1 hour ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I believe this is the route they went with Destiny, so you may well be right. The problem, as of right now, is that we have no framework rules or definitions for triggers. It also doesn't help that the word 'trigger' is used ambiguously and inconsistently in actual card templating.

One thing I'd like everyone to bear in mind: when we say 'trigger,' we're actually using the term interchangeably for 3 different concepts.

1. The trigger condition.

2. The trigger effect.

3. The trigger resolution.

Games handle these separate elements in different ways, but as of right now there are no rules whatsoever for any of them in Keyforge. The closest we have are rules for constant abilities and the active player, both of which have been noted above and neither of which come close to fitting the exact concept of an actual trigger (from beginning to end).

You are just way overcomplicating this. Again the rules are pretty clear here I think, you have two effects one saying all creatures are destroyed the other saying gain amber when a creature is destroyed. The active player gets to choose the order of the effects but the later cant occur until the former does do to its trigger. All creatures a destroyed simultaneously and that means the secondary can’t occur because talos is destroyed no different than if it was in your hand or discard pile.

The only time we see one effect interrupting another with a creature being removed is on destroyed effects. Otherwise one resolves fully then the other. The best example here is reap. With reap some cards have reap effects and when you reap you gain Amber. The rules state you gain amber when reaping then resolve their effects, the reap effect does not go off before the amber gain because it requires the former to occur first as it’s trigger. Need to step back from the magic mindset, there is no stack.

Complicated or not - and whether you choose to believe it or not - that's the way trigger logic works. The only question here is how those separate elements are sequenced.

3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Complicated or not - and whether you choose to believe it or not - that's the way trigger logic works. The only question here is how those separate elements are sequenced.

In magic maybe, but that’s not indicated anywhere in the rules for keyforge, instead you resolve each effect fully one at a time. Again reap sets a pretty clear precedent for this with “destroyed” effects noting themselves as a clear exception.

Of course it's not indicated in the rules, that's my point. We need to completely remove the idea of precedent from the conversation, because the only clear precedent among FFG games is that they don't abide by precedent when making rules decisions.

3 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Of course it's not indicated in the rules, that's my point. We need to completely remove the idea of precedent from the conversation, because the only clear precedent among FFG games is that they don't abide by precedent when making rules decisions.

The RAW explains this though, there is no stack. You resolve one effect at a time because no such thing as an interupt has been introduced (to my knowledge from reading and playing so far) aside from abilities that say “destroyed” in bold which the rules clearly Mark as an interrupt. To top this off this creatures ability is a constant one and it states under the rules for constant abilities that they don’t apply if the creature leaves play. So we’re removing the creature from play and we know that only “destroyed” effects are noted as going off when a creature is no longer in play and this isn’t a “destroyed” effect so by RAW it doesn’t go off as the creature has left play by the time the requirements for its trigger would activate.

Like I said, and will keep saying, resolution is just one part of trigger logic. The constant ability rule is probably what they will apply here, based off of my experience with Destiny, but even that's not certain.

2 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Like I said, and will keep saying, resolution is just one part of trigger logic. The constant ability rule is probably what they will apply here, based off of my experience with Destiny, but even that's not certain.

I don’t get why it wouldn’t be the constant ability rule, it’s litterally a constant ability is it not? That’s why I’m confused as to why there’s any debate to how it works.

As for “trigger logic” im going purely on RAW here. The RAW covers this by providing the rule for how constant abilities work and even notes specifically when there’s an exception. The lack of such a note means RAW states the effect would not occur, the creature is dead.

unless you don’t believe this to be a constant ability. Granted the rules, page 7 under “constant abilities” states:

-“if a card has an ability that does not have a bold faced precursor” (which the card in question does not), “that ability is a constant ability” (so this IS a constant ability)

-“that is active so long as the card remains in play” (it’s no longer in play the second it’s destroyed which is at the same time as everything else since there is no stack and each effect is resolved one after another)

-“and meets all specified conditions of the ability” (it can’t meet its conditions until the “destroy all creatures” effect is resolved and therefor must be resolved after at which point the creature is gone and therefor the above constant ability rule says it doesn’t trigger since it’s no longer in play)

1 hour ago, TwitchyBait said:

I don’t get why it wouldn’t be the constant ability rule, it’s litterally a constant ability is it not? That’s why I’m confused as to why there’s any debate to how it works.

