Force Illusion and Shields. Local Ruling and request for offical ruling

[Tierdal 43]

7 minutes ago, ZenClix said:

I just don't get it.  Sure, FFG rules have gaps sometimes, I don't think anyone would dispute that.  But relative to this particular question, both the rules and the text on the card are absolutely 100% crystal clear.  In other words, FFG got this one right.  This mysterious FLGS's ruling notwithstanding, what is all the fuss about?

Nothing really - just people like to whine. 

[Buhallin 4,563]

7 minutes ago, Tierdal said:

You are ABSOLUTELY right they COULD fix these things. And you are probably correct on the reasons why they are broken. And nobody is saying you can't have an opinion. But really - at this point - are we surprised? If you are going to play an FFG game - these are the things you accept. 

Enduring them in order to play the game does not mean we have to be happy about them.  As I mentioned, FFG is very, very good at high concept, and they make games that still manage to be fun despite rules and templating that are generally poorly written and full of holes.  There's also a longevity issue - I don't play Netrunner but it is apparently in a very bad place right now.  High concept lasts for a while, but in the long run good rules and good balance matter.

10 minutes ago, Tierdal said:

You are wrong about the teams though. They do care. They work long nights. They do the best they can with what they have, which unlike your speculation of "not being 3 people teams", is NOT a lot.

When I said "they" don't care, I meant as a company - the corporate culture obviously values high concept, and not the nitty-gritty of understanding things like complex math and balance analysis.  Designers having to multi-task across multiple projects is a symptom of this, and I sympathize with them for it.  But I don't completely excuse the individual designers, either.  They have a fondness for seat-of-the-pants balance, and (IMHO) use a friends-of-friends playtest system that favors people who'll tend to think everything's fine.

13 minutes ago, Tierdal said:

FFG and FFG OP are not aiming to be Magic or host Grand Pre's. They are aiming to produce fun games that people enjoy. World's isn't for cash prizes ...its for a rubber mat and some acrylic tokens you could print in your home with a 3d printer. 

So like... maybe its the community that needs to evolve their expectations.

Don't get me wrong - I do fully expect *** rules and half-assed balance from FFG.  I took the risk on Destiny, but am already coming to regret it as more and more I don't think it's a game that can survive the long term.  But that aside, it is entirely possible to expect bad from FFG and still call them out on the bad, and hope for better.

[Tierdal 43]

Just now, Buhallin said:

Enduring them in order to play the game does not mean we have to be happy about them.  As I mentioned, FFG is very, very good at high concept, and they make games that still manage to be fun despite rules and templating that are generally poorly written and full of holes.  There's also a longevity issue - I don't play Netrunner but it is apparently in a very bad place right now.  High concept lasts for a while, but in the long run good rules and good balance matter.

When I said "they" don't care, I meant as a company - the corporate culture obviously values high concept, and not the nitty-gritty of understanding things like complex math and balance analysis.  Designers having to multi-task across multiple projects is a symptom of this, and I sympathize with them for it.  But I don't completely excuse the individual designers, either.  They have a fondness for seat-of-the-pants balance, and (IMHO) use a friends-of-friends playtest system that favors people who'll tend to think everything's fine.

Don't get me wrong - I do fully expect *** rules and half-assed balance from FFG.  I took the risk on Destiny, but am already coming to regret it as more and more I don't think it's a game that can survive the long term.  But that aside, it is entirely possible to expect bad from FFG and still call them out on the bad, and hope for better.

 

game that sells out in 30 seconds? fills events in 15 seconds? Is fun ..accessible...easy to teach...and star wars  - and which of these things make it not survive long term?

[Buhallin 4,563]

1 minute ago, Tierdal said:

 

game that sells out in 30 seconds? fills events in 15 seconds? Is fun ..accessible...easy to teach...and star wars  - and which of these things make it not survive long term?

Netrunner was doing the same thing a few years ago.  Last I saw for this year it had 60 or so signups out of around 300 slots, and the players of many actually sold-out events like L5R and AHLCG were asking why it's getting so much space when there are so many more people for them.

Destiny is a painfully expensive game to play.  It's already got some very skewed balance developing.  Availability issues have undoubtedly stunted its early growth potential.  And FFG does not have a great track record with long term (7-10 year) games.  I won't question that it's doing well now, but any assumption of what today's performance means three years from now is WAY premature.

