-
In the process of digesting the complete rules of Bang! – including FAQs and designer rulings in Web forums – the one thing that I have found more confusing than anything else, ever since I first read it, is the rule defined by entry Q17 in the FAQ. (Note: It seems it was Q18 in earlier editions of the FAQ.)
Q17. Does Burt Cassidy or El Gringo draw a card when he loses his last life point - so if it's a Beer, they can save themselves?
A. No, if they lose their last life point without a Beer in their hand, they are dead. However, if Burt Cassidy plays immediately a Beer card from the hand, saving himself and remaining alive, he will be able to draw the card due to the lost life point.
Why is that FAQ-defined rule even there at all, in the first place? (Why this complication?) And what are the implications? On the off chance that it might be of some interest to others, I though I'd share my own findings and thought process on this (even if a bit tortuous and lengthy).
1. Death Instant on Zero Life Points?
The first possibility that – briefly – crossed my mind was that the disabling of Cassidy's and El Gringo's abilities would actually be caused by their literal death, before their abilities could be used. Meaning death is instant as soon as your life level drops to zero. I have seen a lot of language that would seem to imply exactly that – even in the FAQ entry itself.
However, if death really were instant, the consequences would be just too mind-bogglingly insane to handle, as far as I can see – both theme-wise (beginning with drinking of Beer at zero life, which would then not be life-saving but literally resurrecting) and, worse, game-mechanically. While considering the topic of what happens on multiple deaths by Gatling or Indians alone, it seemed inescapable to me that people stay alive for a long time after they dropped to zero life points. And that's only the beginning of it, I believe. So, unless I am totally missing some truly profound part of the game, then, for the sake of sanity alone, I think whatever seeming implications that death is instant must be assumed to be hyperboles and non-literal language.
More precisely, Bart Cassidy and El Gringo are still very much alive when the rule of this FAQ entry has them lose their abilities, not dead at all. Of that I am certain.
2. A General Ability Freeze while Dying?
My next attempt to understand FAQ entry Q17 went like this: If being brought to zero life doesn't immediately kill you, then maybe it immediately freezes any character ability of yours? According to the FAQ entry, Cassidy's and El Gringo's abilities evidently are triggered by any life loss, also when it takes them to zero life or below. But, at zero or below life, actual play of the abilities will apparently be kept frozen, for some reason, until life has been restored to +1 (by play of Beer). Could this be due to a general rule of the game?
As far as explanations for FAQ entry Q17 go, this idea of a general freeze while dying didn't initially seem too shabby to me. And in fact, I have for quite some time now been living and playing in the belief that this was indeed how that mysterious rule was intended to be read.
The first problem with the generality of such a dying rule was, of course, the exception of Sid Ketchum, who very definitely can use his ability while at zero life. But then, I thought he could get away with being an exception, thanks to the Beer-mimicking quality of his ability. (The Beer card is a big exception in itself, so anything mimicking it could be as well, I guess.)
The final revelation only came to me just the other day, when I was about to reply to a question about Suzy Lafayette coming out of a Duel at zero cards and zero life. I was going to tell the previous answerer that he was sadly wrong about Suzy being allowed to draw for Beer. Instead, I would assert, Suzy in this situation would surely die – by the analogy of Bart Cassidy and El Gringo in the FAQ. Boy, would that have been embarrassing! I later realized that guy is co-founder of daVinci games, and editor of the Bang! rules, so whatever he says on Bang! can probably be taken to be official rulings. Fortunately, before I posted, I had a further look around and found confirmation by the designer too (even if indirect) that Suzy's ability still works, even when she is at zero (or below) life! (And if Suzy's ability continues to work unhindered at zero life, I am assuming Molly Stark's – in Dodge City – will too.)
So no general dying rule at all. Just a special rule for Bart Cassidy and El Gringo alone. (In retrospect, it was no doubt stupid of me to ever think otherwise. Had the designer meant Suzy Lafayette to be covered by Q17, he surely wouldn't have forgotten to mention her.)
3. The What-Life-Points-are-Worth-Cards Rule (Real Rule of Q17)
Conclusions: No, the ability freeze isn't caused by Cassidy or El Gringo being "already dead" (they aren't) or "already killed" (they weren't). They are still alive and well at the point when their abilities cease to function – just as I had already assumed. But it goes beyond even that: the ability freeze isn't even caused by the game state of life being at zero! (Despite what I had assumed.)
The general rule there is, seems to be just this:
No card can be drawn for the loss of your last life point
– nor for any further lowering of your life (below zero).
That's it. Nothing more. (This incidentally could be said to be true also for Chuck Wengam in Dodge City.)
Stated this way, it would be immediately obvious why the rule of Q17 is utterly irrelevant to Suzy Lafayette or anybody else with an ability that isn't specifically driven by life loss. (Including Sid Ketchum and Molly Stark.) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the game states of life, death or life levels. It is purely about what life points can be transformed into cards. If the life level is at zero or below, then that's of no consequence to Suzy, Sid or Molly and they can still continue to use their abilities like it's nothing. (And they are, needless to say, just as alive when they do so, as Bart Cassidy and El Gringo are when prevented from it.)
