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?

[Stadon]

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.

 

You are confusing "No left turns on red" with "No left turns at all".  "No left turns on red" is in the subset of "No left turns at all" but the opposite is not true.  

[Mako]

It says 'You may do X even if Y says you can't'. That means that when Y says don't do X, you can ignore it.

 

X in this case being 'turn on red' or 'cheat on a -ve flip'.

 

Y being 'the sign' or 'the rules'.

 

The 'do not turn left' or 'do not cheat against this model' are different rules which I'll name Z, with a different scope to X. Ignoring X does not grant immunity to Z, only to X.

 

However, let's not spend a ton of pages in a meaningless debate about linguistic trivialities. 

 

 

In this case, there are two separate rules that block cheating in certain circumstances, one the standard rule, one the ItW ability:

 

+ve flip - can I cheat normally? yes - will flay let me? yes - will ItW let me cheat? no

 

-ve flip - can I cheat normally? no - will flay let me? yes - will ItW let me? no

[Cats Laughing]

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.

 

It would be a conversation for another time, as noted by another poster Flay doesn't use "even if" in it's wording. 

(for those without book on hand you can look to Lord Chompy Bits in the recent Official Wave 2 download for the proper wording of Flay)

 

The wording was probably changed by Wyrd to avoid this very argument.

[OldManMyke]

FWIW last time this came up on Twitter Justin said that Flay didnt help you against ItW

[Ausplosions]

Permissive Rule Set. ;-)

[baskinders]

Permissive Rule Set. ;-)

+

Flay is just repeating the rule from the rule book (you may cheat fate) and then adding an extra bonus to it (even when...).

[The Godlyness]

Permissive Rule Set. ;-)

The internet is now going to die. It's blood is on your hands. Might take a few years bu t its downfall is assured.

[Barnaberible]

I'm sure there is another thread about this that goes into which has the most specific wording and everything, I remember that being a good read, turns out impossible to wound wins as I remember.

Not sure about the traffic lights though

[Vanthor]

This appears to be another "understanding English" debate:

 

 

 

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".

 

In English, "...may not [be cheated]," is not an optional rule, it is absolute, the same as, "...is not allowed to [cheat]." Conversely, "...may be [cheated]..." is permissive, it gives you the option to cheat but isn't absolute. As such there is no conflict between the two sentences.

[Cornelious1424]

Flay allows you to cheat even if there is a (-) twist on the damage flip.

 

Impossible to Wound prevents models from being able to cheat the damage flip, period.

 

A model that triggers Flay on a model with ItW would not be able to cheat the damage flip, because ItW states that models may not, under any circumstance, cheat damage fips against it.

 

 

I don't see why this is so hard to understand...

[i_was_like_you]

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

 

 

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.

 

With the new edition, barring any errata to either model, you would have had the correct printing of the Flay in front of you on the Illuminated's stat card from the Arsenal Pack (or printed out from the book) and, also, the correct printing of Nicodem's Impossible to Wound. It's a great time saver. You show me yours. I'll show you mine. Instant fix. No confusion.

Now, had what you found on Scribd been the correct wording, then I'd wholeheartedly push for your case that Flay trumps ItW, especially in light of the Silurids' Silent Trumping Lilith's Master of Malifaux. As it was an earlier file, though, it's just not the official rule. Oh well.

[decker_cky]

https://twitter.com/JustinLaloGibbs/status/417925211871125505

 

There's Justin's tweet on the matter. Since this has come up several times, I hope it gets ruled on in the FAQ document.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'd actually say this is errata, since the rule doesn't actually state what's been "clarified." As worded, it's not saying that it ignores the inability to cheat on negative flips: it says that in the case of negative flips, you can cheat.

[N1ck]

I still have the Wave 1 Beta cards. Why? I don't know, but I took a gander and the flay trigger that MadManMSU reiterated is spot on. It is in fact the Beta Wave 1 ruling for Flay.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yep, I expect that isn't intended (I believe it also as written overrides black jokers but only on negative flips), but it seems pretty clear that it's written that way.

[IntereoVivo]

This does actually need an FAQ since Flay is the more specific rule and (by pg28) should bypass Impossible to Wound. At least the way I read it.

 

Attack results in -flips

 

Impossible to Wound says: Damage flips against this model may not be cheated (applies to all damgae flips)

Flay: The damage flip resulting from this Attack may be cheated if it suffers one or more -flip (only applies to "The damage flip resulting from this Attack" when "it suffers from one or more -flip)

 

Flay is more specific. Since the rules contradict each other, the more specific rule of the two takes precedence.

 

But hey, whatever Justin says.

[Mako]

Since the answer to this has been clearly stated for a while (ItW trumps flay), and people are now just debating finer and finer aspects of the rule wording, I don't think we need to continue.

I'm pretty sure this thread has been seen, so rather than endlessly making cases for why Justin is right or wrong, let's just make use of the answer. If it is deemed necessary, it will get an FAQ spot.

[zFiend]

So flay now allows you to cheat an impossible to wound target even when you flip the black joker? 

[Ausplosions]

So flay now allows you to cheat an impossible to wound target even when you flip the black joker?

What? No.

[Dracomax]

This argument is starting to remind me of the belle lures in base to base argument....

[IntereoVivo]

Haha, it's true.

 

ZFiend, no. It has been ruled (by Justin via Twitter) that Impossible to Wound beats Flay. Going by the wording, it makes it extremely likely that the Black Joker trumps Flay as well.

[The Godlyness]

The Black Joker Trumps All. Forever, this is the one absolute rule all must follow.

 

When you flip that black joker for damage Scoop your cards put them into the discard pile and say well that was fun and if you can try the action again or do something different.

[Dracomax]

Most people will look the other way if you turn the air blue each time it (the Black Joker) comes up.

[Morgan Vening]

The Black Joker Trumps All. Forever, this is the one absolute rule all must follow.

 

When you flip that black joker for damage Scoop your cards put them into the discard pile and say well that was fun and if you can try the action again or do something different.

Well, except for Rasputina's Decembers Pawn and Neverborn's Pact. So there are exceptions.

[SpiralngCadavr]

As worded, I believe Flay trumps both Impossible to Wound and the Black Joker. What appears to be the intent (and how I'll play it unless something else is confirmed) is that it overrides negative flips preventing cheats.