[Tierdal 43]

2 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Netrunner was doing the same thing a few years ago.  Last I saw for this year it had 60 or so signups out of around 300 slots, and the players of many actually sold-out events like L5R and AHLCG were asking why it's getting so much space when there are so many more people for them.

Destiny is a painfully expensive game to play.  It's already got some very skewed balance developing.  Availability issues have undoubtedly stunted its early growth potential.  And FFG does not have a great track record with long term (7-10 year) games.  I won't question that it's doing well now, but any assumption of what today's performance means three years from now is WAY premature.

Dude - if you are worried about the future of a card game in a decade...you be cray. 

NetRunner was a bad game , it started off a bad game when Mr. RandoChess made it, and it remained a bad game even with Lukas' brilliant bandaids.  Not even FFG could fix that turd of a game. It always had a limited shelf life. How MtG stays alive is beyond me...then again Apple is the most profitable company in the world so I try not to doubt the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Destiny is also not "painfully expensive". You buy a box, trade for what you need. That's what, 85 bucks a cycle...3x a year? Maybe a few extra bucks for the starters every year? That's barely the price of an LCG. Even if you MUST HAVE EVERY CARD... you could do that on the cheap too.  

This game isn't going anywhere in the next 1-2 years. And it will probably destroy Magic like the CCG should have done. You know unless someones uncle embezzles a lot of money from the company and they lose the license... thanks Decipher. 

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

1 hour ago, player996970 said:

Try a game of EDH, corner cases everywhere. What keeps corner cases under control is the Standard format with limited sets. 

The stigma comes from the nature of most common problem - the game is more complex than it appears. And timings. Break a phase on too many subphases and you get too much information. Too much info means less people knowing the rules well. It's one thing to show a game with 4 pages rules, and another to issue some walls of text and diagrams. Just check netrunner, it got funny at some point as they had to deal with more and more interactions. Up until the point they started restricting cards.

Another thing is creation of new problems with each new set. And rules within rules, such as the case we are discussing. There is a clear example showing the correct resolution, yet someone disagrees. Surely he wouldn't do it if there is a specific rule regarding Force Illusion.

 

For example, there is no "card takes precedence" rule in Magic. I mean there are no exceptions in MtG. Which is unlike every other game out there.

In ainfinity by Corvus Beelly there is a whole wiki, with examples and everything, for a newcomer it's overwhelming amount of information. For me it's complete disaster as we are running into problems in almost every game. Too many rules.

EDH is the only format I play on a regular basis, and we do just fine (my playgroup and I) without a judge hovering over us. It's really nowhere near as complex as you make it out to be; in my 20+ years of playing, I can't readily think of a scenario that wasn't easily resolved by using Oracle or searching the comprehensive rules online. It doesn't require a JD, just a brain.

57 minutes ago, Tierdal said:

You are ABSOLUTELY right they COULD fix these things. And you are probably correct on the reasons why they are broken. And nobody is saying you can't have an opinion. But really - at this point - are we surprised? If you are going to play an FFG game - these are the things you accept. 

You are wrong about the teams though. They do care. They work long nights. They do the best they can with what they have, which unlike your speculation of "not being 3 people teams", is NOT a lot.

FFG and FFG OP are not aiming to be Magic or host Grand Pre's. They are aiming to produce fun games that people enjoy. World's isn't for cash prizes ...its for a rubber mat and some acrylic tokens you could print in your home with a 3d printer. 

So like... maybe its the community that needs to evolve their expectations.

Oh, I'm sure the teams care, but FFG as a brand doesn't seem to. It's readily apparent to me at this point that they deliberately under invest because they know Star Wars sells itself. Who needs to write good rules when chumps will throw money at you for anything with a lightsaber or Sabine's face on it? 

[Stranglebat 16]

17 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

While I'd agree it does make sense that it could trigger there, Force Illusion only blocks the damage the character would take. So, even if you're interpretation of the timing is correct, the character is being DEALT 3 damage, but is still only TAKING 1 damage and therefore Force Illusion could only prevent that 1 damage.

 

 

This seriously makes alot of sense to me. Before this the best people said to me was "I feel it doesn't work that way" which i'd never accept. Thanks, I'll change how i play this rule from now unless further clarification happens.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Stranglebat

[player996970 6]

8 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Netrunner was doing the same thing a few years ago.  Last I saw for this year it had 60 or so signups out of around 300 slots, and the players of many actually sold-out events like L5R and AHLCG were asking why it's getting so much space when there are so many more people for them.

