|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 14:15:48 GMT
galrohir
Time to lawyer up! lets do a 'deep dive' on this baby!
The Prime Rules digest states the 3 phases of a turn:
'A player’s turn has three phases: Maintenance, Control, and Activation.'
Now Warmachine as a rule-set only states 'what you can do', it does not list everything you are 'not allowed to do', it does not explicitly say you can go back to the maintenance phase once you have started the control phase, so you are not allowed to.
With regards to Vengeance, I would like to point you to the rules below regarding 'triggered effects', the important part is in bold. It basically states that if you don't resolve an optional trigger (which Vengeance is because it states 'can', not 'must'), the trigger will still count as having been resolved. It does not matter that you did not do it because you forgot, the trigger has been resolved, and no where in the rules does it state you can re-resolve a trigger because you forgot about it.
'Some rules will describe conditional effects, also referred to as “triggered” effects. These rules will typically describe the trigger condition, the timing of the trigger, the resulting effect, and the timing of the resolution of this effect. If no specific timing is described, the effect is resolved upon the trigger condition being met. If a triggered effect contains an optional part, indicating the player “can” do something, the player can choose not to resolve that part of the effect but the trigger will still count as having resolved.'
Please tell me where this: "'A player’s turn has three phases: Maintenance, Control, and Activation.'"In any way, shape or form explicitly states the order of those phases? Because it does not. It merely lists them. Nowhere in the rules does it state I need to resolve Maintenance before Control, and Control before Activation; only what steps must be resolved, in order, within each phase. Therefore, I can do them in any order I wish. Of course, you could point out this: "Some effects are resolved at the beginning of a player ’s turn. These effects are resolved before the start of the Maintenance Phase." Alright, so that implies the Maintenance Phase goes first. But doesn't actually say so. Only when I need to resolve "at the beginning of a player's turn" effects. But it never tells me the order of phases. So, with this, I could actually do Activation, then Control, then Beginning of Turn effects, then Maintenance. Because "Beginning of Turn" references the Maintenance Phase, but the Maintenance Phase is never called out to be resolved before the other two. And that's RAW. An incredibly pedantic and obnoxious reading of the rules, but those are the Rules as Written. As for your second part, I'd like to point out that forgetting to do something is not choosing to not do something. I forgot, I didn't choose. Therefore, since there was no choice, the effect is unresolved, and I get to go back and do it. I mean, that's RAW.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Feb 19, 2018 14:16:05 GMT
For myself I'll ask for a take-back in a friendly, but in a tournament I don't even ask for it. It's unfair to put the other guy on the spot for my own mistake. You also learn some valuable lessons in BMT when you just have to suck it up and deal with your own foolishness.
-und_ed
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Feb 19, 2018 14:19:07 GMT
If the board state hasn't changed, I'll almost always allow a take-back. The "almost" is reserved for people who do not / have previously not shown me the same courtesy. -und_ed My redline is if dice have been cast. It's a good rule hard rule for me. I've played games where it became obvious no take backs or mistakes would be corrected and they went fine as well. If both players are in the same wavelenght it's fine. I remember charging Baldur2 in Mk2 and placing the model just out of reach of my target when I could have easily placed him within. My opponent called me out on it and it was obvious looking at him that he considered a missplay on my part that should stand. No standart had been created until then but one was agreed upon at that moment. We both stuck to it and the game went fine. Was he a douche? Nope. He was strict. IMO trouble begins with "play to intent"... Intent is unknown, playing habits vary from place to place... The rules should provide enough of a common ground that people from widely different metas can play together and know what the letter of the law is. Any gaming company should aim to write rules that they can enforce and not feel bad for doing so. Warmachine does that and because it does people can relax those standarts and go beer&pretzels at any time because on a final where you should expect no quarter but have the option of giving it things fall into place. If it is not important that an effect happens at the end of the phase don't make it so, if it is... enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Feb 19, 2018 14:29:48 GMT
That's good catch on not being stated the specific order the phases should occur in. Can someone please find the place where it is explicitly written! As to "I forgot" instead of "I choose to" players are not mind readers so... If you didn't do it you didn't choose to do it. Being able to go back can give you information you wouldn't have and if it is mandatory you just forget until you choose to remember and place a burden on your opponent to remember your stuff... and ofc on yourself to remember your opponent's stuff. As I said an opponent may allow you to go back but he shouldn't be compeled to do it. The player trying to guilt the opponent IS the douche not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 14:39:45 GMT
galrohir
The order in which the phases are listed are the order you do them in. The Rule Book describes the 'player turn' and lists each phase, and the actions of each phase in order. We know the maintenance phase is first because it is listed first in the turn order, I assume PP saw no reason to state the blindingly obvious, because it is already clarified by the fact that it is listed first when listing the turn order.
