51 minutes ago, Veritas85 said:

The most reason why re-rolling a die is known as "game state change" is, that you are not really able to know what side the die will show after throwing it correctly... so you made an action which at least tried to change the state of the game (even if die will show same side after re-rolling)...

if you play only a card which has no effect and does not really try to change the game state, it is seen as "passing"...

Agreed.

I think people are wanting to find a loophole with this so the turn can end before their opponent's hand is empty so that final die doesn't roll to side that ends the game. Certainly the game can be set up to work like this but I don't believe that was the intent with this new rule. Of course knowing and believing are two very different things and currently, we don't know.

They really just should have made it that if an action has no effect it can not be used. Simple, makes sense and is not really up to interpretation. As so many are fond of pointing out this is not mtg so 0 action moves shouldn't be allowed, I never agreed with the practice in mtg either. What state of reality does this mimic? Obi-wan coming out of the nethers, seeing a rebel trooper and yelling "Psyche!" and buggering off?

1 hour ago, Mep said:

Certainly the game can be set up to work like this but I don't believe that was the intent with this new rule.

Again, the intent of the rule doesn't matter one whit. It is essential that the game be played exactly as the rules are written, not by what we think the designers intended.

Nobody is saying that the intent of the rule is to treat "rerolling to the same faces" as a pass. What I am saying is that's how the rule is written, and that's a problem.

I really don't like how you're characterizing my argument as "you're looking critically at the rules and coming to logical conclusions so you must be trying to screw over people using the rules." In fact, I'm trying to protect myself by pointing out a (likely unintended, sure) consequence of the rules. I'm a Jango/Veers player, so I heavily utilize the "discard to reroll" action. I don't want to reroll my blanks into blanks and then have my opponent pass and end of the round.

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

They really just should have made it that if an action has no effect it can not be used.

This would have fixed the Veers problem, but doesn't address all the cases. Triggering an empty Backup Muscle still has an effect (exhausting the card). They were rather clearly going for a broader ruling, but Destiny doesn't have enough of a rules framework to make anything elegant. There is no distinction between cost and effect of an ability, for example, there are only effects. So they couldn't even go the normal route of "Can't pay a cost if the effect won't do anything" and we end up with a pretty global mess.

Here is another fun edge case: Does using "Street Informants" count as passing? Or is whether or not you know the contents of your opponents hand part of the game state? Would activate a second one count as passing then (because you already know their hand)? What if you can infer the contents of their hand... is using street informants a passing action then? (e.g last turn they had 2 dodges, didn't discard them and have played 3 non-dodge cards therefore their hand must be 2 dodges so activating street informants is a passing action.) Or should 'viewing your opponents hand' always be considered to be changing the game state, even if I already knew the contents of their hand?

Mostly this is for my amusement after finding street informants, but it does a pretty good job of illustrating why clarification is needed, and why this fuzzy game state approach isn't great. Some sort of "If you play/activate a card and *anything happens*" would seem like a much safer route IMO.

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Triggering an empty Backup Muscle still has an effect (exhausting the card).

Exhausting the card isn't the effect though, back up muscle itself would do nothing. Exhausting the card is what you have to do to get an effect. Having no counters on it would mean it wouldn't do anything therefore exhausting it would be the same situation as playing it and therefore you shouldn't be able to exhaust it. It's going to be a rough solution and nothing adequately blankets it but in my mind exhausting is still doing something, akin to playing a card, and if it's not going to accomplish anything it shouldn't be allowed. That is my original point pretty much.

21 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

The original wording said something about excess damage being ignored when a character is defeated, but the wording of Second Chance makes it a replacement effect, so the character was never technically defeated. Taking the 'defeated' part out leaves less room for confusion or interpretation.

Two copies of Second Chance's trigger would go into the queue simultaneously if a character died, so I guess they would both have resolved before. The new ruling is more of a band-aid to make the interaction work as intended, but I would still make an argument that they both go into the queue. That's FFG for you.

Since Second Chance is a before ability, they ignore the Queue.

I think this kind of underscores the problem with an ass-backwards stack. If triggered effects resolved intuitively (top-down), there wouldn't be a need to differentiate between before and after, or ignore the queue entirely. Dumping them out of the queue is just another instance of band-aiding a bad rule set, and resolving simultaneous triggers without a dedicated apparatus for doing so is just foolhardy. But hey, Second Chance works as intended now!

7 hours ago, ketemycos said:

Again, the intent of the rule doesn't matter one whit. It is essential that the game be played exactly as the rules are written, not by what we think the designers intended.

Nobody is saying that the intent of the rule is to treat "rerolling to the same faces" as a pass. What I am saying is that's how the rule is written, and that's a problem.

