Cycle of the Storm is incredibly strong because of 14.2

[stus67]

I don't see why it wouldn't work this way because the wording is pretty clear, but probably not intended. I would definitely use it this way though in the meantime.

[macrake]

17 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Why would you consider an errata published before the current battletome to be relevant to the current battletome?

When the RAW isn't clear, intent can be helpful. That errata shows intent. It might have changed, sure.

Either way, that errata isn't needed. It still comes down to one of the two interpretations i wrote previously.

And that concludes what I've got to add to this discussion. Email sent for FAQ.

[Donut Assassin]

I read 2.0 core rules and the older faq regarding cycles, that faq clearly supports 2.0 core rules. Read the cycles ability and 3.0 rules, and the ability clearly works as a much better and usable ability (the old one was completely useless). If you try and use the older cycles faq that was for 2.0, in a 3.0 game, it doesn’t make sense, and shouldn’t be used, a stronger argument would be made if they did a actual errata or rewrite for the ability in 2.0, but they didn’t, because it already made sense in 2.0, they were just making it more clear for people trying to read something in 2.0 that was clearly not there.

[Nezzhil]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

That is how it worked in 2nd edition. Since the 3rd edition core rules have changed how wounds are allocated and when slain models are removed, that is no longer how it works.

Definitely going in my FAQ email, along with things like asking why the Lord-Aquilor doesn't have the GRYPH-CHARGER or VANGUARD keywords.

I wanted to bring attention to it in this forum because it seems to be a big change in how these rules work compared to 2nd edition.

It doesn't changed that much. The wounds are only negated and ignored when the unit is detroyed. If the unit is not destroyed the wounds remains and they are allocated as possible as the rules says.

Allocating Wounds is not part of the combat sequence. Allocating Wounds happens when a unit suffers any amount wounds or mortal wounds. 

The combat sequence finish when you allocate ALL the wounds, if the wounds are not negated or allocated the combat sequence CAN'T be finished.

The rules never stablish Allocating Wounds as a linear sequence.

[Donut Assassin]

In 3.0, for the rule to work like it did in 2.0, the ability should be rewritten as something like negate the first wound/mortal that would slay the targeted model.

[PJetski]

Just now, Nezzhil said:

It doesn't changed that much. The wounds are only negated and ignored when the unit is detroyed. If the unit is not destroyed the wounds remains and they are allocated as possible as the rules says.

Allocating Wounds is not part of the combat sequence. Allocating Wounds happens when a unit suffers any amount wounds or mortal wounds. 

The combat sequence finish when you allocate ALL the wounds, if the wounds are not negated or allocated the combat sequence CAN'T be finished.

The rules never stablish Allocating Wounds as a linear sequence.

Allocating Wounds is part of the attack sequence... section 13.3 and 13.3.1 are clear about this.

[Nezzhil]

 

8 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Allocating Wounds is part of the attack sequence... section 13.3 and 13.3.1 are clear about this.

And the Allocating Wounds finish when ALL the wounds are allocated. If you don't allocate all the wounds you don't finish the Allocating Wounds sequence.

 

Edit: you are assuming that the overkill wounds are negated, and that's not true. The overkill wounds remains and they must be allocated as soon as possible.

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Nezzhil

[PJetski]

9 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

And the Allocating Wounds finish when ALL the wounds are allocated. If you don't allocate all the wounds you don't finish the Allocating Wounds sequence.

Yes, but what happens to "overkill" wounds?

Damage done to a destroyed unit is negated (14.1), and a unit is destroyed when the last model is removed from play (1.3). However, models are not removed from play until after all wounds have been allocated (14.2). There seems to be a direct contradiction within the core rules. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by PJetski

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, Pjestki is right here about how the rules technically interact. The model isn't rezzed by cycle of the storm until all wounds are allocated.

What this does mean is that all the other models still die. He's not saying you can cycle of the storm the first model to take damage and that negates all the wounds against all the other models. Per the current way the rule are set up, If you take 10 damage on a 3-man unit with 2 wounds each, all 3 die, then you can choose one not to die using cycle of the storm, then the remaining 4 wounds have already been negated so they don't come back to kill the rezzed guy. 

