Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/13 21:04I'm still not sure I understand how the timing is supposed to work.
If ship destruction is an atomic action and we assume it has to be completed before anything can trigger from it, then the Impaler is already on the scrapheap before its "when" text can trigger. How can it start a new pile at all? Does the ability not have to actually be in play in order to trigger, hence starting the new pile?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
When looking at things like this, I go by the "If I can't code it, we've got a problem" standard. If destruction is an atomic action which cannot be interrupted until it is complete (and hence the card is on the scrapheap), then the ability's trigger cannot activate until the card is on the scrapheap.
A, B, and C are the only times the Impaler's ability can activate. B seems to be ruled out by the FAQ entry. A is ruled out by the FAQ entry and the wording - you can't trigger it if the card hasn't been destroyed, and destruction is not a respondable pile-based activity. That leaves only C.
But by the time you get to C, the card is on the scrapheap. I understand the concept Brokkur was explaining - in his description the ability was on the pile, and so was able to resolve even though the Impaler was on the scrapheap... But I'm not sure how the ability could activate in the first place. Unless B is correct after all...
<sigh>
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Snooby
User Cruiser
Posts: 116
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 01:01From your post, you suggest that your option B may be ruled out by a FAQ entry. If you mean this one:
"Are ships destroyed immediately when they receive damage equal to or higher than their shield?
Yes. They are removed from play and placed on their owner's scrapheap. But note that damage resolves from the pile just like an ability or a card that is being played, so even if the ship has been dealt damage you can still save it by playing a card such as Stubborn Mechanic before the damage resolves."
then I think it is simply saying that once a ship reaches 0 shields it is destroyed, even if you (somehow) raise it's shields after that.
Can of worms? The revised wording for AI - "When Angel Impaler is destroyed, you may pay 3 ISK to return it to your hand from your scrapheap." may lead some people to believe that if AI is destroyed (as opposed to being sacrificed/discarded) then it may be returned to hand for 3 ISK at a later stage in the game. This is obviously not what is intended.
However, the key wording here is "WHEN Angel Impaler is destroyed..." - which implies you may only take this action (paying 3 ISK) WHEN (i.e. at the time) the ship is destroyed.
So it may be coded as:
-A- Destruction -B- -C-
I believe I mentioned this in a couple of my other posts.
(Edited for spelling)
Post edited by: Snooby, at: 2007/09/14 01:04
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brootal
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 490
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 01:22Buhallin's problem is that at the instant it is destroyed, the card is no longer in play, there for the ability that triggers when the card is destroyed is no longer in play and cannot trigger on the destruction.
It is a rather pedantic rules complaint (but I can be just as pedantic)
To actually make this card work, there has to be a small window between the destruction and removing from play, which we have already discussed, and causes lots of problems. The only way around this I can see is that there is a very small window where "When destroyed" triggers can create a pile, but this pile cannot be responded to, they resolve as soon as the ability triggers (a bit like magic's split second rule if you know that one).
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Snooby
User Cruiser
Posts: 116
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 02:06I am not familiar with the Split-second rule but i will look it up at some point.
I do think though, that if the ability triggers at the same instant that the ship is destroyed, and creates a new pile with that ability placed on it, it can be responded to, however I can't see any reason to do so as yet. There is, effectively, no window needed or created. The destruction cannot be prevented as it's not on the pile but AI can be returned to hand without having to go to the scrapheap (old version - pile resolves before moving) or from scrapheap (new version - pile resolves after moving) without "breaking" any rules.
The only doubt I still have (about this timing issue) is whether or not destroyed ships can be targeted, e.g. with The Problem Solver, though I think they can not.
Also, as a side note, i believe that this kind of rules wrangling is ultimately bad for the game. Clearing up the intent of a rule/card is one thing, trying to redesign the rules and then make the cards fit into it is entirely another. I still have nightmares about BTED.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 02:25Tight rules can only help a game. Even if we never get clarifications or manage to resolve this, such discussions highlight areas that the developers need to pay more attention to in future releases.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
mikelosaurus
User Cruiser
Posts: 124
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 09:20Snooby wrote: The revised wording for AI - "When Angel Impaler is destroyed, you may pay 3 ISK to return it to your hand from your scrapheap." may lead some people to believe that if AI is destroyed (as opposed to being sacrificed/discarded) then it may be returned to hand for 3 ISK at a later stage in the game. This is obviously not what is intended.
