There's trouble with the interaction between Knockback and Divine Retribution which has just become silly thanks to the updated faq.

Logic seems to dictate, according to some sources, that there's a sequence where damage is dealt, knokback takes effect, Armour does it's thing, Wounds are inflicted and then, if the figure dies, Divine Retribution goes off.

I can see the logic but it distinguishes between Dealing damage and inflicting wounds.....

For my sins, I've played Tragic:the card Flopping Game since close to it's inception - Descent doesn't need to over-complicate things any more when there are so many rules. I think a more simple approach should be looked for whenever possible. I think Damage dealt and wounds inflicted should be considered to happen together.

Simple proposal short would mean that when a figure gets hit they lose the appropriate amount of wounds (minus armour and related effects). At that point, regardless of whether the hero has died or not, the knockback gets them. (yeah, corpse of hero flying through the air like classic Street Fighter 2). When the figure comes to rest somewhere, if there's no additional damage from being bumped into pits etc, Then and only then will the Divine Retribution take effect.

It's cleaner to follow, especially if you've had the pleasure of golfing the monsters around the board for extra damage.

An errata that states, "The effect of Divine Retribution happens after all other influences on a dying figure have been applied" Is what, I think has been needed from the begining.

Discuss?

Heh, problem is the games rules in the original JitD books dictates that Wounds are separate from Damage, and both have distinct steps in resolving an attack. The FAQ would have to completely errata the original rules for resolving attacks to accomplish what you are suggesting. I'm thinking that's more effort than the folks at FFG "have time to do".

We just need a set of rules written like Advanced Squad Leader...

-shnar

To clarify, the way it works according to the recent FAQ ruling is:

1) You take damage from the attack, fully resolve armor, take wounds if applicable, die if applicable, and trigger divine retribution if applicable, all exactly as normal for an attack without Knockback

2) Then, if you're still alive, you get moved by Knockback

This thing:

The 4th Man said:

is how some people are arguing that it used to work, not the new way that it works according to the FAQ.

Antistone said:

+1

Antistone said:

My point exactly.

(although I think there's more in-game flavour to Divine Retribution kicking in after knockback has laid a hero down.)

I hope that points like this get a clear update in the Basic rules now that D:JitD is going for reprint. It would be awful if they missed the opportunity to do so.

For that matter, the order of triggering of certain effects like above could, one presumes, be easily added as an example in the turn sequencing instructions of the basic rule book.

The new FAQ has just been re-jigged.

The answers to the questions seem a lot clearer now.

Need to address more of the SoB faq though. Still looks a bit light on content there.

Man, how are you guys seeing these updates? There was no info on the main page...

-shnar

shnar said:

I just saw a post from Thundercles and reloaded the FAQ to see the update.

That being said, with questions now answered the title of this thread, indeed the thread itself is irrelevant.

Can the mods lock this?

The 4th Man said:

ProtoPersona said:

The mods come here?

good point.

The 4th Man said:

Where did this sequence come from in the first place? The only reasoning I can come up with to support this idea is the word "before" in the knockback description:

After inflicting at least 1 damage (before applying the effects of armor) to a figure with a Knockback attack, the attacker may immediately move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location.

However, that word 'before' does have a few different definitions, and I think it's pretty clear from context (especially given the recent FAQ ruling) that 'before' in the knockback description does not mean "earlier in time"; it means "without figuring or deducting".

dictionary.reference.com/browse/before

Was there some other explanation for the "logical" sequence above, or was it all just hinging on that one word?

It was mostly hanging on that, and the use of the word immediately.

mahkra said:

Well, that, and the fact that the steps for resolving an attack in Descent are laid out in a very detailed step by step process. The FAQ entry just messes everything up now though since there is no way to argue that Knockback happens after wounds are dealt.

ProtoPersona said:

No, that's the opposite of true.

Attack sequence rules are a mess, it's entirely possible to argue that Knockback always happened after wounds are dealt, and even if everything was 100% perfectly crystal clear before, changing the sequence doesn't create a mess or confuse things, it's merely different.

The new new FAQ is messy with regards to Knockback because it has two contradictory answers right next to each other, but that mess has nothing to do with how the rules worked at any point in history and everything to do with the fact that it has two contradcitory answers right next to each other.

Antistone said:

I agree the wording in the answers is very sloppy, but the intent seems clear when coupled with another answer on page 9. The three rulings say the following:

- Divine Retribution takes effect before the figure is moved by knockback.
- Knockback should trigger before wounds are inflicted, i.e. immediately after confirming that an attack is succesful and will inflict at least 1 point of damage before counting armor.
- Other effects take place after wounds are dealt.

It would appear we're to determine which armor-ignoring effects will occur before counting armor (which seems obvious), but not actually apply those effects until after wounds are dealt from the attack.

mahkra said:

Except the second one explicitly says when Knockback triggers, right after damage and before armor. And if it triggers, you are to immediately move the figure 3 spaces.

