just fishing in the ocean of accumulated knowledge out there.

regarding EXPENDABLE MUSCLE.

the text reads:

IF expendable muscle WOULD be wounded or go insane, instead attach….blah de blah de.

now the question is based on that:

if he were in a story with another fellow character, and someone say, dropped a stick of dynamite into it, does the muscle jump BEFORE the wound? and possibly save his fellow. the IF and the WOULD suggest a precedence to the wound, whereas IS wounded or GOES insane would imply conjunction.

BUT it is only a passive effect and not a disrupt either so…….. i''m guessing rules wise thats the answer.

any takers on this one please??

It sounds like you answered your question, but this is my thinking. Wounds are assigned simultaneously and the characters are instantly destroyed at the resolution of the action, so the wounded (destroyed) character you tried to attach Expendable Muscle to would still be destroyed. You could still attach it to a different character though.

Waiting for vets to confirm.

Basically, if a wound or insanity is allocated to Expendable Muscle, instead of wounding or making it insane, you can attach it. The wound is used up - it doesn't have to get assigned to another character or anything like that.

TheProfessor said:

Right, but he would be able to "save" the other character since it would be destroyed simultaneoulsy, correct?

ahh!

but expendable muscle provides toughness + 1. hence the dilemma.

I'm not sure what you mean. If Expendable Muscle takes a wound (say from losing the Combat struggle), instead of being discarded, it can be attached to some other character you control. That other character takes no wounds or anything - it just gains the attachment and as a result it gets Toughness +1 and Willpower.

In the example the OP gave, there are two characters (one is Expendable Muscle and the other is let's say Tattoo Artist) that are wounded from Dynamite. So there are two options:

1) you can attach Expendable Muscle to Tattoo Artist to give it an immediate +1 toughness and "save" it.

2) Tattoo Artist gets a wound is destroyed immediately and is not in play, not allowing for the passive ability of Expendable Muscle to act on Tattoo Artist (although EM could be attached to a different character in play.

Thanks for the clarification. I was answering an unasked question.

Now I see why there is confusion. When does the wound cause destruction… Hmm.. Rules query, I suspect.

OK, I checked in with Damon. No, you can't save the other character.

Here's my version of his explanation of the timing, based on Framework Actions from the FAQ.

Framework Action initiates (wound causes destruction)

Disrupts (there are none)

Framework Action is executed (wounded characters are destroyed)

Passive Abilities are initiated (Expendable Muscle can be attached, but the other character is already destroyed)

THANKS!

just the wording is a bit confusing with the IF's and WOULD's instead of IS.

TheProfessor said:

I…

Doesn't the passive ablity "trigger" in the first framework action (even before disrupts)? Or maybe even before that….

As, if I understand things correctly (something I've been doubting for quite awhile now at least in the context of how FFG is ruling things lately), when dynamite uses its action it must designate all of its targets before it actually goes off. Its then when Expendable Muscle would trigger so I would argue that EM would save the artist…

Or does this somehow fall under the 'modified - thing.. ruling'?

Otherwise the "would be" text would certainly mean to resovle before characters are actually wounded and most certainly before they are destroyed because of wounding.

Is there a more detailed explanation available as this is not intuitive.

I did not do Damon's ruling justice - the bit about framework actions was my interpretation, and when I double checked with Damon, he said that there are no framework actions that need to addressed here. Here is where Damon corrected me about that:

"It is not a framework action, Those are actions the game initiates, like draw and refresh. It is standard resolution of what may be a framework action (combat struggle) or player action (in this case Dynamite). The passive on EM simply tells you what to do instead of it getting the wound. That replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded it (and all the other characters) in the first place. If it had been a disrupt then it would work just like that though."

Here is the original response:

" There is no interaction between the cards.

Expendable Muscle is a passive effect not a disrupt and all wounds from a single effect are placed simultaneously. End result is EM gets a wound token at the same time as the other character. The full resolution of the wounding takes place and then any passives whose triggers are met initiate. EM's passive means it goes on a character if able rather than going to the discard pile but the other character has no such passive and is already destroyed as far as the game is concerned ."

Makes sense, though I see where Magnus was confused. Dynamite certainly designates everything it is wounding, but since the passive on EM is a replacement effect its resolution happens when it would actually leave play which would be the same time everything else is leaving play that had been wounded by dynamite. If it had not been worded as a replacement effect and just said, "If EM would be wounded attach it to another character…" then it would attach at the moment of designation rather than at the moment of leaving play.

what about…

"If a passive ability would alter an action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated."

… from the FAQ.

