Ah, I see your point now I think. You are saying that the "go to unconscious" part of Maestro is the more important part and the wounds lost are simply a way to get there. If that's the intention, then yeah, I would agree. I guess I'm not completely convinced, however. All three of your examples impose an order to the effects (as you stated) and arrive at different conclusions. But if you, instead, say that "lose all wounds" and "lose 1 W" happen at the same time, then you get "lose all + 1 W". Since the redrum wounds can't have happened before maestro, there are still 2 W (in your example for the Beta trooper) to lose for maestro. So the effect would be the first one regardless of order. This, of course, relies on emphasizing the "lose all remaining wounds" part of maestro... To be clear, I think Maestro is a powerful program either way and doesn't really need to be interpreted the way I'm presenting above. Unfortunately, opinions about power level of a skill tend not to matter so much when having a rules debate like this.
"Happens simultaniously" is not the same as "sum up all effects", and this becomes evident when the order of application of those effects changes the outcome. But yeah, its tricky. The only resolution I see is to treat Maestro like "go to the unconscious state", and the "loose all wounds" part is only the way to get there, as in this case, the order of application of the effects does not change the outcome.
To sum up. You lose any wounds from all other programs/bullet, then, if you are not already dead or Unconscious (or 2 for G:RP) you fall Unconscious (first level for G:RP)
Stacking the effects is incorrect on a logical level. Things happen simultaneously. It's neither "Set W Attribute to 0, then apply -1" nor "Apply -1 to W Attribute, then set to 0" Both are wrong. What happens is "set W Attribute to 0 & apply -1 to W Attribute" Maestro doesn't gain you the difference of current Wound value to zero as caused Wounds, it works in parallel to conventional damage when applied during the same Order. And in this case that interaction appears weird, but works fairly straight forward. Swapping Maestro against a hit that inflicts a game state i.e. "gets hit by E/M" makes things easier to understand. Example 1a: Redrum+E/M Grenade vs 1W Trooper Redrum causes wounds, that's easy enough. 1W model fails 1 save and loses 1W. At the same time the E/M Grenade hits. 1W model fails 1 save and goes straight to Isolated. So we have a model that goes to Unconscious from losing Wounds and in parallel to that goes straight to Isolated from taking E/M. -> The effects do not interact or stack with each other. Both effects apply at the same time so the target is now Unconscious and Isolated. Easy enough. Example 1b: Redrum+Maestro vs 1W Trooper Redrum causes wounds, that's easy enough. 1W model fails 1 save and as loses 1W. At the same time Maestro hits. 1W model fails 1 save and goes straight to Unconscious. So we have a model that goes to Unconscious from losing Wounds and in parallel to that goes straight to Unconscious from Maestro losing all remaining Wounds in the process. -> The effects do not interact or stack with each other. Both effects apply at the same time so the target is now Unconscious and Unconscious. Double Unconscious is not equivalent to Unconscious L2 or taking a Wound while already Unconscious. This is not the same as getting hit by 2 Redrum ARO's failing 1 save each. That would add up to 2 Wounds lost and the trooper would end up dead. Result: the Trooper is just Unconscious. Example 2a: Redrum+E/M Grenade vs 2W Trooper 2W Trooper fails 1 save vs Redrum loses 1W. 2W Trooper fails 1 save vs Maestro and goes straight to Isolated. The trooper is now at 1W and Isolated. Example 2b: Redrum+Maestro vs 2W Trooper 2W Trooper fails 1 save vs Redrum and loses 1W. 2W Trooper fails 1 save vs Maestro and goes straight to Unconscious. The trooper is down to 1W from taking Wounds from Redrum and is sent to Unnconscious losing all remaining Wounds at the same time. Effects do not stack again, so the Trooper takes 1W and goes straight Unconsicous. Result: The Trooper is just Unconscious. Example 3: Missle Launcher+Maestro vs 1W Trooper 1W Trooper fails 3 saves vs ML and takes 3 Wounds. 1W Tooper fails 1 save vs Maestro and goes straight to Unconscious. Now we have a trooper that loses 3W from the ML hit and goes Unconscious from the ML.Which results into the model being Dead+Unconscious, with death leading to the model getting removed from play, the same way death would remove an Isolated trooper from the table.
So using your logic and ignoring the fact that Maestro specifically states that the victim “loses all points of his wound attribute and enters the unconscious state” does this mean that any concurrent damage doesn’t stack? If I deal 1 wound via hacking to a mode and 1 wound via shooting since both are only 1 wound and occur simultaneously by your logic a single wound model would only fall unconscious. If the logic is the because the 2 instances of -1 wound occur simultaneously and both have the independent clause of reducing the victim to 0 wounds then why do you make a special exception for wounds with a numerical value allowing them to be summed before applying their effect rather than what you do with maestro where you just apply both effects at once and pick the the worst of the two? Why don’t these 2 affects stack the way that conventional wounds do with unconscious -1W equaling death?
