Jump to content

TwitchyBait

Members
  • Content Count

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Simplegarak in Commander Remiel rules?   
    Yeah basically it would work like this:
    Commander Remiel would reap, you gain one aember. If Commander Remiel is still alive his ability would trigger now you use a friendly non-sanctum creature the same way.
  2. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Simplegarak in FFG Needs to step up   
    Got several stores near me that do weekly chainbound. Sorry to hear your shops lost some attendance but if it helps the new set does include new starters meaning more of those if people really want them.
    Prize support is mostly aember shards from chainbound but purhaps suggest your shop order acrylics online, aember pieces can be super cheap (got mine for 6 cents per piece), lots of people also make damage tokens, chain trackers, deck boxes etc. All they’d have to do is use some entry fee money to cover costs. Our stores tend to do 5 entry + cost of a deck when we do sealed or just 5 for archon format and usually gives all the excess as store credit which works well to. Thing is with how the decks function you can’t really do promo cards so the aember shards and promo stun/power is what they can do unless they start releasing some of the stuff we’re seeing at vault tours in promo kits but I don’t see that as likely granted it would be nice if you could exchange your shards online and pay shipping for those of us that don’t have vault tours close enough by to go to.
  3. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from CaptainJaguarShark in Shadow Self (Yay, more questions)   
    The assualt ruling is correct, assault deals damage BEFORE fighting resolves so if the assault damage would kill shadow self it’s not around for damage from fighting to then resolve.
    Tendrils is pain is indeed two different instances of damage you first deal 1 to everything, shadow self absorbs all damage from its neighbors, if this damage kills shadow self it is destroyed. Then you deal an additional 3 after if your opponent forged a key. If these occurred at the same time you’d get something worded more like “deal 1 damage to all creature OR 4 damage if your opponent forged a key on their last turn”
  4. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to saluk64007 in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    There is no such thing as a card letting you fight, without also letting you use the card, and using takes precedence over fighting because it's the more general action. It is not consistent, but several times in the rulebook and on some cards, they use the term "use to fight". Normally, "fight" and "use to fight" are synonymous, because use on it's own does not do anything. A card is used to fight, which means it will fight, which then let's it exhaust and carry out the fight instructions.
    Ready and fight in the glossary does use this term: "If an ability instructs a player to “fight with” or “ready and fight with” a creature, the ability is granting the player permission to use the designated creature to fight."
    Cards or situations that restrict fighting don't restrict using. They are restricting the more specific case of the use. Foggify for example says that "Your opponent cannot use creatures to fight on their next turn." This does not mean that your creatures cannot be used to do something else.
    There are no effects in the game that trigger on the base use of a creature that I know of, except for stun, which says "The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening." So it intercedes after a use, but before the type of use has been resolved. Theoretically new cards could introduce things that also trigger on a card use in this same way. These would have to happen even if a specific type of use is specified under this interpretation of the rules. Which, yes, is weird.
    Skippy Timehog notably prevents cards from being used, which is a more general condition that prevents removing stuns under all current conditions.
     
  5. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from saluk64007 in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Problem is it’s not really an interpretation of use to fight letting you ignore fight. 
    Use rules explicitly state you use then choose what you’re using it for and stun rules explicitly state whenever using a creature for anything if it’s stunned it becomes unstunned instead and doesn’t do the thing you choose to use it for. Ergo a creature “used to fight” while stunned under direct RAW is just used and doesn’t fight. This is the same reason when you “use” a creature to fight or reap and it’s stunned it’s fight, reap, or action/Omni ability doesn’t occur because unstun interrupts and ignores anything it was used for. If stun didn’t ignore fight, reap, actions or Omanis then it would be unstunned and those would still trigger.
    in other words whenever using a creature you must make that choice anger forces that choice to be fight, and stun rules dictate unstun supersceeds any other choice even the forced choice from anger.
  6. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Brekekekiwi in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    1. Wrong again, I already explained this. When using a creature it does state you must use one of the given choices ie fight, reap, action or Omni action. Stun is the one exception noted under the stun rules where this isn’t the case as unstun isn’t a choice and prevents any such choice from being made.
    2. Except that rule is there, I quoted it right from the rule book before but I’ll do it again
    (pardon my use of caps on my phone so can’t bold or underline to point out the important bits)
    Page 6, using creatures:
    ”When using a creature a player must exhaust that creature AND HAS THE OPTION to reap, fight, trigger that creatures action:ability, or trigger that creatures Omni ability.”
