Hi everyone! First post, please forgive me if I missed this topic being discussed. I didn't see it when I searched for it.

There's a new youtube video up with some rules clarifications! Watch it here (relevant portion to this post starts at 14:10:

We all caught up? Cool.

I have HUGE issues with the clarifications made about anger interacting with stun, and one small bit of confusion about Bad Penny and the bolter. Let's start with the bolter.

What in the world is meant by "new object?" This is not referenced anywhere in the rulebook. What does this actually mean for other potential interactions? I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I assume it has effects in other understandings of the rules. On the same topic, my understanding of "interrupts/instants" is that they don't exist in this game. This explanation would seem to contradict that. In the middle of resolving ANYTHING, if a creature is destroyed with a destroy effect, you stop resolving effects and resolve the destroyed effect. That's...the definition of an interrupt is it not? Does THAT have any long reaching impacts on our understanding of the rules?

Alright, here's the meat of the issues I have: anger and stuns.

I have an exhausted creature. My opponent has no creatures. I play anger. This is where we invoke the "do as much as you can" rule. Anger says "ready and fight." So I ready the creature, and when I go to fight, I can't. At this point, anger is done and I have a readied creature. Cool. I can now interact with that Brobnar creature as the rules dictate (I can use it if I picked Brobnar as my active house). If it's not Brobnar, I have readied it, but cannot use it.

Now, I have a stunned creature. How does anger interact with that? Well, *if* there's an enemy creature to fight, it plays out like this: Ready->attempt to fight->remove stun instead of fight. We remove the stun because in order to remove a stun, you have to use (fight, reap, or action) the creature. Instead of the effect you'd get from using the creature, you remove the stun instead.

So far so good, this all makes sense. I think we'd all agree that's how the rules work.

Where you lose me is "Does this change if your opponent has no creatures in play?" and Brad says "No." I would say "Yes, it changes." Brad disagrees. He says that you get to remove your stun because you're not even checking if your opponent has any creatures, you're just immediately removing the stun. In our previous examples, it was even stated by Brad that you can then use the creature as long as it was from the declared house (example of fighting with no enemy creatures): the "do as much as you can rule."

So, from my reading and understanding of the rules, this is what I would argue happens:

My mars creature is stunned. I pick Brobnar as my house. I play anger to ready and fight with my mars creature. I ready my mars creature. If there are enemy creatures to fight, I then attempt to fight, but remove the stun instead. If there are *no* enemy creatures, after readying, I have done "as much as I can." Since my active house was not mars, I cannot use that creature in order to remove the stun.

I don't understand/follow where we went from (and I'm direct quoting here) "You play anger on one of your creatures, let's say an exhausted one, uh maybe one even not of the active house, and your opponent doesn't have any creatures in play, you're just going to ready that creature. You won't continue to resolve it, you're going to do as much as you can. Because there are no creatures on the other side of the table, you can't fight, so you don't." to the exact same situation except your creature is stunned and then get "In this case, because stun is effectively replacing that use, you will get to do this even if your opponent doesn't have creatures, because you're replacing that - you're not even checking if your opponent, you're not even trying to fight - you immediately go to remove that stun instead. "

Brad seems to have created some kind of "replacement effect" for stuns to justify this ruling? That not referenced in the rules anywhere. How do those two explanations not contradict each other? The only difference between the two is that your creature is stunned.

Am I the only one not seeing how these two scenarios don't make sense, or am I just entirely off base?

New Object is vernacular from MagicTG and I assume based on Brads comment they use a lot of MTG theory and ideas to develop this game.

Its all going to boil down to corner case rulings that you’re going to have to remember.

“The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happens is the creature exhausts and the stun card is removed” emphasis mine. Fight is a use, but all checks for fight are ignored, because the only thing that happens is exhaust and remove stun.

makes sense to me...

This makes Anger and Gauntlet both a touch stronger than what we had understood in the past.