This could be cleared up by stating:
"You may pay 3 ISK when Angel Impaler is destroyed to return it from the scrapheap to your hand."
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 10:09Brootal wrote: Buhallin's problem is that at the instant it is destroyed, the card is no longer in play, there for the ability that triggers when the card is destroyed is no longer in play and cannot trigger on the destruction.
I think Buhallin is thinking a little too linearly on this one*. If we're saying that ship destruction suspends the normal timing rules, there's no reason why we can't have an Impaler being destroyed and its ability triggering simultaniously.
DTee
* Which is understandable as the vast majority of the game works in that way.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 13:26Well, that's the problem DTee... There are ways around this, but all of them require us to suspend timing rules, or invent windows where you can do something, etc. None of the "It could work like this" answers actually exist within the rules now.
When I see a problem like this, I look at it two ways: As something to be corrected, and as a chance to explore fuzzy areas of the rules. If destruction is a unique event that's handled differently than every other event in the game, that's fine, but we need to say that, preferably officially and in a documented errata.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
This thread has played an important role in sorting out the rules issues but there's still a long way to go.
If we can build up a list of things that need codifying, it'll be easier to convince CCP/WW of the need to have a rules committee and a comprehensive rules document.
Without such a list it looks like a minor update to the rules (to cover a specific issue) would suffice and I'm convinced that's not the case.
DTee
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Snooby
User Cruiser
Posts: 116
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/14 15:31I thought I should mention that just because I disagree with any of you in a thread, it doesn't mean I think I'm right, or that you are wrong.
They say that "Nothing is foolproof because fools can be so inventive." - playing the fool is what I do best.
Being right is nothing to boast about, but being wrong is nothing to be ashamed of. Finding the right answer is the important thing.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/15 11:52I would be very much in favour of a comprehensive review of the rules and a serious rewrites if it meant we get less of these debates on when things go off or whether wording on the cards actually works. I'm not a indepth rules type person but there are number of people on the forums who are and to some extent reading their posts is instructive but can also be fustrating. This thread is a good example. As far as I'm concern Angel Impaler does what it says and as for when it happens in game timing I'm not that interested but recognise that can be quite important. There's been a ruling and for me that's good enough. For others though there is still a problem to be fixed. I don't see it myself but as I said earlies I'm not an indepth rules type person. I would suggest though to those who are, sit down and talk to each other. Start a thread saying just what you think is wrong with the rules, highlight the problem cards then list your suggestions on how to correct these problems. Hopefully we get a comprehensive review and something the majority of people are happy with.
Post edited by: stevetheone, at: 2007/09/15 11:54We shall seed the stars with our scions and reap that harvest.
No expect the Spam, spam, spam, spam...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/15 19:39Believe it or not steve, I agree with everything you said.
Obviously, I'm an indepth rules guy, but that can easily be suspended if White Wolf can decide what sort of game they want EVE to be. If it's a fun game to play with friends, and in friendly tournaments, then we can all go "Yeah, we know what the Impaler is supposed to do." But that's not the sort of game that White Wolf is presenting with their marketing approach at the moment, which causes confusion.
But just to continue the thought, I tend to err on the side of well-defined rules in CCGs because of the surprise factor. Warmachine has a large touch of CCG mechanics in its game, and there are MANY unresolved questions as to how abilities interact. It's not uncommon for players to sit down at the beginning of a game, look over the two armies, and decide how issues will be handled for that game. Easy. But there's no "looking over" with CCGs (at least not any more, thankfully ) - I don't want to ask you how we should handle the ECM Turret's addition, because it will give away what I've got in my deck. So the first time we have a chance to discuss it is when I actually play the card. At that point, friendly neutrality on a ruling becomes much, much harder to accomplish, and can make the game far less enjoyable.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Angel Impaler timing - 2007/09/17 11:39Hopefully the ECM Turret debate will resolved but I see you point Buhallin, it would be one of those cards which, as it stands, would lead to conflict because of the importance of what it does. Its wording is up there with Prevent the next 1 damage on the Basalisk. Without a clear understanding of what that means can completely change the way the game is played. A more clearer wording would have saved any confusion. Here's hoping that we'll get it in the future.We shall seed the stars with our scions and reap that harvest.
No expect the Spam, spam, spam, spam...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
