Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Card: Squiggoth Brute - all interactions

Squiggoth Brute

Best Answer Kaloo , 02 September 2016 - 09:53 PM

Ok, after 6 pages it looks like we're finally in a position to have a "best answer". Here it goes:
 

1:- Does it remove acquired keywords, such as from attachments or card effects?

Yes, since the text does not state "printed keywords"

 

 

2:- Does it remove all keywords gained after the combat phase has begun, even if it already had a copy of said keyword (such as Ranged on a Ratling Deadeye after being targeted by Preemptive Barrage)?
It removes exactly 1 instance of all keywords, irrespective of whether or not the unit had it at the beginning of the combat phase. Effectively, all keywords are treated as a modifier to which the Squiggoth applies "-1" to, meaning that should a unit acquire 2 instances of a keyword (such as a Ranged unit benefiting from a Preemptive Barrage) it would effectively lose 1 instance of the keyword, resulting in 1 instance remaining.

 

 

3:- Does it remove Area of Effect completely, or merely reduce it by one?

The Area of Effect keyword is removed in its entirety. However, should a unit benefit from multiple instances of Area of Effect, a single instance of Area of Effect is removed, but the numerical value of the Area of Effect remains the same.

 

Example 1: A Vicious Bloodletter (AoE (3)) is at the same planet as a Squiggoth. After the combat phase begins, it will lose the AoE keyword entirely, and as such will only be able to perform a conventional attack

Example 2: A Tactical Squad Cardinis (AoE(1)) with a Gun Drones attached (AoE(2)) has 2 instances of AoE, with an effective combined numerical value of 3 (as per the rules reference guide, AoE (1) + AoE (2) = AoE (3)). Following a Squiggoth, it now has 1 instance of AoE, with a numerical value of 3, effectively resulting in no mechanical change (it keeps AoE (3)). However, should there be 2 Squiggoths it would lose 2 instances of AoE, effectively resulting in the loss of the AoE keyword entirely, thereby limiting it to conventional attacks.

 

 

4:- Does it affect Specialisations, such as Unstoppable?

No, since specialisations are not keywords

 

 

5:- Does it prevent Deep Strike or Ambush?

No. Cards in reserve are not units until they are deep struck, and as such are not army units to lose their keyword at the point of the reaction firing. Similar, cards in hand are not army units at said planet, and as such are also not able to lose Ambush.

 

 

6:- Does it remove Mobile?

Yes, but it doesn't stop it happening. Given that the Reaction starts just after mobile has concluded any units with mobile can move before their keyword is removed, which in effect means that removing the keyword is pointless. Currently, it would only matter should Baharroth's attachment, The Shining Blade, be attached to a mobile army unit opposite a Brute since it would cause it to be discarded.

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#21
eigensheep

eigensheep

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Intuitive is relative (among other things, it depends on what you're used to, which might be different from what someone else is used to). This interpretation is consistent across all FFG games (so I do expect it to be the official answer): gaining or losing keywords is like numeric modifiers; it's just that, in addition to anything below 0 being treated as 0, anything over 1 is functionally identical to 1. That way, multiple effects that make cards gain or lose keywords function exactly the same regardless of the order they've been used.

 

I have no problem with the net effect, I just think they could have chosen the language to remove any ambiguity. To lose something implies that you had that something to begin with (i.e. a keyword). Removing "all" things implies that every instance of every keyword should be removed. 


  • Skyknight likes this

#22
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

its counter intuitive becase squigoth doesn't say " remove one instance of each keyword from enemy units" it says "remove all keywords" which would intuitively mean all instances on the card at the time. 

 

Of course it's counterintuitive, it's FFG.  I've discovered the secret to determining how cards work in this game - figure out the way that makes sense and then do the opposite.



#23
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

If you lose "all" your money, it's not like every instance of your money is removed forever. You can get some back. And if you lose "all" your hope, it's not like you had to have hope in every specific, individual thing before you lost it. So whose "intuition" are we following here?

 

Within the context of the rules of the game, where keywords are modified from scratch for each keyword check in a "1 + 1 - 1 = 1" fashion, the ruling isn't counterintuitive at all. It might be counterintuitive or inconsistent with what would happen in other contexts or situations, but for W40K: Conquest, it really is consistent with the framework of the rules.

 

Or, it will be pending the final answer on the "Area Effect (X)" interaction.



