Legit curious and not trying to be snarky at all, but I keep reading about people who claim Keyforge is riddled with rules issues and desperately needs an FAQ. I'm just not seeing it. When I ask, I'm referred to sites like Keyforge-Compendium. When looking at the FAQ section there, I'm seeing questions that are easily answered by reading the rules and the card. As an example...

• Ammonia Clouds
• Q: Does this affect only enemy creatures?
• A: No. This affects every creature, including your own.

The card literally says "Deal 3 [dmg] to each creature." Do we really need an FAQ here? I skimmed the list of FAQs and was unable to find one that wasn't easily answered by reading the rules and the card text.

So... if there are legitimate rules issues, what are they?

27 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

When looking at the FAQ section there, I'm seeing questions that are easily answered by reading the rules and the card. As an example...

So by inference we don't need the ruling on Biomatrix Backup?

People learn things in many different ways, and sometimes even the simplest of things takes us by surprise or perhaps there is two ways of reading a card and there is a legitimate ambiguity. I think Ammonia Clouds is one of those cards that challenge the notion that cards affect everything, not just our opponents creatures, so people play it with a preconception of what it does. I think Biomatrix Backup suffers from the same preconception problem, you expect that it works this way, rather than the way the rules and card says to play.

As for Ammonia Clouds being in KFC's FAQ, I would probably just say theirs is maybe more of an Asked Question, and perhaps isn't so Frequent. We'll see how Alex goes when he gets to the FAQ, but it wouldn't surprise me that some of the questions could be answered by clarifying the base rule rather than explaining how multiple cards with the same functions work.

23 minutes ago, Amanal said:

So by inference we don't need the ruling on Biomatrix Backup?

No need for snark there. I wasn't aware that there was an issue with Biomatrix Backup. The rules are pretty clear that the active player makes all decisions. I understand that some people may have preconceived notions of how this sort of game SHOULD work, but, again, the rules seem pretty clear in this instance... "The active player makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn." My understanding of the Biomatrix Backup issue is that some players said, "wait, does the active player make all necessary decision for card abilities on my cards", to which the rules replied, "the active player makes ALL necessary decision for ALL card abilities...". It may be counter intuititve for some players, but the rules are pretty clear.

In this instance, I would say that Biomatrix Backup is covered by the rules... or more clearly, that the game isn't broken and we don't need an Errata for the game to function. It's just a little counter intuitive for some players.

I'm legit looking for issues not covered by the rules. The only thing I can find is that the rules don't seem clear on what happens when you play an upgrade with no creatures in play. Per the rules, you'd gain any aember from playing the card and then the card wouldn't enter play. And then... what? We're not told to discard the card, but I assume that's what would happen. That's the only issue I can find that doesn't seem explicitly covered by the rules.

To be clear, I'd definitely support adding "each creature refers to both your and your opponent's creatures" to the frequently overlooked rules section.

14 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

No need for snark there.

Wasn't intended, more of a highlighting of the fact that what some people understand others don't.

15 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I'm legit looking for issues not covered by the rules. The only thing I can find is that the rules don't seem clear on what happens when you play an upgrade with no creatures in play. Per the rules, you'd gain any aember from playing the card and then the card wouldn't enter play. And then... what? We're not told to discard the card, but I assume that's what would happen. That's the only issue I can find that doesn't seem explicitly covered by the rules.

With the Shadow Self ruling: Why does dealing damage to a creature with armour not count as being damage dealt to that creature? What rules are in place to have me deal 2 damage to my Bulwark and then pass only 2 damage to Shadow Self if Shadow Self is to be dealt the damage of its adjacent creatures?

Then there was Phase Shift-gate which was an interesting back-and-forth. There are also non-english versions of cards that may not translate 100% to english wordings. There are also people who struggle with "do as much as you can" because it is not a common concept in other TCGs. It took me a couple days to come around on "Lost in the Woods" being one of the best cards I enjoy playing with, to the point of if it ain't Untamed, I will probably not want to play it.

The issue with "Biomatrix Backup" was that it was a typo on a card that functionally changed how it played. So since it was a new game and not wanting to issue an errata, FFG said that it works as intended. There are plenty of threads about how players can handle it as I still encounter players who are not aware that if their opponent kills it on their turn, they get to choose.

