PDA

View Full Version : I need more information: immediately ends vs end of activation triggers.



jack frost
10-04-2014, 04:13 PM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?212115-If-there-is-no-difference

in this thread Macallan says

"Acceleration's tactical tip is quite clear on how it works.
Rallying rules might not be as clear as they should, that's why we clarified how it works.
That Valander's answer ended up being correct does not mean that the reasoning itself was correct."

the reason I'm making this thread is because I don't understand the reasoning here. a thread from years ago is brought back from the dead by the infernals with a new ruling BUT NO INFORMATION IS PUT FORWARD AS TO WHY THE RULING WAS CHANGED.

yes, it was an assumption that the switch in the ruling here :https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?33246-When-does-a-rally-actually-take-place was because of pre-infernal-being valander's logic was correct.

but the above quote from currently-infernal-macallen seems to indicate that 1) either its not the reason for the switch, or 2) if it is the reason, then it doesn't matter because they can apply the rules differently in diffferent parts of the game.

either way, I feel like more information is needed. I don't just want to know what the rules are, I want to be able to understand how they function so that we can get work done while we play and not just have to come here whenever there is an issue.

at the end of the day, I and others, are getting confused by "end of activation" triggers and "immediately ends activation" effects.

immediately ends activation seems to skip end of activation triggers. is that the case? does immediately ends activation *as a rule* skip end of activation triggers?

MagnustheJust
10-04-2014, 04:36 PM
We are usually not privy as to why the ruling changed... only that changes were made.

Mod_Neldar
10-04-2014, 04:53 PM
End of activation triggers like Sprint and Reform and Light Cavalry Moves do not trigger if something causes your activation to immediately end (failed charge, run).

This ruling is a near literal read of the ruling. A literal read would result in a model never being able to rally because rally checks are optional and fleeing models must run which would normally disallow any optional end of activation effects. This reversal hinges on assuming the rule functions despite the normal prohibitions.

They did say why the ruling was changed. The original one from four years ago was wrong.

jack frost
10-04-2014, 06:30 PM
We are usually not privy as to why the ruling changed... only that changes were made.

which would be fine except if we don't know why the rules work the way they do, we cannot apply them in circumstances that aren't described in the book.

basically, there is a step in an activation called "end of activation step" that must resolve anytime a players activation ends except when it is forcibly ended immediately.

I would like to know if *activation ends immediately* is a rulebook effect that, in all cases, causes a model to skip over the "end of activation" step.

if that's the case then that's fine, but I want to know if that's a rulebook effect in all cases because if that's the case then what would happen if a model ran into melee with cmd check causing model, then failed their test?

since they still make the test, would they make the test after the end of activation step (which is skipped)? so is there an after end of activation step that rallying lives in all by itself?

Leonard_Dukes
10-04-2014, 06:51 PM
what would happen if a model ran into melee with cmd check causing model, then failed their test?

since they still make the test, would they make the test after the end of activation step (which is skipped)? so is there an after end of activation step that rallying lives in all by itself?

A model that fails a Command Check during its activation immediately Flees, and its activation ends. Just before its activation ends, it may attempt to rally via a second Command Check (per the recent Infernal ruling reversal). The rally check occurs at the end of the model's/unit's activation because the core rules say so (Primal MkII, p87) and the rally check occurs even though "at the end of activation" triggers don't typically happen if activation is caused to immediately end, because the Infernals say so.

jack frost
10-04-2014, 10:37 PM
Lol. So "the infernals say so" is a replacement of the actual rulebook?

I thought the infernals only explained the rules as they are or if something extra is to be added then that is part of an errata. Is it in the purview of the infernals job to add rules to the game in text posts?

I only ask because the only official rules documents I know of are the errata and the rulebook. Am I wrong in that regard?

Can rules be added to the game on the fly in the rules forum without getting added to the errata?

Leonard_Dukes
10-04-2014, 11:02 PM
I thought the infernals only explained the rules as they are or if something extra is to be added then that is part of an errata. Is it in the purview of the infernals job to add rules to the game in text posts?

Probably 99% of the rulings issued by Infernals are simply clarifications on existing rules. Occasionally, developer intent may deviate from the rules-as-written enough to warrant an inclusion in the errata.