If nothing else it shows that passive abilities being "always on" can "trigger" before, with, and after disrupts. The text "would be" to me clearly puts the trigger before the wounds are actually dealt/placed on the card.

It being a disrupt or not doesn't really matter as (at least, to me) the text indicates when it triggers.

And to cover some more bases…

Being that EM's ability changes who would be dealt a wound (since we have to designate when we even think about using the action) does that not count as "altering" an action? Of course, that would mean that the cards are interacting with another. I know Damon said that they don't, but the action that "would be" dealing the wounds is coming from Dynamite's effect so how are they not interacting?

It being a replacement effect; we just might be disagreeing on. I see the replacement effect afffecting its designation (once again bringing up the "would be" part of the text) rather than the wound actually being placed on EM.

I may or may not be taking some things to literally or not literally enough, but just reading the cards I'm getting a different result than the ones being explained.

However, it seems i agree on all other bases. A replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded (note its past tense) it. I'm "argueing" that EM's effect technically triggers before the character is actually wounded.

EM can't trigger before the wound, because the wound is the trigger. Both of the relevant characters get the wound at the same time, which in the absence of toughness destroys them. But instead of being destroyed, EM can turn into an attachment. However the other guy got his wound already. There is no time window in which to attach EM before destroying the other character is how I interpret the final ruling.

I'm with the Professor. Instead is what designates it as a replacement effect. do X instead of Y.

From the FAQ "The word instead indicates that a replacement effect is being triggered. Replacement effects completely replace one effect with another."

and

"(2.10) Replacement Effects
The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of the effect it is replacing. Therefore, the original effect does not occur, the new effect occurs instead."

I see what you guys are saying. I really do. If EM was worded with present or past tense terminology I would've agreed from the beginning. However… it doesn't so thus I'm here. lol.

With my "current" understanding on things I believe EM's replacement effect to be an effect that replaces its designation as a target for a wounding or insanity, not so much it being wounded or made insane.

Consider this scenario.

1. Player A wants to use Dynamite's action.
a). Determine the cost (to either play the card or pay for the card's effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the inteded action).
b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. (this is a new addition)
-> *** Conidition Met *** EM is designated by an effect that would wound it. EM"s ability alters what was all was designated as targets for the effect by becoming an attachment which cannot be wounded or be made insane. Resolve EM's ability.
(now, I'm not 100% sure if we go back to the top of step 1 or not, but don't think that really matters in this case though…however it wouldn't hurt my point if an 'altering' passive ability would cause us to do so)

c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Appy any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Pay the card, or trigger the effect. Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to step two. (funny story, think this is actually a typo on the non-printer friendly version of the FAQ. it should say "Play" however I will invoke a disclaimer that I may of made other typos in this post this is the only one I picked out that wasn't me )

2. Disrupts - In clockwise order, players no have the opportunity to disrupt the action. If all players pass then the action will be executed, and can no longer be disrupted.
a) Player B plays Writing Wall to cancel Dynamite's action. (repeat steps 1a-1f to play the disrupt)

Now, the FAQ does say that any passive abilities that are triggered as a result of the action are initiated in step 4. Aka, after step 3. Action is executed. However, due to another new addition to the FAQ:

"NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. A Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."

I interpreted that to mean becuase EM's replacement effect alters what was designated as a target(s) (my opinion of course), that it should resolve before the disrupt window is opened. Ya know… cause its altering what was designated and what would happen to EM if the effect were to be executed.

Also keep in mind that 7) Action is resolved (end of action) doesn't come up until AFTER the window for responses has closed and that the action is considered "resloving" from the moment it is initiated in step 1 till end of step 6.

In addition, the reason why I read/am reading it this way is that EM is worded exactly like several other effects that are commonly(or in my opinion, all are) triggered before the action is executed (step 3). So, intuitively, I'm reading that it triggers/resolved somewhere before step 3. Otherwise its wording would/should reflect that the effect happens after step 3, which it doesn't in my opinion. Digging deeper… obviously I came up with what I said above.

….whew. That was a lot. If nothing else, perhaps you'll definately see why I'm confused by this ruling. =/

im just glad to see all my questions aren't stoopid ones. im leaning towards magnus as the 'would' is definately a literal reference and it seems in most these dilemmas the text is what it is. but hey, im a newbie.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Besides, Dynamite's effect isn't even a targeted effect since it lacks the word 'choose'.

****************DELETED*******************

Magnus I think you are right about when the passive is altering the effect, but I am positive you are wrong about when it resolves. The replaced effect still resolves with the timing of the original effect at its earliest. Only a disrupt would have halted that resolution forced the new effect to resolve completely, before the original effect continues its resolution.

