Feed on Dreams vs. (+1)Fast

[Q'iq'el]

The question is simple:

If a model that has the (+1)Fast ability or effect is affected by Slow, does it suffer the 1 Wd from the Feed on Dreams ability?

On one hand the model doesn't become Slow, because the two effects cancel each other, so it can be argued it doesn't "receive" Slow (the word used in the Feed on Dreams rule).

On the other hand, the model is affected by Slow, otherwise there would be no interaction with Fast and both effects removing each other.

But does "receive" means being affected, or does the effect has to stick and the model become Slow? Which one is it?

TIA for answers.

*cookie*

Edited September 16, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Ozz]

Thanks for that Q'iq'el, i just like to make sure im not the only one to think the way i do in matters making my models more OP on rare occasions:)

[Mr_Smigs]

The reason is that effects do not stack, but since Fast and Slow remove each other, there's no effect, so the next application will stick.

actually, based on the definition of "effect" that talks about any changes to the card,

the loss of fast is an effect.

hmm... this is another one for the Spellbreaker question too

(If a model with Fast, is applied Slow, do they regain Fast if hit with Spellbreaker/Shrug Off?)

[Q'iq'el]

actually, based on the definition of "effect" that talks about any changes to the card,

the loss of fast is an effect.

Oh, that one is nice. If Fast was an effect in itself (i.e. applied by a spell or ability, like Bête Noire Feed on Death, for example), then removing it removes the effect (so there is no effect). But if its Lilith with Fast on the card? I think the answer is as follow:

hmm... this is another one for the Spellbreaker question too

(If a model with Fast, is applied Slow, do they regain Fast if hit with Spellbreaker/Shrug Off?)

But what would Spellbreaker or Shrug Off remove? Slow isn't on the model anymore, and so isn't Fast.

If I understand correctly, this is a case of an immediate effect. Just like permanently loosing 1 point of Wp, you can't reverse it, because there's no effect with a name added to your card for the effect's duration.

I suggest a separate thread for that. Let's see what the Marshals have to say about Feed on Dreams.

[Mr_Smigs]

But what would Spellbreaker or Shrug Off remove? Slow isn't on the model anymore, and so isn't Fast.

If I understand correctly, this is a case of an immediate effect. Just like permanently loosing 1 point of Wp, you can't reverse it, because there's no effect with a name added to your card for the effect's duration.

I suggest a separate thread for that. Let's see what the Marshals have to say about Feed on Dreams.

done.

we have a separate thread, that seems to imply all the effects hang around.. but creates other problems

[Q'iq'el]

Uh, looks like I've finally come up with a tough one. *starts putting the cookie-bait here and there in the thread*

[Q'iq'el]

*cookie*

[Mr_Smigs]

sigh.. if these were written like function calls, it'd be so much easier to figure out...

Alp calls Apply_Slow(Target) which returns a bool (yes or no)


Apply_Slow(Target)

{  Target Makes WP check. 

    If WP check is False,  model gains Slow_Talent until end of next activation,  

      and Return "yes"

   If WP check is True, return "no"

}


If yes is returned, Alp applies Damage as do other Alps in the area.

If yes is returned, Model is checked for Slow_Talent already.

or...

Alp calls Apply_Slow(Target) which returns a bool (yes or no)


Apply_Slow(Target)

{  Target Makes WP check. 

    If WP check is False,  

       Model is checked for Fast_Talent, 

       If Model has Fast_Talent then Fast_Talent is removed, 

       Return [[COLOR=DarkRed]waiting on ruling[COLOR=Black]][/COLOR][/COLOR]

       Model is Checked for Slow_Talent, 

       If model has Slow_Talent, return yes.

       Else Model gains Slow_Talent, Return Yes.

   If WP check is True, return "no"

}


If yes is returned, Alp applies Damage as do other Alps in the area.

it ain't the prettiest code in the world, but it's easy to follow.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[psychocamel]

Code people are weird

[Mr_Smigs]

Code people are weird

code people make the world easier to understand without having to understand the culture behind the words.

[Mr_Smigs]

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24851&page=5

so, looks like you can "get" slow, and "fast" at the same time,

they just don't resolve until activation...

so a model with Fast would still "get" slow and be affected...

unless they're talking about the "Slow Effect" not the "Slow waiting to be resolved"

[psychocamel]

code people make the world easier to understand without having to understand the culture behind the words.

code people may or may not make the world easier to understand to other code people, but to non-code people it looks long-winded and overcomplicated.