Destiny is a painfully expensive game to play.  It's already got some very skewed balance developing.  Availability issues have undoubtedly stunted its early growth potential.  And FFG does not have a great track record with long term (7-10 year) games.  I won't question that it's doing well now, but any assumption of what today's performance means three years from now is WAY premature.

Not comparable, Netrunner suffers from far too many sets and the cost of entry. Everyone loves 3 core set and 7 or 8 cycles (not sure anymore).

AGoT managed to revive their community at the cost of alienating retailers (who doesn't have boxes of old AGoT stuff) and old players alike.

Destiny is a TCG, and Star Wars. It has every chance to be successful, except they killed the hype with the first set.

[Buhallin 4,563]

8 hours ago, player996970 said:

Not comparable, Netrunner suffers from far too many sets and the cost of entry. Everyone loves 3 core set and 7 or 8 cycles (not sure anymore).

A quick check looks like Netrunner has about 1200 cards or so.  That may be off, that's just a rough search.  It's been out a little less than 5 years.

The Destiny plan is 3 sets a year, at 160 cards per set, that's 480 a year.  So it's churning out cards at twice the rate that Netrunner did.  If "too many packs" is a problem for Netrunner, it's going to be an even bigger problem for Destiny.

Even if they do a two-year rotation, that's going to make the available pool nearly as big as Netrunner is now.  And there's no guarantee how rotation will be received - sure, it's probably going to be necessary for the game, but as you say, it's Star Wars - there's an attachment to cards and characters.  Popular characters like Vader and Han can't just vanish, so that means making people buy new versions of them all over again.  The competitive CCG transfers will be used to this, but all those casual people who came over for the Star Wars?  Maybe not so much.  We'll see.

 

[player996970 6]

5 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

A quick check looks like Netrunner has about 1200 cards or so.  That may be off, that's just a rough search.  It's been out a little less than 5 years.

The Destiny plan is 3 sets a year, at 160 cards per set, that's 480 a year.  So it's churning out cards at twice the rate that Netrunner did.  If "too many packs" is a problem for Netrunner, it's going to be an even bigger problem for Destiny.

Even if they do a two-year rotation, that's going to make the available pool nearly as big as Netrunner is now.  And there's no guarantee how rotation will be received - sure, it's probably going to be necessary for the game, but as you say, it's Star Wars - there's an attachment to cards and characters.  Popular characters like Vader and Han can't just vanish, so that means making people buy new versions of them all over again.  The competitive CCG transfers will be used to this, but all those casual people who came over for the Star Wars?  Maybe not so much.  We'll see.

 

It's not directly comparable to the card+dice colors in faction model we have in Destiny.

LCGs were supposed to be the cheap alternative to the TCG model, yet at this point they become quite an investment in cards w/o particular value, so new players are rare after 2-3 cycles, and considering how often the decks change with the rate of new releases vs. the amount of tournaments, etc.

Also not quite comparable to Magic because of how sets rotate there and the fact they are always in print until some point after their rotation out of Standard (just imagine a set that's out of print after the first week or so in Magic).

I'd prefer if FFG start reprinting sets instead of rotating them. At least in Magic I can buy any card I need, there are hundreds of websites and thousands of players selling them.

[sunny ravencourt 197]

I guess the one thing I have going for me is that apparently if you submit a rules question to the customer service page, no matter how clear it is, they do eventually get back to you.  That's nice.  

[Buhallin 4,563]

1 hour ago, player996970 said:

It's not directly comparable to the card+dice colors in faction model we have in Destiny.

LCGs were supposed to be the cheap alternative to the TCG model, yet at this point they become quite an investment in cards w/o particular value, so new players are rare after 2-3 cycles, and considering how often the decks change with the rate of new releases vs. the amount of tournaments, etc.

Also not quite comparable to Magic because of how sets rotate there and the fact they are always in print until some point after their rotation out of Standard (just imagine a set that's out of print after the first week or so in Magic).

I'd prefer if FFG start reprinting sets instead of rotating them. At least in Magic I can buy any card I need, there are hundreds of websites and thousands of players selling them.

I'll be the first to agree that the LCG isn't the panacea of player-friendly distribution policies we were promised, but I don't think the path Destiny's on is going to be any better.  If the cost of entry for new players is high in Netrunner, because you may need to buy 10-20 data packs, what's it going to be a year from now when Awakenings and SoR are nowhere to be found?

