Locksmith

ITS 9 RULES QUESTIONS (1 unanswered)

412 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, Sabin76 said:

That's because there is no need to.  A unit that has not gone Dogged is not checked to see if they are in the Dogged state at the end of the turn.  As a matter of fact, you aren't even really "check[ing]... for Dogged units to move to dead" at all.  You are simply applying the effects of the state at that time because that what the state literally tells you to do

You're assuming a lot that isn't stated explicitly. Just because you're certain and I'm saying that we're uncertain doesn't mean you're right; you're certain about something that in no way is backed up by the rules. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hecaton said:

You're assuming a lot that isn't stated explicitly.

This is ridiculous, as you are the one creating things out of thin air because the rules don't, apparently, tell you you can't. 

The rules do not tell me that there is a "check Dogged models step" at the end of turn... I am not assuming this.  You, however, are.
The rules do not tell me to check a model that has the Dogged ability that has not been triggered at the end of the turn... I am not assuming this.  You, however, are.
The rules do not even tell me to "check" a model that has gone Dogged at the end of turn... I am not assuming this and have revised my wording to make this clear.  You, however, are.

Perhaps if you could actually tell me which parts I am assuming and how those assumptions aren't supported by the rules, then I can help you understand.

Incidentally, the rules DO tell you that a model that has become Dogged at any point during a player's turn is to be removed when that turn ends.  If you are still applying things to your troopers at the end of your turn (like Biotechvore), it is still your turn and the cancellation clause for Dogged still applies.

But you're right about one thing... I am assuming that I can still reason with you, and that doesn't mean I actually can.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sabin76 said:

This is ridiculous, as you are the one creating things out of thin air because the rules don't, apparently, tell you you can't. 

The rules do not tell me that there is a "check Dogged models step" at the end of turn... I am not assuming this.  You, however, are.
The rules do not tell me to check a model that has the Dogged ability that has not been triggered at the end of the turn... I am not assuming this.  You, however, are.
The rules do not even tell me to "check" a model that has gone Dogged at the end of turn... I am not assuming this and have revised my wording to make this clear.  You, however, are.

"check" is being used in a general use here. Presumably at some point the players literally have to check to see if any models on the board are Dogged. The process towards resolving multiple effects that happen at the end of the turn isn't explained; in every other case (e.g. Shock vs. Protheion) where two things have actually happened simultaneously, the interaction has needed clarification. The fact that you're certain that the rules imply one thing just means you have drawn conclusions from insufficient information. 

25 minutes ago, Sabin76 said:

If you are still applying things to your troopers at the end of your turn (like Biotechvore), it is still your turn and the cancellation clause for Dogged still applies.

Bull. This is you assuming something where there's nothing to imply it. It cannot be both "end of the turn" and before the "end of the turn" at the same time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, Hecaton said:

"check" is being used in a general use here. Presumably at some point the players literally have to check to see if any models on the board are Dogged.

In my quote, no it is definitely not.  And that is quite purposeful.  There is no game term "check" that is used in this way.  You are the one who has insisted that it is something specific that needs to be done at a specific time.  Obviously, the player is going to have to actually look at the table at the end of their turn and (colloquially) check to see if they have any Dogged models to remove, but that is only necessary because the Dogged state tells you to remove them when the turn ends.

28 minutes ago, Hecaton said:

Bull. This is you assuming something where there's nothing to imply it. It cannot be both "end of the turn" and before the "end of the turn" at the same time. 

Don't misquote me.  Reread the actual language. 

FYI:

Each Player Turn is divided into these steps: <------ clearly defining what is a part of a specific player's turn.

  1. Start of the Turn: Tactical Phase
    1. Retreat! check
    2. Loss of Lieutenant check
    3. Order count
  2. Impetuous Phase
  3. Orders Phase
  4. End of the Turn <--------- See this?  It happens to still be a part of that players turn.  Until you have done everything you need to do during this
                                             step, the turn has not ended.

 

 

  1.  
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you all want the best for the game, I am not sure it needs FAQ or not, if it proves to be a frequent occurrence we will put it in the FAQ, ultimately the intention of the rule is for dogged models to be removed as dead the turn their dogged state is triggered and this will not change or be circumvented in any way.

 

3

Share this post


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

I am not sure it needs FAQ or not

What, you expect players to go hunting on the forum for that info? That's ridiculous. 

