Kaeris: Purifying Fire vs. Rail Golem or Fire Gamin

[Rabenstein]

Hello everyone,

 

heres a Question to a Kaeris upgrade:

Does either the Rail Golem or a Fire Gamin heal Wounds due the upgrade Purifying Fire?

 

These are the rule printed on the respective cards

 

Upgrade Kaeris:

"Purifying Fire: Friendly models within (a)6 do
not suffer damage from the Burning Condition.
Instead, they heal that amount of damage."

 

Fire Gamin:

"Saracenar's Plight: Reduce the damage this
model suffers from the Burning Condition to 0."

 

Rail Golem:

"Forged in Fire: At the end of the Turn, this

model does not end its Burning Condition

and it does not suffer damage from the

Burning Condition."

 

Thanks for your help!

[indigonegative]

I think you could answer this with the rulebook: the more specific rule applies. But I don't know whether a master's ability on on an upgrade is more specific than a minion's ability.

[Stoupe]

I would say that since they take 0 damage, they heal 0 damage.

[HalcyonSeraph]

To me, its the use of the word "instead" in Purifying Fire that answers this. They heal INSTEAD of taking damage, so models that aren't taking damage won't heal. 

[Rabenstein]

That's the way I would prefer it (for the Rail Golem). 

But you can argue, since they do not suffer damage, there is no need to reduce the damage...

[Fenton Crack]

Hmm. I see where you guys are coming regarding the semantics, but I wonder if that is how it was meant to be interpreted.

I had read Purifying Flames wording to simply mean its a healing cast on models within 6 and you supply the damage track from the stat card as a healing flip.

It's two sentences, the first indicating that the model is not damaged, the second indications the healing flip is to be made. I agree that the "Instead" may introduce some abiguity though.

I took "instead to dimply amen that one should instead treat the damage track as a healing track for the flip as I suppose it might be harder to write it any more specifically without it being long and clunky.

It seems a bit odd that her "core" minions (Fire Gamin) would not benefit from one of her fundamental upgrades.

In regards to the Rail Golem though, even if he did not heal, would he not still be building up his Burning, which would still be great?

(I don't see where any of the language indicates the target model(s) don't still get the burning condition, only hat they cannot take damage from it, so in his case I would as he either heals and increases burning, or at least still increase his burning.)

It's and interesting query and I wish the beta boards were still up to see if it''s already been resolved.

There may still be some batreps up to read through and see if there is a consensus how they treated the upgrade.

[Eyefink]

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is that confusing. If you would take damage from Burning, you heal that amount instead of suffering it. If the amount of damage taken from Burning is 0, you heal for 0. It doesn't say to heal for the amount of Burning; if that's the intent, it needs errata.

[The Godlyness]

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is that confusing. If you would take damage from Burning, you heal that amount instead of suffering it. If the amount of damage taken from Burning is 0, you heal for 0. It doesn't say to heal for the amount of Burning; if that's the intent, it needs errata.

+1

[Fenton Crack]

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is that confusing. If you would take damage from Burning, you heal that amount instead of suffering it. If the amount of damage taken from Burning is 0, you heal for 0. It doesn't say to heal for the amount of Burning; if that's the intent, it needs errata.

I am glad it does not confuse you as it does myself.

In regards to your fourth sentence, I was not indicating that I think there is any definite reading of the rule where burning equals healing amount, I was simply pointing out that even if the rule is meant to exclude several of Kaeris' core models from getting any benefit from the upgrade, at least the action will have the benefit of increasing the burning on the RG while not damaging him at all, so it would not be a waste on him (whereas the Fare Gamin would get no benefit.

And I agree that a FAQ or errata might be helpful on the matter. While I concede I may have interpreted it wrong and it could certainly be read the other way, and if I am confused and he OP thought it was questionable enough to create he post, it's possible others there are others that will find I he same way.

The argument is often that since it is obvious to some, a FAQ entry is unnecessary, as one cannot be created for every rule that someone was confused by, I guess that they will have to determine whether it is "frequently asked" enough to warrant a FAQ inclusion.