I am just glad we can put the Phase Shift to bed now.

Here's the thing about the "ready and fight" clarification. It's not about the ready and fight. It's a clarification to stun, and as @Palpster points out the second sentence for stun says " The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happen   s is  the cr  eature  exhaust  s and  the stu  n card  is remo  ved".

So the flow of using a card looks sort of like this now:
1) I'ma use this card, OK?
2) IS THE CARD STUNNED?
Yup...dang. REMOVE THE STUN. END FLOW.
Nope. SWEET, LET'S DO COOL STUFF, MOVE TO STEP 3.
3) DO YOU WANT TO REAP, FIGHT OR ACTION?
I wanna Fight!
4) ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REAP, FIGHT, OR ACTION?
Nope, opponent has nothing to fight. NO FIGHTING THEN. END FLOW.

What we really need a formalized Rules Reference Guide that codifies the flow in step by step outlines like we have for L5R and Netrunner.

Well glad that's there but it's not official until it's in the Rules or FAQ...

The replacement effect you describe is justified by the rules for being stunned combined with the rules for using cards. Stun requirements seem to be checked before you check the requirements of the specific use. You can ready and fight to remove stun while foggify is active apparently.

Hopefully they make this clearer in a rules update.

Yes, anger, gauntlet are good. They need to be, since brobnar is all about fighting which doesn't get much aember.

2 hours ago, Bolfry said:

Well glad that's there but it's not official until it's in the Rules or FAQ...

I agree. But since there is an outstanding question to these issues, and the person that writes the FAQ has clarified the rule - I'd say it's safe to use these rulings.

5 hours ago, Poposhka said:

New Object is vernacular from MagicTG and I assume based on Brads comment they use a lot of MTG theory and ideas to develop this game.

Its all going to boil down to corner case rulings that you’re going to have to remember.

I don't see the rulings as exceptions. They are clarifications to the rules as intended. What we do need is a timing flow diagram to highlight how the rulings came to be. But right now there seems to be a consistency to these rulings and no real exceptions to speak of.

5 hours ago, CSteele said:

I agree. But since there is an outstanding question to these issues, and the person that writes the FAQ has clarified the rule - I'd say it's safe to use these rulings.

WELL... we either follow the rules or we don't. If it's not in the FAQ or rules then frankly it shouldn't stand....otherwise we will need to take all the "clarifications" from the Facebook page too.

The rules as laid out are pretty specific - it's in the rules/FAQ or it's not the rule for official events. It isn't that much harder than what has already been done to get these clarifications into what the rules say makes it official....we had an update the day after the official release so we know it can be done.

Glad Palpster posted in this thread as I had a similar discussion and reached that conclusion with them 😊 It is quite simple.

11 hours ago, blinkingline said:

Here's the thing about the "ready and fight" clarification. It's not about the ready and fight. It's a clarification to stun, and as @Palpster points out the second sentence for stun says " The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happen   s is  the cr  eature  exhaust  s and  the stu  n card  is remo  ved".

So the flow of using a card looks sort of like this now:
1) I'ma use this card, OK?
2) IS THE CARD STUNNED?
Yup...dang. REMOVE THE STUN. END FLOW.
Nope. SWEET, LET'S DO COOL STUFF, MOVE TO STEP 3.
3) DO YOU WANT TO REAP, FIGHT OR ACTION?
I wanna Fight!
4) ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REAP, FIGHT, OR ACTION?
Nope, opponent has nothing to fight. NO FIGHTING THEN. END FLOW.

Do what you can principle and Keep it simple principle need to be married or else you get MTG Oracle rulings #DefinitionofConvoluted. I find it amusing that the forum has better rulings than that Youtube video. How can Brad be official?, NO, bad Brad don't confuse people with new terms.

16 hours ago, blinkingline said:

Here's the thing about the "ready and fight" clarification. It's not about the ready and fight. It's a clarification to stun, and as @Palpster points out the second sentence for stun says " The next time this creature is used, the only thing that happen   s is  the cr  eature  exhaust  s and  the stu  n card  is remo  ved".

