Author Topic: Discussion about Current First Strike vs First Strike rules (Read 6674 times)

browarod · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:42:51 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on January 08, 2014, 11:40:01 AM

That's not logically intuitive then. The reason a first strike character survives in mutual destruction is because that character is 'hitting' before the other character has a chance to assign lethal damage back. What is intuitive about letting two characters that are hitting each other first both survive the battle?

MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:45:21 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 08, 2014, 11:42:51 AM

The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?

The rules also state that when both sides have it, each side has the opportunity to "move the state away from mutual destruction," meaning that is still the state. The rules for mutual destruction says if the battle ends in that state, both sides are discarded. You can also say that, following the rules logically, both are discarded.

So, we are at an impasse. Is there any Elder input we can get on this? I think that, regardless of the ruling they want, the entry is going to need to be updated, as it is obviously able to be read in completely different ways currently.

Master KChief · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:49:58 AM »

Surviving in mutual destruction because of first strike is just another way of saying one character hits another character first at battle resolution. It's not hard to make that logical leap.

However, saying both survive because they both have first strike makes no sense and is just an exploitation of what the rules say versus what they actually mean. Does double first strike somehow put a magical immunity bubble around them both? That doesn't sound intuitive in the least.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2014, 12:22:07 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on January 08, 2014, 11:49:58 AM

Surviving in mutual destruction because of first strike is just another way of saying one character hits another character first at battle resolution. It's not hard to make that logical leap.

I'm OK with the logical leap, but we need the rules to state as much. As evidenced by this thread (and apparently previous threads), we are all not in agreement with what the rules are saying.

A simple addition like:

If more than one character in a battle has a First Strike ability, only the first character presented in that battle will not be discarded in a Mutual Destruction. All other characters will be discarded regardless of their First Strike ability.

browarod · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2014, 12:48:49 PM »

First Strike entry in REG:
A first strike ability allows a character to survive if a battle ends in the mutual destruction state.

Quote from: Redoubter on January 08, 2014, 11:45:21 AM

The rules also state that when both sides have it, each side has the opportunity to "move the state away from mutual destruction," meaning that is still the state. The rules for mutual destruction says if the battle ends in that state, both sides are discarded. You can also say that, following the rules logically, both are discarded.

I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied, that it says that. I fully agree that it says that (I can read, you know

). First strike only applies in mutual destruction scenarios so obviously it's still in a mutual destruction state if we're discussing first strike, and the part I quoted above (which is the part I've always been referring to) also states the same. We're not in disagreement on that point, haha.

However, first strike specifically states, as quoted above, that it allows a character to survive mutual destruction. There's nothing later in the definition or clarifications that says a character doesn't get to survive if an opposing character also has first strike. The only clarification is how to determine initiative if both sides have first strike which makes sense. It doesn't say anything about changing the fact that first strike keeps the character alive.

I feel like people are getting stuck on the name of the ability (first strike) and assuming that means something is sneaking in before something else when that's not the case by the definition of the ability. If the ability was called "vacuum cleaner" and the entry said "A vacuum cleaner ability allows a character to survive if a battle ends in the mutual destruction state" I don't think we'd have people clamoring that the vacuum cleaners end up sucking each other up and both dying.

Spoiler: Obligatory Vacuum Cleaner card (hover to show)

Master KChief · « **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:13:27 PM »

Special abilities for the most part are named so they do something associated with its namesake. That's what makes special abilities intuitive towards the player on how they're possibly supposed to operate. 'Vacuum Cleaner' and surviving mutual destruction draws no parallels whatsoever.

I can understand where you're coming from based on a strict reading of the ability which can cause some workarounds and exploits, but I have a strong feeling that is not what is intended with the ability.

redemption collector 777 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:23:21 PM »

Maybe this has been already addressed , just a thought

While discussing about First strike rules maybe we could also consider what might/would happen if 2 heroes in battle have first strike and 1 (or 2) EC has First strike and both sides have enough strength to defeat each other. who would survive? etc

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:31:16 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on January 08, 2014, 01:13:27 PM

I can understand where you're coming from based on a strict reading of the ability which can cause some workarounds and exploits, but I have a strong feeling that is not what is intended with the ability.

