forfeit vs not having

[Mr_Smigs]

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27629&page=2

bottom of the page

since it got quickly buried in personal attacks.

is Forfeiting the same as Not Generating?

Slow says you forfeit AP.

from my understanding of the word

verb

1

: to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime

2

: to subject to confiscation as a forfeit; also : abandon, give up

you cannot forfeit something you do not have.

therefor, you must have an AP to forfeit it,

so, logically, you must have generated an AP to forfeit it.

does the game use a different definition of forfeit?

[Wolfgar]

You can certainly forfeit something you don't have. Your definition includes losing the right to receive something. So therefore you can certainly forfeit something you haven't received yet.

Even in it's most common use when forfeiting in competitions, one is usually forfeiting the win, even though one frequently has not secured said win.

[Omenbringer]

I would say yes that Forfeiting in Malifaux is the same as not generating. Basing this on the Paralyzed effect, in which you dont generate an activation for the model at all.

I like Wolfgars explanation above as well, I think it spells it out pretty clearly why it works this way.

[Mr_Smigs]

the confusion i get is from the wording....

"Forfeit 1 AP"

not

"Forfeit the right to 1 AP"

particularly since, if you have the AP, and then gain Slow, then you must immediately forfeit the AP, not wait til your next activation

[Kadeton]

This all seems like a pointless semantic argument, since there are no situations in the game where it is relevant whether the AP is generated and then "lost", or not generated in the first place. Note that losing an AP is in no way the same as taking an Action, so this has no bearing on (all) Actions.

Losing an AP is functionally (but not semantically) equivalent to generating one less AP.

[magicpockets]

This all seems like a pointless semantic argument, since there are no situations in the game where it is relevant

that doesn't normally stop people arguing it

[Wolfgar]

This all seems like a pointless semantic argument, since there are no situations in the game where it is relevant whether the AP is generated and then "lost", or not generated in the first place. Note that losing an AP is in no way the same as taking an Action, so this has no bearing on (all) Actions.

Losing an AP is functionally (but not semantically) equivalent to generating one less AP.

The only situation I can conceive of where it would matter is if the model takes an (all) action and then receives Slow in the middle of it, such as from a trigger. I'm not sure that's something that can come up often though.

[Mr_Smigs]

that's what prompted this whole question

is the AP lost to slow generated then lost

or simply not generated.

the rules manual implies generated then lost (since you can lose AP in the middle of an activation)

but the ruling implies not generated (since you can take an ALL action)

thus, confusion.

[Kadeton]

that's what prompted this whole question

is the AP lost to slow generated then lost

or simply not generated.

the rules manual implies generated then lost (since you can lose AP in the middle of an activation)

but the ruling implies not generated (since you can take an ALL action)

thus, confusion.

But it still doesn't matter.

Assuming you "lose" an AP, you can still spend all the AP you have and take an (all) Action. The (all) Action doesn't require you to spend every AP you generated at activation, it requires you to spend all the AP you have.

If I have 6 cans of beer, drink 4 of them, then give you all my beer, you'll be getting 2 cans, not 6. There's no way of defining "all" that will convince me to go out and buy you another 4 cans in order for me to give you all my beer.

I think you should have a beer and move on.

[Wolfgar]

The upshot being that it seems losing AP is not the same as spending AP, and that (all) actions circumvent the AP system to a degree. If I take a (0) action, then I should still have all of my AP, and yet I cannot take an (all) action in the same activation.

[dsmiles]

is the AP lost to slow generated then lost

or simply not generated.

the rules manual implies generated then lost (since you can lose AP in the middle of an activation)

but the ruling implies not generated (since you can take an ALL action)

Both.

Situation 1: You gain slow in the middle of an activation; you immediately lose 1AP (unless you have no AP left to lose, I'm pretty sure your activation ends if that happens).

Situation 2: You start your activation with slow; you don't get the standard 2AP, you only get 1. But you can still take an (all) action.

As far as I can tell, that's the way it works.

[Wolfgar]

I'm pretty sure that if you gain Slow in the middle of activation while taking an (all) action nothing happens. Then again gaining Slow mid-activation would raise so many issues I doubt it's common. I'll have to look through it.

[dsmiles]

Well, it's possible that there's a Df or Wp trigger out there somewhere that can dish out slow. My books are being borrowed right now, so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there could be.

As for gaining slow in the middle of an (all) action, you would (again, as far as I can tell), finish the action, then end your activation.

[Omenbringer]

As for gaining slow in the middle of an (all) action, you would (again, as far as I can tell), finish the action, then end your activation.

Though corner case for sure, it still shouldn't matter as all of your remaining available Actions to include any 0 actions (that weren't forfeited to Slow) would still be going to completing the action.

[Wolfgar]

Well, it's possible that there's a Df or Wp trigger out there somewhere that can dish out Slow.

Collette's Blinding Flash Trigger. I feel dumb.

It's the only one I found though.

[dsmiles]

That explains why I don't know one off the top of my head. I don't run Collette.