[Eyefink]

I didn't say the question was unnecessary, I said it wasn't as confusing as you're making it by trying to parse out very line of text. It says what it says, there's no hidden meaning. I'm also not sure how that would increase the Rail Golem's Burning? Rail Golem wouldn't even trigger it for a Heal of 0.

As an aside, the Rail Golem and Fire Gamin are the only things she would take that wouldn't benefit from that upgrade (she still has her henchman, totem and minions), and both of those would be crazy overpowered if they did, the RG in particular.

Edit: Actually, since 0 damage is considered no damage, the Fire Gamin wouldn't "heal for 0" either.

[Rabenstein]

I see, it's not that easy as it looks like. Let's make it a bit more complicated.

 

I guess the important part is the meaning of "they heal that amount of damage". Does that mean the damage the would suffer from the burning condition without modification (burning 2 means 2 damage) or the damage after applying any prevention (burning 2 + armor 1 means 1 damage)?

 

What about the first sentence from the Rail Golem as well as the upgrade. They do not suffer damage from the Burning Condition. Since the upgrade on it's own says the do not suffer damage, they can not heal any damage. Instead is the keyword. That's why it could mean that do heal the wounds equal to the burning value. On the other hand, wouldn't they write the "heal wounds equal to the burning condition"?

 

In our last games we decided that it won't work. Otherwise my Rail Golem would heal about 5 to 9 wounds each round, thanks to the Captain! sounds a bit broken...

[Fenton Crack]

I didn't say the question was unnecessary, I said it wasn't as confusing as you're making it by trying to parse out very line of text. It says what it says, there's no hidden meaning. I'm also not sure how that would increase the Rail Golem's Burning? Rail Golem wouldn't even trigger it for a Heal of 0.

As an aside, the Rail Golem and Fire Gamin are the only things she would take that wouldn't benefit from that upgrade (she still has her henchman, totem and minions), and both of those would be crazy overpowered if they did, the RG in particular.

Edit: Actually, since 0 damage is considered no damage, the Fire Gamin wouldn't "heal for 0" either.

 

Apologies if it seems that I am making things more complicated by parsing every line of text (although in all fairness, it is only one sentence and three lines long), as my intent was to clarify my interpretation rather than further muddying the issue or coming off like a contrarian.

 

As Rabenstein indicates, what the "amount" Purifying Flame references is to use "instead" is what the rule appears to turn on in this case.

 

I understand the point of view that the reading is that one is to calculate what the damage from Burning would be, then simply add that number instead of subtracting it, and if one cannot take damage from the Burning they cannot be healed by it either.

 

I am not faulting the logic one might use to get there either.

 

However, when I read the card, I interpreted it as the first sentence simply indicating the model's do not take damage from burning (which is rather clear), but just because a model could not take burning damage before, they are still have the same status they had before (if in the 6" aura), and are no better or worse than any model that had the ability or not at that point. 

 

The "amount" of Burning any model has at that point, it will heal at the end of the round if within the 6" aura.

 

I ultimately do not care which way the rule is "supposed" to go, as with most rules, I'm just looking for clarity and consistency.

 

Rabenstein brings up a good point with the possibility of an OP situation on the Rail Golem if he is healing that many wounds each round.

 

That may be a concern, but it may not be as OP as it first appears:

 

First, the Rail Golem is often voluntarily lowering his Burning condition to utilize his zero action, second, unless he is acting as a bodyguard to Kaeris, if he is going to hang around Kaeris for the heal bubble, he might very well be denied utility of locomotioning around the board killing stuff, and lastly, the healing only occurs at the end of the turn, so the opponent will have several activations to try and kill the RG prior to when the healing would take place, push he or Kaeris to nullify the bubbles reach, or use a condition removing model etc.

 

Even with those factors, it may still seem OP, but in comparison to other healing in the game, I am not so sure it is.