As for “trigger logic” im going purely on RAW here. The RAW covers this by providing the rule for how constant abilities work and even notes specifically when there’s an exception. The lack of such a note means RAW states the effect would not occur, the creature is dead.

unless you don’t believe this to be a constant ability. Granted the rules, page 7 under “constant abilities” states:

-“if a card has an ability that does not have a bold faced precursor” (which the card in question does not), “that ability is a constant ability” (so this IS a constant ability)

-“that is active so long as the card remains in play” (it’s no longer in play the second it’s destroyed which is at the same time as everything else since there is no stack and each effect is resolved one after another)

-“and meets all specified conditions of the ability” (it can’t meet its conditions until the “destroy all creatures” effect is resolved and therefor must be resolved after at which point the creature is gone and therefor the above constant ability rule says it doesn’t trigger since it’s no longer in play)

The constant ability rule has to exist for reasons beyond handling triggers. Without such a clause in the BRB, people would argue that cards in your hand or discard pile could affect the board state. Triggers are a very, very specific kind of effect that requires a discreet set of rules to handle, and I'm not just using Magic as a basis for that. I've been down this road more times than I care to recall, hence my 5k+ post count. FFG likes to handle things their own way, oftentimes unpredictably, and where you see an obvious answer I see entire sections of the rule book that are missing - sections that FFG eventually realized were necessary in their other games. When I say they'll probably use the constant ability rule to justify the outcome you're espousing, it's because FFG has previously shied away from triggered effects persisting beyond the death of whichever permanent (in this case, creature or artifact) created them, but their answers to rules questions are almost universally "band aids" - answers based upon the designers' intent rather than a derivation of the rules they actually printed.

1 hour ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

The constant ability rule has to exist for reasons beyond handling triggers. Without such a clause in the BRB, people would argue that cards in your hand or discard pile could affect the board state. Triggers are a very, very specific kind of effect that requires a discreet set of rules to handle, and I'm not just using Magic as a basis for that. I've been down this road more times than I care to recall, hence my 5k+ post count. FFG likes to handle things their own way, oftentimes unpredictably, and where you see an obvious answer I see entire sections of the rule book that are missing - sections that FFG eventually realized were necessary in their other games. When I say they'll probably use the constant ability rule to justify the outcome you're espousing, it's because FFG has previously shied away from triggered effects persisting beyond the death of whichever permanent (in this case, creature or artifact) created them, but their answers to rules questions are almost universally "band aids" - answers based upon the designers' intent rather than a derivation of the rules they actually printed.

Perhaps and I agree clarification will be nice but at the moment the ability clearly falls under a constant ability and thus purely from a raw perspective it has no effect in the original scenario. Perhaps they’ll change that later, perhaps that wasn’t the intent, but the RAW is pretty cut and dry on that specific matter at this point as triggers aside from destroyed aren’t said to interrupt any other effect but rather need that effect to occur then go off after said has occurred, again using reap as a prime example here where a reap effect does not interrupt gaining aember but rather happens after said creature has reaped and gained the actions normal effect, then and only then does its reap ability take place and this to is a trigger thus showing us, at least for now, how RAW handles triggers.

On 11/14/2018 at 2:05 PM, WonderWAAAGH said:

That's not how triggers traditionally work, though. Hence the confusion.

Forget everything you know about Magic. This is not Magic. Trying to impose the rule set from Magic upon this game is just going to make your life miserable by making you overthink everything.

You’re not telling me anything new, friend. And just so we’re clear, logic is logic, and doesn’t belong to any one specific game.

36 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You’re not telling me anything new, friend. And just so we’re clear, logic is logic, and doesn’t belong to any one specific game.

Except the logic is not what you seem to be using here. I broke down exactly why this effect is a "constant" effect, and constant effects clearly have a ruling saying they need to be in play to occur. I think showed how the effects don't occur simultaneously by repeatedly citing how reap defines this and how when effects do occur simultaneously we got a clear description under the "destroyed" effect. Logic would dictate that the effect simply doesn't occur in this scenario by all these pieces of evidence.
This is why myself and now another person have both said to not apply magics line of ruling, because Keyforge has established clearly that, at least thus far, there are no effects that interrupt. Rather you get multiple effects that may "occur" at the same time but the rules clearly state that each is to be resolved one at a time in the order chosen by the active player. The only way you get any kind of confusion about how this is resolved here, is by ignoring this and inserting rules the game hasn't established but magic and some other games have.