That is the only effect that halts resolution of one effect forces its own effect to resolve completely first, and then resumes the original effects resolution if still applicabl. Passives change what is being resolved and how it is being resolved, but not when it is being resolved.

You actually have a much stronger argument that the passive actually resolves (despite having been designated several steps earlier) after all other characters are wounded…

You left off the rest of that FAQ entry:

3) Action is executed
The active player now executes the
effects of the action. If this action
discards or destroys one or more cards,
returns one or more cards to a player’s
hand or deck, these cards immediately
leave play.

4) Passive abilities are triggered
Any passive abilities that are triggered
as a result of the action (or a disrupt
response hereto), are now initiated. As
with the action itself, before a passive
ability is executed, all players have the
option to disrupt the passive ability. If
all players pass on the disrupt option,
the ability is executed. Remember that if
two passive abilities are triggered at the
same time, their order of resolution is
determined by the active player.
Any cards that are killed, discarded,
or returned to hand as a result of the
passive ability immediately leave play.

Since nothing you quoted in any way states that the passive is now resolved outside of step 4 if it is not a replacement effect and during step 3 if it is, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. My suggestion is to contact Damon.

Penfold said:

What about the part where I quoted:

""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."

That is at the heart of my arguement.

Becuase EM is an altering passive abliity (as we both believe it to be one in some form anyway), it resolves first on the action. Then its initiated which is all done in step 1. WIthout this note I would agree that it would only ever resolve in step 4.

But that is ulimately what lets this resolve outside of step 4. In my opinion.

As for contacting Damon… I rather not. I'm sure he'd only be annoyed with me at this point. After all, we have his ruling.

Also, I didn't leave out mentioning step 3 and 4. I mentioned them several times. I didn't quote them, true, but I didn't see the need to quote em for my example.

PS. jhalen - you're right thats it is not a targeting action. I apologize. Please read my comments as saying "designated card that will be effected (or affected as this is likely another minor typo in the FAQ)" when I'm not quoting FAQ scripture. As for the "we won't know if it'll be wounded or not until after disrupts" comment… Ya… I don't think thats how it works regardless if you agree or disagree with Damon's or my ruling. As disurpts as a concept just wouldn't really work right as their triggers would likely never trigger under our current structure. Unless of course we muff how we read cards again (or again to me lol)… in which case I would concede.

Ah, you are misreading that part… the passive alters the action, that now altered action resolves… but it does not jump the timing structure, it resolves with the standard timing structure. In other words everything else happens at exactly the same pace which still has all the characters being wounded and EM being attached in the same step. Your interpretation would require for just the passive effected EM to resolve through all steps in exclusion from the unaltered effect, and then have that unaltered effect resolve after. I can't see how that was intended to be the method of resolution given the breakdown we have in the FAQ and Damon's ruling clearly shows that wasn't how he was interpreting it either.

I think it is safe to say everything, even excluding Damon's ruling, points to it as a replacement effect which means it is resolved along with the other woundings, just what happens when EM would be wounded is changed.

Though it looks like you are rather attached to your interpretation so I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

Penfold said:

Aww, please convince me. Seriously. I'm learning a ton here.

The Note it specifically says "the passive ability is first resolved on the action." So resolved completely right? To its full extent?

Soooo, since EM's replacement effect alters the action, according the note, its to be resolved in step 1 Action is initiated .

If I'm misreading… I don't know where I'm misreading.

To take it into a more step by step form. (to help me out)

1. If a passive ability would alter an action as its being resolved… ---> EM's replacement effect would alter the action if it would be wounded by said action.

2. The passive is first resolved on the action. ---> In order to resolve the passive, EM must become an attachment.

3. Now altered, the action is initiated. ---> Go through steps provided in step 1 Action is initiated .

Also the enitre second sentence that I'm not focusing on…. A Disrupt (aka step 2.) can't cancel the action until the passive is applied. Which a disrupt couldn't do if we had to wait until step 4 to apply the passive effect.

As for me being attached. Not really. I could care less about how this is ruled in tournaments. However, a ruling like this could affect how one plays the game and could easily be the difference in a crucial match. That I do care about. At this point I'm hoping for one of two results either I'll have that AH HA! Moment and I'll see things the way Damon does and I'll see them in a way I can explain it to others. Or, I'll convince you guys to have that AH HA! moment and see things how I do and the ruling ends up being reversed or eventually changes will be made to reflect how Damon intended them.

Or nothing will happen and we'll just use this ruling and I'll linger on confused. Aka. the likely scenario. lol