I have no idea if this particular ruling is one of those, but in any case the errata are not updated via live stream, so yes - sometimes all we have to go on, at least for a time, is Infernal clarification or modification of the rules-as-written.

Falkman
10-05-2014, 02:30 AM
Lol. So "the infernals say so" is a replacement of the actual rulebook?
That is correct. Infernal rulings hold the same value as errata.

Stormpuppy_Infantry
10-05-2014, 03:42 AM
Lol. So "the infernals say so" is a replacement of the actual rulebook?

I thought the infernals only explained the rules as they are or if something extra is to be added then that is part of an errata. Is it in the purview of the infernals job to add rules to the game in text posts?

I only ask because the only official rules documents I know of are the errata and the rulebook. Am I wrong in that regard?

Can rules be added to the game on the fly in the rules forum without getting added to the errata?



These fine soldiers of the shadow are here to answer your question and help you resolve any issues you have with the rules. Their words are official.

Sure. They give us ruling as well as explaining how rules are works. Infernal's ruling in this forum is the official ruling of PP, just like as an errata.

Mod_Neldar
10-05-2014, 04:13 AM
Lol. So "the infernals say so" is a replacement of the actual rulebook?

I thought the infernals only explained the rules as they are or if something extra is to be added then that is part of an errata. Is it in the purview of the infernals job to add rules to the game in text posts?

I only ask because the only official rules documents I know of are the errata and the rulebook. Am I wrong in that regard?

Can rules be added to the game on the fly in the rules forum without getting added to the errata?

No and yes.

When something comes up that is definitely not intended, poorly worded, or simply not adequately covered by the rules as written the Infernals can add rules to the game to clear it up. In most cases the ruling is incorporated into the next errata. Sometimes it isn't however (see Gunfighter with Reach). All Infernal rulings are confirmed with the developers prior to being posted.

You are wrong. There are three official rule sources: the rulebooks, the errata, and the Infernal posts in this forum.

Yes, though it is uncommon for the new rules to not be added to the errata.

One thing to remember is that almost all "Infernal rulings" are not actually rulings but clarifications and confirmations. There are a handful of posts here that actually change the game that aren't in the rulebook or errata so it is much easier than it seems to keep up to date on them.

The Captain
10-05-2014, 05:28 AM
Why was it ruled this way?

Because as it stands, end of activation abilities and rules do not trigger if a model's activation ends prematurely (run, failed charge, failed CMD check against terrifying entity, etc.).

However, the rules specify a specific instance where you are allowed to do one "end of activation" thing before prematurely ending your activation, and that is rallying. It's a case of a rule specifying its interaction with a general rule and thus taking precedence. It is not a blanket change to how end of activation works. (Similarly, Assault specifies that the assault shot can be taken before activation ends. That has never meant you get to do other, voluntary "end of activation" stuff along with Assault.)

The "ruling" is not a change to anything. It simply tells you how you should read the rulebook, i.e. apply this specific interaction to this specific case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why did they "rule" it that way? Because people were doing it wrong.

jack frost
10-06-2014, 09:11 AM
The "ruling" is not a change to anything. It simply tells you how you should read the rulebook, i.e. apply this specific interaction to this specific case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why did they "rule" it that way? Because people were doing it wrong.

First I understand what is happening now and for that im grateful.

Second people werent doing it wrong. THEY RULED IT THE OTHER WAY for 2 years. People were doing it the way they had said.

And they did make a change. The ruling for 2 years was to do it the other way. They just up and changed their mind rulebook be dammned.

So this isnt a clarification by amy stretch. Amd we still have no idea why they changed their mind. We are still just following rulings by wrote instead of being able to understand how the rules developers see the structure of their own rules.

And thats the way it is. I accept that. Thanks for all the replies.

Tieger
10-06-2014, 10:24 AM
am i missing something? is it not simply that *optional* things, like light cav and reform, dont trigger if your activation ends prematurely, but *forced* things, like rally checks and assault shots, do still trigger?

Mod_Neldar
10-06-2014, 10:30 AM
am i missing something? is it not simply that *optional* things, like light cav and reform, dont trigger if your activation ends prematurely, but *forced* things, like rally checks and assault shots, do still trigger?