Been having these debates for years. Repeat yourself until you’re blue in the face, nothing’s going to change the fact that it’s still just your interpretation.

18 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Been having these debates for years. Repeat yourself until you’re blue in the face, nothing’s going to change the fact that it’s still just your interpretation.

Ok, direct rules quotations are interpretations now, got it.

No, direct rules quotations are the rules, ambiguous as they might be. The other 95% of your posts are just opinion.

People can harp harp at me all they like for allegedly substituting Magic’s rules (which I’m not), but I’m not the one dead set on applying other aspects of Keyforge. This isn’t reaping, and this isn’t the destroyed effect, and no matter how desperately you want to use precedent that’s just not how FFG works. It never has been, not in all the years I’ve been here.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

No, direct rules quotations are the rules, ambiguous as they might be. The other 95% of your posts are just opinion.

Ok just don't want to actually disagree with my citations with actual citations, got it.
-The card does not have a bold faced precursor, fact
-Cards without bold face precursors are constant abilities, fact
-Thus this card is a constant ability, fact
-Constant abilities are only active while in play, fact
-Reap demonstrates that abilities are triggered one at a time as determined by the active player both described clearly in the rules, fact
-This card does not trigger until a creature is destroyed, fact
-The card in question destroys all creatures at once, fact
-Ergo it's constant ability would not trigger as all the above facts, all supported by direct quotations from the rules in my earlier post prove. You are free to not like this, you are free to even think it shouldn't be like this, **** you're free to say that's not what you think the rules where intended as, but none of it was "just opinion", that's a lie. It seems this conversation has lost any kind of productivity if you can't acknowledge the above facts or at least explain, using the actual printed rules and not your opinion, how they're wrong.

The actual printed rules are insufficient, I said that from the start. Everything else is pulled straight out of your... well, let’s keep this civil.

You and one other person are in agreement, I’m glad. As per usual, the forum for a recently released FFG product is rife with unanswerable rules questions. The sheer volume of confusion should be the first clue that something is amiss.

7 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

The actual printed rules are insufficient, I said that from the start. Everything else is pulled straight out of your... well, let’s keep this civil.

You and one other person are in agreement, I’m glad. As per usual, the forum for a recently released FFG product is rife with unanswerable rules questions. The sheer volume of confusion should be the first clue that something is amiss.

You seem to keep avoiding actually explaining how the cited rules I provided direct quotations and a page number for are insufficient on this question. I'm not trying to be mean here, I genuinely don't get what part of it is still confusing when the combination of the rules for reap and constant abilities directly state exactly how this would play out. You even acknowledged in an earlier post that they might go with the constant ability ruling, this is why I pushed so heavily on demonstrating how this ability matches the exact description for a constant ability. Again are you arguing it's not a constant ability? Or are you arguing the reap rules don't set the precedent for order of resolution, and if so where in the rules does it ever say resolution is determined otherwise? I can't seem to find a single instance of any rule saying any ability interrupts another.

Also what do you by "everything else", all I just did was cite direct rules, by all means cite the ones I made up and I'll gladly grab the exact page number they come from again.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up interrupts, because I’m certainly not. The reason I’m not picking apart your posts is because I have nothing new to add; I’ve explained myself quite well in previous posts, and you either don’t get it or you disagree. That’s your prerogative.

A rule about constant abilities is completely and wholly inadequate to encapsulate something as complicated as trigger timing and resolution. I don’t know what your actual experience is with FFG products, but I can show you in some of their other games where they did print trigger rules, and guess what? Those games don’t have ‘interrupts’ either. When you look at one rulebook and then the other it becomes very apparent how much is missing - and needed - in Keyforge.

And yes, I’ve said many times over now that you can’t use other aspects of Keyforge’s rules as precedent. Not because I don’t want to, or because I don’t like your reasoning, or because I’m trying to substitute Magic’s rules, or because of any other bias or opinion I might hold - but because that’s not how FFG works. When are you going to believe me when I tell you that I’ve seen this, over and over, since the day I first joined these forums 5+ years ago?

16 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I don’t know why you keep bringing up interrupts, because I’m certainly not. The reason I’m not picking apart your posts is because I have nothing new to add; I’ve explained myself quite well in previous posts, and you either don’t get it or you disagree. That’s your prerogative.