I really don't like how you're characterizing my argument as "you're looking critically at the rules and coming to logical conclusions so you must be trying to screw over people using the rules." In fact, I'm trying to protect myself by pointing out a (likely unintended, sure) consequence of the rules. I'm a Jango/Veers player, so I heavily utilize the "discard to reroll" action. I don't want to reroll my blanks into blanks and then have my opponent pass and end of the round.

I have no idea what your personal intent is, devil's advocates are always needed, but someone advocating a re-roll counting as a pass, well, that just really feels like a rules lawyer. No where in the rules does it say rolling a die has no effect on the game state. In fact, the list of actions state 'discard a card to reroll a dice' as a legitimate action. Trying to say "but but but the result is the same, you pass" is rules lawyering when the rules clearly state discarding a card to roll a die is an action. I realize people will try to pull that one of course, and being a devil's advocate so this doesn't happen is a good thing.

Does discarding to re-roll and getting the same side count as passing? Well lets look at what the Rules Reference actually says an compare it to the situation.

Quote

If a player triggers an action that does not change the game state, then they are considered to have passed their turn instead. If a player exhausts or plays a card that does not change the game state other than that card being exhausted or played, then they are also considered to have passed their turn instead.

Breaking that down, there are three things we need to consider; Did the action change the game state? Did the player Exhaust a card? and Did the player Play a card?

The first consideration, Did the action change the game state? Yes it did, they discarded a card. So this part of the rule doesn't specify that it counts as passing.

The second consideration, Did the player Exhaust a card? No they didn't. So this part of the rule doesn't specify that it counts as passing.

The third consideration, Did the player Play a card? No, they discarded a card. So this part of the rule doesn't specify that it counts as passing.

Therefore it does NOT count as passing, the game state changed, and neither of the exceptions (Exhausting o playing a card) took place.

You seem awfully confident in your assessment, despite the fact that the rules provide us with absolutely no definition as to what the game state actually is.

---

Mep, what does being an action have to do with anything? Veers' ability is also an action, as is exhausting Backup Muscle. If I'm not mistaking his intent, ketemycos isn't playing devil's advocate so much as he's worried about someone "rules lawyering" against him in a game using this very same discrepancy. Simply put, we have no idea what the game state represents, only that exhausting a card and your hand size don't factor into it.

10 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I think this kind of underscores the problem with an ass-backwards stack. If triggered effects resolved intuitively (top-down), there wouldn't be a need to differentiate between before and after, or ignore the queue entirely. Dumping them out of the queue is just another instance of band-aiding a bad rule set, and resolving simultaneous triggers without a dedicated apparatus for doing so is just foolhardy. But hey, Second Chance works as intended now!

The word Before is in the ability, and has an entire section dedicated to it in the rulebook. It is the only exception. Everything else enters in the order it triggers and resolves in that order.

20 hours ago, ketemycos said:

I think we have a different understanding of how the rules of a competitive game work. We absolutely need to follow the rules exactly as they are written. 100% to the letter. As far as tournament play is concerned, the rules are more important than the player's intentions and the rule-writers' intentions. If the rules say something happens, it does. This is why understanding every single detail and corner case and consequence of the rules needs to happen, because it is imperative that the rules are applied consistently in every case.

If the rules state that rerolling to the same face is the same as a pass (and by my reading, they do), then it DOES NOT MATTER what actions the players took before or after that, or why. You can't have a situation where the reason that a player takes an action impacts how the action mechanically affects the game.

If you re-rolled a dice the game state changed. The face the dice is showing is irrelevant. Otherwise you are finding ways to corner case results which could or couldn't have an effect on game state. The Gen. Veers example is ideal, the action has no consequence as there is no die to remove.

It's been referenced before, but here it is again for the sake of it.

• If a player triggers an action that does not change the game state, then they are considered to have passed their turn instead. If a player exhausts or plays a card that does not change the game state other than that card being exhausted or played, then they are also considered to have passed their turn instead.

It doesn't state, "if after resolving an action the game state is as it was before your action, you are considered to have passed".

Your action is to discard a card to re-roll a die, re-rolling the die is changing the game state the RESULT of the re-roll is not important as you have attempted to change the game state. Playing a card which cannot effect the game state, because there are no blue cards in play (for instance) would fall foul of this rule however.

And now your going to tell me that it doesn't say that and it's not how you read it. Which is the problem with analysing issues like this, everyone is assuming the intent of FFG.

Keep in mind that the rulling states there must be no game state change "other than that card being exhausted or played". So only if the card being played or exhausted has no other effect on the game will this condition be fulfilled. Nowhere does it say handsize doesn't matter, nor does it say support state outside of the action being taken does not matter.

At this point I think we just need to wait for FFG to clarify and/or change the rules. I see that people have contacted Lukas regarding clarifications before; how would I do so?

33 minutes ago, ketemycos said:

At this point I think we just need to wait for FFG to clarify and/or change the rules. I see that people have contacted Lukas regarding clarifications before; how would I do so?

