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!

[CRC]

<rant>

Sometimes I really hate how Wyrd writes errata. We have a simple question and want a simple answer. Can they answer that question? No, they have to rewrite our question into a garbled and heavily biased question and then answer that.

 

Seriously? Was anyone anywhere curious is a model suffering zero damage from burning would heal?

 

Anyone?

 

No. The question was "Do abilities get a chance to reduce or prevent burning before Purifying Fire converts the damage to healing?"

 

There. Simple unbiased question that could receive a simple answer and close this mess.

</rant>

 

Well, at least this back-handed FAQ answers the "intent" part of the question. We know what they meant, and I'm going to leave it at that.

[bertmac]

Could Always keep an eternal flame within 6" so immunity to burning is taken off then damage that would be dealt is turned into healing. 

[Justin]

<rant>

Sometimes I really hate how Wyrd writes errata. We have a simple question and want a simple answer. Can they answer that question? No, they have to rewrite our question into a garbled and heavily biased question and then answer that.

 

Seriously? Was anyone anywhere curious is a model suffering zero damage from burning would heal?

 

Anyone?

 

No. The question was "Do abilities get a chance to reduce or prevent burning before Purifying Fire converts the damage to healing?"

 

There. Simple unbiased question that could receive a simple answer and close this mess.

</rant>

 

Well, at least this back-handed FAQ answers the "intent" part of the question. We know what they meant, and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

The FAQ was written in that manner so that it is compatible with possible future questions in the instance of models reducing burning damage either through other abilities, soulstone prevention, etc so that we do not have to answer a question for each one. It was not meant to be "backhanded."

 

As to the question of timing, neither takes precedence. Neither has any language indicating it occurs first, so they both take effect. The model suffers 0 burning damage. It also heals an amount of damage equal to the burning damage it would have suffered, which is 0. I apologize that this is confusing, but it is the way the rules are written.

 

I hope this helped.

[CRC]

Could Always keep an eternal flame within 6" so immunity to burning is taken off then damage that would be dealt is turned into healing. 

 

Neither Rail Golems nor Fire Gamin are immune to Burning. The gamin just take zero damage from it, and the rail golem doesn't resolve it at all.

 

Here's a list of all the things that are immune to burning that the eternal flame helps you against:

• Lenny
• Clockwork Traps
• Ashes and Dust (and its parts)
• Shang
• the Emberling
• Monks of the Low River

(list produced by grepping the pdfs, may not be accurate due to changes between pdfs and printed cards)

 

All this assumes that "immune" is a defined game term, which is isn't. You can tell, because it's not capitalized. Which means we have to use an "English interpretation" to determine if something is immune to burning or not...

 

Edit: As pointed out below, Immunity is a game term, and so that last paragraph doesn't apply.

[Justin]

Neither Rail Golems nor Fire Gamin are immune to Burning. The gamin just take zero damage from it, and the rail golem doesn't resolve it at all.

 

Here's a list of all the things that are immune to burning that the eternal flame helps you against:

• Lenny
• Clockwork Traps
• Ashes and Dust (and its parts)
• Shang
• the Emberling
• Monks of the Low River

(list produced by grepping the pdfs, may not be accurate due to changes between pdfs and printed cards)

 

All this assumes that "immune" is a defined game term, which is isn't. You can tell, because it's not capitalized. Which means we have to use an "English interpretation" to determine if something is immune to burning or not...

 

If immunity is defined in the book, it is a game term.

[CRC]

The FAQ was written in that manner so that it is compatible with possible future questions in the instance of models reducing burning damage either through other abilities, soulstone prevention, etc so that we do not have to answer a question for each one. It was not meant to be "backhanded."

 

As to the question of timing, neither takes precedence. Neither has any language indicating it occurs first, so they both take effect. The model suffers 0 burning damage. It also heals an amount of damage equal to the burning damage it would have suffered, which is 0. I apologize that this is confusing, but it is the way the rules are written.

