If, as we expect, a new rulebook is due soon, what do you want to see in it. Here are a few things on my wish list:

• A statement similar the one in the Star Wars LCG Rulebook that specifically says that effects or rules that say something "cannot" happen take precedence over anything that suggests or states that it can happen.
• A clarification of whether "you" is intended to refer to the card's owner or its current controller in cases where an opponent has taken control of a card.
• A restatement of the Upgrade rule to make it clear that an Upgrade cannot be played if there are no creatures it can attach to. (The current rule merely states that it cannot enter play, but that doesn't specifically forbid playing it for its Æmber bonus.)
• A more specific "blow-by-blow" account of what happens when a card is played: Reveal card, gain Æmber bonus, put it into play if not an Action, resolve triggers and Play: abilities

Knowing and playing several other competitive FFG games I would imagine that there will be a tournament rules PDF released at some point as well. there may be some more overarching rules in there that may cover off some procedural questions I would think.

the question I have that I have not seen asked elsewhere is if you gain amber on your opponents turn that would then allow you to make a key at the start of your turn are you obliged to say Check at that point?

if you DON'T say Check at the end of your turn if you have enough Aember to make a key, and your opponent plays their turn not thinking you can make a key, are you denied the chance to make a key if you realise when your turn starts after they are done? particularly as your opponent might have played differently the previous turn if they had known you could make a key?

There are Tournament Documents already on the main Keyforge site. They don't specify consequences for not calling check.

If I were marshaling the event, I would treat it similarly to Magic's Game Play Violation: Issue a warning the first two times it happens in an event; after the second warning, make it clear that further violations might trigger a Game Loss. (Upgrading the penalty is up to the marshal in Magic events and depends on the circumstances.)

1 hour ago, Mace Windu said:

the question I have that I have not seen asked elsewhere is if you gain amber on your opponents turn that would then allow you to make a key at the start of your turn are you obliged to say Check at that point?

if you DON'T say Check at the end of your turn if you have enough Aember to make a key, and your opponent plays their turn not thinking you can make a key, are you denied the chance to make a key if you realise when your turn starts after they are done? particularly as your opponent might have played differently the previous turn if they had known you could make a key?

Nothing in the rules suggest you say check any other time than the end of your turn. Thu you shouldnt be obligated to say check during your opponents turn . And the ruleook clearly says you MUST forge a key if you have the Aember.

the whole concept of having to say check seems stupid . It really only seems to open these cans of worms They can see you have the necessary aember. But Since they do include the concept in the rules, they should CERTAINLY outline what penalty a person suffers if they don’t say it.... or only allow you to forge the key if you said check.

It is somewhat baffling that many of the requests the OP outlines aren’t in the rule book. I have generally found that their lcg rulebooks have gotten better with each new game release and usually encompass the above requests. Its crazy that this rule book omits such things

In this one case, I actually follow the chess rules. Tournament chess doesn't require you say check; you are expected to know when your king is in danger, and react accordingly. In a rapid format (one where you are expected to finish a game under severe time pressure), you can even lose the game when the opponent responds to your missing the check by capturing the king. (Longer formats require you to retract the move and make one that does protect the king.)

3 hours ago, pixcalcis said:

the whole concept of having to say check seems stupid . It really only seems to open these cans of worms They can see you have the necessary aember.

I think the “check” part is more courtesy, and also due to the fact that you can stack your Æmber tokens in certain ways where’s not clear if you have or not enough for a key.

3 hours ago, pixcalcis said:

But Since they do include the concept in the rules, they should CERTAINLY outline what penalty a person suffers if they don’t say it.... or only allow you to forge the key if you said check.

the problem with that is that then some people can choose to “forget” to say “check” intentionally to not forge a key at the start of their turn, to play a Kelifi Dragon, for example, or some other border situations.

having to say check should be removed from the rules in all honesty. It's fine for games with friends, but outside of that it's a complete mess when it should ever have to be enforced ("I did say check!", "no, you didn't!")

A more detailed timing structure would be very nice to see.

5 hours ago, DacoTrilar said:

A more detailed timing structure would be very nice to see.

What doesn't work with the one we have?

4 hours ago, Amanal said:

What doesn't work with the one we have?

Mainly that it's only grokkable to about half the community and for some people, the description given of how Wild Wormhole is processed while Library Access has resolved makes it less intelligible, not more.

15 hours ago, Palpster said:

having to say check should be removed from the rules in all honesty. It's fine for games with friends, but outside of that it's a complete mess when it should ever have to be enforced ("I did say check!", "no, you didn't!")

I'm fine with a rule that encourages a behaviour without punishing people for not doing it. I feel it does a lot to encourage a friendlier mood to the game ("I'm going to win next turn, do your best to stop me!"). High-level M:TG games can be very cutthroat with people abusing the rules to win while subverting any collegial feeling between them and their opponent.

