They all trigger simultaneously because they commit/move simultaneously. That is the triggering event.

You're conflating a trigger condition being met and an ability being triggered when these aren't actually the same thing.

A trigger condition causes something to BE triggered. However, if there are multiple simultaneous triggered abilities from one event, then they are triggered sequentially. If one of those triggered abilities becomes invalid because the board state has changed (i.e. the card is no longer in play) it CANNOT be triggered, even if it was in play when the condition was met .

A trigger condition will occur, but you only check the validity of an interrupt or reaction when you attempt to trigger it.

To give another example, if I have a card in play with Stracken's Cunning attached, and it is killed by an enemy attack. I draw three cards. One of those three is Elysian Assault Team. Even though that card wasn't in my hand WHEN the trigger occurred (friendly unit being destroyed) it IS valid for me to trigger the reaction, as we are STILL in the reaction window.

Your mistake is thinking that it is one event total. It is in fact one event per unit being committed, so there are actually X abilities triggering simultaneously, where X is the number of units moving.

Your mistake is thinking that it is one event total. It is in fact one event per unit being committed, so there are actually X abilities triggering simultaneously, where X is the number of units moving.

And each of those events is a Forced Reaction from the Nurgling itself. Those Forced Reactions are then triggered sequentially, in the order chosen by the player with Initiative (as per the RRG on simultaneous forced reactions).

However, if one of the Nurglings dies, it can NO LONGER be triggered, regardless of how many times its trigger condition was met during that commitment step.

They are not triggered sequentially, they are resolved sequentially. Those are two very different concepts. The trigger happens upon commitment, and commitment is simultaneous. You may then resolve those sequentially, in the manner you are describing. All of the abilities persist, however, regardless of which order the player with initiative chooses to assign damage. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why a triggered ability would vanish out of thin air simply because the card is no longer there. The card =/= the trigger.

As I stated before, you're conflating trigger condition with trigger . Just because a trigger condition was met does NOT automatically mean the ability has been triggered.

RRG p.15

A triggering condition is an element of a card ability that indicates the time at which the ability may be triggered . A triggering condition specifies a game moment, and usually follows the word “when” (for interrupt abilities) or the word “after” (for reaction abilities).

p.20

An interrupt or reaction ability may be initiated during framework events if the ability’s triggering condition is met.

If you think that I'm wrong, there's a rules questions link at the bottom of the page, feel free to use it. You'll get an official response from FFG. Bear in mind as well though that PBrennan is the actual rules editor for the game, so his posts carry weight here.

As I stated before, you're conflating trigger condition with trigger . Just because a trigger condition was met does NOT automatically mean the ability has been triggered.

RRG p.15

A triggering condition is an element of a card ability that indicates the time at which the ability may be triggered . A triggering condition specifies a game moment, and usually follows the word “when” (for interrupt abilities) or the word “after” (for reaction abilities).

p.20

An interrupt or reaction ability may be initiated during framework events if the ability’s triggering condition is met.

If you think that I'm wrong, there's a rules questions link at the bottom of the page, feel free to use it. You'll get an official response from FFG. Bear in mind as well though that PBrennan is the actual rules editor for the game, so his posts carry weight here.

I am not confusing triggering condition with triggered ability. You are confusing triggered ability with triggered resolution. For some reason people are conflating the latter two, and tying them to the status of the card. A triggered ability exists separately from the card that initiates it.

For a single event, the sequence would be as such:

Triggering event -> Triggered ability -> Resolution

For simultaneous events, the triggered abilities are stacked and resolved in FIFO order. The sequence is thus:

Triggering event -> Triggered ability -> Triggered ability -> Resolution -> Resolution

The abilities trigger simultaneously, since they all arrive simultaneously, and are then resolved in order of preference by the player with initiative as outlined previously. Not a bit of that requires the card to still be at the planet at the time of resolution, only at the point at which the triggering condition is met (commitment).

No. Just no. The trigger doesn't happen simultaneously with the condition being met - that's NOT how this works, as I and ktom have attempted (with rules quotes as backup) to explain to you. You refuse to listen to us, despite failing to provide any rules reference to back up your position, so I suggest you go get a direct response from FFG instead. Just scroll down and get that link.

I'm not citing rules text because I'm busy playing games today, and don't have the time to offer you a small essay in order to fully refute your arguments. I am reading what you write, but that doesn't make your interpretation (emphasis here) any more valid than mine. Just no indeed.

