Hello. My first post here.

Last time we played the game with friends one question arised.

Assume that Ragnar Blackmane has attached Frostfang

(FROSTFANG: Attach to a Space Wolves unit. Attached unit gets +2 ATK and +2 HP while it is at a planet with an enemy warlord).

Assume that Ragnar (that is a Space Wolves' unit) is at a planet where opposing hero is. He now got 9 points of health total.

Assume that Ragnar has 8 damage tokens on him.

What does happen when opposing leader leaves the planet?

Does the game itself check state each possible "window" and the fact of retreating of the opposing leader triggers that Ragnar is down to 7 health, than triggers that it is bloodied?

And to make things more complicated:

Ragnar, who is bloodied, with Frostfang, has 6 damage tokens on him, kills opposing leader. That leader leaves the game. Does Ragnar die? Is it a tie or he won?

Sorry for my english it is not my mother tongue.

Assume that Ragnar has 8 damage tokens on him.

What does happen when opposing leader leaves the planet?

Does the game itself check state each possible "window" and the fact of retreating of the opposing leader triggers that Ragnar is down to 7 health, than triggers that it is bloodied?

Interesting situation!

The game constantly checks to see if the warlord is defeated (i.e., has more damage than HP). If it is, it is bloodied. So yes, the game will notice that 8 damage is more than 7HP as soon as the enemy warlord retreats, immediately bloodying Blackmane.

And to make things more complicated:

Ragnar, who is bloodied, with Frostfang, has 6 damage tokens on him, kills opposing leader. That leader leaves the game. Does Ragnar die? Is it a tie or he won?

In this case, the game would be over as soon as the enemy warlord is killed. So the game is over before it gets a chance to look to see if Blackmane is defeated, too. Essentially, defeating the enemy warlord has to happen BEFORE Frostfang stops working, so the enemy warlord is defeated first and Blackmane wins.

Now, if the enemy warlord and Blackmane were defeated at exactly the same time (for example, an effect dealt every unit at the planet 2 damage), the game would end in a draw. That's why it's important to see that in the Frostfang situation, they aren't defeated at exactly the same time.

Sorry for my english it is not my mother tongue.

You do a lot better in English than I bet I would do in YOUR mother tongue!

Thank you, dear Sir, for your kindness.

And yes- my mother tongue is a pain- even for us...

Since this is the Ragnar topic, do we allready have an official awnser about how

Ragnar Blackmane and Foresight work, when the two Warlords "see" each other does Ragnar deal the damage or does he not? Or is it an initiative thing?

It's an initiative thing. Both Blackmane and Foresight are reactions to the warlords being committed. So if Blackmane has initiative, he can hit Starbane before he moves away with Insight. If Starbane has initiative, he can move away with Insight before Blackmane gets a chance to swing.

The weird part is that if Starbane has initiative and moves away, the triggering conditions for Blackmane are no longer true and he cannot use his ability to hit any of the remaining units, either. Similarly, if the two weren't committed to the same planet on the dials, but Starbane then uses Insight to move to the same planet as Blackmane (idiot...), Blackmane's triggering condition would become true and he could use his reaction.

Also, check out this thread for Blackmane's Hunt and Foresight interactions.

Um... It's probably worth noting that there is some disagreement and discussion regarding the "nesting" of reactions as described in the that thread. Specifically, there is a ruling from FFG countering the interpretation that using Blackmane's Hunt creates a new "after you commit your warlord" reaction window in which only reactions to Blackmane's "recommit" can be played before continuing with other "after you commit your warlord" reactions to the original Command Phase commitment. (i.e., If SM has initiative and plays Blackmane's Hunt to move to a planet with Starbane, the next reaction could be to Starbane's original commitment rather than to Blackmane's "recommitment" - the opposite of the conclusion in the thread.)

Things like this indicate there are some deeper interpretation issues with nested and simultaneous reactions that I'm told will be cleared up in a future FAQ.

That conclusion was reached by using the "nested ability sequence" section of the RRG. Ragnar's recommitment certainly looks like a new condition.

Nested Ability Sequences
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.

• Interrupt and reaction effects may, however, cause new conditions that can initiate a subsequent series of interrupt and reaction abilities. Such abilities will nest on top of one another, creating a sequence of abilities, and these sequences need to be resolved in a “last in, first out” manner.

