Question Dump: Post Your Questions Here.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by White Knight

You mixed up Morsbane and Alastair in your argument.

Ay, carumba. I sure did. That's what I get for posting so late at night.

Originally Posted by White Knight

Alastair
I would say that it is clear that you check victory conditions after Alastair's first turn but before his second turn. This is clearly 2 victory checks with one order marker.

Sequence
- take a turn with Alastair
- end turn
- check victory conditions
- take a second turn with Alastair
- end turn
- check victory conditions

Yeah, I think that's probably right.

Originally Posted by White Knight

So you just inadvertently made both points:
- there are situations where you check for victory more than once in an order marker
- "after turn" effects happen AFTER you check victory conditions

Hmm, this example does seem to make the point. Finally, the concrete case I was looking for. (Had it right under my nose and didn't even see it, because I got my research lists backwards.)

Okay, I stand corrected. So then, would we say that the complete rule goes something like this:

You do not check for victory during a turn, but only after that turn is completely over and any end-of-turn effects (such as returning a temporarily controlled figure to its real owner) are resolved. If there are any after-turn effects, such as Sir Hawthorne checking for Stab in the Back, these come after the first victory condition check, and then you check for victory again after each of those after-turn effects is resolved.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Aldin

An errata is an official fix of an existing rule. Note the word "errata" in the example you gave and the lack of the word "errata" in the example about victory conditions. Two different things.

Yet both are still new rules.

In many games like this, errata are not always highlighted as such because as human beings we naturally want to minimize the appearance of mistakes. For example, the ruling that a pre-drop AE does not interfere with Valiant Army Defense Bonus clearly means the card has to be read as if it had different text than it really does: "every figure you control" instead of "every army card you control" — a significant gameplay difference. This is probably how we would write it today, to make it work properly. The fact that it's not labeled an erratum doesn't change the fact that it is a revision from the original printed function.

Regardless, trifling over the "errata" label wasn't really the point. The point I wanted to make is that it's just not true that FAQs are always subservient to the rules. Sometimes a FAQ ruling adds additional clarification within the scope of a greater rule; and sometimes a FAQ ruling overrides the rule in order to change how things work, or fix an original error. It has to be that way, or a FAQ could never wield the authority to fix a problem where a rule was simply wrong, or no longer appropriate.

Now, this is of course no longer germane to the Hawthorne discussion, as I concede the argument in light of the evidence. (And I'm happy to have a resolution even when it means the view I was advocating turns out to be wrong.) But it's still an important principle that FAQs can add new rules and override old rules.

Originally Posted by Aldin

I can see that my example of a victory condition that cannot possibly take place within a turn wasn't convincing to you, even though you said such an example would absolutely convince you.

No, that's not what I said. I was never asking for an example of a victory condition that couldn't take place within a turn; I already knew they existed (and referred to some in some of my posts). And I never said that such an example would solve the problem for me. What I have been asking for all along is an explanation of why it wouldn't work to treat end-of and after effects as both coming before the victory check (which, thankfully, has now been provided by White Night). Your response, in the context at the time, suggested to me that maybe you thought there were victory point checks within the turn, and I wanted to know where you thought they were. The lava example didn't add anything that hadn't already been discussed earlier.

Originally Posted by Aldin

~Aldin, happy to play with the actual rules instead of the ones he creates in his head out of something he inferred from a FAQ

I was arguing in good faith with a sincere desire to get to a resolution, which we now have thanks to White Night pointing out my research error and resulting incorrect conclusion. But you return my sincere search for the best overall answer with ridicule.

Sadly, this is probably one of the reasons I wasn't on this site for like a year and a half. Then, as now, it was (sometimes) impossible to have a sincere, logical question or discussion without somebody in a position of authority thinking the best tool for dealing with a disagreement or misunderstanding was belittlement.

[samthegoat]

Hi there,
Is there anywhere on the site a power ranking, like spiderpoison's for units, but for the various Glyphs?
Thanks in advance,
Samthegoat

[Aldin]

Gee Whiz, lighten up, Just a Bill. No belittlement going on here, just a bit of light-hearted ribbing which would be normal between any of my friends and myself in a conversation. I withdraw from the conversation.

