just fishing in the ocean of accumulated knowledge out there.

regarding  EXPENDABLE MUSCLE.

the text reads:

IF expendable muscle WOULD be wounded or go insane, instead attach….blah de blah de.

now the question is based on that:

if he were in a story with another fellow character, and someone say, dropped a stick of dynamite into it, does the muscle jump BEFORE the wound? and possibly save his fellow. the IF and the WOULD suggest a precedence to the wound, whereas IS wounded or GOES insane would imply conjunction.

BUT it is only a passive effect and not a disrupt either so…….. i''m guessing rules wise thats the answer.

any takers on this one please??

It sounds like you answered your question, but this is my thinking. Wounds are assigned simultaneously and the characters are instantly destroyed at the resolution of the action, so the wounded (destroyed) character you tried to attach Expendable Muscle to would still be destroyed. You could still attach it to a different character though.

Waiting for vets to confirm.

 Basically, if a wound or insanity is allocated to Expendable Muscle, instead of wounding or making it insane, you can attach it. The wound is used up - it doesn't have to get assigned to another character or anything like that.

TheProfessor said:

Right, but he would be able to  "save" the other character since it would be destroyed simultaneoulsy, correct?

ahh!

but expendable muscle provides toughness + 1. hence the dilemma.

 I'm not sure what you mean.  If Expendable Muscle takes a wound (say from losing the Combat struggle), instead of being discarded, it can be attached to some other character you control.  That other character takes no wounds or anything - it just gains the attachment and as a result it gets Toughness +1 and Willpower.

 In the example the OP gave, there are two characters (one is Expendable Muscle and the other is let's say Tattoo Artist) that are wounded from Dynamite. So there are two options:

1) you can attach Expendable Muscle to Tattoo Artist to give it an immediate +1 toughness and "save" it.

2) Tattoo Artist gets a wound is destroyed immediately and is not in play, not allowing for the passive ability of Expendable Muscle to act on Tattoo Artist (although EM could be attached to a different character in play.

 Thanks for the clarification. I was answering an unasked question.

Now I see why there is confusion. When does the wound cause destruction…  Hmm.. Rules query, I suspect.

 OK, I checked in with Damon.  No, you can't save the other character.

Here's my version of his explanation of the timing, based on Framework Actions from the FAQ.

Framework Action initiates (wound causes destruction)

Disrupts (there are none)

Framework Action is executed  (wounded characters are destroyed)

Passive Abilities are initiated (Expendable Muscle can be attached, but the other character is already destroyed)

THANKS!

just the wording is a bit confusing with the IF's and WOULD's instead of IS.

TheProfessor said:

I…

Doesn't the passive ablity "trigger" in the first framework action (even before disrupts)? Or maybe even before that….

As, if I understand things correctly (something I've been doubting for quite awhile now at least in the context of how FFG is ruling things lately), when dynamite uses its action it must designate all of its targets before it actually goes off. Its then when Expendable Muscle would trigger so I would argue that EM would save the artist…

Or does this somehow fall under the 'modified - thing.. ruling'?

Otherwise the "would be" text would certainly mean to resovle before characters are actually wounded and most certainly before they are destroyed because of wounding.

Is there a more detailed explanation available as this is not intuitive.

 I did not do Damon's ruling justice - the bit about framework actions was my interpretation, and when I double checked with Damon, he said that there are no framework actions that need to addressed here.  Here is where Damon corrected me about that:

"It is not a framework action, Those are actions the game initiates, like draw and refresh. It is standard resolution of what may be a framework action (combat struggle) or player action (in this case Dynamite). The passive on EM simply tells you what to do instead of it getting the wound. That replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded it (and all the other characters) in the first place. If it had been a disrupt then it would work just like that though."

Here is the original response:

"There is no interaction between the cards.

Expendable Muscle is a passive effect not a disrupt and all wounds from a single effect are placed simultaneously. End result is EM gets a wound token at the same time as the other character. The full resolution of the wounding takes place and then any passives whose triggers are met initiate. EM's passive means it goes on a character if able rather than going to the discard pile but the other character has no such passive and is already destroyed as far as the game is concerned."

 Makes sense, though I see where Magnus was confused. Dynamite certainly designates everything it is wounding, but since the passive on EM is a replacement effect its resolution happens when it would actually leave play which would be the same time everything else is leaving play that had been wounded by dynamite. If it had not been worded as a replacement effect and just said, "If EM would be wounded attach it to another character…" then it would attach at the moment of designation rather than at the moment of leaving play.

what about…

"If a passive ability would alter an action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated."

… from the FAQ.

If nothing else it shows that passive abilities being "always on" can "trigger" before, with, and after disrupts. The text "would be" to me clearly puts the trigger before the wounds are actually dealt/placed on the card.

It being a disrupt or not doesn't really matter as (at least, to me) the text indicates when it triggers.

And to cover some more bases…

Being that EM's ability changes who would be dealt a wound (since we have to designate when we even think about using the action) does that not count as "altering" an action? Of course, that would mean that the cards are interacting with another. I know Damon said that they don't, but the action that "would be" dealing the wounds is coming from Dynamite's effect so how are they not interacting?

It being a replacement effect; we just might be disagreeing on. I see the replacement effect afffecting its designation (once again bringing up the "would be" part of the text) rather than the wound actually being placed on EM.

I may or may not be taking some things to literally or not literally enough, but just reading the cards I'm getting a different result than the ones being explained. 

However, it seems i agree on all other bases. A replacement effect cannot supersede the effect that wounded (note its past tense) it. I'm "argueing" that EM's effect technically triggers before the character is actually wounded.

 EM can't trigger before the wound, because the wound is the trigger.  Both of the relevant characters get the wound at the same time, which in the absence of toughness destroys them.  But instead of being destroyed, EM can turn into an attachment.  However the other guy got his wound already.  There is no time window in which to attach EM before destroying the other character is how I interpret the final ruling.

 I'm with the Professor. Instead is what designates it as a replacement effect. do X instead of Y. 

From the FAQ "The word instead indicates that a replacement effect is being triggered. Replacement effects completely replace one effect with another."

and

"(2.10) Replacement Effects
The word “instead” lies at the heart of the replacement effect, as it allows the new effect to occur in place of the effect it is replacing. Therefore, the original effect does not occur, the new effect occurs instead."