    Then we need to move over to the stun rule, page 12
    ”The next time a stun creature is used the only effect of it being used is the creature is exhausted and the stun status is removed INSTEAD of anything else happening. The creature DOES NOT reap or fight...”
    This shows it replaces the fight use with stun removal and since the creature ISNT fighting it isn’t subject to the requirements of fight anymore than a creature that’s reaping or using an action would be. The sequence thus becomes Declare use, stun replaces any use, use creature, remove stun. If the creature isn’t stunned it would be declare use, check for stun, declare effect of use (fight here) check for target, exhaust and fight. 
    Again this isn’t an interpretation as the rules show this is possible without further restriction and are reinforced as the proper layout given Brads answers here, but yes I agree that this sequence should be placed into the next iteration of the rule book more blatantly as its scattered all over at the moment.
  7. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Brekekekiwi in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Problem is it’s not really an interpretation of use to fight letting you ignore fight. 
    Use rules explicitly state you use then choose what you’re using it for and stun rules explicitly state whenever using a creature for anything if it’s stunned it becomes unstunned instead and doesn’t do the thing you choose to use it for. Ergo a creature “used to fight” while stunned under direct RAW is just used and doesn’t fight. This is the same reason when you “use” a creature to fight or reap and it’s stunned it’s fight, reap, or action/Omni ability doesn’t occur because unstun interrupts and ignores anything it was used for. If stun didn’t ignore fight, reap, actions or Omanis then it would be unstunned and those would still trigger.
    in other words whenever using a creature you must make that choice anger forces that choice to be fight, and stun rules dictate unstun supersceeds any other choice even the forced choice from anger.
  8. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from TheSpitfired in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    One note if what Brad said is accurate then exhaust couldn’t occur until before your setups step 4 instead of step one do to using anger to ready and fight nothing then reaping still being valid if there is no fight target and the creature isn’t stunned so more accurately the only way I can see to fit that model would be.
    Step 1 declare use
    Step 2 Check for stun, if stunned skip to step 4
    Step 3 Declare use as fight, reap, action, or Omni action
    Step 4 Exhaust creature (remove stun if stunned)
    Step 5 resolve use.
  9. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Rabbitball in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Almost:
    0. A card is eligible to be used if it falls in one of these categories:
    0a. The card is ready and of the active house.
    0b. The card is ready, not of the active house, but has an Omni: ability.
    0c. The card is ready or becomes ready and is given permission to be used in at least one manner by another ability.
    1. Declare intended use of card: fight, reap, Action: ability, Omni: ability, or remove stun. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0b, the only use available is the Omni: ability.  If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0c, this choice may be limited by the ability that grants it permission to be used.
    2. If card in question is a stunned creature, replace intended use with remove stun
    3. Check legality of use:
    3a. Fight is legal if there is an enemy creature to fight against. Choose an enemy creature to now fight.
    3b. Reap, Action: abilities, and Omni: abilities are legal unless prohibited by another ability.
    3c. Remove stun is legal if the creature is stunned.
    4. If the use is legal, exhaust the card and perform the use. Otherwise, the use does not happen.
    Did I miss anything?
  10. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to TheSpitfired in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Thanks for your patience in bearing with me. I think I am finally getting what you are saying. I still think the rules as written do cover this topic adequately, but if you want to say they could clean it up a bit I can support that. As of right now you read the rules for use earlier in the rulebook, then don't read about stuns until the glossary, then in the case of anger don't find out you can play it if your opponent has no creatures in play (on stunned or unstunned creatures) until you get to the FAQ. In all fairness that's pretty fragmented.
    I haven't put a lot of thought into how I would do it better but I think this is a good "halfway spot" for us to meet. That counts for something, right?
  11. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to saluk64007 in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Relevant rules (that were quoted above):
    A. "If a card effect causes a creature to be used while it is stunned, the creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally."
    B. "The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening. The creature does not reap or fight"
    C. "While resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore any parts of the ability that cannot be resolved."
    D. "When a creature is used to fight, the creature exhausts and its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled by the opponent as the target of the attack"
    1. Card effect causes a creature to be used to fight, through the text "Ready and fight with a neigboring creature."
    2. That creature is stunned, the opponents board is empty.
    3. According to rule A - The creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally.
    4. According to rule B - The next time the creature is used, it does not actually fight
    5. According to rule C - Resolve as much of the ability as we can. It cannot fight for many reasons - namely it was stunned, secondarily the opposing board has no targets, thirdly, it is already exhasted due to rule B.