~Aldin, not seriously enough

[greygnarl]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Gee Whiz, lighten up, Just a Bill. No belittlement going on here, just a bit of light-hearted ribbing which would be normal between any of my friends and myself in a conversation. I withdraw from the conversation.

~Aldin, not seriously enough

I feel like the tone of your posts isn't conveyed very clearly. While some peopel might see it as joking, some of it seems derogatory.

[samthegoat]

Hi there,
Recently, I've been going on a rampage of printing stuff off for heroscape, proxies, papercraft terrain, all sorts. Currently in my crosshairs are Glyphs, so I was wondering if the are any decent quality scans of any or all of them on the site? I've searched the forums, gallery, and downloads, but to know avail. I'm hoping that this is due to my poor search skills, not them just not being there.
Thanks in advance,
Samthegoat

[The CEE]

If a figure moves adjacent to two Nakita Agents, am I correct in thinking it will take two engagement strikes?

[awesomeunleashed]

Originally Posted by The CEE

If a figure moves adjacent to two Nakita Agents, am I correct in thinking it will take two engagement strikes?

Yes.

[boromir96]

Originally Posted by awesomeunleashed

Yes.

On a related note, If I target a figure next to 2 Nakitas, does he roll for smoke powder twice?

[Kroc]

Ok, Sir Aldin, Just_a_Bill, it's time for a . See, this is what I get for not posting over the weekend. I only post at work, jealous? You should be .

I hope that both these respected members will still respect each other after things calm down. I do hope Just_a_Bill doesn't desert us because Aldin made a--perhaps off color--closing comment in his sig. Aldin's always making jokes in his sig. I generally insert my jokes into the text, and we both hope that people understand usually our tongues are firmly in our cheek.

Just on a side point, I'd like to mention why I hope both these members stay around.

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

Oh, I disagree emphatically. FAQs create new rules all the time, in a variety of games I have both played and written FAQs for. Usually as FAQ authors we try to downplay the mistakes and position things as clarifications as much as possible, but this doesn't change the obvious fact that sometimes old rules must be changed, and new ones must be invented.

See? Just_a_Bill has been involved in FAQ's before, and we know Aldin has. Both have a lot more experience than me. Which probably explains why they weren't impressed by my boundary case argument. I still think designers need to take care of boundary cases, and I still think the designers did in this case.

I would like to finesse Just_a_Bill's final summary, to take into consideration Aldin's point.

Victory conditions are checked continuously, EXCEPT that they can not be checked during a turn until all events that take place in that turn happen.

Examples where this are important are Marcu (control returns to player at end of turn) but also all "coming back to life" powers. Like the Marro dividers, without the FAQ clarification one could argue that if you kill the last Marro divider he does not get to check for cell divide before checking victory conditions. The FAQ clarifies that this is not possible.

Morsbane and Sir Hawethorne both have powers that after "after the end" of the turn. Those conditions do not have to be carried out because they are not during turn events.

I have to disagree with Bill's unwillingness to see the difference between a clarifying point and an errata. The critical difference is that if there is an errata then it absolutely contradicts any previous interpretations, if something is not listed as an errata it is held by the designers/FAQ writers that the standard ruling already implies this. It's a matter of language, and the difference between logically equivalent phrases and phrases that are not logically equivalent.

His list of different ways to say "add one defense die" is precisely to the point. Logically speaking those phrases are all equivalent, the words "end of" and "after" have a clear logical distinction. One that (as he showed) has been used consistently by the designers.

I think in general that we would all agree that this has been an interesting discussion, bringing clarity to an important vague area. Thanks to all for participating.

Take care, and

[Shedim Kabal]

Originally Posted by boromir96

On a related note, If I target a figure next to 2 Nakitas, does he roll for smoke powder twice?

Yes.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by Shedim Kabal

Yes.

That wasn't the consensus when they were first released
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=2684