[Mr_Smigs]

code people may or may not make the world easier to understand to other code people, but to non-code people it looks long-winded and overcomplicated.

ah... would you prefer Venn Diagrams and Flow Charts?

[Ciaran]

ah... would you prefer Venn Diagrams and Flow Charts?

No.

Someone once complained that everything needed to be in straight, plain English. That obviously won't work either.

It seems as though code has a language specific to explaining its logic. That is what is evolving here. It's painful at times. I can only imagine as rough as it is on us as players it's even worse on the developers.

I think about some of the other games out there, and chuckle about how they've spent years longer in production (decades in some cases....), and have a system that's even muddier, and not nearly as compelling.

I have to admit, I AM a fan of flowcharts, for work flow and electronics. Admittedly it's the same in function for anything you might make one for. Any of the three suggestions you've made would make the game less accessible to more of its audience. Plain English would likely not serve the stakeholders nearly as well. A balance is going to have to be found.

[Mr_Smigs]

No.

Someone once complained that everything needed to be in straight, plain English. That obviously won't work either.

you have a point there. i was just making the offer.

tho, flow charts can have clear english in them...

It seems as though code has a language specific to explaining its logic. That is what is evolving here. It's painful at times. I can only imagine as rough as it is on us as players it's even worse on the developers.

this is why I spend so much time treating rules discussions like debugging programs.

a programming language (like an instruction set) has set terms. specific definitions that are used.

when those definitions change, it can change how the program runs.

and thus why, whenever one of those definitions are used unclearly, we have to ask alot of questions on clarity.

I think about some of the other games out there, and chuckle about how they've spent years longer in production (decades in some cases....), and have a system that's even muddier, and not nearly as compelling.

and I can think of a couple where players have offered ways to help clarify and the rules guys have declined.

which is why I keep hoping we can catch early misunderstandings early and get the corrections somewhere handy for all new players.

I have to admit, I AM a fan of flowcharts, for work flow and electronics. Admittedly it's the same in function for anything you might make one for. Any of the three suggestions you've made would make the game less accessible to more of its audience. Plain English would likely not serve the stakeholders nearly as well. A balance is going to have to be found.

yep.

similarly, they could use multiple ones.

tho, that would eat precious development time for the writers...

but i fear we're getting terribly off topic. perhaps a new thread on this would be better...

[Q'iq'el]

Specifically to this:

Quote:

If a model that has the (+1)Fast ability or effect is affected by Slow, does it suffer the 1 Wd from the Feed on Dreams ability?

Check [] YES or []NO

*bump*

[Q'iq'el]

Still hoping for an answer/ruling.

[Mr_Smigs]

i thought that link gave us the answer to this one...

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24851&page=5

the one that said "you can be given slow while you have Fast, and have both in effect until your model's activation..." basically.

[Akujie]

From that previous ruling where if you have say 2 slows and 1 fast (even if it is a spell) if you spellbreak the two slows before the model activates the fast will still be there, since the effect does not resolve until the model activates and AP is calculated...does not resolve the current question I know, but helps maybe get back on track

[Q'iq'el]

Probably you are right. But that other ruling explains also why second application of slow causes damage (because each application means a new instance)...

I guess at this point it is merely cleaning up the remaining doubts. Why the rule mentions multiple instances of slow, but doesn't mention cases when slow and fast end up on the same model? Is it considered more obvious? Or was the intention for effects to cancel and not trigger Feed on Dreams?

[Mr_Smigs]

it's times like this i wish threads had a button users could hit that signals

"multiple parties have weighed in on this, but still no resolution. We need a marshal to step in" and just leaves the thread sticked...

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

it's times like this i wish threads had a button users could hit that signals

"multiple parties have weighed in on this, but still no resolution. We need a marshal to step in" and just leaves the thread sticked...

Marshals sometimes need to discuss the issues to make sure the intent is clear.

Marshals are also very busy people with other tasks as well.

Please try to bear that in mind.

[Akujie]

Marshalls also have scary avatars and make refrence in the third person, reason why I fear them

[Mr_Smigs]

hah! bear!

yeah, i get it... guess I was just thinking that such a flag would include the idea of "if you have nothing new to contribute... don't..." to keep threads from festering or going off topic...