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?

Hehehe, that would be something else.

No, Ku'gath is allready powerfull enough as it is. The Nurglings are still a double-sided blade but Ku'gath really makes up for it.

I believe it just needs to be "Kugath's Nurglings deal 1 damage to each unit that moves to this planet." That way the damage is is dealt to everyone without initiative gimmicks and such. It is balanced so that nurglings deal damage to friendly units (as well as themselves when they move) and maybe that way no more than 2 can go off at the same time limiting their effectivess somehow when multiple nurglings move to the same planet (because 2 damage would kill all nurglings preventing anyones left from triggering further). Amiright?

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

I understand that this horse is dead and I truly need to stop beating it, but these two quotes, which are not compatible to my eyes, seemed to perfectly summarize the disagreement.

I do not dispute that the "Triggering event -> Triggered ability #1 -> Triggered ability #2 -> Resolution #1 -> Resolution #2" interpretation of FIFO would lead to the outcome of all damage from all Nurglings being dealt regardless of whether or when the Nurglings die.

But I read p. 11 of the RRG as saying the proper sequence is "Triggering event -> Triggered ability #1 -> Resolution #1 -> Triggered ability #2 -> Resolution #2" when interpreting and applying FIFO. I.e., the reactions are initiated are resolved sequentially, rather than being initiated en masse and their resolutions "stacked." Resolution #2 doesn't "fizzle" if Resolution #1 stops Triggered ability #2 from initiating in the first place, right?

An FAQ saying, "The Nurglings can get a little complicated, so here's how it works..." is one thing, but I don't think FAQ-level guidance on how FIFO is being applied in this game is necessary when it is addressed in the rule book.

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

RRG, p. 11:

"Abilities generally resolve in a “first in, first out” manner. For instance, if a player has two reaction abilities he wishes to trigger in reaction to a single triggering condition, the first reaction is triggered and resolved in its entirety, and then the second reaction is triggered and resolved." (emphasis added)

I understand that this horse is dead and I truly need to stop beating it, but these two quotes, which are not compatible to my eyes, seemed to perfectly summarize the disagreement.

I do not dispute that the "Triggering event -> Triggered ability #1 -> Triggered ability #2 -> Resolution #1 -> Resolution #2" interpretation of FIFO would lead to the outcome of all damage from all Nurglings being dealt regardless of whether or when the Nurglings die.

But I read p. 11 of the RRG as saying the proper sequence is "Triggering event -> Triggered ability #1 -> Resolution #1 -> Triggered ability #2 -> Resolution #2" when interpreting and applying FIFO. I.e., the reactions are initiated are resolved sequentially, rather than being initiated en masse and their resolutions "stacked." Resolution #2 doesn't "fizzle" if Resolution #1 stops Triggered ability #2 from initiating in the first place, right?

An FAQ saying, "The Nurglings can get a little complicated, so here's how it works..." is one thing, but I don't think FAQ-level guidance on how FIFO is being applied in this game is necessary when it is addressed in the rule book.

"Abilities generally resolve in a 'first in, first out' manner. For instance, if a player has two reaction abilities he wishes to trigger in reaction to a single triggering condition, the first reaction is triggered and resolved in its entirety, and then the second reaction is triggered and resolved." (my own emphasis added)

What you're saying would be true of a single triggering condition, certainly. The problem is that we're talking about a scenario with several triggering conditions being applied simultaneously - the commitment of units to a particular planet. If 8 KNs arrive at a planet together, that's 8 individual events that will themselves be initiating 8 triggers each (one from each KN, per individual event). You're telling me that effects can only be resolved in sequence with their associated triggers, but page 12 of the RRG (in the section appropriately labeled Priority of Simultaneous Resolution ) quite clearly says "if two or more effects would resolve simultaneously, the player with the initiative determines the order in which the effects resolve." So, simultaneous resolutions most certainly can - and should - be executed one right after another. And how else would you come to generate simultaneous resolutions, if not with simultaneous events? Personally, I can think of no better way to illustrate this particular rule than with our very own nurgling examples.

Allow me to amend my previous example to better reflect the simultaneous nature of commitment. The correct order of operations for just 3 KNs would be as follows:

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

The events occur simultaneously, with each one generating 3 separate triggers. In order to resolve them in the manner you've been describing, you would have to interrupt each individual unit as it arrives to the planet, which is not how commitment works.

While we may disagree on this, I'd like to point out that I do appreciate your patience and ability to maintain a civil conversation.