There was also some issues over Protectorix before the game came out because if I do as much as I can, shouldn't the creature not take any damage for the turn? Is healing 0 damage still a full heal? Then to make matters worse, Richard Garfield said he played it one way, but he did at least mention if FFG said otherwise then that was the standing ruling.

Oh, and Combat Pheromones. If I use it on "John Smyth" and something else, can I use them for the whole turn or just for the resolution of the ability? It says "this turn", but how long does that really last?

I am pretty sure all of these have now been answered, but if you scour other threads than here like BGG and such, there are many of the same questions asked.

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

Legit curious and not trying to be snarky at all, but I keep reading about people who claim Keyforge is riddled with rules issues and desperately needs an FAQ. I'm just not seeing it. When I ask, I'm referred to sites like Keyforge-Compendium. When looking at the FAQ section there, I'm seeing questions that are easily an  swered     by reading the rules and the card. As an example...

• Ammonia Clouds
• Q: Does this affect only enemy creatures?
• A: No. This affects every creature, including your own.

The card literally says "Deal 3 [dmg] to each creature." Do we really need an FAQ here? I skimmed the list of FAQs and was unable to find one that wasn't easily answered by reading the rules and the card text.

So... if there are legitimate rules issues, what are they?

If it is in the faq there that means someone (probably multiple someone's) asked about it. Having a faq entry on the compendium does not mean there was an actual rules issue that led to it.

By the way, you can't play upgrades without attaching it to a creature. Playing an upgrade is defined as attaching it to a creature. You get the aember bonus after it comes into play, which it can't if it can't attach to a creature.

If wild wormhole tries to play an upgrade (or something else it can't play like kelifi dragon), the card is put back on top of the deck. That's a completely undefined situation without the ruling.

There are plenty of cards that have had rules issues. Just off the top of my head: Shadow self, soul stealer, bad penny (so many bad penny questions!), phoenix heart, armageddon cloak, evasion sigil, magda the rat, biomatrix backup, dysania, veylan analyst, any card with ready and fight on it ... there are tons more. I don't remember which ones, but there are still a few that have not been sufficiently answered. Oh, I remembered one, neutron shark we have confirmation that the effect ends if the shark eats itself, but it's not entirely clear in how Brad answered the question whether the effect stops immediately, or if you still flip the card even though it can't be repeated.

Whether damage is prevented by armor before being redirected to shadow self was answered fairly recently, because the word "dealt" is used to mean both "doing" the damage as well as "receiving" the damage. So we didn't know whether the damage that would be dealt to an armored neighbor (before armor) is dealt to shadow self instead, or if only the damage that is dealt to the creature (after armor) that is then dealt to shadow self.

There are other annoying things in the rules, such as the concept of an attacker and a defender, who are both considered "fighting" but the "fight" keyword is only triggered when it is the attacker. How much easier it would have been if the keyword was "attack" or even better "after attack" to make it clear that the creature has to survive first.

The rules overall aren't bad and do cover most things. But there are a lot of holes where you really have to infer what the intent is and connect the dots yourself. Some of the ways the cards were written were less clear than they could have been. There is no comprehensive timing detailed in the rules, but the rulings we have gotten indicate that there IS a defined timing of triggers that you just have to infer. (Yxilo Bolter vs Bad Penny). The rules for what happens to your opponents cards when you gain control have to be extrapolated to situations that come up even when control has NOT been transferred. (Using nexus on a master plan). Some things happen simultaneously, while others are ordered by the active player. All damage from an effect for instance happens simulataneously - positron bolt. While other triggers are ordered by the active player - such as the "destroyed/leaves play" for each creature destroyed by positron bolt.

It's clear in the rules that a creature who is fighting loses it's constant ability if it dies in the fight: "If either creature in a fight has a constant ability referencing the end of the fight, the creature must survive the fight to resolve the ability" However it's not clear that a creature with a constant ability not tied to fighting doesn't get to trigger that ability if it is involved in mass destruction. (gateway to dis vs tolas).

