2 hours 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.

“Waaaah waaaah waaaah, it’s not me! It’s you!”

I don’t need to be a fanboy to recognize a child.

If you think you can do it better, go do it better.

And for the record I both play and run OP. When I run, I set the rules. OP guidelines are just that, guidelines. If there was an issue at your OP event, talk to your organizer. I bet they’d love to hear from you...

On 12/19/2018 at 5:58 PM, CSteele said:

“Waaaah waaaah waaaah, it’s not me! It’s you!”

I don’t need to be a fanboy to recognize a child.

If you think you can do it better, go do it better.

And for the record I both play and run OP. When I run, I set the rules. OP guidelines are just that, guidelines. If there was an issue at your OP event, talk to your organizer. I bet they’d love to hear from you...

From the Tourney rules:

"Tournaments are played using the rules provided in the KeyForge Rulebook and most recent FAQ, both of which may be downloaded from the KeyForge website at any time. Additional rules for playing games in a tournament are detailed in this document."

Who writes the rulebook and FAQ? FFG.

Who is responsible to make sure we have the rules for play and tourneys? FFG.

Nuf said.

On 12/16/2018 at 1:25 AM, player3690031 said:

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?

An interrupt would be playing another card that interrupts a card or action being played/used, not carrying out the natural consequences of actions.

edit: So, you are correct that interrupts/instants do not exist in KeyForge, you are wrong that the explanation contradicts this.

On December 19, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Krashwire said:

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.

The difference comes when they've put out rules changes before the official OP rule book version release. Aside from making excuses why this was overlooked, I see this as a huge disservice to tournament player base. If they want to call it organized play, then they should be organized on their side. If they aren't organized, then they will be causing player drama for zero reason. Also, we pay money to enter these tournaments. Some people wouldn't think a rule set is too important, but it is when we are paying for the games. In my opinion, there is no excuse as to why they don't have complete rules listed. Someone is being lazy or forgetful with OP rules book. If that's the type of activity people want to support, then that's fine.....but it should be simple to see why someone desires FFG to take things seriously, I mean they want OP to be serious. Is it really a good start for OP, where they just don't think of putting applicable rules in the OP rule book? Does that help player confidence? Maybe understand why a player would want FFG to take accountability, say sorry, and it the problems? OP deserves better, period.

How dare I expect that OP be organized. Is that so ridiculous? Is it so foreign that important rules not just be shared in the news section of the distributor website (aka not even the game website), or on YouTube videos. Sorry for putting precedence in official rule sets.

On 12/21/2018 at 4:48 PM, Derrault said:

An interrupt would be playing another card that interrupts a card or action being played/used, not carrying out the natural consequences of actions.

edit: So, you are correct that interrupts/instants do not exist in KeyForge, you are wrong that the explanation contradicts this.

My understanding of "interrupt" was a bit off. I was understanding it to mean "interrupts" effects, which off the top of my head I can't cite a situation in Magic that happens? They use the stack, so things just get added and then resolved instead of "interrupting" a card's effects while they're resolving, but I wasn't all that clear in that explanation. It's easy to think others know what you mean when you know what you mean!

In any event, the clarification explains how they (destroyed effects) work, so that's pretty much just how it goes. Agree or not, FFG has spoken. I think this thread has more or less run its course. No need to keep arguing about something that's not changeable by me. I'm still iffy on the distinction between "stunned creature, no creatures to fight, anger" and "un-stunned creature, no creature to fight," but I can see how Brad's ruling can be considered valid from the rules we have.

Thanks everyone for the discussion!

On 12/17/2018 at 8:39 AM, 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.

Not necessarily. As a Magic Judge (I hate bringing this up in almost every conversation, but it does help clarify where I'm coming from), I implicitly understand terms like "new object" and "replacement effect" that Brad is apparently using specifically because people like me will understand them implicitly. And if that means it's up to people like me to translate them to the general public and eventually use them to develop a "Keyforge Comprehensive Rulebook", so be it.