(trying to wrap my head around this)

In your example:

Allow me to amend my previous example to better reflect the simultaneous nature of commitment. The correct order of operations for just 3 KNs would be as follows:

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

Wouldn't there only be 6 triggered abilities as KN's wouldn't be triggered by their own movement?

For example (simultaneous arrivals again), KN#1 would trigger because of KN#2 and #3, KN #2 would trigger for KN #1 and #3, and KN#3 would trigger for KN#1 and #2? Thus, two triggers for each KN?

Ktom and I have had conversations with the designers in the past about how this kind of stuff works to help ensure we're providing correct answers (pending official FAQ). People can of course choose to play how they like though.

I'll provide a note on what may be the sticking point though ... the conversations I've had with the design team have made it clear that if multiple Forced Reactions attempt to fire simultaneously, all they do is earn the right to attempt to fire off. The player with the initiative chooses which one to fire off - at which point it both "triggers and resolves" per ktom's explanation. If its resolution causes a card to leave play that contained one of those Forced Reactions that had earnt the right to fire off, then it no longer has that right, because its card is no longer in play. Of the remaining Forced Reactions that have earnt the right to trigger off, the player with the initiative then triggers and resolves the next. And so on. (And as always, this answer may either be confirmed or changed by upcoming FAQ, but that's my current understanding.)

What you're saying would be true of a single triggering condition, certainly. The problem is that we're talking about a scenario with several triggering conditions being applied simultaneously - the commitment of units to a particular planet.

And I will freely admit that this is a point that FFG needs to formally clarify (preferably at the FAQ level).

Specifically: When multiple triggering conditions are created by the same effect, are the triggering conditions simultaneous (i.e., all reactions to all conditions are considered to trigger/initiate simultaneously, then resolved FIFO), sequential (i.e., all reactions to triggering condition #1 are initiated and resolved FIFO, then all reactions to triggering condition #2 are initiated and resolved FIFO, etc.), or stacked (i.e., players take turns initiating/resolving reactions to any simultaneous triggering condition in any order)?

And I will admit that without a formal answer to that question, we can't be 100% sure how the multiple committed Nurgling situation is supposed to resolve.

As PBrennan says, off-line conversations with FFG, including rulings by the designers/developers at Worlds, have said that simultaneous triggering conditions are "stacked" -- i.e., reactions to simultaneously occurring triggering conditions are both initiated and resolved separately by players in any order. But also as PBrennan says, until the question is answered in an official rules document (an FAQ that hasn't been released yet), this is really more of a "common understanding" than the undisputed rules of the game.

For those of us with experience in AGoT, this approach to multiple, simultaneous triggering conditions feels rather natural, though. So there's my bias showing.

Ktom and I have had conversations with the designers in the past about how this kind of stuff works to help ensure we're providing correct answers (pending official FAQ). People can of course choose to play how they like though.

I'll provide a note on what may be the sticking point though ... the conversations I've had with the design team have made it clear that if multiple Forced Reactions attempt to fire simultaneously, all they do is earn the right to attempt to fire off. The player with the initiative chooses which one to fire off - at which point it both "triggers and resolves" per ktom's explanation. If its resolution causes a card to leave play that contained one of those Forced Reactions that had earnt the right to fire off, then it no longer has that right, because its card is no longer in play. Of the remaining Forced Reactions that have earnt the right to trigger off, the player with the initiative then triggers and resolves the next. And so on. (And as always, this answer may either be confirmed or changed by upcoming FAQ, but that's my current understanding.)

Does the player with initiative fire off all of the reaction for units he controls in the order he decides, and then, the player without initiative does the same with his units?

Or

Does the player with initiaitve fire off all reactions for all of the units in the order he decides? (both his units and the other player's units.

Does the player with initiaitve fire off all reactions for all of the units in the order he decides? (both his units and the other player's units.

This, according to FFG's last communication on the subject.

This only goes for Forced Reactions, of course.

Rules question I submitted yesterday:

I would like to settle a dispute regarding Forced Reactions, specifically regarding multiple Ku'Gath's Nurglings committing to a planet. Currently there are two opposing thoughts on how the following should resolve, which essentially comes down to the relationship between Trigger Conditions, a Forced Reaction BEING triggered, and resolving it.

Option 1: The Nurglings arrive at the planet. This meets the trigger condition for all Nurglings. You then trigger one of the Forced Reactions and fully resolve it before triggering the next. If any Nurgling dies with pending triggers still outstanding, you do not resolve them because you cannot resolve the ability of a unit not in play.

Effectively, Trigger Condition > Trigger #1 > Resolve #1 > Trigger #2 > Resolve #2 etc.