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

No need for snark there. I wasn't aware that there was an issue with Biomatrix Backup. The rules are pretty clear that the active player makes all decisions. I understand that some people may have preconceived notions of how this sort of game SHOULD work, but, again, the rules seem pretty clear in this instance... "The active player makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn." My understanding of the Biomatrix Backup issue is that some players said, "wait, does the active player make all necessary decision for card abilities on my cards", to which the rules replied, "the active player makes ALL necessary decision for ALL card abilities...". It may be counter intuititve for some players, but the rules are pretty clear.

In this instance, I would say that Biomatrix Backup is covered by the rules... or more clearly, that the game isn't broken and we don't need an Errata for the game to function. It's just a little counter intuitive for some players.

I'm legit looking for issues not covered by the rules. The only thing I can find is that the rules don't seem clear on what happens when you play an upgrade with no creatures in play. Per the rules, you'd gain any aember from playing the card and then the card wouldn't enter play. And then... what? We're not told to discard the card, but I assume that's what would happen. That's the only issue I can find that doesn't seem explicitly covered by the rules.

If an upgrade cannot attach to a card in play, the upgrade cannot enter play.

page 6 of the rules.

Yes.

57 minutes ago, Amanal said:

Wasn't intended, more of a highlighting of the fact that what some people understand others don't.

With the Shadow Self ruling: Why does dealing damage to a creature with armour not count as being damage dealt to that creature? What rules are in place to have me deal 2 damage to my Bulwark and then pass only 2 damage to Shadow Self if Shadow Self is to be dealt the damage of its adjacent creatures?

If a creature has an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn.

From the rules on page 7.

ie armor stops the damage from happening, which is why it isn’t transferred, it didn’t happen.

4 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If a creature has an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn.

From the rules on page 7.

ie armor stops the damage from happening, which is why it isn’t transferred, it didn’t happen.

But the confusion was when do you apply the "instead" on Shadow Self? I Punch your Bulwark for 3 damage, would Shadow Self see all three damage or would it reduce and then reduce again? There is no indication on the timing with that interaction. People can assume that you would move all three incoming damage to Shadow Self and then reduce it by Shadow Self's armor from Bulwark.

5 minutes ago, KandyKidZero said:

But the confusion was when do you apply the "instead" on Shadow Self? I Punch your Bulwark for 3 damage, would Shadow Self see all three damage or would it reduce and then reduce again? There is no indication on the timing with that interaction. People can assume that you would move all three incoming damage to Shadow Self and then reduce it by Shadow Self's armor from Bulwark.

Further if damage can be broken down in parts then wouldn't any excess the get thrown back onto the original creature?

I would also add that the idea that damage from a single source is dealt simultaneously isn't in the rule book. Also, that the above problem, in that damage can be split also makes this somewhat inconsistent.

its pretty clear from the Armor rules on page 9 of the rulebook that armor only takes effect when the creature is actually dealt damage:

"For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn."

So the armored creature never actually takes damage if it is next to a shadow Self because Shadow self redirects the damage.

and im sure someone will try to argue that the way shadow self is worded:

" Shadow Self deals no damage when fighting. Damage dealt to non-Specter neighbors is dealt to Shadow Self instead."

That somehow damage is dealt to the target creature, then healed somehow magically, then dealt to Shadow Self. if that is the case we have a whole new issue to deal with.

Edit:
this particular situation could have easily been solved by saying:

"If damage would be deal to a non-specter neighbor, deal that much damage to Shadow Self instead"

But FFG rules templating is sloppy, ive played x-wing long enough to know that.

53 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

its pretty clear from the Armor rules on page 9 of the rulebook that armor only takes effect when the creature is actually dealt damage:

"For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn."

So the armored creature never actually takes damage if it is next to a shadow Self because Shadow self redirects the damage.

and im sure someone will try to argue that the way shadow self is worded:

" Shadow Self deals no damage when fighting. Damage dealt to non-Specter neighbors is dealt to Shadow Self instead."

That somehow damage is dealt to the target creature, then healed somehow magically, then dealt to Shadow Self. if that is the case we have a whole new issue to deal with.

Edit:
this particular situation could have easily been solved by saying:

"If damage would be deal to a non-specter neighbor, deal that much damage to Shadow Self instead"

But FFG rules templating is sloppy, ive played x-wing long enough to know that.

