Flaw in Clarity - please explain on Effects Ruling

[Mr_Smigs]

was re-reading this, and something hopped out at me...

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

wait...

states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.)

so... the "state of a model" is movement restrictions / moral restrictions?

this makes the whole first sentence in the definition of Effect in the rules manual seem.... wrong...

was "state" used as a game term in that ruling?

[Mr_Smigs]

for that matter, it also seems to conflict with:

an effect cna be directly referenced, such as .... Lifer indicates the model does not have to perform the Modal Duel required by Terrifying reguardless of its source.

that says Terrifying is an Effect.

by pg 20, Terrifying seems to be an Ongoing Effect that applies an Immediate game effect of the Moral Duel ...

[Calmdown]

"Movement/Morale restrictions" aren't the state of a model. Defensive stance is a state, and falling back is a state.

And just because an effect is an ongoing effect doesnt make it no longer an effect.

It seems like you're trying to pick holes in rules marshal wording for the sake of it rather than looking at how obvious and solid the rule (and their ruling) is. I'm all for clarification but dont you think you're taking this a bit too far?

[Mr_Smigs]

technically, Defensive stance is an effect .

the question is, what is "state"... this ruling implies Defensive Stance affects State (or gives State) but doesn't define State (the "etc" leaves ambiguity that is troublesome, is "Charging" a State?)

And just because an effect is an ongoing effect doesnt make it no longer an effect.

and when something changes an effect

by your words, it would change an ongoing effect

yes. i believe further clarity is needed.

it seems there are threetypes of effects being argued with here...

1. ones that are applied to a specific model

2. ones a model has already

3. ones that the model arapplies to other things

but if something modifies "all effects" but the ruling is intended that they only modify case 1.

then clarity to avoid cases 2 or 3 is needed.

the problem arises when the book's general definition of effect conflicts with a ruling as to what is an effect

there are now two texts for effect and one is incomplete (not addressing pg 20)

Edited August 31, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Calmdown]

and when something changes an effect

by your words, it would change an ongoing effect

yes. i believe further clarity is needed.

it seems there are threetypes of effects being argued with here...

1. ones that are applied to a specific model

2. ones a model has already

3. ones that the model arapplies to other things

but if something modifies "all effects" but the ruling is intended that they only modify case 1.

then clarity to avoid cases 2 or 3 is needed.

If something removed all effects, why would you think that it doesnt remove all 3?

I'm not clear on the difference between 1 and 2.

Lets say the model is Nicodem, and he currently has -- to Wp flips from a Molly debuff (1), is sitting in an Insidious Madnesses -Wp flip aura (2?), and his undead buffing aura up (3) and you remove all effects from him..... they'd all go. THen (2) would immediately reapply because it's an aura from another model.

Which bit of that is unclear or am I being dumb?

[Sholto]

@ Mr_Smigs - I don't see what you are getting at. There does not seem to be any ambiguity in anything you have posted - certainly nothing that would have a consequence in a game. Can you give a specific example of what the issue is?

EDIT:

technically, Defensive stance is an effect .

the question is, what is "state

I think you are overthinking this. I suggest you try and come up with a practical, in-game scenario that would illustrate whatever you think the issue is. If you cannot, then perhaps there is no issue after all.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Sholto

[Mr_Smigs]

If something removed all effects, why would you think that it doesnt remove all 3?

I'm not clear on the difference between 1 and 2.

1. Student of Conflict gives Fast to a model

2. Perdita already has Fast

3. Freikcorps captain radiates Slow to Die

would immediately reapply because it's an aura from another model.

Which bit of that is unclear or am I being dumb?

none of that. because the aura is from an untargeted model.

I think you are overthinking this. I suggest you try and come up with a practical, in-game scenario that would illustrate whatever you think the issue is. If you cannot, then perhaps there is no issue after all.

Friekcorps commander has his Slow to Die aura up, and his +4WP aura up. He has been affected by Paralysis from a Convict Gunslinger, while the commander is in Defensive Stance.

