Jump to content
steveisbig

Rules updated Jan 17

Recommended Posts

Lots of fixes/clarifications today!

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/c2/16/c2169c07-0337-4bd1-977a-c575b5eda946/keyforge_rulebook_v8-compressed.pdf

Biomatrix Backup errata, Restringuntus/Pit lord clarifications, damage "dealt" vs "prevented"...

Edited by steveisbig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor Call Outs:

I wish the last FAQ used Bulwark instead of Raiding Knight.

The "leaves play" update makes me question what happens when something leaves play into an area that is not hidden, such as purge or discard. They have an FAQ with Yxilo Bolter vs Bad Penny, but what happens with Yxilo Bolter vs Armageddon Cloak. 

 

I am super happy that these edge cases are the only ones that I can still think of questioning. Also, bonus love for fixing Pitlord and Biomatrix Backup. The Spangler Box and Kelifi Dragon FAQ makes me super jealous of decks with Swap Widget and very specific Mavericks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

ooh, smaaash doesn't have to stun allies unless there are no enemies!

It never had to do this, they only reworded it to make that more obvious. (before it said a stunned creature could not become stunned, which is basically the same thing, but doesn't specifically mention that you could still stun it, you just don't add the token. It's better worded in the new rules update)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Palpster said:

It never had to do this, they only reworded it to make that more obvious. (before it said a stunned creature could not become stunned, which is basically the same thing, but doesn't specifically mention that you could still stun it, you just don't add the token. It's better worded in the new rules update)

there was a blurb by Andres that was interpreted as such, and the FLGS community around me sure played it that way along "do as much as you can" rules

Edited by Poposhka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Looks like we now need a section and definition for "lasting effects."

I agree it does probably deserve some red text in the next iteration of the rule book.

 

Something along the lines of - An effect that last for a specified amount of time.

IE - This Turn, until leaves play, during your opponents next turn 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Looks like we now need a section and definition for "lasting effects."

I mean...  it's any effect that lasts past when it starts, right?  I see how defining terms is generally a good thing, but is this really something that the average player or average event organizer is going to misunderstand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I mean...  it's any effect that lasts past when it starts, right?  I see how defining terms is generally a good thing, but is this really something that the average player or average event organizer is going to misunderstand?

You can't introduce new game functions, which have a tangible effect on the way the game is played, without explicitly defining them and addressing how they interact with other aspects of the game. The whole "I can understand it now, so it clearly doesn't need to be more complex" mentality is exactly what landed us in this hot mess in the first place. Do you think the developers and play testers felt the same way at launch, that the rules were good and the mechanics intuitive enough that nobody could have possibly misunderstood how to play the game? Because if they had thought otherwise, there might not be so much red text. 

To paraphrase @Rabbitball: fix it now or fix it later, but it's going to have to be fixed. Sooner is better.

 

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair.  I tend to err on the side of not fixing things that aren't broken.  You can go down a rabbit hole endlessly clarifying and "fixing" issues that aren't really issues when you try to future proof a system.  Then, you end up having to fix things anyways because you'll never think of everything.

In this case, I don't think we need to define lasting effect because the common English usage works well enough.  Again, I'm not against defining game terms, but pretending that "lasting effect" doesn't adequately convey the idea of an effect that comes into being and then persists over time comes off as a little disingenuous.  Deal 2 damage clearly isn't a lasting effect.  Your opponent can't choose Brobnar as his active house clearly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you're probably not interested, but here are the rules for continuous effects in Magic:

https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Continuous_effect

I bring them up here only to illustrate the variety of common interactions that might come up in the future, interactions that wouldn't even be on somebody's radar unless they had some experience with them. Without a definition for "lasting effects," we wouldn't know:

1) How to identify the duration of the effect

2) How to apply the effect if it would somehow be invalidated or changed upon resolution (like an illegal target)

3) What it applies to, and whether or not that can be changed 

4) When the value of a variable is determined, and if that variable can be changed 

5) If they apply to the card that is creating them, especially in the case of permanents

And then there's the ultimate nightmare of rules interactions: layers. When you have two competing lasting effects, how do they interact with each other? Which takes precedence, and what order are they resolved in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give some examples using very basic, common effects.

You have a card in play that says your creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. Here are the questions that arise:

Which effect is resolved first? Does playing a creature with only 1 power go straight to the discard pile?

