I posed that bit before. Some people will not want to believe that until it is spelled out for them in a FAQ. I think it has to do with the particular bent FFG has for using certain words to mean one specific thing and others in their general common usage form.

keltheos said:

I think this needs no extra ruling. Without doubt this unit enters a new zone. A more interesting question is what happens if the same unit enters a zone more times in one turn.

Kiddo,

When a unit enters the zone, a power is gained. Nothing gets subtracted for a unit leaving the zone, and all that needs to happen for the forced effect trigger is a unit enters the zone. So if you can take a Pistolier and move it in and out of a zone, you will get a P for each time the Pistolier enters the zone.

dormouse said:

Yup, within a day or two of when you and I talked about it online for the first time. Still waiting.

Since I haven't heard back after several weeks I've fired off the question again.

keltheos said:

I asked this same question earlier to the question that prompted this thread. My answer was yes you get the power if the unit moves in from another zone. The specific example was pistoliers moving into the zone, back out and back in. The Greatswords got power for each seperate entry.

The Greatswords ruling confused me too. I was curious about whether this worked the same way as Magic, so I asked Mark Gottlieb (the Magic Rules Manager). His answer was yes, it's the same, but they don't template the cards that way because it's confusing.

The Greatswords ability reads:

"Forced: After a unit enters this zone, The Greatswords gains 1 until the end of the turn."

The equivalent Magic template would be:

"Whenever The Greatswords or another creature enters play under your control, The Greatswords gains +1/+0 until the end of turn."

Apparently it could also be worded differently (but more confusingly) in Magic to have the same effect:

"Whenever a creature enters play under your control, The Greatswords gains +1/+0 until the end of turn."

Hopefully this will reassure some people who felt that the ruling was "wrong"...

The difference is, in Magic we have this 70+ page rulebook that has a precise definition of the turn structure and timing issues. In WH:I we are missing such a thing, imo the official ruling makes sense but before the answer from Nate I would have rules it the other way.

Well, I just hope they finish the faq with the precise flowchart fast

IF it had been self-referential that would have cleared things up a lot. In regards to the Magic rulebook... I was playing sense Alpha, the rulebook was less useful and less clear than this one. It wasn't until somewhere around '94 that the rules were pretty solid and if not clear, at least well defined. Both Thrones and Cthulu have well flushed out rules, FAQ's, and flowcharts. Invasion will also and thankfully it won't take years.

dormouse said:

Yeah thats true, but honestly I'm pretty sure that the information we need is already in the mind of the designers and I'm a little bitter that they didn't put it online immediately after release. I can understand that they didn't spelled everything out in the rulebook, the current printed magic rulebooks are also pretty basic since too much information is just irritating for most casual player. I think of 10 players that play Magic tourneys, at most one has ever looked in the big rulebook.

Well you have to understand that the FAQ is a product, it needs to go through various stages before it is released and that it is a Frequently Asked Questions guide and releasing one prior to there being frequently asked questions pretty much guarantees that it answers very few questions at all. The problem is that the designers and developers create this with a very firm idea of how all these cards and rules interact. The play testers are almost certainly chosen based on their ability to grasp the deeper concepts of the game, intuitive understanding of the rules, and ability to really put cards and decks through their paces... and this means they are much less likely to question the wording of a card or rule because to them the answer is obvious... even when it is wrong (and they do get them wrong at times, sometimes wildly and all the way through the testing process).

So you release the game with the rules in a form that gives all the basic information needed to play, you monitor forums, and provide a feedback form for people to submit questions. You then compile all that information into a series of rules clarifications, card and rule errata, flowcharts to better describe the nuances of the game, and then you have copyeditors go through it all and make or suggets changes, which means the developer has to go through it all over again and ensure that any changes made don't change the intent of his rulings, and in fact make things easier to understand and less ambiguous. And then it goes through whatever parts of the higher ups it needs to for approval as well as letting the graphics department get their hands on it to make it look nice, have a easy to read layout, etc. etc. etc.