When such a sequence of abilities occurs, players should keep triggering abilities until the chain of sequences runs dry (i.e. there are no interrupts or reactions to the resolution of all abilities from the last ability triggered in the sequence).

• The most recently initiated nested ability sequence is always completely resolved before any former sequence of abilities is resolved.

I'm not arguing that, or the reasoning behind it.

I'm just saying that FFG has ruled an outcome different from the one reached under the Nested Ability entry in the rules. That's certainly never happened before, right?

Just saying I'm not going to accept it without an official change to the RRG.

Fair enough. (Hence the bit about the discrepancy being cleared up in the first FAQ.)

I'm not arguing that, or the reasoning behind it.

I'm just saying that FFG has ruled an outcome different from the one reached under the Nested Ability entry in the rules. That's certainly never happened before, right?

Where was this ruling? I've not seen it, and neither PBrennan or Toqtamish contradicted my interpretation in that thread so I assumed it was correct.

EDIT: Not trying to be combative; just trying to get a better understanding. Would like to see how FFG worded that ruling you mentioned.

No problem. I used to play L5R, so I'm no stranger to changing rules (every base set has new rules).

That conclusion was reached by using the "nested ability sequence" section of the RRG. Ragnar's recommitment certainly looks like a new condition.

Nested Ability Sequences

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.

• Interrupt and reaction effects may, however, cause new conditions that can initiate a subsequent series of interrupt and reaction abilities. Such abilities will nest on top of one another, creating a sequence of abilities, and these sequences need to be resolved in a “last in, first out” manner.

When such a sequence of abilities occurs, players should keep triggering abilities until the chain of sequences runs dry (i.e. there are no interrupts or reactions to the resolution of all abilities from the last ability triggered in the sequence).

• The most recently initiated nested ability sequence is always completely resolved before any former sequence of abilities is resolved.

So, this means that if you Commit Ragnar and Starbane to the same planet, since both are Reactions, it depends on the "Initiative Token"?

I mean, "Foresight" is also a Reaction, so, as ktom said earlier, if Blackmane has Initiative he hits someone and then Starbane retreats and if Starbane has Initiative he moves away and then Blackmane can't make the attack?

I'm not sure about this last bit, I mean, by the time Blackmane reacts Starbane is no longer there, but he sure was Commited to a planet with an Enemy Warlord.

If it was me, I would rule out the second situation this way:

- Player A has the Initiative and Starbane, and he moves to planet X

- Player B has Ragnar and he also moves to planet X

- Player A plays Foresight and moves Starbane somewhere else

- Player B hits someone (not Starbane because he is no longer there)

I would even allow then playing Blackmane hunt to move to adjacent planet and if Starbane is there hit again with 2 damage (same way as Starbane's ability triggering twice).

- Player B hits someone (not Starbane because he is no longer there)

Nope. Doesn't matter if the condition WAS true. Only matters if the condition IS true when you come to activate the ability. Threw me for a loop as well because I'm used to Netrunner timing rules, but this is how Conquest works.

You can even, for example, use Syren Zythlex to exhaust Sicarius' Chosen after the Chosen drags her from her own planet. He was committed to another planet entirely, but by the time you can use her reaction, her reference of 'this planet' has changed.

I checked my answer with Nate at the time and got the thumbs up, so that should give a measure of confidence that reaction windows work as outlined at cardgamedb. ktom and I were chatting offline about it ... it sounds like he got an accidental mislead on a similar example earlier on.

Noting that this also doesn't rule out a change in ruling via the upcoming FAQ either because, as ktom mentioned, there has been discussion in this area.

Well thanks on the clarification thus far guys!

... it sounds like he got an accidental mislead on a similar example earlier on.

Yep. The only thing we're not sure about is whether the "accident" was that the ruling I got was wrong, or premature.

So, basically, what you say is:

1. Player A (who has Starbane and the Initiative) states the Reaction and fullfils it

2. Player B (who has Ragnar) tries to get a second Reaction but, since he no longer "is commited in a planet with a Warlord", then he can't do it?

Still not so sure about this... I mean, check the card: http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/wh40kconquest/conquest.html/_/warlord-cycle/the-howl-of-blackmane/ragnar-blackmane-r203

It says "After your Warlord commits to a planet with an enemy Warlord"

In the timeline, even if Starbane leaves, you are still playing in a moment "After your Warlord commits to a planet with an enemy Warlord".