It does break the core rules though in that if you take 5 damage on that same unit, you lose 2, one's left on 1 wound, and then you rez another...and you now have two models left on 1 wound. Which is not supposed to ever happen. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Nezzhil]

1 minute ago, PJetski said:

Yes, but what happens to "overkill" wounds?

Damage done to a destroyed unit is negated (14.1), and a unit is destroyed when the last model is removed from play (1.3). However, models are not removed from play until after all wounds have been allocated (14.2). There seems to be a direct contradiction within the core rules. 

It is not a contradiction. You are assuming that if something happens and after you remove all the models some wounds remains to be allocated you can't allocated them.

The rules are clear, you finish to Allocate Wounds when all of them are allocated. It never says that the Allocating Wounds is a linear sequence that happens once and after that all the remain wounds are negated.

 

 

[yukishiro1]

The issue is when models are removed, which is what triggers when you use the ability. The rules do explicitly say that no models are removed until all wounds to the unit are allocated and all attacks in that inflicted damage have been resolved. 

Quote

14.2 SLAIN MODELS
Once the number of wounds allocated to a model
equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain
and you cannot allocate any more wounds to it. A
slain model is removed from play (see 1.2.2) after all
of the wounds caused to its unit have been allocated
and all attacks that inflicted damage on the unit have
been resolved.

So you only get to rezzing the model after all the damage has been applied. There's nothing left to apply to the model a second time because by definition it isn't removed until after that process is done. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Nezzhil said:

It is not a contradiction. You are assuming that if something happens and after you remove all the models some wounds remains to be allocated you can't allocated them.

The rules are clear, you finish to Allocate Wounds when all of them are allocated. It never says that the Allocating Wounds is a linear sequence that happens once and after that all the remain wounds are negated.

It is a contradiction

1. You can't allocate wounds to a slain model

2. Slain models are removed after all wounds are allocated

3. Damage is negated when the unit is destroyed

4. A unit is destroyed when all models are removed

All of these statements cannot be true at the same time.

In order to remove a model you have to allocate all the wounds first, but you can't finish allocating wounds because you haven't removed all the models. It's a paradox.

[NinthMusketeer]

We ALL know how Cycle of the Storm works. Some individuals try to pull technicality-ridden RAW shenanigans to negate extra wounds, but we all know how it works.

Edited September 29, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[yukishiro1]

Well, actually, we all know how it's supposed to work, but the core rules don't allow that any more. It's broken no matter how you look at it, there's no way to actually make it work within 3.0 rules except the way that's been posited in this thread. Which does feel unintended. It's just a mess all around. 

[PJetski]

You guys are conflating "how I think it is supposed to work" with "how it used to work". The rules have changed.

If the definition of Destroyed is changed to "all models in a unit are slain" then everything works fine. Not the way you seem to think it works, though.

[yukishiro1]

Your "solution" would still end up with the possibility of a unit ending up with two models on reduced wounds, wouldn't it? Something the game doesn't allow? 

Seems like the better thing to do would be just to say it triggers immediately when the model is slain and restores it to 1 wound. Then you go on allocating wounds. Rule is the same as it was before, fundamental rules of the game are not broken by allowing a situation where you could have 2 models with less than full wounds. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[The Red King]

24 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Your "solution" would still end up with the possibility of a unit ending up with two models on reduced wounds, wouldn't it? Something the game doesn't allow? 

Seems like the better thing to do would be just to say it triggers immediately when the model is slain and restores it to 1 wound. Then you go on allocating wounds. Rule is the same as it was before, fundamental rules of the game are not broken by allowing a situation where you could have 2 models with less than full wounds. 

 

I think it's best (for stormcast) if we just assume it works as posited and then the unit becomes immortal because you have to allocate wounds to a wounded model first and since you cant do that because theres more than one and they cant both be first the wounds arent allocated. Clear and concise, stop using common sense to counteract shenanigans guys geez.

[idn0971]

So destroyed is actually defined in the core rules section 1.3: "A unit is destroyed when the last model in the unit is removed from play."