 

In a Viks crew, the Librarian can use Flurry to cast her 1/2/3 healing three times in a single turn.  While it is unlikely that the healing will result in the healing of the 9 max wounds on a single model, consider the fact that even if it is four to six wounds, because of the Sister mechanic, that is potentially four models (both Viks, Vanessa and the Student of Conflict) all healing up quite a bit on a single models activation, and not at the end of  the turn, and with no restrictions of how where they are on the board.

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, in regards to the Rail Golem gaining burning, that confusion was created by utter lack of explanation (apologies). 

 

I did not mean to indicate that the upgrade would benefit him in adding to burning, but rather simply meant that there may still be a benefit to Kaeris' Flaming Halo on the RG even though it would no longer be of any benefit to the Fire Gamin.

 

With my proffered interpretation of the upgrade, targeting either kind of model would gain the benefit of potentially healing because of Flaming Halo at turns end due to the burning +1.

 

If the upgrade cannot heal either of them, I was just pointing out that the RG would still gain the benefit of the Burning (from Burning Halo and its 0 damage track) without losing wounds (unlike gaining it via the Firestarter or Gamin that even cheated down would take a wound) that could be utilized by his zero action.

 

 

 

 

 

In my experience with any rule debates, very seldom are peoples minds changed as the discussion continues after  awhile, absent some official ruling or mass consensus, so I will leave my input as this, as further discussion can turn into argumentative exchanges that offer little value, and it is likely just as well to end my input here before it can get to that point.

 

Mind you, I will continue to read the post and hope for clarity on the issue, and certainly welcome any disagreement, and am not attempting to get the "last word" in, or couch my humble opinion with an air of finality on the matter.

 

I just know that a chewing of the semantics further is not likely to be productive for me, but certainly hope to see the "final answer", whatever it may be.

[Felstorm]

The below might resolve the OP's question about Abilities interacting:

Page 35

END PHASE

1. Upkeep

Refer to text “if the order in which multiple effects would resolve would affect the outcome, then the affected model’s owning player determines the order in which they are resolved”.

Start with effect Burning +1: this model suffers +1 damage, equal to Burning Condition value,

Interrupt the Burning Condition resolution with Purifying Fire and heal damage instead

- Fire Gamin now refers to Saracenar’s Plight but has not received any damage. Remove Burning Condition.

- Golem now does not end the Burning Condition due to Forged in Fire and ignores the second part cause it didn’t suffer damage anyway (Rail Golem resolved).

The Gamin and Golem would need to be in range of the Aura but this seems like a logical resolution order for the owning player. All three are Abilities and they are all interacting with the Burning Condition during Upkeep.

[Rabenstein]

ohjeaha, this was a good hint. but I won't agree with your conclusion.

you have to complete one ability fully. this means you can use either Kaeris Upgrade or the Rail Golems ability. If you whish to heal wounds on the Golem you have to end the Burning Condition.

[Eyefink]

Guys, you can't just decide to ignore one thing and resolve another. Rail Golem and Fire Gamin never, ever suffer damage from Burning, therefore Purifying Flame can never trigger for them. Even if you did want to tackle Purifying Flame first, you look at the model to see how much damage it would receive, see that it's none, and move on. I really think you guys are overthinking this.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Guys, you can't just decide to ignore one thing and resolve another. Rail Golem and Fire Gamin never, ever suffer damage from Burning, therefore Purifying Flame can never trigger for them. Even if you did want to tackle Purifying Flame first, you look at the model to see how much damage it would receive, see that it's none, and move on. I really think you guys are overthinking this.

 

This, exactly. The statement about deciding the order in which to apply effects is true, but the important bit is "if the order in which multiple effects would resolve would affect the outcome"

 

One of the effects here is a constant ongoing thing, and thus it doesn't matter at which point you decide to pay attention to it. The order doesn't affect the outcome. If you extend this example to another situation, if you have a model immune to Poison, you don't get to say oh well I'll just process this poison damage before I process his immunity. It doesn't work that way. He's immune.  

[Rabenstein]

but that's the different. they aren't immune. i would agree if they are immune.

let me rewrite the question:

does a modell heal wounds equal to its burning value or the wounds they would suffer from burning (after appplying any modification?