So the flow of using a card looks sort of like this now:
1) I'ma use this card, OK?
2) IS THE CARD STUNNED?
Yup...dang. REMOVE THE STUN. END FLOW.
Nope. SWEET, LET'S DO COOL STUFF, MOVE TO STEP 3.
3) DO YOU WANT TO REAP, FIGHT OR ACTION?
I wanna Fight!
4) ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REAP, FIGHT, OR ACTION?
Nope, opponent has nothing to fight. NO FIGHTING THEN. END FLOW.

I would argue that the "I want to use it -> I want to use a specific subset of use" steps aren't separate steps. You don't say "I'm going to use this creature. I'm going to now fight with that use," you just say "I'm going to fight with this creature."

Quote

FIGHT Any ready creature of the active house may fight. When a creature is used to fight, its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled by the opponent as the target of the attack. Each of the two creatures deals an amount of damage equal to its power (the value to the left of the card’s title) to the other creature. All of this damage is dealt simultaneously. After the fight resolves, if the creature that is being used to fight survives, all “Fight:” abilities the creature has, if it has any, resolve. A creature cannot fight if there is no enemy creature that can be chosen as the target of the attack.

That last bit is what I would argue prevents the unstun ruling. Anger doesn't say "ready and use a creature" it says ready and fight. If you can't fight, you can't move up to the generic "use" instead. For example, if I played a card that let me use a friendly sanctum creature, then I can do any of those subsets of use (fight, reap, action). If I play a card that says fight with a friendly creature, then I can only do that subset of fight. I don't use and then fight with it.

....and then I did some more reading of the rulebook to try and prove my point and...well I can't quite rationalize it the way I want to see it. I want to argue there's a "replacement effect" for use to any of the subset of actions, but that's just kinda...not a thing I think would stand up to rules readings.

Ah well, them's the breaks. I thought of Keyforge as a less complicated game that should have a lot less complicated interactions, but I think Poposhka had it right with "I ts all going to boil down to corner case rulings that you’re going to have to remember. " I was hoping this wouldn't be the case, but ah well. Thanks for clarifying!

Sidenote: I'm not even mad about it because it would make anger "too good" or anything like that (same thing for the foggify example given). It's just that I was sold on Keyforge as being simpler and less "requires an official judge to clarify things" than it is. Seems like there's always a question or clarification needed in some weird edge case, and I'm not a huge fan of trying to remember all the weird situations I won't run into often. Grumble grumble grumble. I guess it just boils down to the same complaint everyone else seems to have: write a clearer rulebook.

I think technically you say "I'm going to use this creature to fight"

I agree with @Bolfry . At very least, until the holiday season is over, these kinds of clarifications could be posted in the FAQ here at the community forums.

None of these clarification seem controversial to me. 👍

Thank you for posting this.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but FFG is absolutely horrible with how they put out rule changes. They are one of the worst that I've ever seen.

I was discussing one of the rules with another player at a sealed event. I mentioned how it was interesting that the deck list is hidden. The player freaked out, and blew up quite childlike. Talking to the store, it was interesting to see that some of the rules weren't listed in the Organized Play rules. This is unacceptable.

This rule was discussed in the first video that they put out. Now, if they put this out in a video, shouldn't they put out another rules book with that information? NOPE, that rule is nowhere to be found. Actually, the only place that it appears is in the NEWS section from October 15th (approximately) on a page with 4 or 5 colored vaults with more information. 99% of players would have no clue that it's there. Any important rules should be added, for the good of the community.

Kudos to FFG for putting out a video, but negative a million kudos for not including that info in the official rulebook. It's not as though it would take too much to change the PDF, or even to add an extra page with revisions. Shame on you FFG. If you want people to take this game seriously, then you should take the game seriously also. If you don't put all of the rules into the rulebook, then you're definitely not taking your competitive play customers seriously. It is the digital age, and fixing a PDF takes almost zero time or money at all....... which makes me question if FFG cares at all.