New Object just means that once a card moves from one place to another (hand, deck, discard, purge) it has no connection to any effects that were on it while it was in the previous place. Replacement Effect means that a particular effect changes one effect into another, and once that is changed, we proceed with the replaced effect normally.

So in our case, Stun is a replacement effect that says, "The next time this creature is ready and would be used, instead exhaust it and remove all stun." Since fight is a subset of use, Anger on a stunned creatures now says "You may ready and exhaust this creature and remove its stun." The replacement happens immediately, before any check to see if the fight would happen, and so the normal process for fighting gets interrupted and replaced.

While Magic is knocked nowadays for having an insanely long Comprehensive Rulebook, it wasn't always that way. At one point, the rules fit inside a starter box (basically a box the length and width of a card with enough thickness to sport 60 cards and a rulebook). But rulings at that point only appeared on a mailing list not even run by Wizards (though it was linked), and were the province of one person (Tom Wiley at first, then Beth Moursund) whose job it was to herd the cats created by new cards and new rules until it became clear that a new structure needed to be installed. Sound familiar?

On 12/16/2018 at 7:25 AM, player3690031 said:

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. Torrent TurboTax Gogoanime

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?

On 12/30/2018 at 9:53 AM, Morichtykoko said:

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

Until the need for the Keyforge Comprehensive Rules document is recognized and acted upon.

55 minutes ago, Rabbitball said:

Until the need for the Keyforge Comprehensive Rules document is recognized and acted upon.

We all pretty much recognise the need for a document that puts the rules in one place.

We are just waiting for that need to be acted upon. Like so many things in the video, lots of talk little action.

2 minutes ago, Amanal said:

We all pretty much recognise the need for a document that puts the rules in one place.

We are just waiting for that need to be acted upon. Like so many things in the video, lots of talk little action.

Sure, just put that up at the start of a year when I've already stated somewhere that I fear I will have to create the Keyforge Comprehensive Rulebook . Oh, well, off to work... 😇

The official rulings on how Anger works (specifically how it works on off house stunned creatures with no legitimate targets to fight) have invoked some new concepts (e.g., "attempting to use") as well as new details about the sequencing of events (e.g., an attempt causes use) not spelled out in the written rules (v. 1.2, though clearly some of that red ink was added in an attempt to deal with just this ruling).

Is there an official document spelling out these new concepts and details? As written the rules don't cover the critical details of the timing and sequence of events involved in "use" (specifically "fight", specifically "fight with"), or more precisely, they do , but clearly not in a way that's compatible with this ruling. An updated rulebook with the new timing rules spelled out would help a lot!

(Sadly this feels a lot like early MtG, where fixing timing needed a new rulebook.)

11 hours ago, Tinathir said:

The official rulings on how Anger works (specifically how it works on off house stunned creatures with no legitimate targets to fight) have invoked some new concepts (e.g., "attempting to use") as well as new details about the sequencing of events (e.g., an attempt causes use) not spelled out in the written rules (v. 1.2, though clearly some of that red ink was added in an attempt to deal with just this ruling).

Is there an official document spelling out these new concepts and details? As written the rules don't cover the critical details of the timing and sequence of events involved in "use" (specifically "fight", specifically "fight with"), or more precisely, they do , but clearly not in a way that's comparable with this ruling. An updated rulebook with the new timing rules spelled out would help a lot!

(Sadly this feels a lot like early MtG, where fixing timing needed a new rulebook.)

Nothing you haven't already seen. I'm doing a labor of love to try to fix all these on my own right now.

14 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

...try to fix all these on my own right now.

What's needed though is something official: an updated rulebook. Short of that we're all just generating more (well intended) confusion.

Just for reference, here are the pertinent rule updates from the 1.2 version of the rules.

Quote

Any card effect that causes a creature to fight, reap, trigger its “ Action :” ability, or to trigger it’s “ Omni :” ability is causing that creature to be used.