Anyway, if the timing works like that I'm ok with it, it's a clear point to resolve other similar issues.

"With" does not mean "along with" - it doesn't mean that you must commit to a planet "along with" an enemy warlord.

The triggering condition is "After your Warlord commits to a planet" with a qualifier that the planet must be one that has an enemy warlord at that planet. As long as that condition is met at any point during the commitment reaction window, when it is your opportunity to react, then the triggering condition is true and the reaction can be triggered. It's irrelevent when and how the enemy warlord got to the planet - there's no memory state involved. When it's your opportunity to react, either the triggering condition is true at this point in time (yes, an enemy warlord is present, and it can be triggered) or it's not true (and it can't). But not being true at the start of the reaction window does not stop it being true later in that same reaction window, and therefore triggerable at that point. Conversely, the triggering condition may be true at the start of the reaction window, but not true by the time the opportunity to react comes along, in which case it wouldn't be triggerable.

What it comes down to is that the play restrictions on each specific reaction are checked at the time the reaction is triggered, not at the time the triggering condition is created.

So "with an enemy warlord" must be true when you trigger the reaction, and not necessarily when the triggering condition (committing the warlord) happens.

I'm just going to go with what ktom says for all rulings, might as well be law

I'm just going to go with what ktom says for all rulings, might as well be law

Wrong game.

What everyone else has said here about the nested abilities on reactions is entirely true as the rules are written today. It is better to follow the rules as written until FFG writes something different. Whether or not the current discussion about this is going to lead to FFG writing something different (and I think it will), and what that "something different" would be, truly remains to be seen.

Hey everyone. We just had a couple issues related to Backmane/Eldar last night and though I read this thread and the linked thread I'm still not 100 percent sure about 2 things.

Forgive me if these did get answered in this thread and I missed them:

If I'm playing Eldar and I use forsight to commit to another planet, does my warlord ability happen twice, exhausting one unit at each planet? (I think this is probably the easy "already answered" question I didn't find) The card reads "when you commit, commit somewhere else" which seems like I'm gaining an extra commit trigger. It doesn't read "when you would commit, instead commit somewhere else."

Second, relating to Blackmane (or the Eldar, though this didn't come up), if I commit to a planet and bring troops from HQ with me that come in exhausted, do they move with me when I use Blackmane's hunt to "commit again?" The rules states that when you commit, your units form HQ come with you, but committing when you are at a planet seems like your force doesn't follow you since they aren't coming from HQ, but this is only true if there are two separate commits..

I guess what I'm missing from this thread is if these 2 cards create a second commit trigger, or replace the already existing one? The priority issues I understand.

Edit: Correction, the card reads "After you commit..." not "when you commit." leading me more to believe that it does create a second commit trigger

If I'm playing Eldar and I use forsight to commit to another planet, does my warlord ability happen twice, exhausting one unit at each planet? (I think this is probably the easy "already answered" question I didn't find)

Yes, Foresight does create a second "commit" trigger for the Eldar warlord's ability. Just be aware that in order to use it, the order of reactions HAS to be "A) exhaust 1; B) Foresight; C) exhaust 2." And, of course, your opponent is going to have an opportunity to trigger their own reactions to warlords committing (like Blackmane or Shadowsun) between A and B.

Second, relating to Blackmane (or the Eldar, though this didn't come up), if I commit to a planet and bring troops from HQ with me that come in exhausted, do they move with me when I use Blackmane's hunt to "commit again?" The rules states that when you commit, your units form HQ come with you, but committing when you are at a planet seems like your force doesn't follow you since they aren't coming from HQ, but this is only true if there are two separate commits.

You are correct that only units from the HQ commit with the warlord, and only when the warlord commits from the HQ.

Generally speaking, when using Foresight or Blackmane's Hunt, the "recommit" has to be a second, separate commit (from the planet) because the original commit has to be complete before the reaction can be played.

I guess what I'm missing from this thread is if these 2 cards create a second commit trigger, or replace the already existing one? The priority issues I understand.

Yeah, the topic of this thread kind of assumes the "recommit" is a second commit and a new triggering opportunity for the warlord abilities. Sounds like what came up for you guys was whether that was a good assumption or not. Luckily, it is.