Jump to content



Photo

a question if you please


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:50 PM

just fishing in the ocean of accumulated knowledge out there.

regarding  EXPENDABLE MUSCLE.

the text reads:

IF expendable muscle WOULD be wounded or go insane, instead attach….blah de blah de.

now the question is based on that:

if he were in a story with another fellow character, and someone say, dropped a stick of dynamite into it, does the muscle jump BEFORE the wound? and possibly save his fellow. the IF and the WOULD suggest a precedence to the wound, whereas IS wounded or GOES insane would imply conjunction.

BUT it is only a passive effect and not a disrupt either so…….. i''m guessing rules wise thats the answer.

any takers on this one please??



#2 Danigral

Danigral

    Member

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:55 AM

It sounds like you answered your question, but this is my thinking. Wounds are assigned simultaneously and the characters are instantly destroyed at the resolution of the action, so the wounded (destroyed) character you tried to attach Expendable Muscle to would still be destroyed. You could still attach it to a different character though.

Waiting for vets to confirm.



#3 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:07 AM

 Basically, if a wound or insanity is allocated to Expendable Muscle, instead of wounding or making it insane, you can attach it. The wound is used up - it doesn't have to get assigned to another character or anything like that.



#4 Danigral

Danigral

    Member

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

TheProfessor said:

 Basically, if a wound or insanity is allocated to Expendable Muscle, instead of wounding or making it insane, you can attach it. The wound is used up - it doesn't have to get assigned to another character or anything like that.

Right, but he would be able to  "save" the other character since it would be destroyed simultaneoulsy, correct?



#5 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:32 PM

ahh!

but expendable muscle provides toughness + 1. hence the dilemma.



#6 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:31 PM

 I'm not sure what you mean.  If Expendable Muscle takes a wound (say from losing the Combat struggle), instead of being discarded, it can be attached to some other character you control.  That other character takes no wounds or anything - it just gains the attachment and as a result it gets Toughness +1 and Willpower.

 



#7 Danigral

Danigral

    Member

  • Members
  • 803 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:17 PM

 In the example the OP gave, there are two characters (one is Expendable Muscle and the other is let's say Tattoo Artist) that are wounded from Dynamite. So there are two options:

1) you can attach Expendable Muscle to Tattoo Artist to give it an immediate +1 toughness and "save" it.

2) Tattoo Artist gets a wound is destroyed immediately and is not in play, not allowing for the passive ability of Expendable Muscle to act on Tattoo Artist (although EM could be attached to a different character in play.



#8 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:48 AM

 Thanks for the clarification. I was answering an unasked question.

Now I see why there is confusion. When does the wound cause destruction…  Hmm.. Rules query, I suspect.



#9 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:04 AM

 OK, I checked in with Damon.  No, you can't save the other character.

Here's my version of his explanation of the timing, based on Framework Actions from the FAQ.

Framework Action initiates (wound causes destruction)

Disrupts (there are none)

Framework Action is executed  (wounded characters are destroyed)

Passive Abilities are initiated (Expendable Muscle can be attached, but the other character is already destroyed)

 



#10 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:14 AM

THANKS!

just the wording is a bit confusing with the IF's and WOULD's instead of IS.



#11 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:03 AM

TheProfessor said:

 OK, I checked in with Damon.  No, you can't save the other character.

Here's my version of his explanation of the timing, based on Framework Actions from the FAQ.

Framework Action initiates (wound causes destruction)

Disrupts (there are none)

Framework Action is executed  (wounded characters are destroyed)

Passive Abilities are initiated (Expendable Muscle can be attached, but the other character is already destroyed)

 

 

I…

Doesn't the passive ablity "trigger" in the first framework action (even before disrupts)? Or maybe even before that….

As, if I understand things correctly (something I've been doubting for quite awhile now at least in the context of how FFG is ruling things lately), when dynamite uses its action it must designate all of its targets before it actually goes off. Its then when Expendable Muscle would trigger so I would argue that EM would save the artist…

Or does this somehow fall under the 'modified - thing.. ruling'?

Otherwise the "would be" text would certainly mean to resovle before characters are actually wounded and most certainly before they are destroyed because of wounding.

Is there a more detailed explanation available as this is not intuitive.



#12 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:32 AM

 I did not do Damon's ruling justice - the bit about framework actions was my interpretation, and when I double checked with Damon, he said that there are no framework actions that need to addressed here.  Here is where Damon corrected me about that:

"It is not a framework action, Those are actions the game initiates, like draw and refresh. It is standard resolution of what may be a framework action (combat struggle) or player action (in this case Dynamite). The passive on EM simply tells you what to do instead of it getting the wound. That replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded it (and all the other characters) in the first place. If it had been a disrupt then it would work just like that though."

 

Here is the original response:

"There is no interaction between the cards.

Expendable Muscle is a passive effect not a disrupt and all wounds from a single effect are placed simultaneously. End result is EM gets a wound token at the same time as the other character. The full resolution of the wounding takes place and then any passives whose triggers are met initiate. EM's passive means it goes on a character if able rather than going to the discard pile but the other character has no such passive and is already destroyed as far as the game is concerned."



#13 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:55 AM

 Makes sense, though I see where Magnus was confused. Dynamite certainly designates everything it is wounding, but since the passive on EM is a replacement effect its resolution happens when it would actually leave play which would be the same time everything else is leaving play that had been wounded by dynamite. If it had not been worded as a replacement effect and just said, "If EM would be wounded attach it to another character…" then it would attach at the moment of designation rather than at the moment of leaving play.