If there is some order of precedence, what is it? Is it by when the lasting effect was created (effects that were there first are resolved first)? Is it by who controls it (apply your lasting effects first, then your opponent's)? Is it by card type (lasting effects created by permanents first, then action cards)? Is it by active house / inactive house?

For effects that trigger off of creature power, when is that power calculated? If, for example, a trigger reads "do X when a creature with 2 power comes into play," does it trigger when you play something with 1 power (coming into play with one more)? Does it trigger when you play something with 2 power (coming into play with one less)?

That's just two cards with basic effects. Imagine how much more complicated it could be with other cards:

You have a card in play that says your Brobnar creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. You play an action card that makes all of your creatures Brobnar until end of turn. Same questions as above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KrisWall said:

I mean...  it's any effect that lasts past when it starts, right?  I see how defining terms is generally a good thing, but is this really something that the average player or average event organizer is going to misunderstand?

No, but like the other things we point out need more definition on, it is something that your average rules lawyer will attempt to exploit at an event if it is not addressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

 

That's just two cards with basic effects. Imagine how much more complicated it could be with other cards:

You have a card in play that says your Brobnar creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. You play an action card that makes all of your creatures Brobnar until end of turn. Same questions as above.

 

To piggyback on this: Your opponent has a card that says non-Brobnar creatures get double power. You play a Staunch Knight (4 power/2 armor, gets +2 power when on a flank), use Inspiration to ready it, and attack an undamaged Kelfli Dragon. Is the dragon dead? That depends on the order in which the effects process, which needs to be established by rule. WonderWAAGH listed several possible orderings, any of which are plausible, and lead to different answers in this case. Do you apply the +2 first because it's a permanent (or because you resolve your actions first as active player or because it resolved first)? Then the dragon is dead. Do you apply the mathematical order of operations (multiplication before addition)? Then the dragon is alive. If, instead, you don't apply Inspiration to it and the Dragon instead attacks the Knight, what happens then? Depending on the rules, the answer could be even more different.

This is why when a new game concept is introduced, it should come with a definition of all these things, so that your average rules lawyer has less wiggle room to manipulate a local tournament judge by fancy flimflamming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Let me give some examples using very basic, common effects.

You have a card in play that says your creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. Here are the questions that arise:

Which effect is resolved first? Does playing a creature with only 1 power go straight to the discard pile?

If there is some order of precedence, what is it? Is it by when the lasting effect was created (effects that were there first are resolved first)? Is it by who controls it (apply your lasting effects first, then your opponent's)? Is it by card type (lasting effects created by permanents first, then action cards)? Is it by active house / inactive house?

For effects that trigger off of creature power, when is that power calculated? If, for example, a trigger reads "do X when a creature with 2 power comes into play," does it trigger when you play something with 1 power (coming into play with one more)? Does it trigger when you play something with 2 power (coming into play with one less)?

That's just two cards with basic effects. Imagine how much more complicated it could be with other cards:

You have a card in play that says your Brobnar creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. You play an action card that makes all of your creatures Brobnar until end of turn. Same questions as above.

 

Does a card exist that has the “Do blank when a creature with X power comes into play”?

For the previous question you had, he answer seems totally obvious: layer/remove effects as they come. If a card changes the state of a creature, ie changes to Brobnar so it’s now +1 from one card -1 from another, I’m not sure how that’s a problem given that it was previous to become Brobnar just affected by the -1.

9 hours ago, Revert said:

Minor Call Outs:

I wish the last FAQ used Bulwark instead of Raiding Knight.

The "leaves play" update makes me question what happens when something leaves play into an area that is not hidden, such as purge or discard. They have an FAQ with Yxilo Bolter vs Bad Penny, but what happens with Yxilo Bolter vs Armageddon Cloak. 

 

I am super happy that these edge cases are the only ones that I can still think of questioning. Also, bonus love for fixing Pitlord and Biomatrix Backup. The Spangler Box and Kelifi Dragon FAQ makes me super jealous of decks with Swap Widget and very specific Mavericks. 

I like most, although Biomtrix Backup does now force archiving rather than letting the owner choose, which does eliminate some of the flexibility.

I’m not entirely surprised by the revision to Destroyed to allow Bad Penny to survive nearly any interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Does a card exist that has the “Do blank when a creature with X power comes into play”?

No, but there's a rule that says, "When a creature with power 0 or less comes into play, destroy it." This can happen when a Looter Goblin enters opposite a King of the Crag. 