In all honesty, I'm of the opinion that they don't damage theirselves upon moving anyways, if for no other reason than because it mitigates much needless rules lawyering. That and there's still a question of whether or not a trigger can occur at the same time that a card is transitioning from one zone to another.

My interpretation has already been validated though - by FFG themselves, as ktom has pointed out. Unless you can provide a reversed ruling on it from FFG, then I'm not sure what you hope to achieve here.

All I saw from the supposed ruling was an interpretation that supports mine. One of us is reading post #29 wrong, but it's certainly not me. I also agree with everything in post #72, with the exception of the very last paragraph. The conclusion seems to have been pulled from thin air.

Given that reactions are triggered and resolved in their entirety before moving onto the next one, it doesn't seem all that far fetched or without logic that previously valid reactions will become invalid as each possible reaction to a trigger are resolved in turn.

Right, so a unit will have 8 damage triggers waiting to be assigned to it, but will only take enough to kill it. The rest of the damage triggers on that particular unit will fizzle. There is nothing, however, that prevents those triggers from registering in the first place.

They all trigger simultaneously because they commit/move simultaneously. That is the triggering event.

Absolutely.

This is how I am reading most of the effects from this card.

There is no abuse besides being able to choose what order you want to resolve damage in, which would only have an impact if there are other cards that have effects dependent upon suffering damage. There's hardly an advantage to be had, apart from a few situational ones. Bear in mind we're still working off the assumption that they damage themselves (and everything else) when they move, which may not be the case.

Your last sentence in this post needs to be addressed. Seriously, this card is need of a reply from FFG.

Let me ask this question then: (since it is worth examining, given what WW posited)

2 players, BOTH playing Chaos.

Both players have 4 KG nurglings, and both players want to deploy all 4 of their KG nurglings onto planet 1. How does this work out in gameplay? (lets assume that both players have enough resources to play their cards, and both players want to deploy their KG nurglings on the same planet)

Anyone care to walk me through this?

From the example linked to in post #29.

KN#1 is destroyed, meaning no more of its forced reactions can resolve as it's no longer in play

So if you agree with post #29 why are you arguing against this point?

Further, from the same post:

This resolution avoids the KNs dealing any damage to the opponent's units, and maximum damage to your units

This would be impossible under your interpretation, where every unit must be given maximum damage.

Bear in mind also that this entire post by PBrennan at CardGameDB was confirmed to be correct by FFG.

The latter examples he cites are clearly flawed, if not outright contradictory, with respect to the actual ruling. Everything up to "this creates two quite different outcomes..." fully supports my own interpretation. Re-read it again, re-read my posts, and then tell me the two are not 100% compatible.

As for who is posting what, I could hardly care less. Nothing short of a genuine FAQ is going to satisfy me, and I would hope others have similar expectations from FFG. It's the least they can do if they're going to compete with companies that have long since mastered these basic concepts.

As long as you hold to your flawed assumption it's compatible, yes. I'm hereby giving up on trying to educate you as to why you're wrong.

The FAQ is coming but these things take time. In lieu of a full FAQ your best recourse is to speak to the design team. Several people have done so, including PBrennan and ktom and confirmed how it works. You've also been invited to do so for yourself. As you refuse to accept what had already been officially ruled on until it's in an official rules document I see no benefit to discussing this any further.

Let me ask this question then: (since it is worth examining, given what WW posited)

2 players, BOTH playing Chaos.

Both players have 4 KG nurglings, and both players want to deploy all 4 of their KG nurglings onto planet 1. How does this work out in gameplay? (lets assume that both players have enough resources to play their cards, and both players want to deploy their KG nurglings on the same planet)

Anyone care to walk me through this?

All nurglings would safely deploy to planet one (deploy is not a move) and so 8 nurglings would be sitting there waiting to trigger should a unit move to that planet. Any unit that moves to that planet will have to deal with eight nurgling triggers, or die in the process (if it dies on the third reaction, the others will not be resolved). There will then be a combat round in which many nurglings die, unless players have a lot of shield cards.

This would be more fun if it were Zarathur versus Ku'gath. There would be 4 Nurglings on the planet now, but now if both warlords commit to the planet: Ku'gath will take 8 damage because of Zarathur while Zarathur only takes 4.

In these situations there are few options here. As the nurgling reactions are forced they will all have to take place if they can and will be resolved in the order of the player with initiatives choosing. It is when the nurglings themselves are moving that this starts to become problematic.