Just to show how incompetent FFG is, let me show you the dates of their official Organized Play tournament information.

Here is the OP tournament rules version 1.0 Effective November 15th 2018. https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/c2/7d/c27da24a-4590-41e4-9bbf-99d6e4979303/kf_tournament_regulations-compressed.pdf

Here is the first video Your OP Questions Answered - put out November 9th 2018. Now, notice that several important issues that were discussed on the 9th were NOT added to the OP rulebook that has an effective date 6 days later. Was this because the person who wrote the rulebook didn't have the video information, because there is nobody that is precise or concise enough to see the error, or is this just because FFG doesn't care enough about their players?

I'm sorry, but spin this how you want ..... but it's incompetence to see this from a game developer. At least have tournament rules correct.... geeze.

.

49 minutes ago, KFMixer said:

Just to show how incompetent FFG is, let me show you the dates of their official Organized Play tournament information.

[...]

For due diligence, I contacted FFG company to tell them about the error of not including everything in the OP rulebook. The operator just said that she'd "pass along" my concerns. I told her that I was a customer that plays tournaments, and that their inability to put rules in the book has caused customers arguing with each other and a very drama filled environment.

When they didn't pass me to a voicemail to leave my opinion, that told me just how much they care about customers. First, I doubt the operator will really be able to pass along my concerns accurately. Second, there is no follow up back to the customer or any discussion with the company. Two more things that show that there's little care for the customer.

I'm glad FFG picked up this game for printing, but disappointed that they lack the very base of understanding how to run a game. Perhaps they do have the understanding of it, but they lack the ability to follow through on it.

Wow. Feeling entitled much? It's a game. FFG is a game publisher. If you don't like how they are handling the game, that's fine. But they don't owe you anything. They made a game. They made a rule set. They make rulings on that rule set. You choose to buy and/or play the game. If you don't like what they are doing, change YOUR choice. But being so upset because they are not doing what you think they should do is not productive. These are real people you're railing on about. Not cool.

Obviously you aren't that heavy of an OP gamer, or you don't give leeway to people who are.

There's zero reason that FFG puts out rules clarifications 6 days before a new OP rulebook, and they don't include those rules in the rulebook..... ZERO

You suggesting that I am just an entitled player shows that you have no understanding of how tournament rules should be handled. I've shown exactly how they were ignorant with their rules, and yet you want to attack me. You have no right to attack me, for showing that they have not done their due diligence.

At it again, are we @KFMixer ? There seems to be “drama filled environment” wherever you show up, why is that you reckon?

I'm not the one at fault, that is FFG. If you don't see that, then you're just a fanboy.

22 minutes ago, KFMixer said:

I'm not the one at fault, that is FFG. If you don't see that, then you're just a fanboy.

FFG is indeed at fault. But I believe you are assigning malicious intent to a case of bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way. FFG is now very much a corporate studio since Asmodee took over. There have been lots of stories talking about the cultural changes and job satisfaction levels since the take over.

Let's apply the logical concept of charity here. Let's not assume the worst in the absence of evidence. I think those who actually made the game and run the OP have the best of intentions and have a desire to make a great product and experience. You can see that in their excitement when they discuss the game. Now they are certainly handicapped by bureaucratic nonsense. I have worked in a game studio both before and after a corporate take over. I can tell you once you go corporate there are certain levels of review and marketing involvement that DRAMATICALLY slow down change and information being released to the public.

We can see this to great effect when reading articles from the marketing team. They get so many rules wrong. I can tell you from personal experience. The people who make the games don't even know these articles exist before they are put online. The marketing team of every corporation everywhere are a bunch of cowboys who think they are the most important thing ever.

Most likely all the rules debates we have discussed are coming. But the people who make the rules don't dictate the release of said info.