Quote

For the previous question you had, he answer seems totally obvious: layer/remove effects as they come. If a card changes the state of a creature, ie changes to Brobnar so it’s now +1 from one card -1 from another, I’m not sure how that’s a problem given that it was previous to become Brobnar just affected by the -1.

If we do that, we need to know the order in which they appear. King of the Crag says, "Each enemy Brobnar creature gets -2 power" and then upgrade a Batdrone with Experimental Therapy: "This creature belongs to all houses." If we apply these in order, the Batdrone doesn't die: it isn't Brobnar when the King of the Crag is applied. But it is Brobnar now, so it should be applied. But what rule says that it should be, other than common sense? It seems that the effect of King of the Crag "depends" on cards like Experimental Therapy to tell it which creatures to apply to, but to put it into rules requires a "dependency" rule or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Poposhka said:

ooh, smaaash doesn't have to stun allies unless there are no enemies!

This also means (although they haven't yet specified it) that Nexus can reap and "use" an artifact with only constant abilities instead of being forced to fire that Cannon on an ally when there are no enemies.

Still no clarification on if Cooperative Hunting can deal excess damage to an enemy so as to avoid hitting an ally, but that seems in line with the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

This also means (although they haven't yet specified it) that Nexus can reap and "use" an artifact with only constant abilities instead of being forced to fire that Cannon on an ally when there are no enemies.

Still no clarification on if Cooperative Hunting can deal excess damage to an enemy so as to avoid hitting an ally, but that seems in line with the above.

All damage dealt by a single effect is simultaneous, so yes cooperative hunting can put the damage wherever you like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Revert said:

Minor Call Outs:

I wish the last FAQ used Bulwark instead of Raiding Knight.

The "leaves play" update makes me question what happens when something leaves play into an area that is not hidden, such as purge or discard. They have an FAQ with Yxilo Bolter vs Bad Penny, but what happens with Yxilo Bolter vs Armageddon Cloak. 

 

I am super happy that these edge cases are the only ones that I can still think of questioning. Also, bonus love for fixing Pitlord and Biomatrix Backup. The Spangler Box and Kelifi Dragon FAQ makes me super jealous of decks with Swap Widget and very specific Mavericks. 

Once you apply armageddon cloak, the creature is not destroyed. Since destroyed triggers happen before the card leaves play, bolters damage did not destroy the creature, and nothing is purged. Things that leave play to the discard (open information) can be seen by effects (such as, any of the other, normal bolter interactions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Derrault said:

I like most, although Biomtrix Backup does now force archiving rather than letting the owner choose, which does eliminate some of the flexibility.

The errata to Biomatrix is not a change. It is an errata to a known typo. Richard Garfield specifically stated that the word May should never have been on the card in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, saluk64007 said:

Once you apply armageddon cloak, the creature is not destroyed. Since destroyed triggers happen before the card leaves play, bolters damage did not destroy the creature, and nothing is purged. Things that leave play to the discard (open information) can be seen by effects (such as, any of the other, normal bolter interactions).

 

Assuming you are correct, here are some call outs that might not work as you expect.

Loot the Bodies does not get amber against Bad Penny

Dust Imp with Armageddon Cloak gets you 2 amber and remains on the field regardless of active player. (Dust Imp's ability never loses focus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Revert said:

 

Assuming you are correct, here are some call outs that might not work as you expect.

Loot the Bodies does not get amber against Bad Penny

Dust Imp with Armageddon Cloak gets you 2 amber and remains on the field regardless of active player. (Dust Imp's ability never loses focus)

Bed penny is still destroyed against loot the bodies. Loot cares that she was destroyed, but doesn't care where she ends up. This was previously covered by the glossary for "ability", where out of play cant be targeted unless referenced.

The updated rules have it more clear, under leaves play:

"When a card moves from an in–play zone to an out-of-play zone in which  
the identities of cards are hidden from the opponent (such as a player’s  
hand, deck, or archives), any pending effects that are currently or about  
to interact with that card no longer do so, unless a card effect explicitly  
states that it interacts with that zone."

For dust imp + cloak, if you resolve imp first, 2 aember is gained. Then the cloaks stops imp from being destroyed and leaving. If you resolve cloak first, imp heals and its destroyed trigger cannot resolve because its not destroyed. (Loot the bodies doesnt get you aember here either). So yes, active player matters.