In regards to what? The game state stuff? You aren't going to get much more than you have. Are you taking an action you know will, directly, accomplish nothing? You are passing.

2 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

The word Before is in the ability, and has an entire section dedicated to it in the rulebook. It is the only exception. Everything else enters in the order it triggers and resolves in that order.

I understand how it works, and I understand why that rule exists; resolving a stack full of nested before and after triggers would be a nightmare, which is why better game systems don't incorporate them both. In fact, that's the exact reason why the stack was invented in the first place, so why did FFG buck the trend and needlessly convolute the rules?

1 hour ago, ketemycos said:

At this point I think we just need to wait for FFG to clarify and/or change the rules. I see that people have contacted Lukas regarding clarifications before; how would I do so?

There's a link somewhere on the main FFG site that allows you to submit rules questions. I'll dig it up later if you don't find it first.

3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You seem awfully confident in your assessment, despite the fact that the rules provide us with absolutely no definition as to what the game state actually is.

The only thing I am aware of that I assumed was a change in the game state was discarding a card, and I feel confident in that assumption, given that discarding a card changes the number of cards in the players hand, the number of cards in their discard pile, and the location of the card discarded. Unless someone comes up with a convincing reason to assume that discarding a card doesn't constitute a change in the game state, or FFG says it doesn't, it seems like the only viable assumption. It also seems unlikely to me that FFG will come out with a list of what counts as a change to the game state, because it would likely be prohibitively long, missing things they intend to be a change in the game state, or both.

If there is another assumption I made, or a convincing reason to assume discarding a card doesn't constitute a change in the game state, I would like to hear it.

4 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You seem awfully confident in your assessment, despite the fact that the rules provide us with absolutely no definition as to what the game state actually is.

---

Mep, what does being an action have to do with anything? Veers' ability is also an action, as is exhausting Backup Muscle. If I'm not mistaking his intent, ketemycos isn't playing devil's advocate so much as he's worried about someone "rules lawyering" against him in a game using this very same discrepancy. Simply put, we have no idea what the game state represents, only that exhausting a card and your hand size don't factor into it.

Yes, Ketemycos and me both are worried about this issue and some jerk trying to pull a fast one. The new ruling made it clear, if Veer's can't remove a die, it isn't an action. Discard to reroll dice is an action.

4 hours ago, boomaster said:

If you re-rolled a dice the game state changed. The face the dice is showing is irrelevant. Otherwise you are finding ways to corner case results which could or couldn't have an effect on game state. The Gen. Veers example is ideal, the action has no consequence as there is no die to remove.

It's been referenced before, but here it is again for the sake of it.

• If a player triggers an action that does not change the game state, then they are considered to have passed their turn instead. If a player exhausts or plays a card that does not change the game state other than that card being exhausted or played, then they are also considered to have passed their turn instead.

It doesn't state, "if after resolving an action the game state is as it was before your action, you are considered to have passed".

Your action is to discard a card to re-roll a die, re-rolling the die is changing the game state the RESULT of the re-roll is not important as you have attempted to change the game state. Playing a card which cannot effect the game state, because there are no blue cards in play (for instance) would fall foul of this rule however.

And now your going to tell me that it doesn't say that and it's not how you read it. Which is the problem with analysing issues like this, everyone is assuming the intent of FFG.

This is an excellent explanation. There really should be no confusion on the reroll. It is clearly an action. The result isn't relevant.

Another way to look at it would be cost vs effect. Essentially if you are going to pay a cost for something that doesn't happen, you are passing. I would argue that Veers removing a die when there is no support die to manipulate is a pass action. You are paying the cost for something that cannot be done.

@Murth The argument is basically 'discarding a card for a reroll is not the same as playing a card for an effect'. That sound reasonable, but really ignores the main issue which is "Does rerolling a die that comes up on the same side count as the game state changing". The same situation can occur after, say, activating Power of the Dark Side.

24 minutes ago, Mep said:

Yes, Ketemycos and me both are worried about this issue and some jerk trying to pull a fast one. The new ruling made it clear, if Veer's can't remove a die, it isn't an action. Discard to reroll dice is an action.

Actually, the new rules turns the action into a replacement effect (it becomes a pass 'instead'). I would argue that in both cases a legitimate action is being replaced with a pass.

Isn't state supposed to account for:

player's knowledge (which is why Street Informant, dare I say obviously, has changed state!)

dice movement (no really; yes, to me any reroll was a state change. you just changed state to something with the same /value/ but another state).

Just saying what seems sensible to me. You look at cards (and even if you could have seen them before by the way, etc.), state changed. You reroll a die; you physically rotated the die in the air, the state changed.

nb I acknowledge that what if someone plays a "turn a die to a blank" on a die that is already blank? was that a state change? I'm going to say no. Really!