I lol'ed the first time I read that definition. Your interpretation is much more intuitive, however, many rulings are far from that way and follow strict readings of the rules. So I agree with you and everyone else that things need to be cleared up. Even if it is clear to some people its obviously not to others which is unneccessary given.

What could you really do about it? Just define FS along the lines of defeating and therefore the character indirectly suvives? So like

FS. "A first strike ability allows a character to defeat the opposing character in battle in the mutual destruction state." And add a clarification about FS vs FS too. I wonder if there is a problem there with defeat since both characters are "defeating" each other but maybe not because that is what is happening in mutual destruction anyways.

redemption collector 777 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2014, 03:14:22 PM »

Just wondering did we come to a conclusion about First strike vs First Strike?

Is it do both discard each other , whoever had it first or both return to territory??

or is this topic still debatable?

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2014, 04:36:51 PM »

We pretty much need some Elder input, all sides have basis in the rules. We'll try to get some Elder input on it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #35 on:** January 21, 2014, 05:44:52 AM »

1 - I'm not completely convinced one way or another, and reserve the right to change my opinion on this after reading input from other elders and forum members

2 - I have had the traditional view that "First Strike" means that a character strikes first in a mutual destruction situation and therefore discards the other character and survives. I have also always played by the "first person with First Strike wins" caveat. Therefore my leaning would be something like YMT proposes:

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 08, 2014, 12:22:07 PM

If more than one character in a battle has a First Strike ability, only the first character [to activate that ability] in that battle will not be discarded in a Mutual Destruction. All other characters will be discarded regardless of their First Strike ability.

3 - Without this clarification being added to the rules, I think that the most logical outcome would be that both characters are discarded and a LS is won. I am most opposed to the idea that both characters survive.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:49:21 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 21, 2014, 05:44:52 AM

I have had the traditional view that "First Strike" means that a character strikes first in a mutual destruction situation and therefore discards the other character and survives. I have also always played by the "first person with First Strike wins" caveat.

I'd be concerned about this view due to the overhaul necessary to First Strike in order to make it work that way, because you'd have to make it so that any other First Strike abilities aren't able to work, and that involves that first activation being able to 'restrict' the other activations, which also seems illogical (that those other abilities do nothing, even when not being targeted). It would also lead to some very complicated rules involving multiple First Strike abilities and negation/undoing negation.

My recommended rule:

"If more than one side of a battle has at least one character with First Strike, first compare the strength and toughness of each side, only using the strength on those characters with First Strike; if one or both sides would be discarded by that strength alone, then those characters are defeated (being defeated for the purposes of determining initiative, or defeated and discarded if during Battle Resolution). If any characters remain after this step, resolve the battle without considering First Strike present."

So, basically, all First Strike strength is used first, and one or both sides could be defeated in that step, then you could determine initiative exactly as the current rules specify, but you'd also have the ability to use it to determine mutual destruction or defeat at the end of battle.

Praeceps · « **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:06:20 PM »

O we could resolve it with a shot and sweet addition. If both sides of a battle have first strike, it is resolved with all dying. Keeps things simple. No funky math, no worrying about whose was negated and reactivated or anything similar. If both sides have an active first strike ability both sides die. Easy, clear, no misunderstandings.

Redoubter · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:33:00 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on January 21, 2014, 02:06:20 PM

O we could resolve it with a shot and sweet addition. If both sides of a battle have first strike, it is resolved with all dying. Keeps things simple. No funky math, no worrying about whose was negated and reactivated or anything similar. If both sides have an active first strike ability both sides die. Easy, clear, no misunderstandings.

I think this is made in jest, but we obviously wouldn't want to have a situation where one side would be discarded if they have more toughness than the other side's strength

The Guardian · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:51:40 PM »

I think Praeceps was implying a mutual destruction situation with First Strike on both sides.

I have also always been under the impression that the "first" First Strike takes effect and all future First Strike abilities are essentially ignored. I don't see the need for an overhaul simply because that is what I always believed the rule to be, and I thought that it was stated in the rulebook and/or REG. I'm like 99% certain I've read that rule in the REG before--though it was likely an old version of the REG.

