113 replies to this topic

[ktom]

The Brute is a lasting effect, which means it is an effect that continues to act upon the game state beyond the resolution of the card ability.

 

Once triggered, a lasting effect behaves the same as a constant effect over the period of its duration. This is why, for example, you can combine the "gets +1 ATK/+1 HP" from something like Empower (a lasting effect) with the "gets +1 ATK/+1 HP" from something like Autarch Powersword (a constant effect).

 

So the "until the end of the phase" text on the Brute makes it a lasting effect which, once triggered, acts like a constant effect until the phase ends. This is why FFG has ruled that gaining/losing keywords "until the end of the phase" acts the same way numerical modifiers do, instead of the way "instant" effects (like exhausting, moving or discarding). An exhaust, move or discard cannot "wear off" after a certain time (the way losing a keyword can). You can only ready or move the game element again at a later time.

[honorsadam]

Alright, so lets see where everyone is then on the following statement(which I believe to be fully accurate):

 

The Brute will remove all instances of all keywords on the enemy units at the time of resolution, and then will have no further effects until the end of phase when each of those removed instances are restored. 

[steinerp]

If you are getting at the fact that only units present at the time of resolution are effected and units coming to the planet later are not.  You are correct as that is explicitly stated in the rrg

[honorsadam]

I was trying g to highlight that the brute can only remove keywords that units have at the time of resolution. Although I also agree that units that move in after are not effected

[Khudzlin]

No one should doubt that units not present when the reaction was triggered are not affected, the FAQ says triggered abilities engage the game state at the time they are triggered. On the other hand, it is not correct that Squiggoth Brute only affects keywords that were present at the time it was triggered. Keyword modifiers function exactly like numeric modifiers, so a card can have -1 Ranged (which the game treats as 0 Ranged); if such a card gains Ranged later, it will have 0 Ranged, so it still won't have the keyword.

[ktom]

The Brute will remove all instances of all keywords on the enemy units at the time of resolution, and then will have no further effects until the end of phase when each of those removed instances are restored. 

 

Let's remember that FFG confirmed the following for steinerp at Gencon:

 

1. Keyword modifiers work the same way that numeric modifiers work.

2. When the Brute says "all keywords," it means "all keywords in the game."

3. Taking #1 and #2 together, the Brute works by applying a "-1" modifier for every keyword in the game to the affected units, not just for the keywords that the unit has more than 0 of at time the ability resolves.

 

So, contrary to honorsadam's statement, The Brute will apply a "-1" modifier for each and every keyword in the game when it resolves. That "-1" modifier continues to apply for the rest of the phase and will have to be included in any check/calculation for any keyword on that unit until the end of the phase.

 

These are official FFG answers, and as such, we have to live with them whether we agree with them or not.

 

 

The only thing related to the Brute that we are still waiting on from FFG is how you remove "1 instance" of Area Effect (X), given that X is variable.

[honorsadam]

I'll back down on this for now on this forum, and if I need to play in a tournament I will work with this. 

 

Let's remember that FFG confirmed the following for steinerp at Gencon:

 

1. Keyword modifiers work the same way that numeric modifiers work.

2. When the Brute says "all keywords," it means "all keywords in the game."

3. Taking #1 and #2 together, the Brute works by applying a "-1" modifier for every keyword in the game to the affected units, not just for the keywords that the unit has more than 0 of at time the ability resolves.

 

So, contrary to honorsadam's statement, The Brute will apply a "-1" modifier for each and every keyword in the game when it resolves. That "-1" modifier continues to apply for the rest of the phase and will have to be included in any check/calculation for any keyword on that unit until the end of the phase.

 

These are official FFG answers, and as such, we have to live with them whether we agree with them or not.

 

 

The only thing related to the Brute that we are still waiting on from FFG is how you remove "1 instance" of Area Effect (X), given that X is variable.

However, reading in between the lines ktom, it seems like you are not particularly happy with what came out of GenCon.

 

I personally would never consider anything that came out of a representatives mouth at a conference as an actual ruling. But then again I am more used to Magic the Gathering that has a very tightly controlled comprehensive rules file that is updated on every card set release. Ruling from judges during tournament play are recorded in the online database maintained by wizards of the coast and open for any other judge or player to reference. sadly the closest we have here is an update to the FAQ. 

[tdnordine]

I personally would never consider anything that came out of a representatives mouth at a conference as an actual ruling. But then again I am more used to Magic the Gathering that has a very tightly controlled comprehensive rules file that is updated on every card set release. Ruling from judges during tournament play are recorded in the online database maintained by wizards of the coast and open for any other judge or player to reference. sadly the closest we have here is an update to the FAQ. 

 

It wasn't just a judge at a tournament that provided the ruling to steinerp at GenCon.  It was Brad, the developer and the person who provides all the official rulings quoted as coming from FFG in this rules forum.

[ktom]

It wasn't just a judge at a tournament that provided the ruling to steinerp at GenCon.  It was Brad, the developer and the person who provides all the official rulings quoted as coming from FFG in this rules forum.