The Complications
Unfortunately, this simple rule – for the card-drawing worth of individual life points – is complicated in two ways:
1. An odd exception for Beer: If life can be restored to +1 through play of Beer cards, then (for some reason) cards for the full life loss can still be drawn, retroactively.
2. Card rewards are not on a life-point-by-life-point basis. They are on an effect-by-effect basis. So if Bart Cassidy has 3 life points, and is hit by a Dynamite, you might have expected him to draw 2 cards (for his loss from 3 to 1). But instead he draws zero cards, as the full effect had him go to zero life and thus is disqualified in its entirety as a basis for card drawing. (Unless he can restore his life with Beer on hand, in which case he retroactively draws 3 cards for the full effect.)
I still haven't figured out quite how to make sense of these two. Whatever their merits, it seems to me that they obscure the true character and purpose of this rule, and without them, I would never have been misled into the wild goose chase for other reasons and implications. I wish that at least the second one had been dropped, and the first one changed to simply allow each and every reactive play of a Beer card to count as one "additional life point loss" worth a card (even when it is from a negative life level). Meaning that Cassidy with 2 life points, when hit by dynamite, would immediately draw one card, and then one more for each Beer he plays after that (3 cards in total if he survives, otherwise less). Or just drop both and leave the rule as above.
Then again, maybe I am alone in having misunderstood Q17 to be about any kind of disabling of character abilities by death or dying. In any case, this rule – the What-Life-Points-are-Worth-Cards rule – is what it is. I am very glad I have at least finally found out what its true place and functionality is in the game. (Assuming I am not still missing something, of course.)
-
-
You're over-thinking this WAY too much.
Stop.
Breathe.
Better?
Ok, you kind of answered this whole boondoggle yourself when you pointed out that:
Quote: ...The Beer card is a big exception in itself...
Cards have exceptions.
This should be enough of an answer.
If it 'really' bothers you, then let them use their ability.
Or don't let Suzy use her's.
It doesn't really matter, unless you are playing in some kind of tournament.
-
-
grarrrg wrote: You're over-thinking this WAY too much.
Stop.
Breathe.
Better?
 Ha-ha, you are no doubt all too right. I feel a bit silly even myself, looking at my own lengthy posts. The next BGG icon I get will have to be something along the lines of "overanalyzer of game rules". (I don't know if there is one, but I will look for it.)
grarrrg wrote: If it 'really' bothers you, then let them use their ability.
Or don't let Suzy use her's.
I am generally all for tinkering with house rules. But before house-ruling, I'd very much like to establish what the official rules really are – and preferably, if at all possible, even get some insight into the designer's thinking behind them. In this case I had actually misunderstood Q17 (or the idea behind it) to also be meant stop the abilities of Suzy and Molly at zero life, and I even played under that misunderstanding. (Over-analysis, no doubt.)
Now that (presumably) even I have at last realized what the official rules are, I think I'll stick to them, mostly. Except that I may, when explaining the game to others, rephrase Q17 the way I suggested above: That is, Cassidy's and El Gringo's abilities still work at zero life (like Sid's and Suzy's and Molly's), but your last life point simply isn't worth any cards. Though let each life-saving play of a Beer count for one additional card. This won't change the actual end effect of this rule, I believe, except in the sole case when Bart Cassidy is hit by a Dynamite when he has 2 or 3 life points (or 1 life point and 1 or 2 Beers). So one house rule, after all, perhaps.
grarrrg wrote: It doesn't really matter, unless you are playing in some kind of tournament.
My worry isn't tournament play. I play this game only casually and who wins is secondary to me. Being immersed in the general fun and theme of the game is the main thing – and not just in this game. I still am admittedly kind of a rules fanatic, and having rules consistent with each others and with the theme is important to me.
The reason why Q17 has troubled me so is I otherwise think I now have a good understanding of how the general timing rules of the game are supposed to work. This after having pieced together the full Bang! rules from the printed rules, the FAQs and various rulings spread across different web forums. Most of the parts seemed to click very nicely, Q17 being the one part that I couldn't quite fit with that understanding of mine.
Apart from the comparison with Suzy Lafayette, another example is if the Renegade kills the Sheriff, to his left, and the last Outlaw, to his right, with one and the same Indians or Gatling. But the Sheriff is Bart Cassidy or El Gringo. Exactly what happens then and exactly why?
-
-
Marlin wrote: ....if the Renegade kills the Sheriff, to his left, and the last Outlaw, to his right, with one and the same Indians or Gatling. But the Sheriff is Bart Cassidy or El Gringo. Exactly what happens then and exactly why?
Well, depending on your current interpretation of Q17/etc... either the Sheriff gets his last draw/grab and a chance to live through it.
Or he doesn't.
Either way, when all is said and done and each player is still alive or not:
If you are the only one left standing, Renegade wins.
