I still think that they made it very clear on P.39 of the rules when they stated:

"In other words, if an opposing unit is destroyed during a skirmish’s resolution, each friendly card with the splash damage keyword is triggered."

When someone plays a Psionic Storm card from a supporting High Templar, its the front line unit that gets the kill that triggers the splash dammage, but the Psi storm's splash is not on the card of the FLU. The same with a science vessel and irradiate.

In both the cases were a High Templar or Science Vessel are all alone by themselves in a skirmish (So they are a front line unit in this case), they would not be able to trigger splash damage as they can't destroy a unit without another friendly unit with appropriate attack capabilities involved.

The Queen playing spawn broodling is not limited in this manner. Spawn broodling destroys a unit during the skirmish (assuming there is an enemy unit that meets the requirements of the spawn broodling card). So any cards with splash damage in that skirmish should be triggered.

That is just my take on the way it reads though.

EMELT said:

I will have a look at each of these reinforcement cards and see if my opinion is still valid. Yet an official ruling on this would be very welcome

PHI_Spooky said:

Did you look at this post of mine ? I really do think it makes things very clear.

haslo said:

Only consulting the rules document does not help because the cards themselves add to the rules as a whole. The rules are already inconsistent and so are the specific effects (to be checked) written on the cards. I don't think this has direct influence on the splash discussion.

@EMELT: I do agree with your conclusion, but I think that the "in other words" sentence is not as important as the one before it. Because "in other words" implies that what follows is another way to put what has been said before, in probably more understandable but less specific terms. Personally, I put more rules weight on what comes before "in other words", thus I build my argument on the former part.

PHI_Spooky said:

Well ... as we found earlier, the Queen's Spawn Broodling card has as time of its effect happening "End of the Destroy Units step", and the sole question is whether that means that this exact time is inside the Destroy Units step or not. Since there's no other cards involved except the Queen card and any card that has Splash Damage, we only need to figure out if "End of" means that it's inside the Destroy Units step - as the condition for triggering Splash Damage is very clear.

Which, thanks to realizing that "end of X" means "at the end of X" and then clarifying what "at the end of X" means, it is.

The reason why I bring up my search through the rulebook like that is because there is no explicit definition of whether "at the end of" is meant to be belonging to what it's the end of or not, and thus we have to find out if it's consistently used one or the other way in the rules. If the ways where it's clear whether it's meant to be part of X or not are consistently set one way or the other, it's at least a very strong indicator that it's meant to be used this way and not the other everywhere . Since we don't have a clear definition, a very strong indicator is the best we can hope for.

Now what I found was that every single occurence of "at the end of X" can be interpreted of "as one of the last things in X", some very obviously must be interpreted that way - and none must be interpreted as "after X has ended". So if we trust that this consistent use of "at the end of X" carries on, the case described must trigger Splash Damage, because everything that destroys a unit within the Destroy Units step does trigger Splash Damage.

I agree that the rules seem inconsistent in places (although I haven't found a place where they'd be self-contradictory), and my conclusion would be less strong if "at the end of X" would occasionally be used as "after X has ended" and occasionally as "as one of the last things during X". However, that is not the case, which is what won me over. It is consistently used one single way, the way that makes the Spawn Broodling card trigger Splash Damage.

Let me formalize my argument. First part:

• Premise 1.1: The definition of when Splash Damage is triggered makes sense and is binding
• Premise 1.2: The definition of when Splash Damage is triggered is, "Splash damage is triggered when a side with a Combat card bearing the splash damage keyword destroys at least one opposing unit during the 'Destroy Units' step of the skirmish to which the card was played."
• Conclusion 1: Splash Damage, if it is present in a skirmish, is triggered if an opposing unit is destroyed any time during the Destroy Units step

Second part:

• Premise 2.1: The time when the Queen destroys an opposing unit with Spawn Broodling is, as written on the card, "End of the Destroy Units step"
• Premise 2.2: "End of the Destroy Units step" stands for "at the end of the Destroy Units step"
• Premise 2.3: "at the end of X" is a part of X
• Conclusion 2: The Queen destroys an opposing unit during the Destroy Units step if she uses Spawn Broodling

Final part:

• Premise 3.1: (Conclusion 1) Splash Damage, if it is present in a skirmish, is triggered if an opposing unit is destroyed any time during the Destroy Units step
• Premise 3.2: (Conclusion 2) The Queen destroys an opposing unit during the Destroy Units step if she uses Spawn Broodling
• Conclusion 3: The Queen triggers Splash Damage, if it is present in a skirmish, if she destroys an opposing unit with the use of Spawn Broodling

Most things aren't questionable. The sole thing that is questionable is premise 2.3 - earlier on this page, I doubted premise 2.2 as well, which is what made me believe Splash Damage wasn't triggered, but page 32 of the rulebook (aforementioned "Timing of Combat Cards" section) is quite clear in that respect. So the argument stands and falls with premise 2.3, and since we don't have proof either way, all we can hope for is presumptive evidence.