Take a look at the FAQ's for the other LCG's and I think you'll understand a bit better why it is a lengthy process and that the final product is far better than a text file to download (which i've had to wade my way through for other games *shudder*).

dormouse said:

I don't disagree here and I actually think that WH:I rulebook is pretty good, but there was a lot of time since the first copies if the game were released at Gencon. Imo, enough to create the flowcharts, since after COC and AGOT the deigner should have enough experience to know that detailed explanation for timing issues for such games are needed.

dormouse said:

Dude, what good is information this spring when I need it now. Stop being so dramatic, you make it sound like it's trying to get a bill passed through Congress. It's just a FAQ. Maybe you want to wait for the leather-bound limited edition, some of us don't. I could care less whether it's it's a word doc,pdf, or a sticky on the rules page. I (probably "we") just want to have the information necessary to play this game to it's fullest potential the way the designer intended.

And not for nothing, if some of the cards and rules were more clearly written from the start, there would be less misinterpretation and less questions.

P.S. T7, you are completely right. Alot of people on this board as well as BGG have been saying "where is the FAQ already."

P.S.S. DM I appreciate all you have done for the community (flowchart, q's to Nate, etc.) Don't take my rant the wrong way please.

I like plain text files. I even more like plain text files formatted with one-liners because they are easier to grep .

I'm not making it sound like getting a bill passed, I'm cluing you in on the actual process that it goes through... and FFG is a relatively small company. Larger game companies have far more steps and checks and balances, and cooks in the kitchen before this kind of things is produced and released.

I wish we had the FAQ starting in December. It certainly would have made my life easier. But the fact is the company has its priorities, and producing the game and its supplement packs and box-expansion apparently take precedence over a partial Players' Guide. We can accept it or not, we ecan certainly complain about it, but I'd posit that sending requests in to FFG will have a greater effect. I don't know about anyone else, but every time I send in a question I make a subtle to blatant request for a FAQ or flowchart. I'm sure at this point Nate knows pretty well that it is the number one request and expectation on my list. I whole-heartedly encourage everyone who sends in rules questions do the same.

I see. That is an old but really interesting topic was and probably no one read this topic anymore as it is 4 years old now. But I would like to share my opinion it can help to finalize how I think this ruling of stacked triggered actions should work.

- Till any of the players doesn't trigger any action is nowhere an opened time window to resolve any stacked action because the constant effects are constant so no timeline created. Constant effect resolves straight away. Also phases are continuous.

- For me the forced effects should be triggered as well by it's controller like any other action because its controller is responsible for his card so in this step you have opened time window. The differences between the two actions that the forced one is not optional. You cannot pass it.

- Basically you have real actions stacked to resolve when players have got more triggered action and the first one opens a time window.

For example: If you play first the pistolers there is no constant effect. No other forced action either to trigger too so nothing happens. Then you play the greatswords. Still no live constant effect but because the greatswords' forced action wording is not " when " but " after " player can trigger it's forced action after it is in play so create a time window with action to resolve. It is quite simple to resolve because it's only one step. Resolve, time window closed. After the player can play another unit when the greatswords forced action will open again a different time window. It is not the same time window.

How I use to resolve a stacked triggered actions it is the following.

1. Write down the connected actions triggered under each other in a timeline as the players triggered them.

2. Start to read backwards from the bottom to resolve the issue.

3. Anywhere when I cannot resolve the issue because of different things like target or condition changed, then I interrupt the resolution and pass all the remained actions. Why? Because all of the triggered action is targeting something to modify or cancel. It means the current step when players cannot resolve the stacked issues there is the action which was worked perfectly.

That's all for me.

Are you aware of the FAQ? There's no need to come up with your own rulings.

Nop. But in this topic it seemed to me no one was "aware" with that even "dormouse". Sorry. I just thought try to share the way how I simplify the rules but do not modify them. I hope it is not against any law or ruling. Anyway, it works for us.

The thread is from 2009, not long after the game's initial release. Old issues like this are all explained in the FAQ by now: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/warhammer_lcg/FAQ/WHI-FAQ.pdf

Hi Mallumo,

Ok. I have got now this newest FAQ. Question if I understud well that. When a card action triggered then the triggered action is immediatelly beeing independent from the card which triggered the action. Basically it means you can not cancel the card effect with eleminating the card itself which triggered the action. Only the effect can be targeted for cancelation because it doesn't belong anyomre from the card which origins from. That is correct?

Correct.

S..t it sounds bad.