If the Sheriff is alive, but the outlaw died, Renegade draws 3 and keeps playing.
If the Outlaw is alive, but the Sheriff died, Outlaws win.
If everyone is still alive, keep playing.
MY only pending question involves Sheriff Vulture Sam (or Herb Hunter) killing off at least 1 Outlaw and at least 1 Deputy as part of the same action (i.e. Indians), and possibly injuring El Gringo on the side.
Thankfully this has never actually happened.
-
-
grarrrg wrote: MY only pending question involves Sheriff Vulture Sam (or Herb Hunter) killing off at least 1 Outlaw and at least 1 Deputy as part of the same action (i.e. Indians), and possibly injuring El Gringo on the side.  A very nice little problem, you've got there.
The injured El Gringo first: According to my own understanding of the multiple death problem (despite the spanner thrown into it by Q17), I think all deaths (and thus death rewards/penalties) will be put on hold until there is no reactive play pending in the game. This means, in your example, I would expect El Gringo to draw his card from the Sheriff during the round of life-saving Beer play, before activation of the Sheriff's ability or the game's rewards/penalties.
Once no reactive play is pending, I would expect the actual deaths to happen – making all deaths simultaneous. This will trigger Sheriff Vulture Sam's (or Herb Hunter's) ability, along with the death rewards and penalties. But in what order they will be resolved, I really can't say.
The one thing we know with certainty, of course, is that – after individual deaths – character abilities are resolved before the game's rewards or penalties. The specific case of Vulture Sam as Sheriff killing a deputy is even a FAQ entry, Q18. (And regarding Herb Hunter somebody seems to have gotten a reply from the designer himself here on BGG.) So the Sheriff will have to discard whatever cards his ability earns him for killing his deputy.
Resolution of Rewards for Multiple Kills
The major problem is the rewards for multiple deaths, where I just can't find any official rulings. I can see a couple of different possibilities. Beginning with the meanest, it could be that any penalty for a sheriff's killing of his deputy is always resolved last, after any character ability as well as bounties for outlaws. Meaning the sheriff would always lose everything if he killed a deputy, even while also killing an outlaw.
A nicer variant would have any character ability be resolved first, for all killed players. Then the penalty for the sheriff's killing of his deputy, and last any bounties for outlaws. (After thinking about it, I believe this is the one I'd prefer.)
Yet another possibility would be to resolve all rewards/penalties kill-by-kill instead of per reward type. This – and a clockwise resolution order of the kills, beginning with the first kill to the left of the Sheriff – was the assumption in a previous discussion, unfortunately without any official ruling. However, this seemed to be based on what I believe to be a false assumption that the deaths did actually occur one after another, clockwise around the table. (Again, I believe all deaths by Gatling or Indians will be simultaneous.) Not that it isn't possible that the rewards are to be resolved in this order anyway. If that is really the case, it will be all about player seating. If the deputy is last, the sheriff will lose everything. Otherwise he will keep all cards he gets for the outlaw, the 3-card bounty and what he gets by his ability!
This one really would be nice to get an official ruling on.
Renegade kills both Sheriff Cassidy to his left and last Outlaw
Regarding my own problem in my last post, by the way, I think I know what is supposed to happen. I just can't make it fit with how Q17 is phrased. That is, I think Cassidy, or El Gringo, isn't supposed to be able to use his ability (because he's "already dead"?). Yet I also think he is supposed to stay alive (not so dead after all) until the Outlaw too is killed, and nobody can or want to play any more (Missed or) life-saving Beer or abilities. (That's the point in time when I understand actual deaths will happen, simultaneously.) Allowing the Renegade to win rather than the Outlaws.
-
Radosław Michalak
Poland
Tychy
-
I will try to explain the timing of Q17.
If for example Suzy/Moly plays bang(s) in the duel and still loses last life point there are 2 effects triggered simultaneously - she can draw card(s) and in the same time she loses last life. So now we have this situation: player lost life point and he can has beer card in his hand. So he can play beer to save his life.
In Q17 we have diffrent situation: Bart/Gringo loses life point, so we have only one effect triggered by now - player must play beer or dies. And AFTER we resolve this situation the ability of Burt/Gringo is triggered. If character is already dead you cannot use your ability so you have no chance to draw beer.
So I think the timing is:
-losing life point and triggering abilities wich are connected with cards played to cause this effect
-your last chance: play a beer or die
-triggering abilities connected with losing life point by any player
About killing deputy and outlaw in the same time:
Yes they die in the same time. So we have 2 simultaneous effects:
1. "the Sheriff must discard all the cards he HAS in hand and in play".
2. "player ... must draw a reward of 3 cards from the deck".
So Sheriff must draw 3 cards and in the same time discard all cards wich he HAS right now. Sheriff doesn't have a reward - he is already drawing it.
And of course reward/penalty is triggered after characters abilities - so Vulture Sam takes cards, Gringo draw 1 card etc.
And no, this is not official explanation 
-
|
|