The ruling from Brad is that armor on a non-specter neighbor prevents the damage before the remainder is redirected to shadow self. In the same way that poison doesn't kill a creature unless the damage gets through the armor, damage doesn't end up on shadow self unless it gets through armor. It's a mistake to say anything is "pretty clear" in the rules. The problem I've seen is that most people think they are pretty clear, but disagree on what they pretty clearly say!

10 minutes ago, saluk64007 said:

The ruling from Brad is that armor on a non-specter neighbor prevents the damage before the remainder is redirected to shadow self. In the same way that poison doesn't kill a creature unless the damage gets through the armor, damage doesn't end up on shadow self unless it gets through armor. It's a mistake to say anything is "pretty clear" in the rules. The problem I've seen is that most people think they are pretty clear, but disagree on what they pretty clearly say!

cant say I've seen that ruling, care to share a link?

Also without trying to sound obstinate, but the way the rules are written its clear that the damage should go to the Shadow Self. no damage is ever dealt to the shielded creature and as such the shields should not work, but it is what it is I guess.

FFG are far more prone to making RAI determinations like this that conflict with what the rules actually say than tightening up the rules framework and card text formatting.

7 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

cant say I've seen that ruling, care to share a link?

Also without trying to sound obstinate, but the way the rules are written its clear that the damage should go to the Shadow Self. no damage is ever dealt to the shielded creature and as such the shields should not work, but it is what it is I guess.

FFG are far more prone to making RAI determinations like this that conflict with what the rules actually say than tightening up the rules framework and card text formatting.

Haha, you are seeing what you want to see. Here's the quote from the rules on armor. I highlighted the different uses of the word dealt that somehow mean both the damage before and after the armor reduction.

"Some creatures have an armor value to the right of the card title. Armor
prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature
would take each turn. For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt
one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature
with one armor for the rest of the turn. If the creature is later dealt three
more damage during that turn, one damage is absorbed and the other
two damage are dealt to that creature."

3 damage IS dealt to the creature. And then 2 armor prevents that damage to be dealt to the creature. And then 1 damage is dealt to the creature. The more you read it the less clear it gets.

Added the screenshot from facebook.

4 minutes ago, saluk64007 said:

Haha, you are seeing what you want to see. Here's the quote from the rules on armor. I highlighted the different uses of the word dealt that somehow mean both the damage before and after the armor reduction.

"Some creatures have an armor value to the right of the card title. Armor
prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature
would take each turn. For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt
one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature
with one armor for the rest of the turn. If the creature is later dealt three
more damage during that turn, one damage is absorbed and the other
two damage are dealt to that creature."

3 damage IS dealt to the creature. And then 2 armor prevents that damage to be dealt to the creature. And then 1 damage is dealt to the creature. The more you read it the less clear it gets.

Added the screenshot from facebook.

Please tell me you see the blatant contradiction here though right? the rules text say that damage MUST be dealt for the armor to work:

"if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor"

But then Brad goes on to state that:

"Because Prevention must happen BEFORE something is dealt that must happen first"

Then to top it off Brad actually states that the rules are vague!!!!!!!

throw poison into the mix (which again has been RIA'ed) and it becomes a disaster. for all the talk people have about the game not wanting a magic like rules framework it could really do with one.

2 hours ago, KandyKidZero said:

But the confusion was when do you apply the "instead" on Shadow Self? I Punch your Bulwark for 3 damage, would Shadow Self see all three damage or would it reduce and then reduce again? There is no indication on the timing with that interaction. People can assume that you would move all three incoming damage to Shadow Self and then reduce it by Shadow Self's armor from Bulwark.

They would assume wrongly. In order for Shadow Self to suffer damage, it has to be suffered by the other creature first. Hence, armor works.

4 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Please tell me you see the blatant contradiction here though right? the rules text say that damage MUST be dealt for the armor to work:

"if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor"

But then Brad goes on to state that:

"Because Prevention must happen BEFORE something is dealt that must happen first"

Then to top it off Brad actually states that the rules are vague!!!!!!!

throw poison into the mix (which again has been RIA'ed) and it becomes a disaster. for all the talk people have about the game not wanting a magic like rules framework it could really do with one.