Happily though, when looking through the rulebook, we do find pretty clear presumptive evidence. Premise 2.3 is compatible with the entire rulebook, while the opposite is not true:

• Counterfactual 2.3': "at the end of X" is not a part of X

Counterfactual 2.3' fails to model multiple places in the rulebook where "at the end of" is used. Clearly, counterfactual 2.3' is thus not compatible with the rulebook, while premise 2.3 is. Thus it seems very clear to me that conclusion 2 holds, and thus conclusion 3 necessarily holds.

But using your focus on the timing and "at the End" focus I will ask the following: Couldn't have the Zerg played any kind of combat card that has a splash value but does not state a specific FLU as requirement because the attack value does not seem to matter at all since the Broodling card takes care of the kill ?!

This does not seem right (to me)

haslo said:

I still don't agree with Premise 3.1 because the connection of the splash to the combat card requirements is totally ignored and therefore I doubt your conclusion as well. This formalized argument did not help a bit because I never questioned timing.

Still need to look up the specifics for the other reinforcement cards to prove my point but that's coming ...

PHI_Spooky said:

I'm looking forward to it. Premise 3.1, Conclusion 1, is just a rewrite of the Splash Damage triggering rules on page 39. The rules that count for any and all kinds of Splash Damage.

The Mutalisk card states, "If your front-line unit is a Mutalisk, gain Ground Splash Damage". It doesn't state anything regarding "if your front-line Mutalisk has sufficient strength" or anything. I don't think that warrants any kind of special treatment over any other kind of Splash Damage, and I don't think I've seen any part of the rules that would say "the card contents are ignored", except when the front-line unit is not matched. Quite the opposite, page 31 states specificially that "If one of the icons on a player's standard Combat card matches his front-line unit, that player may use the special ability on the Combat card (if any)." And then, page 32, "'Compare Attack and Health values' is the only step where players check to see whether their Combat card icons match their front-line units." This implies that by step 7c), it doesn't matter at all where the cards and abilities come from, they're just there and have to be resolved.

I do think that the formalized argument helped a bit, as I didn't realize you questioned premise 3.1

Having thought about this in the shower: I'll reformulate part 1 then, since Premise 3.1 is Conclusion 1 and follows itself from premises - I had some hidden premises there, and was unaware of them.

• Premise 1.1: The definition of when Splash Damage is triggered is, "Splash damage is triggered when a side with a Combat card bearing the splash damage keyword destroys at least one opposing unit during the 'Destroy Units' step of the skirmish to which the card was played." (rules quote)
• Premise 1.2: Splash Damage is checked for the trigger condition if a combat card with the Splash Damage ability applies and has its abilities not ignored, given that they don't have a special restriction themselves (rules implication)
• Exceptions to 1.2: Metabolic Boost is the sole card that has such a restriction for sufficient strength: "When you are the attacker, gain +2 health if your front-line Zergling unit has sufficient strength [...]" - it also happens to be an explicit restriction, so apparently is out of the ordinary (observation)
• Premise 1.3: The sole instances when a combat card has its abilities ignored are a) if it's a standard combat card and none of its unit icons match the FLU, or b) if it's a reinforcement combat card and either b1) it has no specialty icon and none of its unit icons match the FLU or b2) it has a specialty icon and none of its unit icons match either the FLU or any assist unit (rules on page 31 and 39)
• Premise 1.4: The Mutalisk card has Splash Damage* if the FLU is a Mutalisk, and has no other conditions for its Splash Damage (reformulation of the Mutalisk card so it applies not only to cards 15 and 16, but also 14, while not 13 which is a Mutalisk card but without Splash Damage)
• Conclusion 1: Splash Damage, if it is present in a skirmish and not ignored (which it is if the FLU is a Mutalisk and a card with Splash Damage* for Mutalisks is played as first combat card), is triggered if an opposing unit is destroyed any time during the Destroy Units step

Consider Conclusion 1 to be the new text for premise 3.1 as well, please. So if you doubt premise 3.1, you must disprove either of these premises in this post, or show me another hidden premise I unawarely didn't disclose.