#24
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts

.. if you lose "all" your hope, it's not like you had to have hope in every specific, individual thing before you lost it. 

 

Heavy thoughts on this cloudy Tuesday morning.

 

"And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.”

#25
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

If you lose "all" your money, it's not like every instance of your money is removed forever. You can get some back. And if you lose "all" your hope, it's not like you had to have hope in every specific, individual thing before you lost it. So whose "intuition" are we following here?

 

Exactly.  If I lost all of my money and then gain some (non-zero amount of) money, I would have some money, regardless of whether or not I started with any money.  Your own analogy doesn't support your ruling.



#26
Intolerance

Intolerance

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Exactly.  If I lost all of my money and then gain some (non-zero amount of) money, I would have some money, regardless of whether or not I started with any money.  Your own analogy doesn't support your ruling.

 

You didn't lose all of your money, you had $0 and then lost $100 and the debt was not forgotten. 



#27
honorsadam

honorsadam

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
I reiterate. That is not what the card says. To use the metaphor it says " lose all money". Not " lose 100 dollars". Every other ability that adds or removes a specific keyword can work exactly as you assert. Just not the one.

#28
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Exactly.  If I lost all of my money and then gain some (non-zero amount of) money, I would have some money, regardless of whether or not I started with any money.  Your own analogy doesn't support your ruling.

 

eigensheep was the one who said that if you lose "all" your keywords, you cannot gain more.

 

Removing "all" things implies that every instance of every keyword should be removed. 

 

My example was pointing out that the assumed implication that "all instances should be removed" might not be 100% reliable.


  • eigensheep likes this

#29
eigensheep

eigensheep

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts
I didn't phrase it clearly enough. I agree, if I lose my money, I can certainly gain some later. Ditto for keywords. I have no problem with a unit gaining Ranged after the brute fires, say via preemptive.

I'm just suggesting if some card has two instances of Ranged when the squiggoth fires, they should lose both instances. After all if I do lose all my money, I certainly don't have any left over.

Likewise, if I'm hopeless to begin with, I have no hope to lose. I don't think cards should lose keywords they don't have. Hope can be gained later, as I believe keywords can as well.

As estyles said, yor analogy above seems to contradict the ruling that's been put forth.

Obviously, my feelings about the way in which it works have zero impact on how the mechanics actually function. I love the game and will continue playing it as always.

I was just putting some feedback out there that i think the wording is too ambiguous.

#30
eigensheep

eigensheep

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Within the context of the rules of the game, where keywords are modified from scratch for each keyword check in a "1 + 1 - 1 = 1" fashion, the ruling isn't counterintuitive at all. It might be counterintuitive or inconsistent with what would happen in other contexts or situations, but for W40K: Conquest, it really is consistent with the framework of the rules.

Or, it will be pending the final answer on the "Area Effect (X)" interaction.


Just to comment on this specifically, imagine Talyesin at a planet with a Warlock Destructor. As her first action, she plays Empower. Now, I think we can all agree that the WD would have 6 HP.

If the opponent plays a card that says, remove "all" HP bonuses from every unit at this planet, I believe most would conclude that the WD should now be back at 4 HP.

Translate this to Keywords, and that should highlight where some.of us find the confusion with the word "all" in this context.

#31
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

If the opponent plays a card that says, remove "all" HP bonuses from every unit at this planet, I believe most would conclude that the WD should now be back at 4 HP.

Translate this to Keywords, and that should highlight where some.of us find the confusion with the word "all" in this context.

 

I see. I would just point out that based on this analogy, why aren't you assuming the affected units would be left with their printed, unmodified keywords, the way the WD in your example is left with its base HP?

 

Ultimately, the analogy is a little off because the Brute doesn't say the units "lose all keyword modifiers." It simply says they lose all keywords. If it said they "lose all keyword modifiers," I'd agree the affected units are left with their printed, unmodified keywords, but as is, I don't see the comparison you make as equivalent.



#32
eigensheep

eigensheep

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts
The comparison was only to highlight the interpretaion of the word all. I could have just said all HP bonuses, all HP deductions, etc. instead of using the word modifier.

The end result would be the same - remove every instance of the particular effect described. Put differently, I don't think the word "all" would ever be used if the aim was to remove a single HP bonus or deduction.

We can expand the use to other examples "exhaust all units", "destroy all units" etc. All is generally pretty defined, and I just don't think it fits here.

