I feel compelled to admit that I was wrong. Considering the fact that a tie goes to the defender, I think that it is more than fair to say the attackers power is triggered first and that in that case the defending berserker would not be allowed to activate his ability.

My rule question submission:

"In the specific case of one Pegasus Rider attacking one Berserker, when both draw an orb, how are their special abilities resolved?

Pegasus Rider resolves first, routing the Berserker. Can the Berserker still sacrifice itself to deal 2 damage (admittedly pointlessly) to the Pegasus Rider, or not because the Uthuk player has no standing Berserkers to sacrifice?

In the more general sense, how are special abilities resolved? My understanding is that all attacks are performed simultaneously at the time the cards are drawn, but decisions about what to damage/rout/etc. are resolved in the combat order given in the rulebook.

That is to say, all decisions based on what is routed/dead/etc. are made based on the state of events prior to the cards being drawn (the concurrent attack), and that is why units which were route d or killed after drawing cards still resolve the abilities on the cards as if they were not damaged/routed.

Thanks!"

Corey's answer:

"Yes, the Berserker MAY still trigger his ability. The point of the Concurrent Attack Rule, is that any units that draw cards at the same time are resolved Simultaneously. Even though the attacker technically resolves his cards first, this does not have an impact on the defender resolving his special abilities.

I hope this answers your question!
-Corey Konieczka
Lead Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games "

broken said:

So, now it's the Berserker's ability which dominates, as a sacrifice can always trump any other ability.

If I understand it correct all Orb abilities (per initiative level) go "on the stack" ( to speak in Magic terms )

Attacker's abilities first and then resolve in a "last in , first out order"

I can live with that , but as far as I recall the rulebook is not very clear on that and I expect a lot more questions will arise on that matter.

Oh, I stand corrected.

Thanks, broken.

Thanks Broken, that is sort of the impression I got from the rule book. Granted, looking at the exact wording of what we had, the 'attacker resolves first' made sense.

Honestly, I think its impressive that this is as close to a major confusion due to ambiguity on the rules we have come to since the game's release.

Ok, I am really sorry to keep this post alive, but I am still a little fuzzy. If a unit's special attack allows damage, is it applied during the during phase 3 of combat (Resolve Special Abilities) or during phase 5 (Resolve Damage)? I guess I was under the impression that it was applied during phase 3 and that the attacker's abilities fired first. Clearly I have been corrected on that point. I realize that there is a fine line between the two options here and I can't see any way this is relevent now, but it could become relavent in the future with expansions and such.

It is resolved in the order listed in the rulebook. Decisions about attacks you are going to make are made as if combat were instantaneous, e.g. you can sacrifice a Berserker even if it had been routed by another special ability. This only really makes a difference when using special abilities. However, you do have to apply damage to your units if your opponent triggered a special ability that applies damage. Then when resolving routs, you must choose an undamaged unit, if possible. Then when resolving damage you must choose an unrouted, damaged unit, if possible, etc.

Starting with the attacker, each player resolves his units’ special abilities...ok so we must consider that the attacker declares first his special ability so the defender declares for second his special ability but all abilities are executed in the same time. it looks like the istant timing in Magic The Gathering.

I also still think this matter is not completely solved.

Let's quote step 3 of Combat first.

Quote :

3. Resolve Special Abilities: Both players reveal all Fate cards drawn that have special ability icons on the proper section of the card. Starting with the attacker, each player resolves his units’ special abilities (as printed on the faction sheets) a number of times equal to the number of special ability icons on cards he drew.

End Quote

Let's take a closer look now :

"Both players reveal all Fate cards drawn that have special ability icons on the proper section of the card. "

OK, I think we're all on the same page here. Both Players reveal their "Orb-results" ( for that initiative level ) simultaneously.

"Starting with the attacker, each player resolves his units’ special abilities (as printed on the faction sheets) a number of times equal to the number of special ability icons on cards he drew."

This is where the confusion starts.

First of all, why does the rule say " starting with the attacker, each player RESOLVES..." since the attacker clearly DOES NOT start, it's simultaneous.

and second, the abilities do NOT RESOLVE starting with the attacker , all the abilities are like "put on the stack" and then they all resolve simultaneously.

I find it very strange that this rule specifically indicates that the attacker starts this procedure while it clearly doesn't matter who starts at all since everybody gets to do his thing anyway.

I think all this confusion could have been avoided with a more precise wording like :

"3. Resolve Special Abilities: Both players reveal all Fate cards drawn that have special ability icons on the proper section of the card and resolve their units’ special abilities (as printed on the faction sheets) a number of times equal to the number of special ability icons on cards he drew."