But honestly, we could go on about the differences all day.  The core point is simple - a popular game today can grow to struggle in a year or two.  I'm fairly certain that six months into Netrunner, if someone started pointing out that these newfangled packs could get expensive over time, everyone would have been quick to point out why it was different than all the other failures before it.  Will it happen to Destiny?  No idea, I don't think the game's built for long-term, but who knows?  What I do know is that "It's super popular at the five month mark!" says absolutely nothing about how it'll be doing at the five year mark.

[Kyle Ren 6,817]

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

 And there's no guarantee how rotation will be received...  The competitive CCG transfers will be used to this, but all those casual people who came over for the Star Wars?  Maybe not so much.  We'll see.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I fall into that second crowd, Buhallin. I understand the reasoning behind rotations, but I'm still going to feel betrayed if/when it happens because of how much money I've spent on cards that'll be useless. I have to admit, I came for the Star Wars first and the CCG second. I'm used to X-Wing, where we're bracing for impact from Wave 11, and about half of the cards are cards that balance/counter/fix other cards that were imbalanced, because the whole game has gone off the rails with so many expansions, and they've completely run out of characters and ships from the movies and books, and they're digging deeper and deeper into video games and obscure episodes of the Rebels TV show. So, yeah, I understand it's pretty easy for a game to get completely unhinged, but I like at least knowing that as long as people play it I'll still be able to use all the stuff I own, even if I lose horribly every time, a bit like how I still use the T-65 X-Wing in its namesake game...

[Mep 2,291]

On 6/2/2017 at 2:17 PM, sunny ravencourt said:

Look, I get it.  I get the rules reference.  I get the examples.  I presented them to my LGS.  They disagree. I put this post up before I realized that I could submit it to the customer service line and simply wait it out.  The clarity I need is from FFG even if its clear to you/me.  Until then, I'll be playing Qui-Gon to keep those shields locally.  

Request from your LGS to provide a TO who understands the rules of the game to officiate the store championship. You can point them to this thread for an example of the TO not knowing the rules commonly known by the gamers. Also make it clear you will file an official complaint to FFG if they do not provide a TO for a Store Championship that understands the rules.

TBH the ruling is lazy and they lack of desire to look up the correct ruling is also lazy. This is a fine print rule, FFG has many of them, but a TO of a store championship needs to know those fine print rules.

[HoodieDM 320]

3 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I'll be the first to admit that I fall into that second crowd, Buhallin. I understand the reasoning behind rotations, but I'm still going to feel betrayed if/when it happens because of how much money I've spent on cards that'll be useless. I have to admit, I came for the Star Wars first and the CCG second. I'm used to X-Wing, where we're bracing for impact from Wave 11, and about half of the cards are cards that balance/counter/fix other cards that were imbalanced, because the whole game has gone off the rails with so many expansions, and they've completely run out of characters and ships from the movies and books, and they're digging deeper and deeper into video games and obscure episodes of the Rebels TV show. So, yeah, I understand it's pretty easy for a game to get completely unhinged, but I like at least knowing that as long as people play it I'll still be able to use all the stuff I own, even if I lose horribly every time, a bit like how I still use the T-65 X-Wing in its namesake game...

Im sure there will be a "Legacy" format that will allow all cards, from all sets, to be playable. Once we have to get to that pt...

~D

[Kyle Ren 6,817]

Thanks D! Your posts are usually very well reasoned, so I'll take your word on this. Legacy was always my favorite comics series anyway - I'm working on a Cade Skywalker custom card right now!

edit: here it is!

Edited June 12, 2017 by Kieransi

[mege 98]

Sunny is mischaracterizing the real problem that others at the store had and the ruling which was "lets look this up more later, but play it like this now". We're all in agreement that shields must be used before the card effects (before this thread, even), except there's still gaps in the timing. This issue isn't as clear cut as people make it seem for all cases of before dealt/taken triggers.