#14 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:55 AM

what about…

"If a passive ability would alter an action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated."

… from the FAQ.

If nothing else it shows that passive abilities being "always on" can "trigger" before, with, and after disrupts. The text "would be" to me clearly puts the trigger before the wounds are actually dealt/placed on the card.

It being a disrupt or not doesn't really matter as (at least, to me) the text indicates when it triggers.

And to cover some more bases…

Being that EM's ability changes who would be dealt a wound (since we have to designate when we even think about using the action) does that not count as "altering" an action? Of course, that would mean that the cards are interacting with another. I know Damon said that they don't, but the action that "would be" dealing the wounds is coming from Dynamite's effect so how are they not interacting?

It being a replacement effect; we just might be disagreeing on. I see the replacement effect afffecting its designation (once again bringing up the "would be" part of the text) rather than the wound actually being placed on EM.

I may or may not be taking some things to literally or not literally enough, but just reading the cards I'm getting a different result than the ones being explained. 

However, it seems i agree on all other bases. A replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded (note its past tense) it. I'm "argueing" that EM's effect technically triggers before the character is actually wounded.



#15 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:31 PM

 EM can't trigger before the wound, because the wound is the trigger.  Both of the relevant characters get the wound at the same time, which in the absence of toughness destroys them.  But instead of being destroyed, EM can turn into an attachment.  However the other guy got his wound already.  There is no time window in which to attach EM before destroying the other character is how I interpret the final ruling.

 



#16 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:48 AM

 I'm with the Professor. Instead is what designates it as a replacement effect. do X instead of Y. 

From the FAQ "The word instead indicates that a replacement effect is being triggered. Replacement effects completely replace one effect with another."

and

"(2.10) Replacement Effects
The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of the effect it is replacing. Therefore, the original effect does not occur, the new effect occurs instead."



#17 Magnus Arcanis

Magnus Arcanis

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:33 PM

 

I see what you guys are saying. I really do. If EM was worded with present or past tense terminology I would've agreed from the beginning. However… it doesn't so thus I'm here. lol.

With my "current" understanding on things I believe EM's replacement effect to be an effect that replaces its designation as a target for a wounding or insanity, not so much it being wounded or made insane.

Consider this scenario.

1. Player A wants to use Dynamite's action.
a). Determine the cost (to either play the card or pay for the card's effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the inteded action). 
b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. (this is a new addition)
-> *** Conidition Met *** EM is designated by an effect that would wound it. EM"s ability alters what was all was designated as targets for the effect by becoming an attachment which cannot be wounded or be made insane. Resolve EM's ability. 

(now, I'm not 100% sure if we go back to the top of step 1 or not, but don't think that really matters in this case though…however it wouldn't hurt my point if an 'altering' passive ability would cause us to do so)

c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Appy any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Pay the card, or trigger the effect. Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to step two. (funny story, think this is actually a typo on the non-printer friendly version of the FAQ. it should say "Play" however I will invoke a disclaimer that I may of made other typos in this post this is the only one I picked out that wasn't me :P)

2. Disrupts - In clockwise order, players no have the opportunity to disrupt the action. If all players pass then the action will be executed, and can no longer be disrupted.
a) Player B plays Writing Wall to cancel Dynamite's action. (repeat steps 1a-1f to play the disrupt)

Now, the FAQ does say that any passive abilities that are triggered as a result of the action are initiated in step 4. Aka, after step 3. Action is executed. However, due to another new addition to the FAQ:

"NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. A Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."

I interpreted that to mean becuase EM's replacement effect alters what was designated as a target(s) (my opinion of course), that it should resolve before the disrupt window is opened. Ya know… cause its altering what was designated and what would happen to EM if the effect were to be executed.

Also keep in mind that 7) Action is resolved (end of action) doesn't come up until AFTER the window for responses has closed and that the action is considered "resloving" from the moment it is initiated in step 1 till end of step 6.

In addition, the reason why I read/am reading it this way is that EM is worded exactly like several other effects that are commonly(or in my opinion, all are) triggered before the action is executed (step 3). So, intuitively, I'm reading that it triggers/resolved somewhere before step 3. Otherwise its wording would/should reflect that the effect happens after step 3, which it doesn't in my opinion. Digging deeper… obviously I came up with what I said above.

….whew. That was a lot. If nothing else, perhaps you'll definately see why I'm confused by this ruling. =/

 

 

 



#18 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:10 PM

im just glad to see all my questions aren't stoopid ones. im leaning towards magnus as the 'would' is definately a literal reference and it seems in most these dilemmas the text is what it is. but hey, im a newbie.



#19 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:31 PM

Magnus Arcanis said:

 

With my "current" understanding on things I believe EM's replacement effect to be an effect that replaces its designation as a target for a wounding or insanity, not so much it being wounded or made insane.

I don't think so. Determining if EM would _actually_ be wounded can only happen after all opportunities to prevent the wound (like using a Disrupt action to cancel the wound) have passed. You cannot decide this as early as when EM is targeted by an effect that 'might' wound him.

Besides, Dynamite's effect isn't even a targeted effect since it lacks the word 'choose'.



#20 COCLCG

COCLCG

    Member

  • Members
  • 672 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:46 PM

         ****************DELETED*******************






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS