Flay vs. Impossible to Wound

[MadmanMSU]

Which takes precedence, Flay or Impossible to wound?

 

Example:

 

An Illuminated is attacking Nicodem, who has the Brilliance condition applied to him.  After the attack flip is finished, the result is a double negative damage flip.  However, the Illuminated has enough suits to trigger Flay which states that "the damage flip may be cheated, even if there is a negative flip".  However, Nicodem has Impossible to Wound, which states that "Damage flips against this model may not be cheated".

 

This seems directly contradictory to me.  Which one applies?

[Dirial]

From my understanding, the Flay trigger just bypasses the rule that you can't cheat damage if you have a negative fate modifier.

 

Now, if you can never cheat like with Impossible to wound it doesn't matter if you have a negative (or any) fate modifier, you just can't cheat.

 

Flay doesn't say "you can cheat", it specifically mentions under which (normally forbidding it) condition you may cheat (as an exception). So, from my perspective, this is pretty obvious: No, Flay does not allow you to cheat damage against Impossible to wound models.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Neither "takes precedence", because the two rules do not actually conflict.

 

Flay allows you to ignore the rule that says you cannot cheat if you have net negative flips. That is all it does, it does not ignore any other reason for not being able to cheat.

 

Impossible to Wound is a separate reason to not be able to cheat. Flay does not bypass it because Flay ONLY bypasses the "no cheating on negative flips" rule.

[MadmanMSU]

From my understanding, the Flay trigger just bypasses the rule that you can't cheat damage if you have a negative fate modifier.

 

Now, if you can never cheat like with Impossible to wound it doesn't matter if you have a negative (or any) fate modifier, you just can't cheat.

 

Flay doesn't say "you can cheat", it specifically mentions under which (normally forbidding it) condition you may cheat (as an exception). So, from my perspective, this is pretty obvious: No, Flay does not allow you to cheat damage against Impossible to wound models.

 

 

Neither "takes precedence", because the two rules do not actually conflict.

 

Flay allows you to ignore the rule that says you cannot cheat if you have net negative flips. That is all it does, it does not ignore any other reason for not being able to cheat.

 

Impossible to Wound is a separate reason to not be able to cheat. Flay does not bypass it because Flay ONLY bypasses the "no cheating on negative flips" rule.

 

Firstly, I appreciate the feedback. 

 

Secondly, while I still am unconvinced which one takes priority, I do want to point out that both of you are wrong.  Flay absolutely lets you cheat.  The exact wording on flay, and I quote, "After succeeding, the damage flip resulting from this attack may be cheated even if it suffers a -".

 

It does not say "may be cheated WHEN it suffers a -".

 

It does not say "may be cheated ONLY IF it suffers a -".

 

It does say "may be cheated EVEN IF it suffers a -".

 

Again, I'm not saying which one applies over the other, only that this one particular reason, that it only applies to negative damage flips, is incorrect.  To my mind, these are still directly opposing rules conditions with no clear resolution.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Yes, "even if" means that that is the rule you are superseding. It does not supersede any other rules except "you cannot cheat when at negative flips". Impossible to Wound has nothing to do with that, it simply says you can never cheat damage against that model. Flay does not address that at all. 

 

Flay does exactly one thing: Allows you to cheat despite negative flips. It does not always let you cheat no matter what factors are disallowing it. Because that's not what it says. 

[MadmanMSU]

Yes, "even if" means that that is the rule you are superseding. It does not supersede any other rules except "you cannot cheat when at negative flips". Impossible to Wound has nothing to do with that, it simply says you can never cheat damage against that model. Flay does not address that at all. 

 

Flay does exactly one thing: Allows you to cheat despite negative flips. It does not always let you cheat no matter what factors are disallowing it. Because that's not what it says. 

 

Again, incorrect.  A simple, perhaps more clear, way of reading this is to replace the words "even if" with another set of words that mean the same thing.

 

In your example, you are replacing "even if" with something that means either "only if" or "only in the case of".  So another way to write the sentence would be "may be cheated in the case that there is a negative flip", or perhaps "may be cheated when the condition of a negative flip exists" or even "may be cheated only under the restricted condition of a negative flip".

 

That would be an incorrect way of reading it however, simple because that's not what "even if" means.  Even if simply applies an example condition, not a specific restriction.  So the sentence could instead read "may be cheated for example if a negative flip exists" or "may be cheated even when other conditions such as a negative flip exist".

 

The point being, it gives the model the implicit ability to cheat the damage flip.

 

Again, I'm still not saying that Flay takes priority, only that these two rules are direct contradictions of each other.

[Jonasty]

Flay does exactly one thing: Allows you to cheat despite negative flips. It does not always let you cheat no matter what factors are disallowing it. Because that's not what it says. 

 

This.

[Nagash1959]

I'm not sure which "Flay" you're reading, but I'm on page 191 looking at the Obsidian Talons upgrade...

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

There is no use of "even if" in that at all. And "even if" there was, it would still have no effect on Impossible to wound, which states it may never be cheated.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I looked at THe Illuminated and they are worded the same was as Obsidian Talons.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Again, incorrect.  A simple, perhaps more clear, way of reading this is to replace the words "even if" with another set of words that mean the same thing.

 

In your example, you are replacing "even if" with something that means either "only if" or "only in the case of".  So another way to write the sentence would be "may be cheated in the case that there is a negative flip", or perhaps "may be cheated when the condition of a negative flip exists" or even "may be cheated only under the restricted condition of a negative flip".

 

That would be an incorrect way of reading it however, simple because that's not what "even if" means.  Even if simply applies an example condition, not a specific restriction.  So the sentence could instead read "may be cheated for example if a negative flip exists" or "may be cheated even when other conditions such as a negative flip exist".

 

The point being, it gives the model the implicit ability to cheat the damage flip.

 

Again, I'm still not saying that Flay takes priority, only that these two rules are direct contradictions of each other.

 

 

You are assigning meaning to the sentence that is not present, because it fits what you want the power to do. You can tell because you're saying the sentence "implies" that you can do something. The rules do not work that way. Rules do not imply. 

 

Flay does what it says it does, and what it says it does is circumvent the rule disallowing cheating in the case of negative flips. The part about "other conditions such as a negative flip" is purely your addition. 

 

If I am driving a car and there's a general law in my state that you may not make left turns on red lights, but I have special dispensation to do so because I am the Pope, it does not mean I can make left turns at an intersection that simply says NO LEFT TURNS, regardless of what color the light is. 

[MadmanMSU]

I'm not sure which "Flay" you're reading, but I'm on page 191 looking at the Obsidian Talons upgrade...

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

There is no use of "even if" in that at all. And "even if" there was, it would still have no effect on Impossible to wound, which states it may never be cheated.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I looked at THe Illuminated and they are worded the same was as Obsidian Talons.

 

 

Here's in image of the rule.

 

 

 

To be fair, it may be different?

 

Either way, I'll assume yours is correct, and the actual reading is "The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."  I would totally agree, that is an implicit restriction and you would only be able to cheat if there is a negative damage flip.

 

However, given that the example I used had a double negative damage flip. you would still be able to cheat.  And thus the rules contradiction.

[Nagash1959]

Where did that image come from? I'm reading strait out of the 2nd Ed rulebook. It looks like you are using unfinished beta cards that were reworded to make sure how Flay works doesn't cause confusion with other abilities, such as Impossible to wound (and Wyrd changing the wording would be to make it clear that is exactly how it is supposed to work)

[MadmanMSU]

You are assigning meaning to the sentence that is not present, because it fits what you want the power to do. You can tell because you're saying the sentence "implies" that you can do something. The rules do not work that way. Rules do not imply. 

 

Flay does what it says it does, and what it says it does is circumvent the rule disallowing cheating in the case of negative flips. The part about "other conditions such as a negative flip" is purely your addition. 

 

If I am driving a car and there's a general law in my state that you may not make left turns on red lights, but I have special dispensation to do so because I am the Pope, it does not mean I can make left turns at an intersection that simply says NO LEFT TURNS, regardless of what color the light is. 

 

You have that exactly backwards.  I was replacing words to try to fit them into your use of the vernacular.  The wording of the rule explicitly states "may be cheated". 

 

I'm totally willing to accept two things:  1)  That for some reason my copy has the wrong wording in it and the actual wording is "may be cheated if it suffers one or more -", in which case it would only apply if there is a negative flip.  This doesn't change anything, however, because in the example I gave there was a negative flip. so you would still be able to cheat.  Which leads us to  2) That the rules are totally contradictory, and for balance reasons Nicodem's rules supersede the Flay rules.  That makes sense, I'll buy that.

 

But to say that you can't cheat doesn't make sense, when the rule explicitly says that you can.

[HalcyonSeraph]

At this point we are arguing in circles. I restate my example:

 

If I am driving a car and there's a general law in my state that you may not make left turns on red lights, but I have special dispensation to do so because I am the Pope, it does not mean I can make left turns at an intersection that simply says NO LEFT TURNS, regardless of what color the light is. 

 

Flay is an exception to the rule that states you may not cheat on negative flips. That is all. It is not an exception to every case in which you may not cheat. For example, Flay would not allow you to cheat if you were in Lady Ligeia's Betrayal Aura.

[MadmanMSU]

At this point we are arguing in circles.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

For what its worth, we played it that Nicodem's rule was the correct one.  I simply wanted to hash it out here and see what the general consensus was.  Clearly, Impossible to Wound wins

[Nagash1959]

I think we're skipping over the real question, where exactly did you get that image *from*? I can't find the wave 1 files anywhere, so I can't see if that is the final version of them that had that phrasing, prior to the book release. If it was written like that during the beta testing then the question itself isn't valid because it wasn't a rule, but a test rule. So where did that image come from to begin with?

[MadmanMSU]

I think we're skipping over the real question, where exactly did you get that image *from*? I can't find the wave 1 files anywhere, so I can't see if that is the final version of them that had that phrasing, prior to the book release. If it was written like that during the beta testing then the question itself isn't valid because it wasn't a rule, but a test rule. So where did that image come from to begin with?