[Eyefink]

does a modell heal wounds equal to its burning value or the wounds they would suffer from burning (after appplying any modification?

 

Purifying Flame uses damage that would be received, not damage equal to the burning value.

[CRC]

If the model was immune to Burning, it would never receive the Burning Condition in the first place, so there would be no dispute as to what to do in the Upkeep phase.

The normal resolution timing rules are about independent effects, like Burning, Poison, and Blighted.
 
The problem here is that the abilities involved don't actually resolve, instead they modify how Burning resolves. Further, all the abilities are written in loose English rather than tight "rules-speak". Which means we need to apply English and logic. This also means that we don't necessarily need to reach the same conclusion in each case.

For the Fire Gamin, I think it's pretty easy to argue that a model with Burning +2 will heal 2 damage. The reasoning is that both Armor and Saracenar's Plight reduce the amount of damage taken. The Gamin never gets to damage reduction, because Purifying Fire swaps it for healing long before it matters.

For the Rail Golem, I read Forged In Fire as entirely replacing the normal Burning resolution rules, as does Purifying Fire. Given that the Golem's ability is clearly more specific (affecting only himself), I believe it takes precedence over Purifying Fire, so he neither heals nor removes Burning.

[Rabenstein]

CRC, that's the same conclusion we did discuss in our local Group. at present we play it that way.

for the Rail Golem we are still not sure, either you can choose to use pruifying flame or the forged in fire or forged in fire is dominat.

[CRC]

Btw, after reviewing a bunch of cards and beta pdfs, there seems to be consistent tenses used when damage is being dealt.

 

First, something causes a model to suffer damage. (e.g. Target suffers 2/3/4 damage.)

Second, the model gets to deal with the damage they've suffered (e.g. reduce all damage suffered by this model...)

Third, there are reactions that happen after suffering (e.g. After this model suffers damage ...)

 

Finally, forevermore, the model will have "damage it has suffered", that it might want to heal.

 

Both Forged in Fire and Purifying Fire use the first tense, so this observation just solidifies my belief that Armor doesn't affect the process, but doesn't clarify how those two interact.

[Fastenhate]

I would like to point out the librarian cannot use furious casting to heal. The heal is a tactical cast action and furious casting only allows cast attack actions.

[96p]

Justin stated in the chat, some days ago (yes the chat is a squishy source at best as I can't prove it to you that he actually said that) that the rail golem would NOT heal.

[Dracomax]

Honestly, I'd treat even documented Word of Justin as a squishy source, simply because if we don't, it makes this edition much worse than the rules forum of last edition. Can you imagine a new player having to comb through every chat log, tweet, forum post and journal entry to figure out what the actual rule is? It can be useful in settling disputes, but if it isn't in the FAQ, The Errata, or the rules, then I think we need to treat it as not being official.

[Justin]

Honestly, I'd treat even documented Word of Justin as a squishy source, simply because if we don't, it makes this edition much worse than the rules forum of last edition. Can you imagine a new player having to comb through every chat log, tweet, forum post and journal entry to figure out what the actual rule is? It can be useful in settling disputes, but if it isn't in the FAQ, The Errata, or the rules, then I think we need to treat it as not being official.

 

This I agree with.

 

In fact, it's specifically stated in the pinned thread at the top of this forum that the only official source of rules (aside from the book and cards) is the officially released errata and FAQ.

 

Although, for the record, I saw a grilled cheese sandwich on ebay that had the answer to this rules question baked into it.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Honestly, I'd treat even documented Word of Justin as a squishy source, simply because if we don't, it makes this edition much worse than the rules forum of last edition. Can you imagine a new player having to comb through every chat log, tweet, forum post and journal entry to figure out what the actual rule is? It can be useful in settling disputes, but if it isn't in the FAQ, The Errata, or the rules, then I think we need to treat it as not being official.

 

It's not official, but it is a good guideline on how to play it until the next FAQ comes out. I would bet that if Justin gives a "ruling" in the chat or on twitter, he'll include it in the next FAQ.