#33
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

We can expand the use to other examples "exhaust all units", "destroy all units" etc. All is generally pretty defined, and I just don't think it fits here.

 

Ah, but maybe "destroy all units" destroys one instance of each named unit in the game.  Therefore if you play an Exterminatus on a planet and then Ambush in an Eager Recruit you would go from -1 Eager Recruits + 1 = 0 Eager Recruits at the planet.   :P

 

Of course the whole issue of rulings that don't seem to make sense could be avoided by putting clear wording on the card.   Such as "each enemy army unit loses all keywords until the end of the phase and cannot gain any keywords until the end of the phase."  Or "each enemy army unit loses each keyword it currently has, and regains it at the end of the phase."   (or, if they wanted to create the insane situation that has been ruled based on the current text: "each enemy army unit loses an instance of each keyword that exists in the game (and the number of instances they have can go negative, for some reason) until the end of the phase.")  

 

The only explanations for some of the awful, awful wording on effects in this game is either they don't have very good playtesters, or they have good playtesters and aren't listening to them.  Finding unclear wording should be job #1 for playtesting, even more important than balance in my opinion, though balance is a close second.



#34
Stefan2581

Stefan2581

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

Please remember that the Brute adds a modifier for the remainder of the phase. It doesn't modify things only once, and then is done.

It constantly modifies the amount of applicable keywords (in this case).



#35
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

Please remember that the Brute adds a modifier for the remainder of the phase. It doesn't modify things only once, and then is done.

It constantly modifies the amount of applicable keywords (in this case).

 

So you say, but what I see is that it applies an effect once (as a triggered reaction when the combat phase begins) and that effect wears off at a specified time.  Not sure how you can get a constant modification from the wording on the card.



#36
Stefan2581

Stefan2581

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

So you say, but what I see is that it applies an effect once (as a triggered reaction when the combat phase begins) and that effect wears off at a specified time.  Not sure how you can get a constant modification from the wording on the card.

 

The effect you are talking about is that every unit loses all (one instance of each) keywords.

This effect, lasts during the whole combat phase. And it modifies the number of keywords a unit has.

Therefore it is a modifier. Constant in the sense that it does it constantly during the specified time window (in this case combat phase).

I didn't mean constant as in forever.



#37
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

The effect you are talking about is that every unit loses all (one instance of each) keywords.

This effect, lasts during the whole combat phase. And it modifies the number of keywords a unit has.

Therefore it is a modifier. Constant in the sense that it does it constantly during the specified time window (in this case combat phase).

I didn't mean constant as in forever.

 

I mean that it reads like an instant effect with an expiration, not a constant effect with a duration.  Reading it as a constant effect that checks for and modifies keywords seems overly complicated and not in line with what it actually says.



#38
Stefan2581

Stefan2581

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

It is not an instant effect, because it says "until the end of the phase".

How would the effect expire if it was instant ? The effect stays, and is constant until the end of the combat phase.

It might seem complicated, but that's they way it is.



#39
estyles

estyles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 646 posts

It is not an instant effect, because it says "until the end of the phase".

How would the effect expire if it was instant ? The effect stays, and is constant until the end of the combat phase.

 

Maybe you mean constant in a different way.  What I see is: at the start of the combat phase, it applies its effect once.  It removes the keywords the unit has.  That's it.  It does no more things.  Then, at the end of those phase, the keywords come back.  If by constant, you mean it suppresses the keywords for the whole duration and then expires, then sure, constant.  If by constant, you mean that it continually checks and removes things all during the phase, then there is absolutely no support for that in the wording of the card.  It's a triggered effect that gives a precise time at which it acts, not a "while this unit is in play" type of effect.

 

The difference is between an instant trigger that applies a lasting effect versus some sort of continually-reevaluating effect that continues to apply effects in new and different ways over a duration.  The second thing makes no sense.

 

 

 

It might seem complicated, but that's they way it is.

 

Not complicated, over-complicated.  Adding mechanisms and conditions that aren't needed and which the game functions perfectly well without.  e.g. 50% of Conquest rulings.


  • honorsadam likes this

#40
Stefan2581

Stefan2581

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

We are getting there. I mean constant in the way: "If by constant, you mean it suppresses the keywords for the whole duration and then expires, then sure, constant."

Suppress in the sense that it reduces the amount of instances of keywords by one.

But I also mean, that whenever the quantity of a keyword is checked for its application, this effect adds to the modifying of that value.