Rally checks are optional.

Macallan
10-06-2014, 02:07 PM
I made a mistake with my answer four years ago. I was quite sure of my facts and I was wrong. As written you may rally during each of your turn, including the one when you fail your command check. I was mistaken due to a very slight and unnoticed change in the wording between Remix and MkII. The question was 'recently' brought back to my attention and I checked it with the developers. It ended up that my old answer was wrong. So I assure you that it is not a change, but a correction. That's for the rule question about fleeing. You may rally the turn you flee (if you start fleeing during your activation); that's not a change but a correction, and it has nothing to do with the "end of activation" discussions.

Now there is the wording issue with "at the end of activation" and "when activation ends".
If something ends your activation, "at the end of activation" stuff is not resolved. But "when activation ends" stuff is resolved.
That's something that is not quite clear from the book but we can agree that something happening at the end of a movie happens during the movie while something happening when the movie ends happens after the end of the movie.
Because of this distinction between "at the end" and "when it ends", we have issued a few errata (Cankerworm, Stone Scribe Chronicler) to make wording match intent.

With this in mind, the current written timing of rallying does not work, technically, since when you flee you run and when you run, your activation ends so no "at the end of activation" effect... but that's when rally attempts are supposed to happen. Will someone here be of the opinion that there is never a rally attempt? I hope none is obtuse. It does happen despite the technically incorrect wording. This has nothing to do with the reversal of my old incorrect ruling on what happens if you first flee during your activation. Will there be an erratum to rally rules to remove this slight wording issue? May be, may be not, I usually do not announce erratum in this forum.

I hope this clears that.

jack frost
10-06-2014, 02:24 PM
I made a mistake with my answer four years ago. I was quite sure of my facts and I was wrong. As written you may rally during each of your turn, including the one when you fail your command check. I was mistaken due to a very slight and unnoticed change in the wording between Remix and MkII. The question was 'recently' brought back to my attention and I checked it with the developers. It ended up that my old answer was wrong. So I assure you that it is not a change, but a correction. That's for the rule question about fleeing. You may rally the turn you flee (if you start fleeing during your activation); that's not a change but a correction, and it has nothing to do with the "end of activation" discussions.

Now there is the wording issue with "at the end of activation" and "when activation ends".
If something ends your activation, "at the end of activation" stuff is not resolved. But "when activation ends" stuff is resolved.
That's something that is not quite clear from the book but we can agree that something happening at the end of a movie happens during the movie while something happening when the movie ends happens after the end of the movie.
Because of this distinction between "at the end" and "when it ends", we have issued a few errata (Cankerworm, Stone Scribe Chronicler) to make wording match intent.

With this in mind, the current written timing of rallying does not work, technically, since when you flee you run and when you run, your activation ends so no "at the end of activation" effect... but that's when rally attempts are supposed to happen. Will someone here be of the opinion that there is never a rally attempt? I hope none is obtuse. It does happen despite the technically incorrect wording. This has nothing to do with the reversal of my old incorrect ruling on what happens if you first flee during your activation. Will there be an erratum to rally rules to remove this slight wording issue? May be, may be not, I usually do not announce erratum in this forum.

I hope this clears that.

you know what, that's really helpful Macallan. the difference between "at the end of activation" and "when activation ends". see I was confused because these words seem to mean something different to me then to you.

and hey I might be wrong here, but what I'm hearing you say now is that "at the end of activation" is what it is while "when activation ends" actually means "after an activation has ended".

is that right? one is at the end but during and one is right after the end?

if I'm not wrong in understanding you this helps immensely with understanding why certain rulings went one way and others went the other way other than the common "because that's how they ruled it" answer that I get so often.

Phantasmagorium
10-06-2014, 02:41 PM
is that right? one is at the end but during and one is right after the end?

That's exactly what he is saying. To steal Macallan's movie analogy, "At the end of activation/the movie" is during the credits of the movie - light cav movement and such takes place here. "When activation/the movie ends" is when the film is pulled out and you stand up to leave the theater - rally checks and such happen here. Effects that force the end of your turn (failed charge, run, etc) are like skipping the credits.