    6. Rule D doesn't come into play because the creature did not fight.
    7. Other cards that may trigger based on things fighting don't trigger because of 6.
    There are different ways to interpret the rules as written. Various rulings guide you how it is meant to be interpreted. Hopefully future rule updates spell this out more clearly, especially with regards to the priority between different sometimes interacting processes.
  12. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Rabbitball in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    From the rulebook:
    STUN, STUN STATUS CARD When a creature becomes stunned, place a stun status card on it. The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening. The creature does not reap or fight, and any “Reap:,” “Fight:,” or “Action:” abilities on the creature do not resolve. If a card effect causes a creature to be used while it is stunned, the creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally.
    How does this not explain what is going on?
  13. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Simplegarak in Double Horseman value?   
    Yeah 1275 no last minute bids. Extatic didn’t think I’d get more than 600. Mostly going towards what I had already saved to treat my fiancée and her daughter to disneyworld.
  14. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Simplegarak in Does Evasion Sigil need errata?   
    Just for clarity the reason it doesn’t need to be erratad is because while both are “fighting” only one is using the “fight” action. So when evasion seal says “before a creature fights” its referring specifically the “fight” action which the defending creature has not taken.
  15. Haha
    TwitchyBait reacted to TheSpitfired in Infinite Shard of Life   
    Opponent's turn immediately after you set this up: House Dis. Play Restringuntus. Declare House Untamed. GG  
  16. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Krashwire in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    FFG is indeed at fault. But I believe you are assigning malicious intent to a case of bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way. FFG is now very much a corporate studio since Asmodee took over. There have been lots of stories talking about the cultural changes and job satisfaction levels since the take over.
    Let's apply the logical concept of charity here. Let's not assume the worst in the absence of evidence. I think those who actually made the game and run the OP have the best of intentions and have a desire to make a great product and experience. You can see that in their excitement when they discuss the game. Now they are certainly handicapped by bureaucratic nonsense. I have worked in a game studio both before and after a corporate take over. I can tell you once you go corporate there are certain levels of review and marketing involvement that DRAMATICALLY slow down change and information being released to the public.
    We can see this to great effect when reading articles from the marketing team. They get so many rules wrong. I can tell you from personal experience. The people who make the games don't even know these articles exist before they are put online. The marketing team of every corporation everywhere are a bunch of cowboys who think they are the most important thing ever.
    Most likely all the rules debates we have discussed are coming. But the people who make the rules don't dictate the release of said info.
  17. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to CSteele in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Wow.  Feeling entitled much?  It's a game.  FFG is a game publisher.  If you don't like how they are handling the game, that's fine.  But they don't owe you anything.  They made a game.  They made a rule set.  They make rulings on that rule set.  You choose to buy and/or play the game.  If you don't like what they are doing, change YOUR choice.  But being so upset because they are not doing what you think they should do is not productive.  These are real people you're railing on about.  Not cool.
  18. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to blinkingline in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    Here's the thing about the "ready and fight" clarification. It's not about the ready and fight. It's a clarification to stun, and as @Palpster points out the second sentence for stun says "The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happens is the creature exhausts and the stun card is removed".

    So the flow of using a card looks sort of like this now:
    1) I'ma use this card, OK?
    2) IS THE CARD STUNNED? 
        Yup...dang. REMOVE THE STUN. END FLOW.
        Nope. SWEET, LET'S DO COOL STUFF, MOVE TO STEP 3. 
    3) DO YOU WANT TO REAP, FIGHT OR ACTION?
         I wanna Fight!
    4) ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REAP, FIGHT, OR ACTION?
        Nope, opponent has nothing to fight. NO FIGHTING THEN. END FLOW.
     

      
  19. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Palpster in Anger and Stunned Creatures - Brad Clarifications   
    “The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happens is the creature exhausts and the stun card is removed” emphasis mine. Fight is a use, but all checks for fight are ignored, because the only thing that happens is exhaust and remove stun.
    makes sense to me...
  20. Thanks
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from scumbagx in Commander Remiel rules?   