Quote

STUN, STUN STATUS CARD

When a creature becomes stunned, place a stun status card on it. The next time that creature is used , the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening. The creature does not reap or fight, and any “ Reap: ,” “ Fight: ,” or “ Action: ” abilities on the creature do not resolve. If a card effect causes a creature to be used while it is stunned, the creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally.

Quote

RESOLVE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN

While resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore any parts of the ability that cannot be resolved.

So the question is does the creature become "used" before we determine if the fight instruction can be resolved. Here is the first step when fighting:

Quote

FIGHT

Any ready creature of the active house may fight. When a creature is used to fight, the creature exhausts and its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled by the opponent as the target of the attack

That's the point in the process where no opposing creature can be targeted and the fight instruction can't be resolved. Since it can't be resolved at that point the fight instruction on Anger gets ignored.

It seems to me that in order for the stun rules to function the way they intend, a creature is considered used as soon as any effect would cause them to be used. Specifically, an attempt to fight with that creature causes the creature to first become used, then become exhausted, then choose a target. If the creature becomes used at any later point then the stun rules would be telling us to exhaust an already exhausted creature. I agree that the rules could be more explicit about this process. If someone has a better theory about how the 1.2 rules as written function I'd be glad to hear it.

Quote

If someone has a better theory about how the 1.2 rules as written function I'd be glad to hear it.

I a lot of theories have been suggested, and several seem to work better (imv) than the explanation invented for the ruling. But I think that coming up with such explanations will not help us much: while they may lead to a way to arrive at the same outcome, none will produce the explanation of that outcome provided in the ruling.

Quote

I agree that the rules could be more explicit about this proces  s.

It's not that they're not explicit, but that the rules as written do not describe the expiation provided in the ruling. The ruling invents (ok, maybe reveals) some new mechanisms about which there is no information whatsoever in the rules. Those steps need to be spelled out in updated rules.

I think the rules as they are imagined in Brad's head work very well, but the rules as written are a mess, though much better now than when the game first released.

Using creatures is sloppily written, Evasion Sigil is sloppily written, Poltergeist is embarrassingly badly written, etc.

The game is not playable in a consistent manner, but if you just want to play for ***** and giggles its... fine.

4 hours ago, dperello said:

Using creatures is sloppily written, Evasion Sigil is sloppily written, Poltergeist is embarrassingly badly written, etc.

There are always going to be errors in such a large amount of text, as well as some interactions that haven't been through through and require clarification. But that's not the issue here: the issue here is that a pretty straightforward card with broad implications has been given behavior that is not derived from the rules, and cannot be explained by them .

On 3/16/2019 at 4:22 PM, Tinathir said:

There are always going to be errors in such a large amount of text, as well as some interactions that haven't been through through and require clarification. But that's not the issue here: the issue here is that a pretty straightforward card with broad implications has been given behavior that is not derived from the rules, and cannot be explained by them .

From the rulebook:

STUN, STUN STATUS CARD When a creature becomes stunned, place a stun status card on it. The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening. The creature does not reap or fight, and any “Reap:,” “Fight:,” or “Action:” abilities on the creature do not resolve. If a card effect causes a creature to be used while it is stunned, the creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally.

How does this not explain what is going on?

I'm not looking for a scrap here but I do want to pass by and say I'm not understanding what you want the end goal to be here.

10 minutes ago, Rabbitball said:

From  the ruleboo  k: ...

Can you walk through the steps that produce the explaination provided in the ruling? I think you’ll find you can’t without adding concepts or sequencing not present in the rules.

10 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

I'm not looking for a scrap here but I do want to pass by and say I'm not understanding what you want the end goal to be here.

New an updated rule book that incorporates the additions and changes implicit in the ruling. Or even just a statement of what those are (rather than just assuming that mentioning them implicit in passing is sufficient).

There's a guy on Boardgamegeek carrying on with this same argument in 2 or 3 threads. Maybe you guys should form a club.

1 hour ago, Tinathir said:

Can you walk through the steps that produce the explaination provided in the ruling? I think you’ll find you can’t without adding concepts or sequencing not present in the rules.