 

I hope this helped.

 

I do understand the need to write the errata with a view to future rules interactions. It's just that the phrasing reads like a strawman attack. Further, it feels like the writer went out of his way to reduce the question to absurdity at the expense of clarity.

 

For example, above you reference "other abilities, soulstone prevention, etc", and I don't feel like I have any guidance on how to resolve those issues. Let me take a concrete example that will come up in play: Armor.

 

Now, from the language on the models, (in particular, from the tense of the verbs), I would assume that Purifying Fire would take effect before armor reduced the damage. However, the errata makes me me unsure, and your comment about soulstone prevention (which clearly happens after armor) makes me think it would.

[Justin]

I do understand the need to write the errata with a view to future rules interactions. It's just that the phrasing reads like a strawman attack. Further, it feels like the writer went out of his way to reduce the question to absurdity at the expense of clarity.

 

For example, above you reference "other abilities, soulstone prevention, etc", and I don't feel like I have any guidance on how to resolve those issues. Let me take a concrete example that will come up in play: Armor.

 

Now, from the language on the models, (in particular, from the tense of the verbs), I would assume that Purifying Fire would take effect before armor reduced the damage. However, the errata makes me me unsure, and your comment about soulstone prevention (which clearly happens after armor) makes me think it would.

 

Well, let's be entirely clear: I am the writer. It was me. Feel free to tell me you think I screwed up. I don't bite (through the internet, haven't figured out how...)

 

Purifying fire references damage suffered by the burning condition. So, here are the steps:

 

Step 1) Figure out how much damage you are suffering due to the burning Condition (factor in armor, prevention, abilities, whatever)

 

Step 2) Instead of suffering that damage, heal that amount.

 

Now, these cards aren't in physical form yet. And although I am unwilling to change what they do, I am willing to tweak the wording so they are more clear between now and physical copies. (Which is another reason for the vague answer, it allows me to see if I need to go to that extent. And also another reason other wave 2 stuff may not be on there).

 

Feel free to let me know how you think the ability could be more clear.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Maybe note the specific thing that triggered the question as an example? That way the immediate question gets answered, but the ruling stands for future situations.

[Justin]

Maybe note the specific thing that triggered the question as an example? That way the immediate question gets answered, but the ruling stands for future situations.

 

I think it sort of depends on the question.

 

I formatted this one similar to other questions that have worked in the past.

 

For example: If a model moves/is pushed 0" does it count as having been moved? No.

 

That question was to answer the question about whether a belle can get off pounce against a model which failed its dual against lure but didn't end up moving. The question there really is, "is a 0" move still a move?" And by answering it without referencing it, it also solves the problem of if a model with the Rooted condition is pushed 0" (say because it is up against impassable terrain) does it still count as having been pushed? etc, etc

 

Same thing with the question about 0 damage. Some attacks have a profile of 0/1/2 and there are a huge number of things that take effect after suffering damage. Rather than go through all of them, it was far easier to answer that one question. It shortens the length of the document and makes sure that all similar instances are resolved in the same way.

 

I think this was simply the wrong instance to use that sort of language. There aren't wide reaching enough effects to justify that sort of language and, apparently, it feels like a snub. Live and learn, it's why we update the FAQ every 2 months.

 

Probably should have just skipped it entirely and clarified it when it went to print.

[indigonegative]

So a Fire Gamin with Burning 2 reduced it to 1 due to armor and further reduces it to 0 due to Sarecenar's Plight. So Purifying Fire will never heal a Fire Gamin. However it still works on Gunsmiths who have no Armor.

[indigonegative]

Joss at Armor 2 would need Burning 3 to heal 1 wound.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Perhaps I'm

Misunderstanding, but why? Armor can't reduce dmg below 1. So for Joss Burning 1 would deal 1 dmg, burning 2 would deal 1 dmg, burning 3 would deal 1 dmg.

[CRC]

I think it sort of depends on the question.