* = Splash Damage here has special restrictions as to which units can be killed by it, which carry over into Conclusion 1 if present, but I think they're not important here.

If you doubt premise 1.2 then please show me a rules quote to that end, as I really don't see how you would. There's nothing in the rules that supports the claim that sufficient strength usually has anything to do with whether abilities are ignored or not.

Sorry for all the edits, I'm done editing now

Too late, I just gave in on my point (on bgg). You got me convinced as far as is written in the rules and the cards. I can't prove my point.

GG

I hope no hard feelings remain

Fluff-wise, I can really see some justification for this: Take for example a Mutalisk hitting an enemy Siege Tank, while an SCV repairs it and some Marines stand around it. The Splash will kill the SCV and then the Marines, while the Siege Tank will only go down much later. The Queen/Mutalisk example isn't exactly the same, but very similar - it could be changed to have what is two Zealots in your example be a Siege Tank as FLU, and two Marines as supporting units, and the rules here would perfectly model what'd happen in the computer game.

Either way, the simplified and streamlined board game rules can't be a perfect image of the computer game rules. Well, they could be, but they'd be a lot more complex then, and kinda like in the World of Warcraft or the Warcraft strategy game from FFG, turns would be drawn-out and long-ish. Starcraft does quite well to sacrifice some precision (relative to the computer game) for flow, I think - it's one of the things that makes me like the board game so much.

WarCraft, at least for my group, played pretty straight forward. We had quite some battles. The introduction of heroes in the expansion introduced quite some balance issues. Some heroes felt tremendously overpowered. Too bad there never was a FAQ to resolve most of these ...

Well, back to the game. StarCraft all in all does a pretty good job rule and fluff wise. I'll have to see if that works for Broodwar as well. Only one game so far.

Hm, I guess Warcraft deserves another look then - ****, just when I thought there'd be an FFG game I don't want!

haslo's logic is irrefutable. If I play this combo, I am on "a side", Spawn Broodling is "a combat card" and Mutas have splash damage as FLUs. Technically, splash should be triggered within the framework of the rules.

That said, I think those whose first reaction was "no splash" have the rules intuitively correct. By that I mean that the way they understand the rules is the way it works 98% of the time, and probably the way it was intended to work. After all, it doesn't make much sense that the Queen should get two free kills from the back line while the Muta "does splash damage" by virtue of not doing anything worthwhile at all.

Given their silence on this matter so far, I wonder if the guys at FFG are aware of this yet.

Heh, thanks for the compliment

The Schaef said:

I really had the intuition "no splash" at first as well, as is visible on page 2 of this thread. But I don't think it's the sole way that makes sense in the context of the rules: For example, all a High Templar's Psionic Storm does is provide Splash Damage, which only happens if the FLU kills the enemy - and keep in mind, the High Templar only has little influence on that (through his +2 Attack). The Splash Damage from a Science Vessel with Irradiate is very similar, only it merely gives +1 Attack. In both cases, they both don't do anything worthwhile at all, except providing Splash Damage - which is the very same thing the Mutalisk provides in the Mutalisk/Queen combo...

EMELT said:

I received a response to my question. And the results are:

Spawn broodling will not trigger splash damage.

Thanks Corey for settling this!

That was my initial idea, but reading the rules made me doubt. Thanks, for clearing this up.

EMELT said:

Odd. Was there a rationale to the answer?

(Not that I'd doubt its truth, I just want to know if my logic was sound or not - an arbitrary definition of "Spawn Broodling can't trigger Splash Damage" is good enough for me)

I don't think you read anything wrong, and I know that as the rules read to this point it supported there being splash triggered, but it may be that they never intended for spawn broodling to trigger splash damage and that it was for some reason ommited from the card, and that it wasn't until somebody brought up the situation that they realized the fact.

Maybe they did some playtesting and found it would not be balanced (especially with the new broodwar units that have splash, darn lurkers and devourers).

I'm just glad it finally was settled.

EMELT said:

So my argument that the triggering of splash is related to the combat card (splash only if sufficient strength) may not be wrong after all ?! I'll be darned.

So I did some more fishing to try and figure out how far this splash being triggered extends, and Spooky it looks like your intuition was right.

I had asked about the Dark Archon's Feedback ability since it was the only other card I could find that would possibly kill on its own like a Spawn Broodling does.

Here is what Corey Konieczka had to say:

"No. Splash damage is only triggered if the attack from the standard combat card destroys the enemy unit."

Thanks again so much Corey!