Pretend I have a stunned Lady Maxena on the board from a brilliant first turn play.

Step 1 - Forge a Key (your opponent is using The Princess of Strangeroad and played 3 Fertility Chants last turn for some reason)

Step 2 - Declare House Brobnar (Alternatively: declare Logos and play Phase Shift before next step)

Step 3 - Play Anger on Lady Maxena.

Step 4 - Gain an aember for playing Anger.

Step 5 - Resolve Anger as much as you can.

Step 5.1 - Ready Lady Maxena. Lady Maxena is currently ready. Does not resolve.

Step 5.2 Fight with Lady Maxena. Maxena is exhausted and stun is removed.

Resolved.

End Turn. What a strange turn.

All jokes about decision making in this theorized game aside, there is nothing there that isn't already explained in the rules as we have them. I don't see where we need to invent an "attempt to use" paradigm because there was no attempt to use, there was a use per rules of stun. Or in your opinion have I done something implicitly during that turn without realizing it?

I was also going to observe that we are probably due for another rule book update if FFG follows the current alleged pattern of updating every other month. I understand that everyone sees things differently, so don't give up hope. Maybe you'll get what you're asking for with the next update. You never know.

14 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Pretend I have a stunned Lady Maxena on the board from a brilliant first turn play.

Step 1 - Forge a Key (your opponent is using The Princess of Strangeroad and played 3 Fertility Chants last turn for some reason)

Step 2 - Declare House Brobnar (Alternatively: declare Logos and play Phase Shift before next step)

Step 3 - Play Anger on Lady Maxena.

Step 4 - Gain an aember for playing Anger.

Step 5 - Resolve Anger as much as you can.

Step 5.1 - Ready Lady Maxena. Lady Maxena is currently ready. Does not resolve.

Step 5.2 Fight with Lady Maxena. Maxena is exhausted and stun is removed.

Resolved.

End Turn. What a strange turn.

All jokes about decision making in this theorized game aside, there is nothing there that isn't already explained in the rules as we have them. I don't see where we need to invent an "attempt to use" paradigm because there was no attempt to use, there was a use per rules of stun. Or in your opinion have I done something implicitly during that turn without realizing it?

I was also going to observe that we are probably due for another rule book update if FFG follows the current alleged pattern of updating every other month. I understand that everyone sees things differently, so don't give up hope. Maybe you'll get what you're asking for with the next update. You never know.

I can see it both ways but glad for the insight a few like yourself have given here. I think the confusion stemmed mostly from the assumption that it played out like this:

-Have exhausted creature

-Use anger

-Ready Creature

-Creature fights but there’s no target so the creature can not fight and thus is never used remaining stunned.

It seems the intent was instead that the word “fight” in anger is instead completely replaced with the word “use” when a creature is stunned and thus you don’t need to check to see if fight is even a valid option as the effect is replaced by simply “remove stun”.

A rule book update with this clarification will be useful to prevent arguments in the future from those that haven’t watched the video.

44 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

I can see it both ways but glad for the insight a few like yourself have given here. I think the confusion stemmed mostly from the assumption that it played out like this:

-Have exhausted creature

-Use anger

-Ready Creature

-Creature fights but there’s no target so the creature can not fight and thus is never used remaining stunned.

That's what the rules say.

15 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

...there is nothing there that isn't already explained in the rules as we have them. I don't see where we need to invent an "attempt to use" paradigm because there was no attempt to use, there was a use per rules of stun.

Correct. There's never been any dispute that the same outcome can be arrived at with the rules as printed (there are lots of good demonstrations of that here, on Reddit, and on BGG).

The issue, as has been pointed out, is that the explanation provided in the ruling (in the video) is absent from the rule book. The mechanisms in that explanation allow for "attempting" to fight when it is not possible (and therefore would otherwise be "ignored") and for that attempt to be considered a form of "use", thus removing stun. All that's needed is for an update to incorporate those new mechanisms and we're all set.