If something doesn't have shields, what dictates that before damage dealt triggers resolve before before damage taken triggers? With shields on a character one can artificially expand the damage sequence out to separate the timing for before damage dealt and before damage taken by having the before damage taken triggers occurring only after you've removed shields and are literally about to place a damage token on. This, however, is unsubstantiated in the rules since it seems like damage should be dealt all at once and shields are merely a replacement for damage taken (though, of course, still dealt). So, then the trick is: do the before damage dealt/taken triggers actually happen at the same time or are they separated by the physical removal/addition of tokens? If they're the same time then you're basically guessing the future game state to resolve flexible before damage taken triggers (eg: Force Illusion). If they're separate - then damage isn't being dealt all at once any more and is being conflated through an invented extra-legal process (that just happens to fit all of the other rules).

Another example to see this ambiguity is with Personal Shield (or Dooku) + Armor Plating (or Force Illusion). Personal shield (or Count Dooku) is a before damage dealt trigger and Armor Plating/FI are before damage taken triggers. The idea of damage taken and dealt is well understood, however, before the damage is the key issue. In particular, when a character has no shields, what separates taken/dealt triggers timing wise? Use this example: resolving a 3 ranged damage die on a character with Force Illusion and Personal Shield. I use Force Illusion first and remove the top 3 cards from my deck to block the damage. Then I use Personal Shield to gain a shield. I've already blocked the 3 damage using Force Illusion, what happens to the shield? (there are corner situations where this ordering would matter and the choice to use Personal Shield may be ambiguous - especially with only a handful of cards left in the deck and they could be deduced/known - very rare cases, but still) The rules say that I must use the shield to block damage, if able, but if I am already blocking 3 damage - is it still necessary? (discussion on this next paragraph) There is no more damage being taken, it's already been blocked. Additionally, can I even do this? Let's say I want to mill 3 cards - even if FI would only block 2 damage in the end - is that the case since I had 3 potential damage when I resolved FI? The wording in the Rules Reference is: "It is not optional to use a shield. Shields must be used to block damage, if possible." Is that must be used to block damage dealt or damage taken, if possible? It must mean it blocks damage taken since "damage dealt" isn't really what's ever blocked/reduced. Damage taken is what gets blocked (replaced by removing a shield token - so it's not really damage taken any more, but damage dealt - this is clear). So, then, this throws a wrench into the original understanding. If damage taken is blocked by another effect, must a shield token really be used since there is no damage being taken anymore? The intention of this phrase on shields is clearly to prevent people from just taking damage and saving their shields - the interaction with other blocking abilities, especially in the case of gaining a shield after blocking damage, is less clear. However, even if you think that shields always must, absolutely, be used first compared to card abilities - this is only a secondary issue to this argument overall; the timing issues and guessing future-damage taken still stand. (I do favor that the shield must be spent using current rules since I basically treat all blocks as just replacement effects checked when damage is done (and FI just blocks 2 even though 3 cards discarded), though I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is actually clarified to be different. FI+Shields already on is still a bit unsettling, since you have to basically "guess" the damage taken based on current conditions to resolve the before taken triggers - though I see the end result being the same.)

There are two key ambiguities here: when does blocking actually reduce the damage? Is it immediately reducing the "pending" damage? (in which case, can I even activate Personal Shield after? damage is still being dealt, just blocked already... so yes) or is it a floating effect that waits until after all before effects resolve then the blocks are treated as replacement effects for the damage? (in which case, am I still forced to use the shield even though I wouldn't actually be taking damage?) Either way - the path forward is not crystal clear, and requires some rules gymnastics. If an effect reduces the pending damage, can I still resolve additional before taken triggers (not even counting shields interaction...)? If it is a blocking effect that only occurs as damage is dealt, can I still use before taken triggers to overload the blocking damage? (eg: I want Armor Plating and FI in the discard, though I am only being dealt 2 damage, no shields - can I use FI then AP?) These different cases all affect the outcome of the PS/Dooku+FI/AP interaction and muddy how the "must use shields" clause is really interpreted.

All that said: I do think it's easy to talk about the case with shields, at least as far as outcomes go. The exact resolution order if you take the sum of parts is irrelevant since from what I see the outcome should be the same (you just then have to guess at damage taken after all pending effects/shields). However, the only way to then look at the case without shields - you have to look at the case with shields from the start to even begin to gain an understanding of the interactions of the types of before damage triggers. This seems a backwards way of understanding the interactions because you're trying to explain the simpler process by using the more complex situation and then that muddies the understanding of the first without further clarification since you're skipping part of the resolution.