With regards to 'forgetting' and 'not choosing' being different I would disagree, they are the same thing as far as I am concerned, the trigger has been resolved, you don't get to go back, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Feb 19, 2018 14:44:21 GMT
galrohir
The order in which the phases are listed are the order you do them in. The Rule Book describes the 'player turn' and lists each phase, and the actions of each phase in order. We know the maintenance phase is first because it is listed first in the turn order, I assume PP saw no reason to state the blindingly obvious, because it is already clarified by the fact that it is listed first when listing the turn order.
With regards to 'forgetting' and 'not choosing' being different I would disagree, they are the same thing as far as I am concerned, the trigger has been resolved, you don't get to go back, end of story.
I agree. For example, if you forget to apparate your seraph. Then you actually did apparate it 0 inches. now if it's a casual game, I'm more than happy to be like "go move your damn seraph!" But I may not do so in a tournament. Mostly because if I forget something, I won't ask to go back and do it even if it costs me the game.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Feb 19, 2018 14:44:28 GMT
I personally don’t mind little take backs like Vengence after allocating or paying upkeep’s or things like that. Even in a tourney, as long as my opponent and I are having a good time and he is friendly I’ll allow take backs on certain things. I don’t like winning because my opponent forgot something like allocating during the right phase or forgot to put the marker down for his/her feat, etc.
But I’m also a lot more generous about that especially in casual games. I just like making a good game of things, when both players do thier best.
I don’t expect other people to be that way though. But I do think that if your opponent asks for a take back and then disallows you one, (within reason and obviously this depends on a lot of factors) he is being a douche.
IMO it’s not a true win if my opponent forgets something silly like allocation or Reaving and it loses him the game.
But that’s just my personal opinion and I don’t expect everyone to think or act that way. I just like trying to be laid back in general.
Having said all that, if my opponent is being a stickler about little stuff I am probably going to be a stickler as well.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Feb 19, 2018 14:48:06 GMT
GW does not want, support, nor make competitive games. This has always been the case, both in practice and in what they actually say. I have never understood why players even have tournaments for them. I think it's based on a mismatch between creative inspiration and practical reality. Creative inspiration: GW's product is an immersive hobby of creating fantastical armies and having fun pretending they are fighting it out on a battlefield. Basically it's like a freeform RPG in a self-made 3D world of wonder. Rules are more of a distraction than anything, ideally the players make them up as they go along, because the important thing is to forge a narrative together. Practical reality: The number of fans that both like GW's models/universe and want to play a freeform narrative game with improvised rules is really tiny. Most people want to play competitive games. So GW has to compromise on their creative vision in order to sell their products and continue to make gorgeous miniatures. I feel like AOS shows this clash well. GW released AOS with no points values as a game that basically could only be played freeform, not competitively. After some time, they released a book that basically had the tagline: "Fine! Here are your points values so you can play competitive games again like you used to. You guys suck." Basically, the wargaming hobby is plagued by a dilemma at its core. It wants beautiful miniatures and a playground in which to work with them, but it also wants to be able to play cut-throat competitive games. GW can provide the beautiful miniatures, but their philosophy has always been that cut-throat competitiveness isn't right, which I can understand to a large extent... the fact that we have to use measuring tapes and dice make all wargames not really very suitable for competition. For competitive games, people should play board games like Chess or Go, or card games. Miniature wargames just are more suited to the casual mindset. I feel like this is why GW has always had problems with competition.
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 14:54:18 GMT
That's good catch on not being stated the specific order the phases should occur in. Can someone please find the place where it is explicitly written! As to "I forgot" instead of "I choose to" players are not mind readers so... If you didn't do it you didn't choose to do it. Being able to go back can give you information you wouldn't have and if it is mandatory you just forget until you choose to remember and place a burdcen on your opponent to remember your stuff... and ofc on yourself to remember your opponent's stuff. As I said an opponent may allow you to go back but he shouldn't be compeled to do it. The player trying to guilt the opponent IS the douche not the other way around. I know. As a disclaimer, this isn't stuff I believe, I'm just pointing out how the rules don't actually support the ideas being professed. You can't tell me I can't do Vengeance moves if I forgot them because the rules say so, the rules only say I can choose not to resolve a "can" clause either completely or in part, and it still counts as resolved. But if I forget, and then I remember, then the effect was technically unresolved and thus must be resolved and then a whole giant can of cankerworms opens and we all die. Figuratively speaking. Point being, the rules will always require interpretation, because going to the Rules as Written, and only the Rules as Written, will result in a complete mess in a game as complex as Warmachine and Hordes. galrohir
The order in which the phases are listed are the order you do them in. The Rule Book describes the 'player turn' and lists each phase, and the actions of each phase in order. We know the maintenance phase is first because it is listed first in the turn order, I assume PP saw no reason to state the blindingly obvious, because it is already clarified by the fact that it is listed first when listing the turn order.
With regards to 'forgetting' and 'not choosing' being different I would disagree, they are the same thing as far as I am concerned, the trigger has been resolved, you don't get to go back, end of story.