In any case this clearly requries an FAQ as this is a total mess. I have to agree with PJetski here that there is a contradiction in the rules. RAW models in a unit are not removed until all wounds are allocated to a unit. However, a model that has been slain cannot be allocated more wounds. Once a unit is destroyed it negates all other wounds but as per 1.3 of the core rules quotes above a unit is destroyed when the last model in the unit is removed. Since models cannot be removed until after all wounds have been allocated this means that technically a unit that has been overkilled cannot actually resolve the attack sequence. Clearly this is not intended as it means the game could not end so there is a paradox in the rules.

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Your "solution" would still end up with the possibility of a unit ending up with two models on reduced wounds, wouldn't it? Something the game doesn't allow? 

Seems like the better thing to do would be just to say it triggers immediately when the model is slain and restores it to 1 wound. Then you go on allocating wounds. Rule is the same as it was before, fundamental rules of the game are not broken by allowing a situation where you could have 2 models with less than full wounds. 

 

As per 14.1 you must allocate wounds to a model in a unit until it is slain.

Though it's not possible for the scenario to exist as a result of a standard attack sequence, I don't see anything that explicitly forbids more than one model being wounded at a time in a unit. I could be wrong... can you reference a section that states it is not possible to have two wounded models?

[yukishiro1]

From 14.1:

Quote

However, once you have allocated
a wound to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to
other models in the unit until that model is slain (see
14.2).

If you have two models that are wounded in a unit, you cannot allocate wounds to either one of them because both of them have to be slain before you can allocate wounds to the other. The game literally breaks after another point of damage is dealt to that unit - you can't allocate wounds to any models in the unit, but nothing happens to those wounds either, they just hang there forever. 

The game rules only work if it's impossible for more than one model in a unit to be wounded at the same time. 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Beliman]

If it's broken but there is an "old" FAQ that works, that old FAQ will work as a band aid until it's fixe'd.

[PJetski]

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

From 14.1:

If you have two models that are wounded in a unit, you cannot allocate wounds to either one of them because both of them have to be slain before you can allocate wounds to the other. The game literally breaks after another point of damage is dealt to that unit - you can't allocate wounds to any models in the unit, but nothing happens to those wounds either, they just hang there forever. 

The game rules only work if it's impossible for more than one model in a unit to be wounded at the same time. 

 

 

The practical result of the rules is that you usually don't have two wounded models in a unit, but there is no rule prohibiting that state. 

Having two wounded models doesn't cause any sort of contradiction with the rules. You can't get to that state in a normal attack sequence, but special rules mess with standard core rules all the time.

7 hours ago, Beliman said:

If it's broken but there is an "old" FAQ that works, that old FAQ will work as a band aid until it's fixe'd.

The FAQ is not consistent with how the 3rd edition rules work, though. You don't remove slain models instantly. The 2nd edition FAQ is so obviously irrelevant that it's baffling to me that anyone would prop it up as valid authority.

Edited September 29, 2021 by PJetski

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

The FAQ is not consistent with how the 3rd edition rules work, though. You don't remove slain models instantly. The 2nd edition FAQ is so obviously irrelevant that it's baffling to me that anyone would prop it up as valid authority.

I know. That happened before with "set-up/retreat" interactions. Now is happening with rules like disembarking/leaving a Skyvessel.
It doesn't matter how you look at it, it matters that the rule is still broken and there is an old FAQ that can fix it.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Beliman

[Liquidsteel]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

You don't remove slain models instantly.

Sure, but the Core Rules FAQ allows a scenario where you do remove models then keep on allocating wounds.

Does it contradict itself? Yes.

Does it set a precedent/intent that we can and should apply to Cycle of The Storm? Yes.

[PJetski]

4 minutes ago, Liquidsteel said:

Sure, but the Core Rules FAQ allows a scenario where you do remove models then keep on allocating wounds.

Does it contradict itself? Yes.

Does it set a precedent/intent that we can and should apply to Cycle of The Storm? Yes.

No, I don't think that's correct.

The FAQ specifies a situation where you are removing models that are wounded but not slain. Cycle of the Storm does not fall under this situation, since it activates when you are removing slain models.