Option 2: The Nurglings arrive at the planet. Because the trigger condition has been met, they have BEEN triggered, and will all resolve regardless of if they are destroyed.

Effectively, Trigger Condition > Trigger #1 > Trigger #2 etc. > Resolve #1 > Resolve #2 etc.

And the response I picked up this morning:

Option 1 is the correct way of resolving this situation. The player with the initiative will also decide the order in which the effects are triggered and resolved.

Brad Andres

Associate LCG Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

So yes, I will continue playing the game the way the designers intended it to be played.

Good for you. Those of us who have been playing well designed games for twenty some-odd years will continue to interpret rulesets - as written - with a level of competence and experience that still seems to be beyond some people. The designers can keep their 'intent'; another one of FFG's patented ad hoc rulings isn't going to fix a thoroughly broken and nonsensical card interaction, and it's sure as heck not going to sell the game.

Good for you. Those of us who have been playing well designed games for twenty some-odd years will continue to interpret rulesets - as written - with a level of competence and experience that still seems to be beyond some people. The designers can keep their 'intent'; another one of FFG's patented ad hoc rulings isn't going to fix a thoroughly broken and nonsensical card interaction, and it's sure as heck not going to sell the game.

Im sorry, but I am still seeing a difference between rules as written (RAW) and rules as intended (RAI) here.

I just read post #135 (how many posts was the longest rules thread in recent memory anyways??) and the FFG response, but am still having problems swallowing this card's effects and understanding it. I must be a dullard.

Simply put, I need to have a clearly written and plainly understood listing (citing) that concerns 'move' and 'deployment', etc. Lacking this, I am going to have serious issues understanding the overall effects of the KG Nurgling card, and I am positive there will be more than one other person (at the very least) who will fall into the same category.

Honestly, I don't think I am asking too much here.

I'll provide a note on what may be the sticking point though ... the conversations I've had with the design team have made it clear that if multiple Forced Reactions attempt to fire simultaneously, all they do is earn the right to attempt to fire off....

Ummmmm....

Again, this is not what it says in the rules. (specifically, a forced reaction must go off, due to it being forced... and I wish I had a more subtle phrase instead of 'go off'...)

Please don't think that I am picking on you or attempting to drudge up mud. Am nearly trying to come to an understanding here.

I'll provide a note on what may be the sticking point though ... the conversations I've had with the design team have made it clear that if multiple Forced Reactions attempt to fire simultaneously, all they do is earn the right to attempt to fire off....

Ummmmm....

Again, this is not what it says in the rules. (specifically, a forced reaction must go off, due to it being forced... and I wish I had a more subtle phrase instead of 'go off'...)

Please don't think that I am picking on you or attempting to drudge up mud. Am nearly trying to come to an understanding here.

Try 'resolve' instead of 'go off' if it helps.

Thing is, yes, the Forced Reaction must attempt to resolve - but if the card is taken out of play BEFORE that can happen, then there IS no Forced Reaction to resolve. The ability is no longer in play, as it originates from a card that ISN'T in play. The way timing works in Conquest is as described above:

Trigger condition happens > Ability is triggered > Ability is resolved > Next ability is triggered > Ability is resolved.

Does that help at all?

EDIT: To make it more explicit; an ability isn't automatically considered to be 'triggered' just because the trigger condition occurred - triggering is actually the NEXT thing that happens, and begins the resolution. So when a timing event causes multiple Forced Reactions, you basically have a queue of 'pending' triggers, which each need to be triggered and resolved in turn.

A deployment is when a card moves from an out-of-play state to an in-play state using the "deploy" verb, paying its resource cost.

A move is any transfer from one location to another that literally uses the word "move". If an effect says "move", it's a move. If the rules say its a "move", then it's a move. If an effect or the rules uses a different term, like return or place (as it does for deploying, routing, retreating), then it's not a move.

When the rules describes the commitment process, it uses the word "move". As such all commitments are moves.

These concepts have been explained in the "living FAQ" style rules forum at cardgamedb where questions are (thankfully) mostly one-and-done, and we're not scorned for wanting to play the game as the designers intended. If you gradually work your way through the major threads there, any outstanding questions you might have on the game should hopefully be answered.

I'll provide a note on what may be the sticking point though ... the conversations I've had with the design team have made it clear that if multiple Forced Reactions attempt to fire simultaneously, all they do is earn the right to attempt to fire off....

Ummmmm....

Again, this is not what it says in the rules. (specifically, a forced reaction must go off, due to it being forced... and I wish I had a more subtle phrase instead of 'go off'...)