The solution, IMO, is to actually step through the damage dealing process, by defining what has to happen in what order. A damage sequence could be something like:  before dealt triggers, remove shields to reduce damage, before taken triggers (if remaining damage), place damage tokens, after dealt and taken triggers (simultaneously). I think this is what most already have in their mind, but it's not clear in the rules that this is what is happening - especially in the case without shields (and then gaining shields after a card-blocking effect). Couple this with how blocking actually works (is it a damage taken replacement, or does it reduce the amount of damage to be taken - they're two different things) and there's ambiguity. Using the sole statement about "shields must be used" as a hedge in this case, still means that before damage taken triggers must guess at the damage taken, which can create paradoxes when shields are gained afterwards.

(PS: and totally an aside to the above, further complexity is added on an attack sequence by incoming unblockable damage. Can I use Force Illusion to just mill 2 cards against a lightsaber special (knowing that it will not prevent the damage). Can I do it if I have 2 shields since I will be taking 2 damage? Can I do it (without shields) just to discard Force Illusion and mill 0 cards (the trigger condition of taking damage is satisfied...)? At what point is "unblockable" checked against effects that try to block it? Can block effects fizzle (in the case of unblockable) or be overloaded (use FI first for the full amount, then gain shields/use AP)?)

TL/DR: go back and read the whole thing anyhow...

[Buhallin 4,563]

Damage is handled as a single event.  It arrives as one bundle, and provides one trigger regardless of the amount of damage.  This is backed up by multiple examples, so I think we're good on that.

There is nothing that defines a timing flow from dealt/taken other than that, so I think we have to say that no such flow exists.  Damage is applied in a bundle.  That damage will be considered dealt, and may be considered taken, but it's all a single game event.  So it would be a single event, providing a single point for any relevant triggers.

I can understand wanting a more detailed step-by-step flow, but I don't think there's really any ambiguity with the current rules.  If you stick to the rules we have, you may not like the outcome, but it is well defined.

For some other specifics:

- Yes, this means that damage dealt and damage taken triggers are simultaneous, and can be resolved in the order the controller wishes.
- Destiny's "Do as much as able" rule means there are no requirement that the effect actually happen.  You could trigger Force Illusion to discard from your deck even if the damage is unblockable, just like you can trigger it even if you don't have enough cards in your deck to cover the damage.

 

[mege 98]

3 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Damage is handled as a single event.  It arrives as one bundle, and provides one trigger regardless of the amount of damage.  This is backed up by multiple examples, so I think we're good on that.

There is nothing that defines a timing flow from dealt/taken other than that, so I think we have to say that no such flow exists.  Damage is applied in a bundle.  That damage will be considered dealt, and may be considered taken, but it's all a single game event.  So it would be a single event, providing a single point for any relevant triggers.

I can understand wanting a more detailed step-by-step flow, but I don't think there's really any ambiguity with the current rules.  If you stick to the rules we have, you may not like the outcome, but it is well defined.

For some other specifics:

- Yes, this means that damage dealt and damage taken triggers are simultaneous, and can be resolved in the order the controller wishes.
- Destiny's "Do as much as able" rule means there are no requirement that the effect actually happen.  You could trigger Force Illusion to discard from your deck even if the damage is unblockable, just like you can trigger it even if you don't have enough cards in your deck to cover the damage.

 

So, using that logic at the end: 3 damage, 2 shields + Force Illusion would mean having to discard 3 cards but still can only prevent 1 since shields must be used first? Can you trigger Force Illusion if you have 2 shields and 2 incoming damage (to self mill forwhatever reason, still spending the shields)? The game doesn't know the end result at this point, so following: FI tries to block all of the damage, but shields still are spent first. At the time of the before trigger, the game doesn't know how much damage is to be taken (see the Dooku/PShield + AP/FI example for why this can be ambiguous).

This is really the crux of the problem: damage taken is defined as (basically) unblocked damage, but nothing is actually blocked until you resolve that bundle of damage. Blocking is then a replacement effect for damage (good...), which means that before damage taken triggers can always be done with shields (regardless of amount of incoming damage). I'm fine with that interpretation, but it's far from being as crystal clear - especially when asking the question: "How many cards do I need to mill when using Force Illusion when I have shields to partially block the damage". I feel this will still cause disagreement. Additionally: can I use before taken triggers when damage count < shield count (again - damage taken gets replaced by shields when that damage bundle hits...).