A rule about constant abilities is completely and wholly inadequate to encapsulate something as complicated as trigger timing and resolution. I don’t know what your actual experience is with FFG products, but I can show you in some of their other games where they did print trigger rules, and guess what? Those games don’t have ‘interrupts’ either. When you look at one rulebook and then the other it becomes very apparent how much is missing - and needed - in Keyforge.

And yes, I’ve said many times over now that you can’t use other aspects of Keyforge’s rules as precedent. Not because I don’t want to, or because I don’t like your reasoning, or because I’m trying to substitute Magic’s rules, or because of any other bias or opinion I might hold - but because that’s not how FFG works. When are you going to believe me when I tell you that I’ve seen this, over and over, since the day I first joined these forums 5+ years ago?

Ok so you're not going to cite actual rules, or explain why the rules that cover this exact topic are wrong.
"A rule about constant abilities is completely and wholly inadequate"
Why? The rule covers this ability, it is a constant ability, it states in black and white that the ability DOES NOT WORK if the creature leaves play. Period, it's cut and dry and the timing is simple, you have two effects, one requires the other to occur yet when that occurs it is no longer valid to go off BECAUSE it's a constant effect. You seem to be justifying your position based on other products, I also have a long history with FFG products, been playing for over a decade and yeah they do get plenty of things that need to be erratad but this isn't one of them.

"When are you going to believe me when I tell you that I’ve seen this, over and over, since the day I first joined these forums 5+ years ago?"
When you actually explain how the cited rules that state exactly how this chain of events goes off are wrong, so far all you've provided is "I don't understand" and talked about how FFG doesn't always printing comprehensive rules, which I agree but this simply isn't the case here. A creature must be destroyed to trigger the card, yet when the card is destroyed it's ability no longer works, period... that's the rule. The reason I keep bringing up interrupts is because for it to play out literally any other way the constant ability would have to interrupt the card destroying and somehow resolve before (so it was still valid since constant abilities aren't when their cards are no longer in play) and after it was destroyed (since the effect would need to destroy it to trigger it).

But hey I'll leave it there, it's clear we're not going to agree here. Best of luck getting an official answer hopefully in the near future.

If you'd read your own posts, maybe you'd understand why it's not worth trying to respond. In a nutshell, you're telling me: it's simultaneous, but not simultaneous; and that I need to prove my point by citing rules text, when my entire point is that there is no relevant rules text (or damned little). Does that not sound ridiculous to anyone else?

5 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

If you'd read your own posts, maybe you'd understand why it's not worth trying to respond. In a nutshell, you're telling me: it's simultaneous, but not simultaneous; and that I need to prove my point by citing rules text, when my entire point is that there is no relevant rules text (or damned little). Does that not sound ridiculous to anyone else?

Quote me saying it's simultaneous the same way you quoted the rules I made up, you know... never. I explicitly referenced the reap rules to show it's not simultaneous, multiple times, choosing not to read or acknowledge that is on you.

So:

Unless otherwise specified by the ability, the active player makes all decisions while resolving an ability.

Suggests that it depends entirely on what order the active player chooses to destroy the characters in. Ie they have to have an order in which they enter into the discard.

If the active player moves the guy with the constant ability first, it doesn’t function for the other characters because the constant will be gone when they actually get destroyed.

How is that a problem?

1 hour ago, TwitchyBait said:

Ok just don't want to actually disagree with my citations with actual citations, got it.
-The card does not have a bold faced precursor, fact
-Cards without bold face precursors are constant abilities, fact
-Thus this card is a constant ability, fact
-Constant abilities are only active while in play, fact
- Reap demonstrates that abilities are triggered one at a time as determined by the active player both described clearly in the rules, fact
-This card does not trigger until a creature is destroyed, fact
- The card in question destroys all creatures at once, fact
-Ergo it's constant ability would not trigger as all the above facts, all supported by direct quotations from the rules in my earlier post prove. You are free to not like this, you are free to even think it shouldn't be like this, **** you're free to say that's not what you think the rules where intended as, but none of it was "just opinion", that's a lie. It seems this conversation has lost any kind of productivity if you can't acknowledge the above facts or at least explain, using the actual printed rules and not your opinion, how they're wrong.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Neither of those are happening at the same time, the first you bolded says ONE AT A TIME and the second says the single effect from a single card are happening at once. So you just didn't understand what I was saying?