 

I formatted this one similar to other questions that have worked in the past.

 

For example: If a model moves/is pushed 0" does it count as having been moved? No.

Consider it in comparison to the following:

Q: The Melee Expert Ability states, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” Can AP from Melee Expert be used to take Actions which aren’t Ml Actions, for example, Charge?

A: No.

To me, the main difference is where the question is answered. In the first case, that is literally a question people ask, and on the face of it, could be ruled either way (and has been ruled the other way in other games.)

In the second case, the information is loaded into the question. I've heard the equivalent question many times, both online and in person, but never phrased anything like that.

A more representative phrasing would be something like:

Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves?

A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action.

Or maybe:

Q: Can I use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay for a Charge action?

A: No. While the Charge Action results in Ml Actions, it is not actually a Ml Action itself.

Anyway, I don't think the Charge question needs to be changed in the Errata, but it seemed like a good example to use here.

[Justin]

Consider it in comparison to the following:

Q: The Melee Expert Ability states, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” Can AP from Melee Expert be used to take Actions which aren’t Ml Actions, for example, Charge?

A: No.

To me, the main difference is where the question is answered. In the first case, that is literally a question people ask, and on the face of it, could be ruled either way (and has been ruled the other way in other games.)

In the second case, the information is loaded into the question. I've heard the equivalent question many times, both online and in person, but never phrased anything like that.

A more representative phrasing would be something like:

Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves?

A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action.

Or maybe:

Q: Can I use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay for a Charge action?

A: No. While the Charge Action results in Ml Actions, it is not actually a Ml Action itself.

Anyway, I don't think the Charge question needs to be changed in the Errata, but it seemed like a good example to use here.

 

I see what you're saying, but loading the information into the question just makes it that much more clear.

 

Your first example:

 

A more representative phrasing would be something like:

Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves?

A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action.

 

This wouldn't work, because it implies a lot of things it doesn't intend to. For example, say a model gains + to Df flips against Ml actions. Since this question states that actions that produce Ml actions do not count as Ml actions, then the model in question would not gain + to Df flips against attacks made with the charge action, which clearly throws things a bit off.

 

Your second example:

 

Or maybe:

Q: Can I use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay for a Charge action?

A: No. While the Charge Action results in Ml Actions, it is not actually a Ml Action itself.

 

This is much, much better. However, it is still going to lead to a lot of follow up questions. Take Slither on the Razorspine rattler for example:

 

(2) Move this model up to 9" ignoring severe terrain during the move. Then, this model may take a 1 AP Ml Attack Action.

 

This is very, very similar to charge. However, it is not charge, so it would need its own FAQ entry. As would Flurry, and a number of other actions.

 

Now, the FAQ question you have there implies the answer to those questions, but it doesn't actually give a set in stone, final answer which is, frankly, necessary.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to explain this. I would rather people speak up than feel snubbed.

[Dracomax]

I see what you're saying, but loading the information into the question just makes it that much more clear.

 

Your first example:

 

A more representative phrasing would be something like:

Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves?

A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action.

 

This wouldn't work, because it implies a lot of things it doesn't intend to. For example, say a model gains + to Df flips against Ml actions. Since this question states that actions that produce Ml actions do not count as Ml actions, then the model in question would not gain + to Df flips against attacks made with the charge action, which clearly throws things a bit off.

 

With utmost respect, I don't know that I can agree with that. In the specific, the Ml actions created by a Charge are still Ml actions. anything that applies to Ml actions should apply to those actions.

 

In the general case:

I think here what we are seeing is the difference between inductive resoning and deductive resoning; in effect You would prefer to give the general, and have us deduce the specific therefrom, whereas CRC would prefer we start from the specific case, and induce the general case as part of the answer.

 

Note: I'm not saying either are wrong, but I tend to think a mixture of the two is probably best for rules clarity. The initial ruleset should obviously be deductive in nature, as that causes the fewest problems and the least amount of rules.