Perdita Spellbreaker's the Friekcorps commander.

What effects are ended until the closing phase

afterwards:

Can Perdita Spellbreaker the commander (possibly affecting a second target), then shoot another Friekcorps member without retaliation from Slow to Die...

Can she obey the commander without him getting a modifier to his WP?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Sholto]

So how is any of that ambiguous, based on what Ropetus said? It seems fairly clear-cut to me. Where do you think the possibility for confusion comes in, given your example?

[Calmdown]

1. Student of Conflict gives Fast to a model

2. Perdita already has Fast

3. Freikcorps captain radiates Slow to Die

Fast is not an effect and Spellbreaker doesnt end it; it is a talent, and also an action modifier.

If you mean Von Schill, that is also not an effect, it is a talent too.

If Student of Conflict said "targeted model gains UBERNESS. While a model has UBERNESS, it has (+1) Fast" then it would be an effect that you could end. But as it is, it gives Fast; see above.

Friekcorps commander has his Slow to Die aura up, and his +4WP aura up. He has been affected by Paralysis from a Convict Gunslinger, while the commander is in Defensive Stance.

Perdita Spellbreaker's the Friekcorps commander.

What effects are ended until the closing phase

Hardass (+4mp) is ended because it is an effect (it has a cost and a duration).

StD aura is not ended (it is a talent - see above).

Paralysis from a convict Gunslinger is a bad example. If you mean "it has been affected by Suppressing Fire" then the Suppressing Fire effect would end, yes. If the model has already been Paralysed because it activated then did not discard a card, then it is too late to do anything about Paralysed because the model already forfeited its activation.

I'm not sure if Paralysed or Defensive Stance are effects, to be honest. That's not clear at all in the rulebook anywhere I can see.

[Mr_Smigs]

yes, i mean't Von Shill (sorry, couldn't remember his name off hand), thank you for that.

Fast is not an effect and Spellbreaker doesnt end it; it is a talent, and also an action modifier.

If you mean Von Schill, that is also not an effect, it is a talent too.

this disagrees with the current definition of Ongoing Effect

yes, it is a talent as well, that does not remove its status of being an effect.

If Student of Conflict said "targeted model gains UBERNESS. While a model has UBERNESS, it has (+1) Fast" then it would be an effect that you could end. But as it is, it gives Fast; see above.

see first post. this disagrees with the current definition of Effect

Hardass (+4mp) is ended because it is an effect (it has a cost and a duration).

StD aura is not ended (it is a talent - see above).

this is where the rules discussions keep coming from...

Talent is one type of Effect by the rules manual, and the new ruling doesn't help clarify that.

Paralysis from a convict Gunslinger is a bad example. If you mean "it has been affected by Suppressing Fire" then the Suppressing Fire effect would end, yes. If the model has already been Paralysed because it activated then did not discard a card, then it is too late to do anything about Paralysed because the model already forfeited its activation.

I'm not sure if Paralysed or Defensive Stance are effects, to be honest. That's not clear at all in the rulebook anywhere I can see.

and that's the problem.

there is no definitive list of Effects and all the rulings are on just specific cases,

most of which conflict with the very definition of effect given in the book, or above.

which leads to people splitting hairs and cherry picking what they think an effect is.

so everyone has a different opinion

none of which seem to match what the game vocabulary uses.

if state of a model was clarified... then a "end all effects" power could be rephrased as "reset the state of the model" or something similar.

for example:

if state of the model is that the state of the model is exactly as it is printed on the card for Stats, aside from any wounds missing from damage.

then Spellbreaker could remain "End all Effects" as the book's definition of effects is "anything that changes the state of the model" (first sentence), so while Terrifying would not end if the model initially had it, any results of a spell that granted terrifying would end.

which seems to be the intent of the writers.

but since "state of the model" isn't defined, or is used very loosely to refer to "all the stuff on the model, right now, and what the model is doing" by some...

they end up making ruling after ruling that could be fixed by one piece of errata.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Mr_Smigs]

so... no further clarity?