1 hour ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

I'm fine with a rule that encourages a behaviour without punishing people for not doing it. I feel it does a lot to encourage a friendlier mood to the game ("I'm going to win next turn, do your best to stop me!"). High-level M:TG games can be very cutthroat with people abusing the rules to win while subverting any collegial feeling between them and their opponent.

I agree. Any rule can be abused. It's a matter of which abuse we're willing to target. Make a rule that people who don't announce check can't forge a key on their next turn, and people can drop those creatures that have an Æmber requirement when they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to. Let them forge a key anyway, and those who want to sleaze their way into a victory "get away with it".

For what it's worth, Magic's Tournament Rules define three classes of information:

• Free information: You must disclose this information honestly when asked. This includes the name of any card you own that is visible to both players (in play or discard pile), any visible card's status (ready vs. exhausted, number and type of all counters on a card, which upgrades are on a creature, etc.), and the number (and color, if that ever becomes relevant) of all keys forged.
• Derived information: Any answer you give about this information must be honest, but you aren't required to answer questions about it. This includes the power or armor value of any creature, the text of any card, and the number of cards remaining in your deck. For information such as this, you are expected to be able to figure it out for yourself (by calculating the power and armor of a creature, asking the judge for the text of a card in a foreign language, or counting the number of cards in a deck). In casual events, this entire category vanishes and everything in it becomes free information.
• Private information: You are not required to be honest about this information. This is for things your opponent would not be able to verify anyway, such as the contents of your hand or archive (except for cards in an opponent's archive).

I would classify the amount of Æmber and the cost to forge a key as derived information under the above scheme. After all, you can calculate key costs and count Æmber pretty easily, and if your opponent asks, you can either respond honestly or (in a competitive event) make your opponent figure it out. Calling check is a courtesy that I will abide by because the rules say so, but I would not punish failure to do so harshly because the opponent should be watching for impending key forging anyway.

20 hours ago, Amanal said:

What doesn't work with the one we have?

My go-to example at the moment is Dust Imp with a Biomatrix Backup

12 minutes ago, DacoTrilar said:

My go-to example at the moment is Dust Imp with a Biomatrix Backup

Two destroyed effects. Active player chooses order and they both happen.

Timing rules (a stack would be nice) and triggered/replacement effects. The "active player chooses" thing is lazy design and an obvious cop out.

"Do as much as you can" has to be the most nebulous wording I've read in a rules document, and desperately needs attention.

Targeting rules. "Can I heal card [X] if it doesn't have any damage?" is a function of poor card templating; in this case the target should be explicitly legal or illegal.

Nearly all of these are spelled out in section 608 of the Magic Comprehensive Rulebook. While KeyForge isn't Magic (and doesn't need to be), it would be helpful to see how other franchises manage these gaming conventions. Before people jump down my throat, FFG already emulates the stack in other games, albeit awkwardly and FIFO instead of LIFO. The lack of a RRG here is utterly perplexing.

Oh, and objects. Silly of them to open that door without properly addressing it in written form.

--

Consider that in just one type of interaction already in the game - Bad Penny / Yxilo Bolter - we need to manage 1) triggers (replacement effects), 2) targeting, 3) objects, and 4) zones. The rule set, as currently presented, is woefully inadequate at managing any single one of those, if it describes them at all. How confident are we that the next set will be any more intuitive if FFG doesn't make some attempt to address these now?

2 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Two destroyed effects. Active player chooses order and they both happen.

That's certainly one possible interpretation, but the rules don't really back up any one answer.

12 minutes ago, DacoTrilar said:

That's certainly one possible interpretation, but the rules don't really back up any one answer.

How do the rules not back that up? The rules tell us to resolve Destroyed effects. The rules tell us that the active player decides any timing conflicts. Why would you ever make the decision to NOT resolve one of the two effects?

5 hours ago, KrisWall said:

How do the rules not back that up? The rules tell us to resolve Destroyed effects. The rules tell us that the active player decides any timing conflicts. Why would you ever make the decision to NOT resolve one of the two effects?

Umm, if it's your opponent's Biomatrix Backup, you can choose to "resolve" it in the negative per the FAQ.

EDIT: The new rulebook issued an errata to Biomatrix Backup to remove the "may" part of it. Now the card always goes to its owner's archive.

On 1/15/2019 at 8:25 PM, Rabbitball said:

If, as we expect, a new rulebook is due soon, what do you want to see in it. Here are a few things on my wish list:

• A statement similar the one in the Star Wars LCG Rulebook that specifically says that effects or rules that say something "cannot" happen take precedence over anything that suggests or states that it can happen.
• A clarification of whether "you" is intended to refer to the card's owner or its current controller in cases where an opponent has taken control of a card.
• A restatement of the Upgrade rule to make it clear that an Upgrade cannot be played if there are no creatures it can attach to. (The current rule merely states that it cannot enter play, but that doesn't specifically forbid playing it for its Æmber bonus.)