 

However, I suspect that clarifications should lean a bit more toward the inductive, specifically because the ruleset itself should already be the general case; clarification should tend toward the specific because it concerns itself with the interpretation of the general ruleset into the specific. When people are confused with how the general rule is interpeted in a specific case, setting it up as another general rule is less effective at helping people deduce the correct interpretation from the already existing rules. Setting it up as an inductive statement such as CRC lets you tie the specific back into the general, which creates a better understanding.

 

Regardless, I think that one word, yes/no answers tend to do little to illuminate, as I said in one of the new player threads. I would rather understand why a rule works the way it does than get an answer as to how it works. Much like teaching a man to fish, the one word answer may solve the individual problem, but it doesn't give me tools to solve problems in the future.

 

I beleive you made a rule system that is remarkably balanced and capable of resolving most of the issues set before it. I don't think eratta is going to be a large issue. but FAQs exist because we are trying to set a rule system in an imprecise language and people all interpret things a little differently. It is better to train us to fish than to keep handing the fish out.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know it is more critical than you would probably like, but you did say it was better to hear our thoughts than to feel ignored.

[HalcyonSeraph]

That's sort of self-contradictory, though, isn't it?. If you prefer FAQs to be more specific, isn't that just "handing the fish out"?

[Justin]

With utmost respect, I don't know that I can agree with that. In the specific, the Ml actions created by a Charge are still Ml actions. anything that applies to Ml actions should apply to those actions.

 

In the general case:

I think here what we are seeing is the difference between inductive resoning and deductive resoning; in effect You would prefer to give the general, and have us deduce the specific therefrom, whereas CRC would prefer we start from the specific case, and induce the general case as part of the answer.

 

Note: I'm not saying either are wrong, but I tend to think a mixture of the two is probably best for rules clarity. The initial ruleset should obviously be deductive in nature, as that causes the fewest problems and the least amount of rules.

 

However, I suspect that clarifications should lean a bit more toward the inductive, specifically because the ruleset itself should already be the general case; clarification should tend toward the specific because it concerns itself with the interpretation of the general ruleset into the specific. When people are confused with how the general rule is interpeted in a specific case, setting it up as another general rule is less effective at helping people deduce the correct interpretation from the already existing rules. Setting it up as an inductive statement such as CRC lets you tie the specific back into the general, which creates a better understanding.

 

Regardless, I think that one word, yes/no answers tend to do little to illuminate, as I said in one of the new player threads. I would rather understand why a rule works the way it does than get an answer as to how it works. Much like teaching a man to fish, the one word answer may solve the individual problem, but it doesn't give me tools to solve problems in the future.

 

I beleive you made a rule system that is remarkably balanced and capable of resolving most of the issues set before it. I don't think eratta is going to be a large issue. but FAQs exist because we are trying to set a rule system in an imprecise language and people all interpret things a little differently. It is better to train us to fish than to keep handing the fish out.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know it is more critical than you would probably like, but you did say it was better to hear our thoughts than to feel ignored.

 

"With utmost respect, I don't know that I can agree with that. In the specific, the Ml actions created by a Charge are still Ml actions. anything that applies to Ml actions should apply to those actions."

 

While you are technically correct, I guarantee people would make the argument I gave (which would lead to further questions).

 

On another note, I should really figure out how to break up quotes on the forums where I work...

 

Anyway, I see your point. How about this:

 

Q: Can the Melee Expert Ability be used to take any non Ml Actions (for example, Charge)?

 

A: No. The Melee Expert Ability reads, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” While Charge creates Ml Actions it is not a Ml Action itself.

 

This loads all the information into the FAQ I wanted. By putting the Melee Expert portion of the text into the Answer rather than the question, it doesn't make the person asking the question look like an idiot, and by simply adding "for example, Charge" it also directly answers the original problem while still resolving future situations.

[Dracomax]

That's sort of self-contradictory, though, isn't it?. If you prefer FAQs to be more specific, isn't that just "handing the fish out"?