[Dolomyte]

They already answered the question. We all understand that you don't grasp the concept, so I think people are just getting tired of answering the same stupid question.

there does not need to be any further clarification, your wrong, let it go.

Edit- I seem to be having some sort of allergic reaction today, so I'm going to be here a while, create a list of 30 examples you need clarity on. I will answer them all for you. Please format it as

1. Your question

A. Blank for me to fill in

2. Your question

et al.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Dolomyte

[Mr_Smigs]

Again, look at the OP before answering... some of the comments made by others conflict with the ruling when they try to state that a Talent is not an Effect, when the OP says added talents are...

1. Justice uses Combat Prowess... is melee expert an Effect?

2. Can Spellbreaker remove #1.

3. Why? (Details, evidence, support)

4. Perdita activates Quick Draw ... is this an Effect?

5. Can Spellbreaker remove #4.

6. Why? (Details, evidence, support)

7. Can Shrug off Remove Slow?

8. Can Shrug Off end "Is that All you Got"?

8. Can Shrug off end Wade in?

9. Can Spellbreaker used on a model that will "activate immediately" prevent that Effect?

10. Why or why not?

let's start with those.... i'm curious as to your definitions on these effects and their interaction. perhaps the justification for your answers will provide the answer to what I'm missing that makes me see a faulty definition where everyone else seems to see something obvious.

[Sholto]

Using Ropetus' definition:

1. Is Melee Expert "applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card" or is it "anything written on the model's stat card originally"? It is on Justice's Stat card and is always on without her having to do anything, so it is not an Effect.

2. No, as it is not an Effect.

3. See above.

Edit: I was forgetting how combat prowess works. If Melee Expert was one of Lady J's Talents, then what I wrote would be correct. As Melee Expert is applied to the model during the game, it is an Effect.

4. Is Quick Draw "applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card" or is it "anything written on the model's stat card originally"? In this case it is the former. Perdita has to activate Quick Draw and apply it to herself. It changes her stats. It is an Effect.

5. Yes, as it is an Effect.

6. See above.

7. Is Slow "applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card" or is it "anything written on the model's stat card originally"? Well, Mannequins have Slow written on their card, so it is not an Effect on them. If another model has Slow applied to it by something else during the game, then it is an Effect. Some models have a Talent that gives them Slow unless the player discards a card. That is like Quick Draw, as although the model gives itself Slow, it does not start with it - Slow is applied conditional on something else happening. So, in that case, Slow is an Effect.

That is all I have time for right now - hope that helps

Edited September 4, 2011 by Sholto

[Dolomyte]

Again, look at the OP before answering... some of the comments made by others conflict with the ruling when they try to state that a Talent is not an Effect, when the OP says added talents are...

1. Justice uses Combat Prowess... is melee expert an Effect?

Yes, Melee Expert is an effect, because it was added by the use of a spell or a talent.

2. Can Spellbreaker remove #1.

Yes, melee expert was added via the spell, so spellbreaker can remove it.

3. Why? (Details, evidence, support)

Ropetus's ruling. Abilities added via spells or talents are effects, and can be removed via spellbreaker.

4. Perdita activates Quick Draw ... is this an Effect?

Yes it is an effect. You cannot prevent her from using quick draw before she activates, because its an ability on her card, but the activated effect (caused by spending a 0 action) can be removed via spellbreaker

5. Can Spellbreaker remove #4.

See Above.

6. Why? (Details, evidence, support)

See Number 3

7. Can Shrug off Remove Slow?

Potentially. Shrug off could remove slow from lets say her other family members after they gained slow from alps becaue it is an effect. Shrug off could not remove slow from a mannaquin, as that is part of the models stat card, and is not an effect.