Uh, no. RAW I am never told what order to do them in, therefore I can do them in any order. This is how RAW works, and why going full RAW is absolute stupidty. They are listed, but I am never told this listing is absolute, ergo the order is up to the player. A knowledge of what happens in each phase and how the game works with Focus and such will implicitly tell you that it should be Maintenance/Control/Activation, but it is never explicitly stated (and rightfully so, because we aren't idiots). Doesn't change the fact that Maint/Control/Activ is RAI, not RAW. And for the second part, again: they are not. No matter what you believe, "forgetting" and "choosing not to do" are not the same thing. Therefore the trigger has not been resolved, and the game enters a quagmire. Because you're following RAW, not RAI, remember? Although this has gone off topic, I would like to point out GW never in any way punished anyone for following the rules. Tony won, even if in a dirty way given the circumstances. He was chastised by the internet (but not GW, or even the tournament organisers). If he'd beat the finals, he would've won. All GW did was acknowledge Alex's exceptionally calm handling of the whole situation. Nobody, not even GW, contests that Tony's call was wrong from the rules perspective, only from the "Don't be That Guy" perspective.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 15:00:37 GMT
galrohirI appreciate you are playing Devil Advocate to a certain extent, I am curious though as to whether you would actually be aggrieved if someone did not let you take your vengeance moves after allocating focus and upkeeping spells? and whether you think the rules allow you to go back and do things you have forgotten?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 15:06:19 GMT
also lets just say we do 'play as intended' rather than RAW, I am petty sure the devs intention is that if you forget your vengeance moves you don't get to go back.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Feb 19, 2018 15:22:51 GMT
I believe they intended the order to be mandatory and I fully expect the next rules update to make it so (if they become aware of this.). Rules are written for people who don't know warmachine/Hordes and people who don't know shouldn't have to guess what makes sense in a game they don't yet know.
I want to play RAW as much as possible but I agree this game doesn't work unless both players want it to. I can challenge every measurement and bog the game down to a halt until either me or my opponent gets thrown out of the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct or hitting someone or whatever...
That this game requires that two people colaborate to work means that RAW IS the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 19, 2018 15:27:02 GMT
I believe they intended the order to be mandatory and I fully expect the next rules update to make it so (if they become aware of this.). Rules are written for people who don't know warmachine/Hordes and people who don't know shouldn't have to guess what makes sense in a game they don't yet know. I want to play RAW as much as possible but I agree this game doesn't work unless both players want it to. I can challenge every measurement and bog the game down to a halt until either me or my opponent gets thrown out of the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct or hitting someone or whatever... That this game requires that two people colaborate to work means that RAW IS the way to go. I guess the best way to play is 'Rules as written, but use your brain!'
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Feb 19, 2018 15:37:38 GMT
galrohir I appreciate you are playing Devil Advocate to a certain extent, I am curious though as to whether you would actually be aggrieved if someone did not let you take your vengeance moves after allocating focus and upkeeping spells? and whether you think the rules allow you to go back and do things you have forgotten? It would depend, really, on how important I feel the moves are. I wouldn't ask for a complete takeback though, I'd leave the Focus allocated and the spells upkept (I think thats a verb, anyway....), and ask to take the moves. Not that the second part really matters, unless I stopped upkeeping an spell on the Vengeance-unit. But I'd eat that, after all, I forgot, I should be punished for it. For the record I have told opponents they are forgetting to do stuff (if I remember myself, of course, I've a hard enough time with my own stuff I tell you what!), but that's because I feel dirty if I win and my opponent didn't get to do stuff of that sort. I always wonder "what if he had rememberd to do that". But that's just me. As for the rules? They don't tell me I can go back, but then they don't tell me either. And I know, they don't tell you everything you can't do, but they do tell you some stuff you can't do, which means a strict reading leaves it open to interpretation. Of course any kind of honest interpretation would recognise that being able to take things back is not the intent. But as always it depends on the circumstances. also lets just say we do 'play as intended' rather than RAW, I am petty sure the devs intention is that if you forget your vengeance moves you don't get to go back. I'm pretty sure this is the intent too, but it isn't actually in the rules and so if an opponent wants to, you have to work it out (or call an EO, if you can't resolve the differences). And wether or not you come to an agreement will depend on the board state, your personalities, and a whole host of other things, obviously. And on most situations I'm sure the EO would agree with you, but this isn't a case where you can just point to a rule and resolve it immediately (unlike, say, someone moving unbuffed Man-O-War Shocktroopers 10" and then firing at something 30" away, to put an egregious example.)
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 19, 2018 16:03:22 GMT
So, if you are "playing with intent" against someone, and then you use the same "intent" against them that they have used the rest of the tournament, you are the evil rules lawyer, Galrohir?
I thought that was the point of the thread, not what constitutes intent between GW and PP rules.
|
|