Not being able to block after being chain ported

So I had my Treeman sitting on a porter and I had another of my players get on and port and it caused a chain reaction. Luckily for me it put my treeman in a great position. Much to my dismay though I was not able to block with my Treeman even though he had not activated yet this turn. So I basically lost a turn with him . Then it happened again and I lost another turn with him. :/ I was finally able to block only to fall prey to the other porter bug where you activate the port after a block . These bugs are really killing my enjoyment of this game. I about ready to just give up and go back to BB. I really hope there is a patch with the new releases this week.

I am attaching the game replay, but as I wasn't able to DO anything, I'm not sure it will help as there were no 'rolls'.

EDIT: Happened again. A Blitzer was ported by a chain port during my opponent's turn, on my turn he was not able to make a blitz.... Between all these little bugs and not enough maps (or good maps) I am already tired of this game. I have hopes that this next release (and hopefully patch) will fix some issues, but I think I might have wasted $15.

So I had my Treeman sitting on a porter and I had another of my players get on and port and it caused a chain reaction. ... Much to my dismay though I was not able to block with my Treeman even though he had not activated yet this turn.

Is that really a bug at all? I think a case can be made that you're not supposed to be able to block in a turn where you went through a teleport.

The rules say: "When a player moves onto a pad, roll a D6. The player is immediately teleported to the pad with the same number. It ‘costs’ the player one square of movement (if they have any left) to gather their senses once they materialise, and they may then carry on with their move as normal. "

Teleporting is moving (you lost one move). As you already moved, you cannot block or blitz -- unless you chose blitz before teleporting (and we know you can blitz through a teleport.) Seems about right to me.

So I had my Treeman sitting on a porter and I had another of my players get on and port and it caused a chain reaction. ... Much to my dismay though I was not able to block with my Treeman even though he had not activated yet this turn.

Is that really a bug at all? I think a case can be made that you're not supposed to be able to block in a turn where you went through a teleport.

The rules say: "When a player moves onto a pad, roll a D6. The player is immediately teleported to the pad with the same number. It ‘costs’ the player one square of movement (if they have any left) to gather their senses once they materialise, and they may then carry on with their move as normal. "

Teleporting is moving (you lost one move). As you already moved, you cannot block or blitz -- unless you chose blitz before teleporting (and we know you can blitz through a teleport.) Seems about right to me.

Hmm. On the tabletop we ruled that being involuntarily teleported didn't stop you from blocking - but I can see where you're coming from with that interpretation of the rules. Paddywhack - would you have been able to move the treeman (if you'd wanted to risk the dodge) after it was teleported, and if so did you notice if it was missing a square of it's movement allocation or not?

Paddywhack - would you have been able to move the treeman (if you'd wanted to risk the dodge) after it was teleported, and if so did you notice if it was missing a square of it's movement allocation or not?

Yeah, that's what I also started to wonder about after I wrote my comment. Needs testing.

In any case, a reduced move would be merely circumstantial evidence for either case. It doesn't prove intent as it might just be an incidental detail of code implementation or even worse, a bug. They might have meant for one move to be deducted but gotten that working wrong or they might have meant it to not be deducted but gotten that working wrong. Incidentally, it's a very happy moment when I get to combine both rules lawyering and failure analysis

anything chain teleported is missing a square of its move also. so guess they count this as you move. has happened to me many times, i just live with it, didnt think of it as a possible bug (or not)

anything chain teleported is missing a square of its move also. so guess they count this as you move. has happened to me many times, i just live with it, didnt think of it as a possible bug (or not)

Ah - that answers that question for us then. Cheers

In any case, a reduced move would be merely circumstantial evidence for either case. It doesn't prove intent as it might just be an incidental detail of code implementation or even worse, a bug. They might have meant for one move to be deducted but gotten that working wrong or they might have meant it to not be deducted but gotten that working wrong. Incidentally, it's a very happy moment when I get to combine both rules lawyering and failure analysis

I reckon it'll be a question of where in the *many* conditional statements that the game system must contain that the square of movement is deducted. Writing a system which will cope with all the different combinations of possible game rules and skills usage possible is something I'd like to tackle (and I say that as someone who breaks large computer codes for a living...).

I can almost agree with losing it when it happens in your own turn (as it did with my treeman if remember correctly), however I do not think this is the intent of the rule at all. It says when you 'move' onto a pad, nothing about when you are already standing on a pad and get chain ported. I know we never played that way on the TT. Even if I conceded that point though, my second instance was during my opponents' turn, not my own and I still couldn't blitz with the chain ported guy. That is definitely a bug. And yes, they are losing a square of movement, after a chain port, but again the rule says 'move' onto a pad. There is nothing in the description of chain porting that says they will lose anything for it.

I enjoy the game overall, but all these little rules issues are really starting to ruin it for me.

my second instance was during my opponents' turn, not my own and I still couldn't blitz with the chain ported guy. That is definitely a bug.

Yeah - that definitely sounds like a bug, as a chain teleport on your opponents turn shouldn't be affecting your players movement on your turn.

I can almost agree with losing it when it happens in your own turn ... however I do not think this is the intent of the rule at all. It says when you 'move' onto a pad, nothing about when you are already standing on a pad and get chain ported. ... There is nothing in the description of chain porting that says they will lose anything for it.

I understand your interpretation. However, the rules do not state that you will not lose one move when chain teleported, either. Shouldn't we then follow the thing we do know about teleporting which states that you lose one move?

From a fluffish angle, if we think of what happens to the player when they teleport (rule: "It ‘costs’ the player one square of movement (if they have any left) to gather their senses once they materialise") it makes sense that they will be disoriented even when chain teleported and will lose one move. Especially so considered together with this bit "if the player ends up being teleported again in the same turn, the huge strain on his body causes dreadful internal injuries". Teleportation is very stressful and will have quite an effect on the player.

my second instance was during my opponents' turn, not my own and I still couldn't blitz with the chain ported guy. That is definitely a bug. And yes, they are losing a square of movement, after a chain port, but again the rule says 'move' onto a pad

a chain teleport on your opponents turn shouldn't be affecting your players movement on your turn.

Why not? Other things that are done to your players still have an effect on your turn. Hypnotization, being blocked down etc. If we consider teleportation as an environmental effect, it does not seem so unreasonable that it will still be in force when your turn rolls around.

Besides, if you consider that turn-based gameplay is just an abstraction that can be thought to represent simultaneous action just cut into human-rules-processing-manageable chunks it makes even more sense that teleportation is teleportation and will make the player lose one move, and she will be considered having moved. Which makes sense as she's now in a completely different place.

I'm not actually trying to argue that this interpretation is better or should take precedence. My point is just that the issue isn't necessarily so clear-cut and you can argue it both ways.