8. Can Shrug Off end "Is that All you Got"?

No, Is that all you got is an inherent ability of the model, it is not an effect. It is triggered by him going to low wounds, but its not a modification of his card, its an ability he always has.

9. Can Shrug off end Wade in?

Again, no, shrug off cannot end wade in, it is an inherent ability of the model (printed on the card). For the same reason shrug off cannot stop the coryphee duets fast, or perditas own fast.

10. Can Spellbreaker used on a model that will "activate immediately" prevent that Effect?

Im guessing your talking about Lord Chompy bits? Again, NO, activating immediately upon his entry to the table is an inherent ability on his card, you cannot remove inherent abilities. If he had to cast it, or spend an action point to use it, then you could end it, as a rule of thumb.

10. Why or why not?

Answered them in the questions.

let's start with those.... i'm curious as to your definitions on these effects and their interaction. perhaps the justification for your answers will provide the answer to what I'm missing that makes me see a faulty definition where everyone else seems to see something obvious.

Calmdown was wrong in your first post, if the student of conflict gave a model fast via it's ability, spellbreaker could remove it. As fast in that instance would be an effect caused by an ability or spell.

[Mr_Smigs]

So...

despite "Is that All you Got" and "Wade In" changing the model's models initial stats,

they are not "Effects"?

what are they then (Game terms)

[Dolomyte]

Its not changing their initial stats, it is part of their initial stats. They always have that ability, the ability is just situational. Sonnia always has advanced counterspell, but she needs an enemy casting to trigger it.

[Mr_Smigs]

Its not changing their initial stats, it is part of their initial stats. They always have that ability, the ability is just situational. Sonnia always has advanced counterspell, but she needs an enemy casting to trigger it.

by this logic,

Perdita always has quick draw, she just needs to activate it with a 0 action,

so it'd fall under the same catagory as "Wade In" ... and thus shouldn't be able to be affected by Spellbreaker.

[Sholto]

Mr Smigs, your logic is flawed

I think I will bow out of this thread now. Don't really see the point in carrying on.

[Ratty]

OK.. I think your getting confused here.

Quick Draw is an Action that places an Effect on the model

Wade In is an Ability that is always on the model, but has 2 states, either you are below the Wd value and so you get the bonus or it's above the value and does nothing.

[Dolomyte]

Going to agree with Sholto, he just wont accept it, time to bow out.

[Calmdown]

Argh dont post and bump his terrible threads, they'd died already

[Mr_Smigs]

OK.. I think your getting confused here.

Quick Draw is an Action that places an Effect on the model

Wade In is an Ability that is always on the model, but has 2 states, either you are below the Wd value and so you get the bonus or it's above the value and does nothing.

sadly, by the definition above (OP/ruling), both place effects on the model.

that's what keeps perpetuating this

effect is a terribly broad term that keeps getting interpreted differently from ruling to ruling...

and what makes it worse are there are multiple types of effects that were not addressed in the ruling making gaps in the definition

Mr Smigs, your logic is flawed

I would love to see where.

[Dolomyte]

This is how you make me feel.

[Mr_Smigs]

doesn't answer the question why effect is so broadly defined, but so tightly ruled...

[Ratty]

sadly, by the definition above (OP/ruling), both place effects on the model.

that's what keeps perpetuating this

effect is a terribly broad term that keeps getting interpreted differently from ruling to ruling...

and what makes it worse are there are multiple types of effects that were not addressed in the ruling making gaps in the definition

I would love to see where.

But Wade in doesn't place an effect on the model.. The model has Wade In on the Card. It still has Wade In on the card. No new effect is put on the card. What the ability does changes.

At no point does it change what is stated on the card.

When Santiago has 8Wds it says

(+1) Wade In: This model may make an additional Walk each activation while it has 4 or fewer Wd remaining.

When he has 4Wds it says

(+1) Wade In: This model may make an additional Walk each activation while it has 4 or fewer Wd remaining.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Ratty