3 hours ago, Sabin76 said:

End of the Turn <--------- See this?  It happens to still be a part of that players turn.  Until you have done everything you need to do during this
                                         step, the turn has not ended.

Concomitantly, if you *have* done everything you need to do during the step, the turn *has* ended. And there's no particular reason to think things are even resolved sequentially (rather than simultaneously) - which could plausibly result in a situation where Dogged units could "escape" the step without becoming Dead. *Nowhere* in the rules for the End of the Turn step does it say anything like "keep resolving End of Turn effects over and over until you can't anymore." It just says do it, without much elaboration. My point is that without a clarification we don't know exactly how to proceed when multiple effects that can affect each other are happening simultaneously. Your attempts to claim a justification (other than fiat like @PsychoticStorm's clarification earlier) is trying to claim authority you don't have, and trying to make a claim you can't justify. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid FAQ as well as rulebook have a space premium, nobody wants to read a rulebook book that has the thickness of a phonebook for example, same goes with FAQ, I understand the worry and the implications behind it, I am not sure it is a frequent enouph question that needs to go to the FAQ, or if it can be fixed by adding a line to biotechvore in the mid season update or some other solution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, PsychoticStorm said:

I am afraid FAQ as well as rulebook have a space premium, nobody wants to read a rulebook book that has the thickness of a phonebook for example, same goes with FAQ, I understand the worry and the implications behind it, I am not sure it is a frequent enouph question that needs to go to the FAQ, or if it can be fixed by adding a line to biotechvore in the mid season update or some other solution.

Agree 100%. We've all been playing Biotechvore for several years with no issue. That a few people are making a tempest in a teacup does not mean that it's unplayable or even difficult to play. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hecaton, I just had a thought. Are you posing your position because you think you should be able to play it that way, or because you think someone might misunderstand the wording and try to play that way? I know you like to start threads to point out possible tripping points in the rules and have generally read your posts as though you intend to use these exploits (using the video game sense there). It just crossed my mind that I might be completely off base in my reading and you are pointing out potential problems as opposed to opportunities you see. That difference could explain why the conversation has been so confrontational to this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Locksmith said:

Agree 100%. We've all been playing Biotechvore for several years with no issue. That a few people are making a tempest in a teacup does not mean that it's unplayable or even difficult to play. 

It’s one person. Just one.

1

Share this post


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

which could plausibly result in a situation where Dogged units could "escape" the step without becoming Dead.

Alright... last attempt:

There is literally no situation where this could happen unless you actually make up a sequence for resolving end of turn effects (not supported in the rules) AND put something like "check for Dogged and remove models" (also not supported in the rules) BEFORE Biotechvore.

That's what I'd call "assuming a lot that isn't stated explicitly."

You do not attempt to remove models with Dogged that have not yet gone Dogged (and then fail).  There is nothing in the rules to support this line of reasoning, and your entire argument hinges on this point.  There is no global "check" as I've pointed out numerous times now, nor does there need to be.  There is nothing in the Dogged Skill that forces or even allows you to "check" for Dogged at the end of the turn.  The only thing that forces you to remove Dogged models is the Dogged state itself.  And it is quite clear as to when you remove that model (HINT: if you have a Dogged model on the table when the tactical phase of a player starts, you're doing it wrong).

As to @DukeEarl's point, I do believe @Hecaton is poking at inconsistencies most of the time and not trying to "game" the system.  If I ever came across as anything more than somewhat exasperated, it is simply because I have been accused of doing things that are actually what he has done, and he refuses to respond to all of the points as a whole, so we keep going around and around repeating ourselves.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dragonstriker said:

It’s one person. Just one.

One person, and all the people who are replying to him looooooong past the point where it's clear he's just trying to extend the debate.

As he's shown in previous threads/topics, his interest in the subject will wane as soon as people stop trying to debate the topic with him. Because this is his MO:

  1. Find something that's not 100% crystal flow-chart clear. 
  2. Post under the pretense that it's difficult to understand
  3. When people respond under that pretense, engage antagonistic debate mode
  4. Should you actually get a Corvus response, question the competence of that response
  5. Return to step 3. 

I've been told he won't be banned for this behavior, and that all his posts should be viewable for anyone to judge. that's cool, totally CB's prerogative. But without being disrespectful or rude, it's also my prerogative to call the behavior out for what it is: a desire to engage in debate for it's own sake, even at the cost of signal/noise and amity on these forums. 

Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.

7

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