The disconnect here may be helped by looking at the entry for triggered abilities. According to that definition, they have to be initiated by a player . A "Forced Reaction" is still a triggered ability, despite being mandatory (where most triggered abilities are optional). So as a triggered ability, the forced reaction is still considered to be initiated by a player, not by the game itself.

Combine that information with the entries on forced reactions, reactions in general, nested abilities and priority of simultaneous resolution. Since the forced reactions are (mandatorily) initiated by the player with initiative, not the game, before any other reactions to the same triggering condition are (optionally) triggered, the same rules for "first one is initiated and completely resolved before the next one is initiated" apply.

Ok gents. I feel as if I'm being thumped on the head with a dumb-stick.

I'm gonna let this topic go. Most certainly has been rough for me to follow.

Thanks for all your replies.

A deployment is when a card moves from an out-of-play state to an in-play state using the "deploy" verb, paying its resource cost.

A move is any transfer from one location to another that literally uses the word "move". If an effect says "move", it's a move. If the rules say its a "move", then it's a move. If an effect or the rules uses a different term, like return or place (as it does for deploying, routing, retreating), then it's not a move.

When the rules describes the commitment process, it uses the word "move". As such all commitments are moves.

These concepts have been explained in the "living FAQ" style rules forum at cardgamedb where questions are (thankfully) mostly one-and-done, and we're not scorned for wanting to play the game as the designers intended. If you gradually work your way through the major threads there, any outstanding questions you might have on the game should hopefully be answered.

Page 9 of the LtP guide specifically uses the word 'move' when referring to units retreating. It would seem the designers are as bad at writing rules as they are creating (and interpreting) them. The former, at least, has been readily apparent since release. I'm forced to wonder if they actually want people to play this game.

What's the obsession with a third party site? Some of us are avid posters here at the main FFG site, where conversations regarding their games makes the most sense. Habitual attempts to redirect my attentions elsewhere certainly doesn't earn anyone more 'clout,' not so far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for everyone, but I know my own time and attention can only be split so many different ways.

What's the obsession with a third party site? Some of us are avid posters here at the main FFG site, where conversations regarding their games makes the most sense. Habitual attempts to redirect my attentions elsewhere certainly doesn't earn anyone more 'clout,' not so far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for everyone, but I know my own time and attention can only be split so many different ways.

More like, second party now. (Well, not sure how the party numbering system works, but Cardgamedb isn't exactly third party anymore, having been acquired by FFG and all)

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html/_/articles/fantasy-flight-games-acquires-cardgamedb-r779

Page 9 of the LtP guide specifically uses the word 'move' when referring to units retreating.

The LtP, true to its name, uses common words so novices can quickly get into the game. The precise wording is in the RRG (that's where you need to quote rules from, and the LtP even says it explains how to interpret card text). The RRG uses the verb "move" for Mobile (p. 10) and committing (p. 24), and doesn't use it for deploying (p. 23), retreating (p. 13), routing (p.14) or defeating a Hale Warlord (p. 5).

Absolute bologna. The verbiage in both documents is nearly identical, with the RRG using words that are no less "common." You can preach intent to me all day long if you wish, but I'm not buying any bridges today.

Tell me, on which pages does the RRG define "place" and "return"?

Absolute bologna. The verbiage in both documents is nearly identical, with the RRG using words that are no less "common." You can preach intent to me all day long if you wish, but I'm not buying any bridges today.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're uncompromisingly stubborn on points which have already been clarified and are understood to work a certain way. Nobody cares how long you've been playing card games for, because all that it's done for you is cause you to drag a lot of preconceived notions about how card games 'should' work in your opinion. This is a new game, with its own ruleset, which is defined in the RRG.

I'm happy to concede that some of these rules have been poorly handled (the definition of 'move' being one which should have been made more explicit). However you seem intent on misinterpreting the rules, even when they're clearly spelled out (the exanple of 'costs: paying' and 'costs: the word 'to' ' from the other thread being a perfectly good example).

I can't decide at this point if you're actually a troll or just obstinate.

You mistakenly seem to think I care about this particular point; I don't. I made a simple observation, to which someone responded that the LtP guide uses more "common" words, as if new players can only read at a kindergarten level. I should hope it goes without saying how patently ridiculous that is. As for the numerous clarifications we have from the developers and playtesters about how to properly play the game, the fact that we need their input at all only underscores my broader point about the general state of the rules.

Call me a troll if you like, but know that your thinly veiled condescension and consistent attempts to bring this conversation down to a personal level have not gone unnoticed. These forums are for discussing the game, not posters. I recommend we leave it that way.

Jesus. Get a chat room. This thread is a little dead, huh?