• 0
Zah

Do the new rulings on Shock and multiple wounds with V:NWI/Dogged apply to Viral?

Question

Yea, so while this was answered for Shock, it wasn't answered for Viral, which still has the "straight to dead" rule that Shock has.  I would say yes, it should, but currently as RAW, I don't think it does because that specific ruling only says "Shock" I believe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 answers to this question

  • 0

No, the red box in viral does not state what the red box in Shock does. I have a sneaking suspicion that Shock's red box was supposed to say the same thing as viral and someone misinterpreted it, but w/e, it only has massive implications on game balance. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Hecaton said:

No, the red box in viral does not state what the red box in Shock does. I have a sneaking suspicion that Shock's red box was supposed to say the same thing as viral and someone misinterpreted it, but w/e, it only has massive implications on game balance. 

Yea this is what I'm thinking, because Viral says GO TO DEAD, but Shock says "cancel the effects."  However, I would like a full ruling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Zah said:

Yea this is what I'm thinking, because Viral says GO TO DEAD, but Shock says "cancel the effects."  However, I would like a full ruling.

Knowing how ridiculous their ruling have been lately, despite the text being explicit it's a crapshoot as to what they decide tbh. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, Zah said:

Yea this is what I'm thinking, because Viral says GO TO DEAD, but Shock says "cancel the effects."  However, I would like a full ruling.

Ask @PsychoticStorm he seems to have quite good grasp on those rules, much better than us plebs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Viral's box says that if you are affected by the straight-to-dead clauses, then you cannot activate Valour skills.

Shock's box just says that you cannot activate Valour.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The funny thing, of course, is that in 2nd edition it was the other way around, and Viral as written could make a 2W+NWI model drop unconscious and Shock could not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
37 minutes ago, ToadChild said:

The funny thing, of course, is that in 2nd edition it was the other way around, and Viral as written could make a 2W+NWI model drop unconscious and Shock could not.

This is a big part of what leads me to believe that the rulings aren't particularly based on some ineffable "intent" but rather are more or less random. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Hecaton said:

This is a big part of what leads me to believe that the rulings aren't particularly based on some ineffable "intent" but rather are more or less random. 

Honestly, 99% of the time, CB makes rulings that tell you to play the rule as written, even if that is counter to intent.  There were several times in 2nd edition that they issued a FAQ saying to play it one way, and then updated the rule in the next book to have the opposite wording.

It's really frustrating.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, ToadChild said:

Honestly, 99% of the time, CB makes rulings that tell you to play the rule as written, even if that is counter to intent.  There were several times in 2nd edition that they issued a FAQ saying to play it one way, and then updated the rule in the next book to have the opposite wording.

It's really frustrating.

Hello Command Tokens issue ?;P

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This actually makes some sense and I respect CB for doing it.

They've framed a rule wrongly, by accident. So they suck it up and say "OK, well, that's what we wrote, so that's what you do" to ensure a level playing field. But when the opportunity arises to actually correct the original text in a new edition or FAQ, they adjust it to what it should have said all along.

Sent from my CUBOT CHEETAH 2 using Tapatalk

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, precinctomega said:

This actually makes some sense and I respect CB for doing it.

They've framed a rule wrongly, by accident. So they suck it up and say "OK, well, that's what we wrote, so that's what you do" to ensure a level playing field. But when the opportunity arises to actually correct the original text in a new edition or FAQ, they adjust it to what it should have said all along.

Sent from my CUBOT CHEETAH 2 using Tapatalk

3 years later? Sure, suuuure.

 

EDIT: The previous official ruling:

So no, this is not a clarification, it is a deliberate change.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am sorry for been late, I believe from a consistency perspective both rules should behave the same, since they are almost the same.

 

I will look into it.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, Nemo No Name said:

3 years later? Sure, suuuure.

 

EDIT: The previous official ruling:

So no, this is not a clarification, it is a deliberate change.

I was trying to find the old ruling; I forgot the thread was framed around Symbiont.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, precinctomega said:

This actually makes some sense and I respect CB for doing it.

They've framed a rule wrongly, by accident. So they suck it up and say "OK, well, that's what we wrote, so that's what you do" to ensure a level playing field. But when the opportunity arises to actually correct the original text in a new edition or FAQ, they adjust it to what it should have said all along.

Sent from my CUBOT CHEETAH 2 using Tapatalk

I wish it was that thought out. But I suspect the rules writer is too very busy and regards the FAQ as a relatively low priority. So the FAQ writer determines the FAQ answers just by reading the rules and giving their interpretation of RAW, often in spanglish.

I wish they would treat it a bit more seriously tbh, or just let IJW Wartrader do it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, PsychoticStorm said:

consistency

Woah there

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

With N3 all similar rules should behave similarly, if you notice any inconsistency please notify us and we will look into it.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 minutes ago, PsychoticStorm said:

With N3 all similar rules should behave similarly, if you notice any inconsistency please notify us and we will look into it.

 

The "red box" in Viral and Shock is worded differently, but I think it's meant to indicate the same thing. And it could be taken to mean the same thing, depending on interpretation. Viral's red box clearly indicates that it should only come into play when it causes "instant death."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not yet I am afraid :(

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 11/11/2017 at 11:05 PM, PsychoticStorm said:

Not yet I am afraid :(

 

The less time this rule spends in a limbo state, the better. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 11/11/2017 at 11:05 PM, PsychoticStorm said: Not yet I am afraid

 

The less time this rule spends in a limbo state, the better. 

It took two years for the FAQ...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

0

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