Causing 1W with source A and one 1W with source B in the same Order is different. You end up causing 2x1=2 Wounds which is then removed from the attribute. Then you check for updates on the game state and a normal 1W trooper ends up dead. Maestro doesn't cause a fixed amount of Wounds, it makes the target lose all remaining Wounds till Unconscious Just noticed the best argument for Maestro working the way I laid out is Maestro itself. It has B2. If it would cause Wounds like regular attacks it would stack with itself. And in that case failing 2 BTS rolls against Maestro in a single Order would result in losing twice the remaining Wounds in damage. i.e. a HI Hacker with 2 remaining Wounds would lose 4 when failing 2 BTS rolls vs Maestro. I'm dead certain Maestro doesn't stack with itself. And the logical conclusion from that is it also doesn't stack with regular loss of Wounds through other Ammo types inflicted in the same Order RAW. Spoiler Mind you CB might very well FAQ Maestro to stack with itself, other sources of Wounds to stack with Maestro or both. Which is much easier to play, but stupidly OP albeit situational. CB has been very hit or miss FAQing stuff the "logical" way. Prominent examples are the NWI FAQ (including how it got reverted) and the Stealth FAQ. The problem is in essence similar to Quantum mechanics. Altering the state of a single thing twice simultaneously doesn't happen in regular math. A normal math formula can't apply two different operations at the same time. Set to 0 and simultaneously -1 isn't possible. So you'll have to isolate both operations and marry the results in a way that makes sense. Operation A Variable W=1 minus 1 => 0 Operation B Variable W=1 set to 0 => 0 Now you're stuck with 2 results that are both true but still have to merged somehow. In this case it's fairly easy because 0 and 0 match, so Variable W is now 0. Mathematically we're pretty fucked if the results are different as our variable now has an undefined state. Fortunately we can simply pick the "lower" result when applying this to Infinity. Dead trumps Unconscious as a game state after all. Pretty sure CB didn't see that potential problem coming when they introduced Maestro
Small note, @Teslarod , Maestro specifically states that more than one failed BTS from Maesteo during the same or subsequent orders have no effect, unless the target gas recovered.
This is an excellent argument and you had me convinced until @Mahtamori commented about the Maestro skill explicitly not stacking with itself in its own rules text. Again, it comes down to whether or not "lose all points of his Wounds/STR Attribute" is subservient to "enter the Unconscious state". If so, I'm totally behind you. Additionally, I'll be playing this way in my local meta. But until we learn the relationship between those two effects, it's somewhat of an open question and should probably be addressed in an official manner.
In M:tG, if any effects or abilities would be applied or triggered simultaneously, their controller chooses the order. I would like CB to include the rules on the order in which simultaneous effects are applied in the N4 rules.
@Section9: no problem, could the people who participate to the discussion check my summary Original topic : https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/maestro-and-concurrent-aros.35996/ Situation : a trooper receive damage from the Maestro hacking program and another source (bs attack, skullbuster...). Other source cause 1 damage, Maestro cause the target to fall unconscious. What happen ? Answer : 1 : Maestro cause the trooper to fall unconscious, Other source cause one wound which make the trooper fall unsconscious. Trooper fall unconscious. 2 : Maestro cause the trooper to fall unconscious then Other source cause one wound which make the trooper dead 3 : Maesto causes the target to lose all points of his Wounds/STR and the Other source cause one wound. The trooper take a number of wound equal to his Wound attribute +1 => he dies
I think 2 is redundant at best and misleading at worst. It's really either 1 (unconscious) or 3 (lose all wounds).
I don't think the game system benefits from a "player X chooses order" as this makes for a subjective order and inevitably leads to arguments being settled in the same way (such as, I'm not sure how this works out, so I'm gonna choose how instead of looking it up because I'm active player). As far as I'm aware, this is the only instance where order is critical, it is better to simply build those instances out of the system.
From a game design perspective, it's much easier to simply declare that in case of X do Y then trying to root out the X out of the equation. As for the "I'm not sure how this works out, so I'm gonna choose how instead of looking it up because I'm active player", how is it different from the current situation? I am not entirely sure I understand the point you're trying to make
It's easier, but it's also lazier and worse design. In case of MTG it's necessary for the huge sprawl of different interactions and the necessity of keeping cards concise, but in case of Infinity the rule set isn't actually that large and the game doesn't have an annual truck load of new interactions dumped on it. Additionally, it also adds needless complexity for newbies who need to be aware of when they are the masters to choose and what the optimal choices would be. The point I'm trying to make is; fix the rule instead of dump responsibility on players In this specific case, which I think is the only case, simply adding that the unit will enter unconscious at the end of the order, prior to making guts rolls would suffice to make for an entirely consistent timing. (This is incidentally the same outcome as if active player would choose 90% of the time as unless the active player wants their unit to die, they will choose to have Maestro take effect last during failed AROs and EVO is so uncommon that using Maestro actively together with other programs is very uncommon - so why not codify it and make it fully consistent and predictable?)
Okay, I see your point now. I wouldn't call it lazy design, though. Somehow I doubt we will ever have a ruleset as clear as we'd like it to be (I'd like to have the M:tG level of clarity, if anything). So, I think it is better to have at least that lazy design solution than no solution at all. But my point wasn't exactly about having an ability to choose the order of applying the effects, I was advocating for having that order clearly defined in the rules, be it something like "Active Player chooses" or "in the order of APRP (Active Player, then Reactive Player)" or whatever else they may come up with (that still makes sense).
There is such a rule for order of skill declarations, I think, but I think they've fixed the rules sufficiently that there is no way of that rule ever being used. The problem with having this rule is that it allows you to design further lazy rules that rely on it. MTG is by no means the ideal rule set, but it has formalised a way of handling a set of rules filled with janky interactions and legacy rules interactions which makes it admirable. Newer rules, however, should not be designed to create legacy headaches that needs solving this way unless the entire point of the resolution is to make one player have an advantage over the other. I just remembered one more place where this might actually be a relevant and necessary rule to have; Guts Roll movement.
Please note that I never said that M:tG rules are ideal. I was discussing their level of clarity. Please do not add extra meaning to my words, for it is not there.
I’m unsure why this thread is still being argued... The previous discussions @ijw refers to are the ones where @Hecaton tried asserting this same “simultaneous outcomes apply in sequence” interpretation and was roundly debunked.