 

 

I got it from Scribd.  I don't have my rulebook on me, so it was the only place I could think of to find a copy of the rule.

 

Clearly, what I found was incorrect.  Flay should be as you wrote it:

 

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

 

You can only cheat if there is a negative damage flip. 

 

Since there was a double negative flip in my example, you can cheat.  Which makes the rules contradictory.

 

I understand the argument others are making.  I disagree with it, but I understand it.  To me, the rule explicitly says you can cheat, given the condition.  I hold no false hopes about changing minds, and I agree with Halcyonseraph that arguing in circles is pointless.  Again, I'll just point out that if its agreed that Nicodem's rule trumps Flay for balance reasons, I'll buy that, but I still think the two rules are direct contradictions.

[Cats Laughing]

I might suggest reading Justin's blog on gaming language.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Yeah, it looks like Impossible to Wound takes precedence over Flay.

[Cunning]

For what it's worth, MadManMSU's interpretation is correct in normal english for the term 'even if'

 

As an example:

"You may not run a red light even if you are in a hurry."

 

This does not mean the only situation that you can't run a red is if you're in a hurry.  It means you may never run a red.

 

In the case of these rules though there does seem to be a bit of conflict but I would probably say impossible to wound overrides flay.

[HalcyonSeraph]

For what it's worth, MadManMSU's interpretation is correct in normal english for the term 'even if'

 

As an example:

"You may not run a red light even if you are in a hurry."

 

This does not mean the only situation that you can't run a red is if you're in a hurry.  It means you may never run a red.

 

In the case of these rules though there does seem to be a bit of conflict but I would probably say impossible to wound overrides flay.

 

That example is backwards. Flay is not a "you may not even if", its a "you may even if". 

 

If you say "You may turn left on red even if the sign says you can't", it does not mean you may turn left on red if the sign simply says NO LEFT TURNS. You have an exception to a subset of a rule, not the whole rule. 

 

To give a parallel game example, if you have a power that says "You may take Interact actions while engaged", you still cannot take Interact actions within a Chatty aura, or when given Insignificant by Sybelle, no matter whether or not you are engaged. You have exemption to the "no interacts while engaged" rule, not a blanket ability to Interact no matter what else is going on. Flay is exactly the same situation. 

[LordFezzington]

Surely the only way Flay would allow you to cheat damage against Impossible To Wound models would be if it said 'the damage flip resulting from this attack may always be cheated', no? 

[Stadon]

I got it from Scribd.  I don't have my rulebook on me, so it was the only place I could think of to find a copy of the rule.

 

Clearly, what I found was incorrect.  Flay should be as you wrote it:

 

"Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -."

 

You can only cheat if there is a negative damage flip. 

 

Since there was a double negative flip in my example, you can cheat.  Which makes the rules contradictory.

 

I understand the argument others are making.  I disagree with it, but I understand it.  To me, the rule explicitly says you can cheat, given the condition.  I hold no false hopes about changing minds, and I agree with Halcyonseraph that arguing in circles is pointless.  Again, I'll just point out that if its agreed that Nicodem's rule trumps Flay for balance reasons, I'll buy that, but I still think the two rules are direct contradictions.

 

Your interpretation of flay leads to some absurd conclusions which, while not explicitly making it wrong, does make your reading of those rules even more suspect.  You are arguing that if you beat Nicodem's defense total by 11 with the flay trigger, you would not be able to cheat, but if you beat it by 10 with flay you would.  Or, if you extend your logic to Don't Mind Me vs Chatty, if the Doppelganger was in the chatty aura but not engaged it would not be able to cheat, but if it moved into someone's engagement range it suddenly would.  Relying on an interpretation not strictly supported by the rules that leads to conclusion like that is pretty dubious.  

[Dracomax]

I'd say that Flay allows you to overcome the . However, Impossible to Wound also says that regardless of final modifier, the damage can't be cheated. Therefore, while Flay overcomes the modifier, it can not overcome the second clause, because that is not dependent on the modifier.

[zFiend]

It's impossible to wound. Impossible.

[Thrawnic]

The fact is that in gaming terminology ther is an order magnitude in terms. NEVER is right at the top of it. If a model's rule says something may Never happen then it is absolute. it is only when two Nevers clash that there should be any confusion and if the game designers have done their job right, such an event will rarely if ever occur.

[Cunning]

That example is backwards. Flay is not a "you may not even if", its a "you may even if". 

 

If you say "You may turn left on red even if the sign says you can't", it does not mean you may turn left on red if the sign simply says NO LEFT TURNS. You have an exception to a subset of a rule, not the whole rule. 

 

 

Actually yes, yes it does mean you can turn left because your rule says you can and even specifically says you can do when the sign says you can't.

 

The use of 'even if' in normal english is just a way of quanitifying that a rule applies even in specific circumstances but does not mean it only applies in those circumstances.

 

EDIT:  But i think this is a conversation for another time.