Redoubter · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:26:29 PM »

The rules specifically mention that there can be two different sides with First Strike, and even goes into how to handle them for initiative:

Quote from: REG 2.0

If there are first strike abilities on both sides of battle, then the side that activated a first strike ability first gets the first opportunity to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state. If that side of battle is unable to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state, the other side of battle then gets a chance.

So, according to the rules, we know that the other first strike activations aren't 'ignored'. I'm not even sure how you could have that happen, since the ability doesn't target anything so that it could do so. It would be an overhaul to actually put it in the state that only the 'first' works.

The Guardian · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:36:44 PM »

That is the current REG, which I agree is the final word, however I am unaware of when such a change was made. Apparently the "overhaul" already happened.

CactusRob · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:43:36 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 08, 2014, 11:42:51 AM

MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?

~~Correct.~~ I misread browarod's last sentence. Since there is no advantage if both have first strike then in a mutual destruction both characters are discarded. When I re-read it today, I saw that it sounded like I was saying both characters survive in a mutual destruction.

First strike adds an advantage if one character has it and the opposing character does not. If two opposing characters each have first strike neither has an advantage as it relates to First Strike.

Using rulings on a things like protection, I can understand how players could assume that "first in" might apply to First Strike. But, with First Strike it does not matter.

redemption collector 777 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 27, 2014, 01:22:35 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on January 21, 2014, 03:43:36 PM

Quote from: browarod on January 08, 2014, 11:42:51 AM
MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?

~~Correct~~ I misread browarod's last sentence. Since there is no advantage if both have first strike then in a mutual destruction both characters are discarded. When I re-read it today, I saw that it sounded like I was saying both characters survive in a mutual destruction.

First strike adds an advantage if one character has it and the opposing character does not. If two opposing characters each have first strike neither has an advantage as it relates to First Strike.

Using rulings on a things like protection, I can understand how players could assume that "first in" might apply to First Strike. But, with First Strike it does not matter.

Should this ruling that Cactus Rob just said , should be added to the REG in the First Strike Definition asap? The if two opposing characters each have first strike part of it?

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** January 27, 2014, 05:04:19 PM »

Quote from: redemption collector 777 on January 27, 2014, 01:22:35 PM

Should this ruling that Cactus Rob just said , should be added to the REG in the First Strike Definition asap? The if two opposing characters each have first strike part of it?

I'm sure it will be added in an update to the REG when that next occurs, but there will be an updated FAQ soonish that should help put these types of boards-only rulings together until the update is able to happen. It is the rule, we'll just have to get it to the right places (once the wording is hammered out, too)

browarod · « **Reply #45 on:** January 27, 2014, 05:42:13 PM »

In the meantime (until the REG is updated) I have added the clarification (I don't think anything changed, just confirmed to be how it's usually ruled) to the appropriate page of the Wiki which displays on the right-hand side of the home page/landing.

CactusRob · « **Reply #46 on:** February 06, 2014, 03:40:56 PM »

I edited my post above.

browarod · « **Reply #47 on:** February 06, 2014, 05:13:20 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on February 06, 2014, 03:40:56 PM

I edited my post above.

Thanks for the clarification!

The Guardian · « **Reply #48 on:** February 07, 2014, 01:47:06 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 21, 2014, 02:51:40 PM

I have also always been under the impression that the "first" First Strike takes effect and all future First Strike abilities are essentially ignored. I don't see the need for an overhaul simply because that is what I always believed the rule to be, and I thought that it was stated in the rulebook and/or REG. I'm like 99% certain I've read that rule in the REG before--though it was likely an old version of the REG.

Quote from: 10th Anniversary Rulebook

If opposing characters in battle both have first strike ability, the character who gained it first takes precedence.

I'm fine with Rob's ruling, but it is a change...I knew I wasn't crazy, well not that crazy anyway...

Redoubter · « **Reply #49 on:** February 07, 2014, 07:09:09 AM »

Yeah, I was actually wondering if that quote was expanded into the new REG for the initiative order, and if perhaps that is what it was initially supposed to refer to (precedence in playing, not in surviving). Who knows, but at least we have a ruling?

News:

Author Topic: Discussion about Current First Strike vs First Strike rules (Read 6674 times)

browarod

browarod

TheHobbit13

browarod

browarod