    Yeah basically it would work like this:
    Commander Remiel would reap, you gain one aember. If Commander Remiel is still alive his ability would trigger now you use a friendly non-sanctum creature the same way.
  21. Thanks
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from scumbagx in Commander Remiel rules?   
    A) Yes. The effect of his reap is not a restriction first do to the “do as much as you can rule”, and secondly even if you “had to” complete effects it says “may”.
    B) He exhausts first then you may pick a friendly non sanctum creature to activate. This would let it use an action, fight, or reap all of these options exhaust the creature chosen.
    C) If you use John smith to fight or reap then yes, his ability always triggers when these occur after the normal effects for fighting or reaping go off if he is not destroyed as a result.
  22. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Rabbitball in Going To Time   
    I see it more as "I'm winning; I should make sure this doesn't go to time where a tiebreaker (which is really a modified coin flip) will decide the game, possibly not in my favor." And from what I'm seeing about this game in particular, this seems to be a corner case where it didn't work out as expected.
    Let's look at each individual piece and see what it represents and if it is contributing to the idea of being more likely to reward the one who would have won had there been no time limit and how it impacts time decisions:
    1. Active player completes turn. If there is a Key Charge or similar card that would be used to win, it still can be. This is appropriate and good. If this doesn't end the game, there is still the chance of earning enough Æmber to forge afterward, which means there is incentive to generate Æmber and reduce the opponent's total. 
    2. If game still not finished, other player gets one turn. It is here that the other player is incentivized to take the "net Æmber lead" assuming there's no more than one key difference between the players.
    3. Now each player gets to forge one key at 6 (no more, no less) if they can, and we go by Most Keys/Most Æmber, most "potential Æmber" and then "first player". Clearly, most keys should be the first tiebreaker, as that is the goal of the game. Most Æmber is a good second tiebreaker, as that is what you need to forge keys. The "most potential" is an abstraction of how quickly you can get to the goal of forging another key, so that makes sense. The only thing that seems a bit strange is the first player tiebreaker, but that seems to be a balance against the debilitating first turn rule that limits you to playing or discarding one card on the first turn. 
    So what happened here? Let's assume the worst that the opponent could not have stopped the key forging on that turn and instead used the tiebreaker to "go wide" and generate a net Æmber lead. In this case, it's not what would have happened had the game not gone to time. But as I mentioned above, if someone is winning, it is to their advantage to complete the game.
    It is possible that the opponent would have played differently had it been a normal turn and not a tiebreaker turn, and the key could have been stopped. At that point, who knows what would have happened, so it's hard to speculate. All we know is that it was a tiebreaker turn.
    Some people will ask why the opponent even gets a turn in this case. This to me makes sense, because without it, I could deliberately stall out the game just before my opponent wins and crank out a net Æmber lead on my finishing turn. It would be your situation just with a different player doing it. So if we are going to be faced with the same possibility no matter what happens, I would rather have it on the person not taking the final turn. Why? Because the way it is now incentivizes players to play quicker so that they are less likely to be the one taking the turn at the moment the round ends.
    Now if I had my way, I'd go to chess clocks, but that's another story for another time.
  23. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to TheSpitfired in Going To Time   
    I'd say the simplest solution is don't let the game go to time in a way that doesn't favor you if it's going to get there no matter what. Had you pulled things off different your opponent is the one going to time, meaning you get to play your next turn and forge to win.
    I apologize because I don't know what exactly went down in your session and I can't find a way to soften that suggestion; I know it comes off as harsh but sometimes it's important to hear a hard truth. Bottom line you have to be aware of time and make decisions when you realize that it is going to factor into the end result of a game. The tie-breaker system is stern but fair in that regard.
    It would be interesting, at least to me, to look at the tournament metrics and see how many chain-bound games have gone to time AND been resolved by going all the way to the final step of the tie-breaker system. I would be willing to wager that it is much rarer than any other part of the tie-breaker process.
    Win or lose those close games are my favorite ones to be involved in, so I hope it was fun even if it didn't ultimately turn out the way you wanted it to.
  24. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to CaptainJaguarShark in Using an Opponents Safe Place Artifact   
    Nah. Using an artifact gets you abilities activated by using it's Action: or Omni: options, not it's passive abilities.
  25. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to blinkingline in Going To Time   
    I don't think this is necessary considering the first player is handicapped on their first turn to only be allowed to play one card. 
×
×
  • Create New...