 

First, the man once said "consistency is the sign of  a simple mind" .  In answer, though, it really isn't. I just didn't explain what I meant as well as I would like, and used an imprecise analogy(as all such analogies tend to be). In essence, I think the best option is to give the specific answer, and then explain why/how that answer applies to the general rule.

 

 

Anyway, I see your point. How about this:

 

Q: Can the Melee Expert Ability be used to take any non Ml Actions (for example, Charge)?

 

A: No. The Melee Expert Ability reads, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” While Charge creates Ml Actions it is not a Ml Action itself.

 

This loads all the information into the FAQ I wanted. By putting the Melee Expert portion of the text into the Answer rather than the question, it doesn't make the person asking the question look like an idiot, and by simply adding "for example, Charge" it also directly answers the original problem while still resolving future situations.

 

This is pretty much what I am talking about. It gives an answer to the specific question, then explains how that answer is arrived at. I can take the specific answer and use it right away, while then looking at something like flurry in the future, and saying "the reason I didn't get the bonuses to charge were that charge is not itself a Ml action, even though it creates them. Therefore, this other thing that creates Ml (or Sh, or Ca) actions probably works the same."

 

A simple No to the question "do actions that create Ml actions count as Ml actions" solves that specific problem, but makes it hard to then extrapolate to things like Rapid fire. (and yes, I am aware this is a terrible example—from the perspective of the benefits of making the reasoning clear behind the rules—, because the "no" answer does imply most of these things, but it is the one that was used. there are other questions in the FAQ that could benefit much, much more, IMHO, from such clarification).

[Justin]

First, the man once said "consistency is the sign of  a simple mind" .  In answer, though, it really isn't. I just didn't explain what I meant as well as I would like, and used an imprecise analogy(as all such analogies tend to be). In essence, I think the best option is to give the specific answer, and then explain why/how that answer applies to the general rule.

 

 

 

This is pretty much what I am talking about. It gives an answer to the specific question, then explains how that answer is arrived at. I can take the specific answer and use it right away, while then looking at something like flurry in the future, and saying "the reason I didn't get the bonuses to charge were that charge is not itself a Ml action, even though it creates them. Therefore, this other thing that creates Ml (or Sh, or Ca) actions probably works the same."

 

A simple No to the question "do actions that create Ml actions count as Ml actions" solves that specific problem, but makes it hard to then extrapolate to things like Rapid fire. (and yes, I am aware this is a terrible example—from the perspective of the benefits of making the reasoning clear behind the rules—, because the "no" answer does imply most of these things, but it is the one that was used. there are other questions in the FAQ that could benefit much, much more, IMHO, from such clarification).

 

It's a fine line.

 

I don't want to put too much there, because every line is a line that can be misinterpreted. And while reasoning is nice, it can be misused as well (or simply used in the wrong situation). I don't want the FAQ to need an FAQ.

 

That said, clearly there are some things (like charge) that can (and will) be improved.

[Dracomax]

Well, if you ever create something that can't be improved, it either means that nobody likes it, or that you've achieved something that nobody else in human history has managed and should really just quit now, so that's probably a good thing.

 

and, it probably helps to remeber that when you make something foolproof, they just breed a better class of fools.

[Manic Mouse]

You can use the Eternal Flame's flaming detonation to bypass the Rail Golem's burning "immunity" since it only applies at the end of the turn.  You lose all your burning though, so you have to decide whether you want to heal him or save it for extra AP.  It does make the eternal flame a very good partner to him though.

[Bengt]

Since it says you do it "...as if it was the end of the turn." I would assume the Rail Golem's ability works as normal. 

[Ausplosions]

Since it says you do it "...as if it was the end of the turn." I would assume the Rail Golem's ability works as normal.

Correct. Also. THREADOMANCY!!!!

[mythicFOX]

Yeah if we want to discuss this further lets have a new thread. Necro's bad mmmm'kay.