It depends on what definition of dealt you are using... the rules use both. I think it will be ok if armor is clarified as interrupting damage dealing in the same way as a destroyed trigger interrupts the creature being destroyed. Something like: "before damage is dealt to a creature, some of it is prevented by that creatures armor." Then shadow self will make sense.

11 minutes ago, Derrault said:

They would assume wrongly. In order for Shadow Self to suffer damage, it has to be suffered by the other creature first. Hence, armor works.

when a creature is dealt damage you put damage markers on it straight away....right? Yes

so if a creature is dealt lethal damage, even with Shadow Self next to it, well then it must die before Shadow Self magically heals it and then takes the damage.... right? No.

creatures next to Shadow Self arent dealt damage at all, and this is the point I'm trying to make, its poorly worded (even admitted by Brad himself as posted above) and if this sort of text templating continues to be used on cards it will only get worse.

Also as an aside the word Suffer does not appear in the rules text at all, so using it is really speculating on what "suffering damage" actually might mean.

2 minutes ago, saluk64007 said:

It depends on what definition of dealt you are using... the rules use both. I think it will be ok if armor is clarified as interrupting damage dealing in the same way as a destroyed trigger interrupts the creature being destroyed. Something like: "before damage is dealt to a creature, some of it is prevented by that creatures armor." Then shadow self will make sense.

Agreed, the rules can be changed to clarify intent, and I hope they are because as they are currently worded there is far to much ambiguity

24 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

when a creature is dealt damage you put damage markers on it straight away....right? Yes

so if a creature is dealt lethal damage, even with Shadow Self next to it, well then it must die before Shadow Self magically heals it and then takes the damage.... right? No.

creatures next to Shadow Self arent dealt damage at all, and this is the point I'm trying to make, its poorly worded (even admitted by Brad himself as posted above) and if this sort of text templating continues to be used on cards it will only get worse.

Also as an aside the word Suffer does not appear in the rules text at all, so using it is really speculating on what "suffering damage" actually might mean.

The point you are trying to make, is wrong. Shadow Self relies on a creature being dealt damage. Armor reduces incoming damage. If armor reduces the damage to 0, Shadow Self is consequently dealt no damage.

@saluk64007 you have your order of operations wrong.

“the  armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn.  “ Armor happens before damage is applied.

Shadow Self, on the other hand, absorbs the damage after it has been dealt.

2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The point you are trying to make, is wrong. Shadow Self relies on a creature being dealt damage. Armor reduces incoming damage. If armor reduces the damage to 0, Shadow Self is consequently dealt no damage.

Firstly, determining someone is "wrong" in a debate is not overly helpful.

secondly the rules text on Shadow Self is flat out poor.

I reiterate, for you to answer, Does a creature dealt damage immediately have damage markers put on it?

if you answer anything but yes, well this discussion is pointless.

Page 7 from the rules:

"When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature"

So assuming you said yes, is a creature with the same or more damage markers on it as it power immediately destroyed? Yes, again the rules are quite clear on this.

Page 7, straight after the sentence posted above:

"If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile"

so because Shadow Self actually requires damage to be dealt to the neighboring creature to actually trigger its ability, it somehow magically heals that creature and is then dealt the damage itself. Also somehow preventing a creature from being destroyed in the process even though it may have had lethal damage on it.

Poor templating at its finest, but at least now we can at least extrapolate from Brads email that damage is dealt in this order:

1) Shields absorb x damage where x is the remaining shield value.

then

2) damage redirection effects redirect any remaining or specified amounts of damage to a new creature.

then

3) any remaining damage not absorbed or redirected is assigned to the targeted creature.

40 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The point you are trying to make, is wrong. Shadow Self relies on a creature being dealt damage. Armor reduces incoming damage. If armor reduces the damage to 0, Shadow Self is consequently dealt no damage.

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.

DAMAGE AND ARMOR
When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature. If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile. If a creature has an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn.

==

The damage dealt is equal to the power of the creature, at no point does the use of armour reduce the damage dealt, it reduces the incoming damage each turn. So the ruling puts the incoming damage onto Shadow Self, not the damage dealt .

Seems clear now I have written all of that:

1. Incoming Damage is the amount of Damage done equal to the opponents creatures Power.
2. Damage Dealt is the Incoming Damage less the opponents creatures Armour.