I would say this gives an advantage to the defender. It lets the defender know what the attacker is going to do before the defender makes any decisions. They had to pick a side to make decisions first, otherwise you would have a deadlock every time you had to make a choice. Also, it is almost exactly the same wording as for resolving routs and damage.

So just to make sure I get this right now...

The Berserker would be able to trigger his ability and sacrifice himself... okay.

Let's assume there are some more units in each army.

So if the Elf chose the Berserker to rout, and the Uthuk Player reacts (since Attackers resolve first) by sacrificing the Berserker so it is not routed

unused.... (here comes the theory) the Elf Player's routing damage is wasted and he can't assign it to any other unit. ?

That is how I would interpret it.

DarkElf you are right !!!

the abilities do NOT RESOLVE starting with the attacker , all the abilities are like "put on the stack" and then they all resolve simultaneously.

as Magic The Gathering...the stack !!! right !

Chancellor of Sol said:

Yes, this is correct. But both players reveal Fate cards at the same time, so it would be rather stupid to chose the Berserker to rout, because the Elf player knows the Berserker will explode.

Still, the defender has a slight edge, because the attacker has to make decisions first, no matter how straightforward they are.

Charian said:

Seems to me though that if there are multiple berzerkers, some routed some standing that the standing berzerker ould be exploded. Only when there are no standing berzerkers would this rule come into effect. It is also possible that the barbarian player did not have any other legal targets for the pegasus special, though in that case the elfs are doing pretty well!

ArturiStellare said:

Ok, the question I have is that if there is a "stack" like in magic, what happens when ther Berserker attacks the Pegasus Rider, and both draw special orbs? Would the Berserker's ability go on the stack, and the Pegasus Rider would rout him before he could destroy himself, or is the destroying of the berserker an added cost, and need to be paid before the ability is on the stack? So either way, this seems contrary to the rulebook, in which case, they should have made it clearer.

Asylur said:

It doesn't say that in the rulebook; that is an inference, and one that doesn't necessarily follow. I have submitted a rules question regarding that scenario as well.

Also: Berserker doesn't have a Z in it.

The special ability says to sacrifice (or destroy, I don't remember the wording) a standing berserker. It seems like the most sportsmanlike way to play is to actually kill a standing berserker. There could be a loophole in the rules allowing a routed berserker to be killed when standing ones are available, but I would not play it that way unless forced by a ruling. Personally, and this is just my opinion , that seems like it is pretty cheese to kill a routed berserker if standing ones are available given the wording on the card, and since the rules seem to try to keep units from doing "double duty" where possible (like assigning the damage to un-routed units). Just my opinion.

If proper spelling, grammar and punctuation are now required, please let me know and I will put all posts through Word to double check them in the future. I somehow doubt mine is the first spelling faux pas though.

I didn't say that your conclusion was wrong, or that it would be fair to be able to sacrifice a routed berserker when a standing one was available. I just said that your inference didn't follow, so we need a definitive answer. I only corrected your spelling because Z is such an uncommon letter that it jumped out at me, and I would want to know if I were spelling something wrong. Information shouldn't offend.

Q: A Knight is attacking a Berserker and one other higher initiative unit, both the Knight and the Berserker draw orbs. Would the Uthuk player be able to choose to deal the rout to their Berserker, and then also sacrifice their Berserker to kill the Knight? Or must the Uthuk player choose to rout a unit that he does not plan to sacrifice, if able?

Similarly, a Pegasus Rider is attacking three Berserkers, both the Pegasus Rider and two of the Berserkers draw orbs. Would the Uthuk player be able to sacrifice the two routed Berserkers and keep the unrouted one? Or must the Uthuk player first choose to sacrifice a unit which will not be routed this initiative round, if able?

Thanks!

A: The attacker's ability is resolved first. If this causes a berserker to become routed, then he may not be sacrificed for his special ability. This should answer both of your questions.

Note that this is different than my original ruling, but this will be clarified in the updated FAQ.

Thanks for the update. It is a 180 from the previous reply, but I am glad he mentioned that. I do think this is the simpler way to run things and hopefully will be kept a consistent way in future resolution questions!

It's definitely simpler, because the first answer only brought up more questions. Special abilities are no longer truly simultaneous, though.

Asylur said:

I agree that this is going to make the timing of everything a lot clearer and easier

but I'm afraid this 180 will cause quite bit of confusion

sigh ... Just when I was buying into the whole simultaneous thing ...

I also got a similar response from Corey, for what it's worth.

I don't like the attacker-goes-first thing, personally, but I do agree that it will make similar rulings cleaner most likely.

So he decided to stick with the wording of the rulebook. I like that. This will make assaults all the more worthwhile while punishing turtlers.

Thanks for your resarch, broken-