[Buhallin 4,563]

8 minutes ago, mege said:

This is really the crux of the problem: damage taken is defined as (basically) unblocked damage, but nothing is actually blocked until you resolve that bundle of damage. Blocking is then a replacement effect for damage (good...), which means that before damage taken triggers can always be done with shields 

No damage is dealt either until the damage is resolved   The damage happens, which creates an event.  Before effects can change the game state before that happens, but the basic event still occurs.  Yes, this can be a bit paradoxical, but it's how it works.  But to the last, no - when you apply the damage, it will generate some damage dealt, and possibly some damage taken.  You cannot trigger it if no damage is taken.

11 minutes ago, mege said:

So, using that logic at the end: 3 damage, 2 shields + Force Illusion would mean having to discard 3 cards but still can only prevent 1 since shields must be used first? Can you trigger Force Illusion if you have 2 shields and 2 incoming damage (to self mill forwhatever reason, still spending the shields)? The game doesn't know the end result at this point, so following: FI tries to block all of the damage, but shields still are spent first. At the time of the before trigger, the game doesn't know how much damage is to be taken (see the Dooku/PShield + AP/FI example for why this can be ambiguous).

3 damage, 2 shields, Force Illusion: This generates 3 damage dealt and one damage taken.  Force Illusion can be discarded to block 1 damage, the other two will hit the dhields.

2 damage, 2 shields, Force Illusion: Generates 2 dealt and 0 taken, no trigger for Force Illusion.

There is a certain inherent paradox in any sort of before effect.  The best we have to work with is that once a game event occurs, unless a replacement effect goes off that event is considered to have occurred for the purposes of triggers, even if something modifies it so it plays out differently.  Put another way, once a trigger occurs, the ability is primed to resolve, and nothing will change that.

[mege 98]

5 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

No damage is dealt either until the damage is resolved   The damage happens, which creates an event.  Before effects can change the game state before that happens, but the basic event still occurs.  Yes, this can be a bit paradoxical, but it's how it works.  But to the last, no - when you apply the damage, it will generate some damage dealt, and possibly some damage taken.  You cannot trigger it if no damage is taken.

3 damage, 2 shields, Force Illusion: This generates 3 damage dealt and one damage taken.  Force Illusion can be discarded to block 1 damage, the other two will hit the dhields.

2 damage, 2 shields, Force Illusion: Generates 2 dealt and 0 taken, no trigger for Force Illusion.

There is a certain inherent paradox in any sort of before effect.  The best we have to work with is that once a game event occurs, unless a replacement effect goes off that event is considered to have occurred for the purposes of triggers, even if something modifies it so it plays out differently.  Put another way, once a trigger occurs, the ability is primed to resolve, and nothing will change that.

But then if you're waiting to check for the before taken trigger - you're interrupting the single damage bundle, effectively stepping through the damage dealing process (basically as I outlined as a possible "fix"). Else, if it's both taken/dealt at the same time, like you said, there's nothing stopping the taken triggers from occurring even if no damage would be taken in the end (see the Personal Shield/Dooku + AP/FI interaction).

While I like the idea of a single damage bundle - what justification is there for this in the rules? Damage taken is defined as the act of placing damage tokens on a card (and then only after shields removed), so it would appear to interrupt the damage dealing process and check then. (this, again, is the crux of the problem) Shields aren't clearly defined in this context. Are they also a trigger on damage taken that must occur first? Or are they just a static replacement effect for damage? This again, requires telling the future for the before damage taken triggers or interrupting the damage dealing process. This may seem metaphysical in a sense ("what are shields?") but that's a big part of this problem - are they replacing damage taken or are they triggers on damage taken that then reduces damage taken? This matters for how they interact with other abilities, especially when present only part way through the process.

The before triggers in games like X-Wing work because they're generally unambiguous and don't overlap much (except for when they started to overlap too much, the attack flow chart was invented...). There were some issues, which you're well aware of, with multiple before dial reveal triggers, but the idea was they could sort themselves out if they replaced the triggering effect or not. You basically kept going back to the same spot and rechecking after resolving the before triggers one at a time (which is I think what you're thinking about with the possible paradoxes of multiple before triggers). Damage dealing in Destiny only works this way if you're actually partially resolving damage along the way (in a way: try to make character take one damage, what happens? move to the next one damage, what happens?), which doesn't fit the single bundle idea that you're talking about. While I think it's best to try and do it as one bundle with a bunch of waiting replacement effects (and/or treat shields as special snowflakes as I did in my resolution suggestion), right now it really does seem we keep resolving as much damage as possible while checking for triggers. Saying damage taken can't happen when shields > damage means this must be true or you really have a paradox since you're always forcing shield blocking, but that's not checked until after the damage is applied. Going back and forth here is still supposition and not really justified in the rules, it's total extrapolation to try and make the rules work (rules for this being: must use shields to block damage, and the definitions of taken/dealt). The solution is degenerate, though, as I've poised alternative interpretations that give different results and still fall into that scheme. (and if the response is then: well, Lukas said it works this way - it clearly isn't defined well enough in the rules and the admonishment from the first few replies is unnecessary)