Lets say things have moved on and all nurglings have made it back to HQ (lets stick with the two Ku'gaths) and they both commit to the second planet. Reactions only occur after the trigger condition event resolves (in this case once everything has moved to the planet as part of the warlord commit step). This means 8 nurglings have moved and are present on the surface of the planet when it is time to check for their forced reaction.

Ku'gath with initiative is going to have a good day, as they get to choose the ordering in which simultaneous reactions are resolved. With so many triggers there are a lot of ways they could do this ordering, some are equivalent and others change the outcome. I'm going to go through the one I would use if Ku'gath #1 wanted to optimise their damage to Ku'gath #2.

Prior to the first nurgling resolving all their triggers, each moved unit is in line for 8 damage assigned individually (one at a time) from each of the nurglings. Taking it each moving unit at a time:

• 8 nurglings at the planet - deal 8x1 damage to Ku'gath #2 - Ku'gath #2 is bloodied unless two shield cards are used
• 8 nurlglings at the planet - deal 8x1 damage to a Ku'gath #2 nurgling (only 2 plus any shielding will actually occur) - nurgling dies
• 7 nurglings at the planet - deal 7x1 damage to a Ku'gath #2 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 6 nurglings at the planet - deal 6x1 damage to a Ku'gath #2 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 5 nurglings at the planet - deal 5x1 damage to a Ku'gath #2 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 4 nurglings at the planet - deal 4x1 damage to a Ku'gath #1 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 3 nurglings at the planet - deal 3x1 damage to a Ku'gath #1 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 2 nurglings at the planet - deal 2x1 damage to a Ku'gath #1 nurgling - nurgling dies
• 1 nurglings at the planet - deal 1x1 damage to a Ku'gath #1 nurgling - nurgling lives (!)
• 1 nurglings at the planet - deal 1x1 damage to Ku'gath #1

Ku'gaths are going to have to plan ahead if they don't want a lot of their own forces to be killed by their own nuglings simply because they all landed out of HQ on a turn in which the opponent had initiative and forced the majority of damage onto your own units.

Things become a bit "simpler" if the nurglings are already present on the planet (i.e. not commited there), as they are no longer moving. They can no longer be removed from reacting by dying forming a base level of damage. In the above example if 3 nurglings were already present at the planet before commitment, they would take no damage and Ku'gath #1 would have to take 3x1 damage instead of getting away with just being dealt the 1.

8 Nurglings make a new game

As long as you hold to your flawed assumption it's compatible, yes. I'm hereby giving up on trying to educate you as to why you're wrong.

The FAQ is coming but these things take time. In lieu of a full FAQ your best recourse is to speak to the design team. Several people have done so, including PBrennan and ktom and confirmed how it works. You've also been invited to do so for yourself. As you refuse to accept what had already been officially ruled on until it's in an official rules document I see no benefit to discussing this any further.

Thinking that I need to be educated by you is just one more mistake to add to your growing list, so I'll consider myself blessed that you're giving up. Enjoy playing the game in your misguided, nonsensical, unintuitive way... if you can.

As long as you hold to your flawed assumption it's compatible, yes. I'm hereby giving up on trying to educate you as to why you're wrong.

The FAQ is coming but these things take time. In lieu of a full FAQ your best recourse is to speak to the design team. Several people have done so, including PBrennan and ktom and confirmed how it works. You've also been invited to do so for yourself. As you refuse to accept what had already been officially ruled on until it's in an official rules document I see no benefit to discussing this any further.

Thinking that I need to be educated by you is just one more mistake to add to your growing list, so I'll consider myself blessed that you're giving up. Enjoy playing the game in your misguided, nonsensical, unintuitive way... if you can.

I'm so glad that this discussion hasn't degenerated into pointless personal arguments about each other. Oh, wait...

I feel it's time to close this one, unknowing if that even happens on the FFG forums. It's far past the point of the rules on the Nurglings.

I think the only things we've managed to conclude here are that a) FFG desperately needs a FAQ (if not some more experience on the design team), and b) people are going to play the game as they see fit.

Agreed. And here, lemme fix that **** card: Add the word "enemy" before "unit" and we're good. No more wondering if this trggers when it moves with the warlord and if they move together and blabalabla

If an enemy unit ends up on the same planet that already has those nurglings onit, then it's gonna get hurt.

Fix it FFG! NOW!

err- that is if you feel like it...

Please?