the duel. If Runic Siphon is also happening in step A, it would resolve when the Attacker modifies, before the Defending model. 

[Adran]

2 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I guess my disagreement is that I don’t see any reason why Runic Siphon would happen in step B and not step A. Runic Siphon changing a to a , like spending a stone or using Focus is making a choice to modify and makes the most sense to happen in step A.

The and canceling each other out in step B seems to be incidental cleanup.

Is there any rules justification to not treat Runic Siphon as modifying the duel in the same timing as using Focus or a Soulstone?

To be honest I think it's because I've assumed the cancelled is cancelled immediately, as it is in conditions and was in previous editions. It's not stated as such, and looking at the faq answer in more detail it doesn't quite work that way if it was immediately. 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

To be honest I think it's because I've assumed the cancelled is cancelled immediately, as it is in conditions and was in previous editions. It's not stated as such, and looking at the faq answer in more detail it doesn't quite work that way if it was immediately. 

I appreciate your reevaluation.  Does that change your initial opinion about how that interaction would work?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

3 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I don’t agree with this. Serene Countenance is modifying the duel. With the Detailed Timing that we have, that would put it after the Attacker modifies the duel. If Runic Siphon is also happening in step A, it would resolve when the Attacker modifies, before the Defending model. 

Attacker/Defender Priority is only for Simultaneous effects, not all effects in Step A (some will be generated as sequential effects). Detailed Timing attacker note is a reminder of that.

Runic Siphon would need to be Generated as a Simultaneous effect to Serene Countenance & Focus to resolve successfully. I’m not sure that is the case with how Runic Siphon is worded. 

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

25 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Attacker/Defender Priority is only for Simultaneous effects, not all effects in Step A (some will be generated as sequential effects). Detailed Timing attacker note is a reminder of that.

Runic Siphon would need to be Generated as a Simultaneous effect to Serene Countenance & Focus to resolve successfully. I’m not sure that is the case with how Runic Siphon is worded. 

 

I don’t think that really follows. The rules for Simultaneous Effects mention the Active player, and the player with Initiative if there isn’t one. There are situations where the Attacker isn’t the Active player, such as Disengaging Strikes. So calling for the Attacker to resolve modifying the duel first is seems to be a deliberate choice. That distinction definitely makes a difference in how the timing would work.  It would be the Attacker resolving first, even in cases of Disengaging Strikes where they wouldn’t be the Active player.

So I think with the way the rules are written, the Attacker does all of their modifying first, followed by all of the defenders modifying. 

[Adran]

4 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I appreciate your reevaluation.  Does that change your initial opinion about how that interaction would work?

It's less clear and the detailed timing chart is different from the text rules which is never a good sign for a clear reading of the rules for fine details. 

The fact that it just says a flip can never be subject to both modifiers, and not a duel, and it is implied ( but not stated) that the cancelling will occur at  step B, whilst all things altering the duel should probably be in step A means it's easy to read a way that a model can have both modifiers for a time. But I still don't think that feels right. 

So in all honesty if I had carefully read all the rules in full detail before answering, I probably would have just avoided answering, because your proposed interactions feel wrong, but I can't give you fixed rules to stop it. 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

So in all honesty if I had carefully read all the rules in full detail before answering, I probably would have just avoided answering, because your proposed interactions feel wrong, but I can't give you fixed rules to stop it. 

Fair enough.  I appreciate your responding anyway 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

3 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

So I think with the way the rules are written, the Attacker does all of their modifying first, followed by all of the defenders modifying. 

Potentially. Only the use of soul stones is spelled out as being Resolved by the attacker first. The detailed timing is a helpful summary, but it doesn’t take precedence over the rules text for specific sections. Nothing spells out how Attacker & Defender effects resolve when additional effects (Luck Thief) are generated, so I’ve just used Sequential & Simultaneous rules to handle everything.

Like Adran’s reponse; I think Step A using a different method for generating and resolving all effects instead of using the method every other step uses feels wrong, but there is a lack of explicit wording to refute it.

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

17 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Potentially. Only the use of soul stones is spelled out as being Resolved by the attacker first. The detailed timing is a helpful summary, but it doesn’t take precedence over the rules text for specific sections. Nothing spells out how Attacker & Defender effects resolve when additional effects (Luck Thief) are generated, so I’ve just used Sequential & Simultaneous rules to handle everything.

Like Adran’s reponse; I think Step A using a different method for generating and resolving all effects instead of using the method every other step uses feels wrong, but there is a lack of explicit wording to refute it.

 

I think even if we ignored the Attacker first in the Detailed Timing and used the normal rules for simultaneous effects, Runic Siphon would still go off first.  So Ungentalmanly Affairs, Runic Siphon, and Luck Thief all have the same timing.  Step 1 of Simultaneous Effects says the Active player chooses one of their models and resolves unresolved effects in whatever order that player chooses.  This would still allow Ivan to resolve Runic Siphon before Luck Thief if the controlling player wants to. 

[solkan]

The problem with Runic Siphon is that it says:

Quote

If this Action has any in its duel, it may replace a with a +to its final duel total.

and Step B's wording is:

Quote

Any models involved in the duel perform a flip. This flip may be affected by Fate Modifiers, as described below.

If either player was affected by one or more  or  Fate Modifiers, those apply now. Any player with a  Modifier may choose which card they wish to use (the Active player chooses first).

In other words, unless you have an effect that has been FAQ'd otherwise, and you reference the fate modifiers for an action, you're dealing with Step B.

Luck Thief has a FAQ saying it works in Step A, so it does.  

Ungentlemanly Affairs doesn't have any timing of its own, it's changing what the effects of Concealment, Distracted and Friendly Fire are (at no point do those effects produce a for the model, instead they produce a .  There's no conversion from one to the other.) 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

17 minutes ago, solkan said:

The problem with Runic Siphon is that it says:

and Step B's wording is:

In other words, unless you have an effect that has been FAQ'd otherwise, and you reference the fate modifiers for an action, you're dealing with Step B.

Luck Thief has a FAQ saying it works in Step A, so it does.  

Ungentlemanly Affairs doesn't have any timing of its own, it's changing what the effects of Concealment, Distracted and Friendly Fire are (at no point do those effects produce a for the model, instead they produce a .  There's no conversion from one to the other.) 

The issue with that is if you look at the detailed timing step A lines up with 2.d.I. and step B matches step 2.d.II.

Ungentalmanly Affairs is modifying the duel, so it has to happen in step A/2.d.I along with all other effects that modify the duel, like Concealment, Distracted, Luck Thief, etc.