[Buhallin 4,563]

4 minutes ago, mege said:

While I like the idea of a single damage bundle - what justification is there for this in the rules?

We know that triggers which occur from damage do so only once, regardless of the amount of damage.  If damage were not applied as a single bundle, it would trigger multiple times.

6 minutes ago, mege said:

Else, if it's both taken/dealt at the same time, like you said, there's nothing stopping the taken triggers from occurring even if no damage would be taken in the end (see the Personal Shield/Dooku + AP/FI interaction).

This does seem to be exactly how it works.

Honestly, I think I'm done here.  You keep presenting these things as somehow wrong or unsolvable, but they do seem to work fine (if weird), you just don't like it.  You're not looking to figure out how Destiny's rules work, you're looking to rewrite them, and will undoubtedly refuse to accept anything anyone says here, just as Sunny did.

[mege 98]

9 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

We know that triggers which occur from damage do so only once, regardless of the amount of damage.  If damage were not applied as a single bundle, it would trigger multiple times.

This does seem to be exactly how it works.

Honestly, I think I'm done here.  You keep presenting these things as somehow wrong or unsolvable, but they do seem to work fine (if weird), you just don't like it.  You're not looking to figure out how Destiny's rules work, you're looking to rewrite them, and will undoubtedly refuse to accept anything anyone says here, just as Sunny did.

You've double backed on yourself a bit and failed to answer the critical example which isn't covered consistently by your explanation.

In the Dooku/PS + FI example, 1 damage (to be) taken blocked with FI, then gain a shield with PS/Dooku. Does the shield have to block damage? (1 damage taken was already "primed" in your terms, blocked by FI before the shield was gained) The event waiting (1 damage taken, now blocked by FI) now needs to be rechecked against shields? This is where that reasoning fails to give an outcome. If you're locking in the initial conditions of the triggering event (to be modified by before triggers), then you can break other rules (must use shields) when finally resolving that event. If that's what you're saying, fine, but that's not explicit in how damage is handled

.

[Buhallin 4,563]

5 minutes ago, mege said:

You've double backed on yourself a bit and failed to answer the critical example which isn't covered consistently by your explanation.

In the Dooku/PS + FI example, 1 damage (to be) taken blocked with FI, then gain a shield with PS/Dooku. Does the shield have to block damage? (1 damage taken was already "primed" in your terms, blocked by FI before the shield was gained) The event waiting (1 damage taken, now blocked by FI) now needs to be rechecked against shields? This is where that reasoning fails to give an outcome. If you're locking in the initial conditions of the triggering event (to be modified by before triggers), then you can break other rules (must use shields) when finally resolving that event. If that's what you're saying, fine, but that's not explicit in how damage is handled.

The damage hits and creates the event.  All the befores resolve, and then you move on.  You don't recheck, you just resolve it from there based on the current game state, as best you can.  Yes, that can mean the original triggers don't apply any more, but that's the fun of interrupting time.

So:

Deal 3 damage with two shields.  3 dealt, 1 taken.  Dooku and Force Illusion trigger.  They're simultaneous before effects, you resolve them in the order of your choice.  Dooku would gain a shield.  Force Illusion would resolve based on the 1 taken.  Then all the befores are done, and you actually deal/take the damage.  Yes, the before effect can change the deal/taken, but the effects that trigger off them have already triggered and resolved, so it's done.

 

[netherspirit1982 220]

16 hours ago, Buhallin said:

- Destiny's "Do as much as able" rule means there are no requirement that the effect actually happen.  You could trigger Force Illusion to discard from your deck even if the damage is unblockable, just like you can trigger it even if you don't have enough cards in your deck to cover the damage.

 

You could trigger it in both cases but it wouldn't block the damage, you'd only be losing cards.

Edited June 6, 2017 by netherspirit1982