Armageddon cloak is unique with "instead". Here is the email from Brad, which is an old ruling, but not contradicted yet:

"It works just like you think it would. Both are destroyed effects and they are both firing off so your opponent choses the order to resolve them. If your opponent chooses to resolve the Armageddon Cloak first, then Truebaru is no longer being destroyed and the second Destroyed effect cannot be triggered."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL The rule book looking more and more complicated, (Dripping with Sarcasm:) GREAT JOB. Y'all need to make a HUGE ADDENDUM mainly :KEEP IT SIMPLE, Resolve what you can. So what is the plan FFL? Make the game not casual, add in more confusing rulings as fast as possible to make MTG rulings look like cupcakes?

Tries to stay cool and goes to glossary for some of the most silliest rulings:

-Cannot vs must/may, cannot vs permissive: What a mess, and y'all removed the lock out strategy great job! This ruling seems like it was made to stop a strategy nothing more or less. Probably due to some kid freaking out that they can't play anything! People need to accept the pitfalls/consequences of the cards they use, Pitlord has messed me up before, it sucks, but whatever just discard it! and never play it, simple especially vs a fellow Dis player.

- Smaaash: Here is a card that could SIMPLY add ''may'' as in ''Play: Owner MAY stun a creature'' unlike Biomatrix Back-up which DID NOT need the ''may'' SO are we going to see these cards in the next print run with the wording replaced? (doubt it, great MOAR confusion)

-Shadowself and the armour: Very SIMPLE it even is on the Shadowself card '' Damage dealt to non-spectre neighbors is dealt to Shadowself instead'' SO WHEN DOES THE KNIGHT TAKE DAMAGE? think about it, it doesn't because of Shadowself's selfless ability. Does shadow self have armour? NO. Damage is damage, Shadowself's ability supercedes the damage taking so armour is never even touched unless shadowself has armour=Simple not complicated but made complicated by this silly ruling.

-Spangler box and Kelifi Dragon: Did it leave play? Yes. When Spangler box leaves play the creatures underneath it enter into....um play again? So YES the Kelifi dragon needs to have the amber again, a better example in this situation would be Truebaru. The present ruling here is complicated and convoluted, not at all SIMPLE. My only issue with Spangler box is if my opponent doesn't have Logos as a house in their deck can they choose Logos to activate Spangler Box? That should be a no, players should only be able to choose from the houses of their deck, thus this allows STRATEGY for the usage of Spangler Box once per game in those situations otherwise the Logo's players bat the box around, that is the gamble of the Spangler Box.

-T1 Wild Wormhole/Phase Shift: Turn 1 Wild Wormhole allows you to play the top card of your library, in fact it forces you too. Phase shift allows you to play a non-logos card this turn but don't forget the ''MAY''. So may I play another action if I am the first player on the first turn? NO, Why? Whats the difference? ''MAY'' and you already played an action, Phase Shift. Wild Wormhole forces you play the top card it isn't ''Play: Player MAY play the top card of library'' it is SIMPLY ''Play: Play the top card of your deck''.

-Wild Wormhole and the Kelifi Dragon: Resolve the card as best as you can (I don't know how many times this line can be reiterated throughout this rant), so if the card can't be played it goes to discard NOT back to the top of the deck. There is consequences to every decision, this ruling removes the consequences and risk of Wild Wormhole.

-Xyilo Bolter and the Bad Penny: Bad Penny is Purged Duh! Active player chooses like the old Biomatrix Back up ruling, SIMPLE but in this case there is no choosing the bloody thing is Purged! Purge is not a may it is a must! This current ruling makes Bad penny, Dextre abilities waaaay more powerful than they should be and removes some of the logic and balance behind having Purge abilities in the game. Purge was designed to deal with these problematic creatures! You might as well have a new ability called ''Unpurgeable'' written on Bad penny, Dextre, etc...

-Flank: ''If a battleline only has one creature in it, that creature is on both the left and right flank and is considered a flank creature.'' That is asinine, gets out dictionary,

Verb

1.
be on each or on one side of.
"the fireplace is flanked by built-in bookshelves"
So in this example of the definition of flank implies that if the bookshelves are considered creatures and you remove the shelves than what is the bloody fireplace flanking? NOTHING.
Wow what a great ruling so Staunch Knight is forever,basically, flanking. Are you serious?
 
 These rulings are the ones that make the least sense, are the most needlessly complicated and also have some of the easiest answers when you think about it. The people deciding these present rulings are killing the fun of this game and have it seems very little understanding of the strategy behind some of these cards, the waves these rulings create and most of all a complete and utter lack of keeping things SIMPLE. 
.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×