• A more specific "blow-by-blow" account of what happens when a card is played: Reveal card, gain Æmber bonus, put it into play if not an Action, resolve triggers and Play: abilities

So let's see what we got:

Quote

A statement similar the one in the Star Wars LCG Rulebook that specifically says that effects or rules that say something "cannot" happen take precedence over anything that suggests or states that it can happen.

Granted. It even clarified that "must" is a stronger form of "may" and is overridden by "cannot".

Quote

A clarification of whether "you" is intended to refer to the card's owner or its current controller in cases where an opponent has taken control of a card.

Not granted yet. There probably aren't enough cards out there to make this an issue.

Quote

A restatement of the Upgrade rule to make it clear that an Upgrade cannot be played if there are no creatures it can attach to. (The current rule merely states that it cannot enter play, but that doesn't specifically forbid playing it for its Æmber bonus.)

Not granted yet. See my comment above for why this is an issue.

Quote

A more specific "blow-by-blow" account of what happens when a card is played: Reveal card, gain Æmber bonus, put it into play if not an Action, resolve triggers and Play: abilities

Not granted yet. In most cases, though, Out of Order Sequencing still gets you to the right result.

So I got 1 out of my original 4, which is OK, given the things that were added that I didn't ask for.

10 hours ago, DacoTrilar said:

That's certainly one possible interpretation, but the rules don't really back up any one answer.

Fair enough, I'm interested to hear your take on it. What happens?

8 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Fair enough, I'm interested to hear your take on it. What happens?

Brad ended up giving an answer to this in Discord yesterday:

Quote

Since effects must fully resolve.

And they have the same trigger.

The active player can choose to put it into the archives. And from there it can't trigger since it's not in play.

So, now it's been ruled on

So, to be clear, this is how it works:
1) Dust Imp with Biomatrix Backup dies with two Destroyed effects that could trigger
2) Since there's a timing conflict, the active player chooses one of them to trigger and fully resolve first
3a) If the active player chooses the "gain 2 aember" effect, then after that resolves the other Destroyed effect triggers and the Dust Imp is archived
3b) If the active player chooses the "archive this creature" effect, then that moves Dust Imp into an out-of-zone area. At this point, the "gain 2 aember" effect can't trigger because the card isn't in-play anymore.

18 minutes ago, DacoTrilar said:

Brad ended up giving an answer to this in Discord yesterday:

So, now it's been ruled on

So, to be clear, this is how it works:
1) Dust Imp with Biomatrix Backup dies with two Destroyed effects that could trigger
2) Since there's a timing conflict, the active player chooses one of them to trigger and fully resolve first
3a) If the active player chooses the "gain 2 aember" effect, then after that resolves the other Destroyed effect triggers and the Dust Imp is archived
3b) If the active player chooses the "archive this creature" effect, then that moves Dust Imp into an out-of-zone area. At this point, the "gain 2 aember" effect can't trigger because the card isn't in-play anymore.

Well... it hasn't really been ruled on until it's in the rules. We just have some insight into the designer's mind and think we know how it'll eventually be ruled on.

Not everyone checks Facebook, Discord, YouTube, etc ever day, so the only official rules source should be the rules.

1 minute ago, KrisWall said:

Well... it hasn't really been ruled on until it's in the rules. We just have some insight into the designer's mind and think we know how it'll eventually be ruled on.

Not everyone checks Facebook, Discord, YouTube, etc ever day, so the only official rules source should be the rules.

Eyyy, something we fully agree on!

21 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Eyyy, something we fully agree on!

Well... I'm also a pretty big fan of more dakka. My guess is you are too.

23 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Timing rules (a stack would be nice) and triggered/replacement effects. The "active player chooses" thing is lazy design and an obvious cop out.

"Do as much as you can" has to be the most nebulous wording I've read in a rules document, and desperately needs attention.

Targeting rules. "Can I heal card [X] if it doesn't have any damage?" is a function of poor card templating; in this case the target should be explicitly legal or illegal.

Nearly all of these are spelled out in section 608 of the Magic Comprehensive Rulebook. While KeyForge isn't Magic (and doesn't need to be), it would be helpful to see how other franchises manage these gaming conventions. Before people jump down my throat, FFG already emulates the stack in other games, albeit awkwardly and FIFO instead of LIFO. The lack of a RRG here is utterly perplexing.

Let me preface this with saying I totally agree, but to be fair, Magic has had 25 years to work on these things... It wasn't nearly as pretty at the beginning.