Now the third can work with this, since you just go with all other effects take place after wounds are dealt.

The real problem is the one about DR, since its impossible for DR to trigger until after wounds are dealt, and Knockback has now been clarified to trigger before wounds are dealt so they contradict one another.

But knockback is one of the 'other' items addressed in the third quoted answer. (It's actually specifically included in the question.) So knockback has been clarified to trigger before wounds are inflicted but has also been clarified in two different answers not to take place until after wounds are dealt, even though knockback takes place "immediately" when it triggers. (There's also an answer on page 11 that says Damage is dealt before other abilities take effect, which seems to reiterate the third quoted answer above.)

I think they're trying to keep it "simple" by determining armor-ignoring effects before armor is considered at all, but it actually just confuses the issue. The intent of the rulings seems pretty clear to me, though.

(That being said, it obviously does not matter to me how people outside of my group interpret the rules; I'm just posting my reasoning in hopes that it might help others clarify their own understanding / interpretation of the rules, and in order to better understand my own interpretation by seeing what alternative readings of the rules I'm dismissing.)

mahkra said:

I think that they had a perfectly consistent and clear ruling on the issue, but then Big Remy got tapped as an editor and forced his alternate ruling through, and they neglected to remove the pre-existing rulings that contradicted his.

Antistone said:

Okay, yeah I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a response other than this: I sent in question about something that has been repeatedly asked on this forum. I forced nothing through.

Oh? I figured that when you're one of the editors on the new version of the FAQ, and it reverses an earlier ruling that you had publicly stated ought to be reversed, that you might have had something to do with that. If I were a FAQ editor, I'd certainly try to get them to change rulings that I thought needed to be changed.

But if that's not what happened, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I guess one of the other editors was merely swayed by your public campaign to get the rule changed.

Antistone said:

Listen, I understand you appear to be pissed and would naturally focus on me as someone who edited the FAQ in a nice little "let's shoot the messenger" attitude but here's a few things.

1) There was one other forum member editor, and he agreed with me.

2) The majority of players already agreed with me, so I fail to see why or how I launched a "public campaign".

3) This is exactly the question that was sent to them, and this wasn't written by me actually:

• Divine Retribution and Knockback: The ruling that Divine Retribution would trigger before Knockback implies that Knockback takes effect after the hero loses wounds. However, the rules for Knockback state that after an attack with Knockback "inflicts at least one damage (before applying armor), the attacker may immediately move" the affected target, which implies that Knockback takes effect before inflicting wounds. Neither explicitly says when Knockback is actually triggered, which was what we should have asked in the first place (we apologize for this). Does Knockback trigger after inflicting damage or after inflicting wounds?

It was worded and sent this way to get a clarification of the timing because when the first version of it came out, a number of people questioned it.

You don't like the ruling. I'm sorry for that but it is not a result of me trying to "force a ruling through". You want to know what the job of a FAQ editor is: You compile questions and send them in. You get it back, and pray that 50% of them made it in. You spell check and make sure things are in the right place. You then find the questions that have rules problem and try to get them fixed. If you are lucky, 50% of those questions get addressed.

That's it. That's the whole thing. I don't get to make up rules, or even push them through. You don't like it, don't play it that way and house rule it.

End of Line.

Big Remy said:

IMO an apology is owed to you sir. Big time.

I'm not pissed at you or trying to start a fight. Mahkra is trying to offer an explanation for why the FAQ says what it currently does, and is drawing conclusions based on that explanation; I'm attempting to offer a more plausible one to explain why he shouldn't draw those conclusions.

In the FAQ thread, there were exactly two people who complained about the correctness of the answer that DR happened before Knockback: you and Corbon. And Corbon later said that he thought that the ruling was actually good for balance. A couple people thought it wasn't stated as clearly as possible, but I don't recall anyone else saying that the decision was bad. Hence, to the best of my knowledge, you were/are the only person on public record maintaining that the first ruling should be reversed. I thought it was fairly safe to assume, then, that the change was due to your influence, directly or indirectly, for better or worse. I'm not sure what "majority of players" already agreed with you, or how I missed them.

I am pissed that the FAQ is contradictory and that the writers apparently can't keep their answers straight. And I do happen to think that having Knockback movement happen after wounds are applied is cleaner and easier to understand than the alternative and would therefore make a better answer, in addition to being the way that I've always played it. But I don't especially care what the ruling is as long as they pick one, stick with it, and articulate it clearly.

Antistone said:

I understand. However, think of each and every other instance this questions has come up. Its always been ruled the same way with very little dissent and not always by me. That was what I meant by "majority of players" so perhaps I used the wrong words there.

This is exactly why I want a Rules Council for the forum. And frankly I don't want to be on it.