 

Yep. While I would agree that you never take what a judge says in the heat of the moment at a tournament as the final, official ruling, I think that when you see the developer at an event and the conversation effectively starts with, "Hey, did you get my email? No? Well, can I ask you the questions now anyway?", you have to take the answers seriously and somewhat more officially. This is apparently what steinerp did with Brad.

[honorsadam]

Alright, thanks for giving more of the backstory on how those comments came out of Gen Con. It does help give it validity.

[steinerp]

Ktom, not quite. I never sent Brad the email because I knew I would see him in a day or two and assumes he was busy. But same effect. And I am still waiting on the followup regarding AOE as an FYI. Also brad indicated this was a topic that he had discussed in detail with nate French as well.

[Veetek]

Scratch this, I asked a question that's already answered in Kaloo's original post.

[palpster]

This thread is making my head hurt. Having a unit that has -1 Ranged keyword?

"Hey, does your unit have any keywords?"

"Well, it didn't have any...but apprently now I have...uhm negative 1 Ranged"

"So what does that do?"

"..."

"Alright, what does that even mean then?"

"..."

"Wait, there's more"

"...seriously?"

"I also have -1 Brutal"

"I'm afraid to ask"

"Better you didn't"

I assume this will get clarified in the pre-worlds faq, it seems necessary from all the reactions here.

[palpster]

And for the record: intuitive in this case for me would be to check at start for keywords, you lose all of those so you are effectively blank as far as keywords go. Now if any get added by a card effect later you should benefit from those.

I guess I'll have to accept it if it's ruled otherwise, but that would be counterintuitive to me.

[Khudzlin]

This thread is making my head hurt. Having a unit that has -1 Ranged keyword?

"Hey, does your unit have any keywords?"

"Well, it didn't have any...but apprently now I have...uhm negative 1 Ranged"

"So what does that do?"

"..."

"Alright, what does that even mean then?"

"..."

"Wait, there's more"

"...seriously?"

"I also have -1 Brutal"

"I'm afraid to ask"

"Better you didn't"

I assume this will get clarified in the pre-worlds faq, it seems necessary from all the reactions here.

 

Do you agree that, when a unit with 1 printed ATK gets -2 ATK, then +1 ATK later, it has 0 ATK? What -1 Ranged means is that, should the unit gain Ranged once later, it still would have 0 Ranged (in addition to not attacking during the Ranged Skirmish). That's what "keyword modifiers are numeric, just like ATK or HP modifiers" means; regardless of the order modifiers are applied, the end result is the same. You just count the number of times a card gains and loses a keyword (including by having it printed); if the end result is 0 or less, it doesn't have it; if the end result is 1 or more, it has it.

[palpster]

Do you agree that, when a unit with 1 printed ATK gets -2 ATK, then +1 ATK later, it has 0 ATK? What -1 Ranged means is that, should the unit gain Ranged once later, it still would have 0 Ranged (in addition to not attacking during the Ranged Skirmish). That's what "keyword modifiers are numeric, just like ATK or HP modifiers" means; regardless of the order modifiers are applied, the end result is the same. You just count the number of times a card gains and loses a keyword (including by having it printed); if the end result is 0 or less, it doesn't have it; if the end result is 1 or more, it has it.

If they are numeric, the card should have said something along the lines of: "...is counted as having 1 less instance of every keyword". For attack it doesn't say "a unit loses attack" it specifies the amount of attack it loses, which is the logical thing when we're talking numeric. I get what you're saying and you're probably right in that is how it will be ruled, but I still feel that it's rather weird.

[honorsadam]

Everyone agrees this was a templating fail. Then again if there were no templating fails, the rules forum would be a lot less used.

If they are numeric, the card should have said something along the lines of: "...is counted as having 1 less instance of every keyword". For attack it doesn't say "a unit loses attack" it specifies the amount of attack it loses, which is the logical thing when we're talking numeric. I get what you're saying and you're probably right in that is how it will be ruled, but I still feel that it's rather weird.

[ktom]

Of course, it is the same template and methodology that FFG uses for gaining and losing (non-variable) keywords in all of its LCGs (other than ANR, maybe; as the only LCG not ultimately based on an Eric Lang design, it tends to be the one most likely to have template differences).

[Khudzlin]

ANR doesn't have keywords at all (which is also unlike the other big game by Richard Garfield). And, unlike the other LCGs, it has subtitles (which AGoT would benefit from to distinguish versions of unique cards) and subtypes (which are like traits in the other LCGs).

[honorsadam]

Alright, ktom, i can acknowledge that the brutes text might be the same templating as other lcgs by the same designer....but was this situation as confusing as before. Has the designer recieved this feedback before and not changed his templating to improve the accessibility of future games to a larger audience.

 

"the other big game by richard garfield" strictly speaking isn't being played anymore.  The rule set, and templating conventions have changed so very much since 1995 that the games if played side by side would seem similar, but have drastically different rules under them. The reason why that big game is still around is because the designers  chose to listen to feedback and improve their design.  

 

Ask a judge of that game how big the comprehensive rule file is for that game, then ask how big it would need to be if they only needed to cover cards made in the past 4 years. It would shrink by half, or more. Because alot of the things done in the early years of that game were abandoned because it wasn't working well and a better rule structure was needed.