I see what you guys are saying. I really do. If EM was worded with present or past tense terminology I would've agreed from the beginning. However… it doesn't so thus I'm here. lol.

With my "current" understanding on things I believe EM's replacement effect to be an effect that replaces its designation as a target for a wounding or insanity, not so much it being wounded or made insane.

Consider this scenario.

1. Player A wants to use Dynamite's action.
a). Determine the cost (to either play the card or pay for the card's effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the inteded action). 
b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. (this is a new addition)
-> *** Conidition Met *** EM is designated by an effect that would wound it. EM"s ability alters what was all was designated as targets for the effect by becoming an attachment which cannot be wounded or be made insane. Resolve EM's ability. 
(now, I'm not 100% sure if we go back to the top of step 1 or not, but don't think that really matters in this case though…however it wouldn't hurt my point if an 'altering' passive ability would cause us to do so)

c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Appy any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Pay the card, or trigger the effect. Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to step two. (funny story, think this is actually a typo on the non-printer friendly version of the FAQ. it should say "Play" however I will invoke a disclaimer that I may of made other typos in this post this is the only one I picked out that wasn't me :P)

2. Disrupts - In clockwise order, players no have the opportunity to disrupt the action. If all players pass then the action will be executed, and can no longer be disrupted.
a) Player B plays Writing Wall to cancel Dynamite's action. (repeat steps 1a-1f to play the disrupt)

Now, the FAQ does say that any passive abilities that are triggered as a result of the action are initiated in step 4. Aka, after step 3. Action is executed. However, due to another new addition to the FAQ:

"NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. A Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."

I interpreted that to mean becuase EM's replacement effect alters what was designated as a target(s) (my opinion of course), that it should resolve before the disrupt window is opened. Ya know… cause its altering what was designated and what would happen to EM if the effect were to be executed.

Also keep in mind that 7) Action is resolved (end of action) doesn't come up until AFTER the window for responses has closed and that the action is considered "resloving" from the moment it is initiated in step 1 till end of step 6.

In addition, the reason why I read/am reading it this way is that EM is worded exactly like several other effects that are commonly(or in my opinion, all are) triggered before the action is executed (step 3). So, intuitively, I'm reading that it triggers/resolved somewhere before step 3. Otherwise its wording would/should reflect that the effect happens after step 3, which it doesn't in my opinion. Digging deeper… obviously I came up with what I said above.

….whew. That was a lot. If nothing else, perhaps you'll definately see why I'm confused by this ruling. =/

im just glad to see all my questions aren't stoopid ones. im leaning towards magnus as the 'would' is definately a literal reference and it seems in most these dilemmas the text is what it is. but hey, im a newbie.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Besides, Dynamite's effect isn't even a targeted effect since it lacks the word 'choose'.

         ****************DELETED*******************

 Magnus I think you are right about when the passive is altering the effect, but I am positive you are wrong about when it resolves. The replaced effect still resolves with the timing of the original effect at its earliest. Only a disrupt would have halted that resolution forced the new effect to resolve completely, before the original effect continues its resolution.

That is the only effect that halts resolution of one effect forces its own effect to resolve completely first, and then resumes the original effects resolution if still applicabl. Passives change what is being resolved and how it is being resolved, but not when it is being resolved.

You actually have a much stronger argument that the passive actually resolves (despite having been designated several steps earlier) after all other characters are wounded…

You left off the rest of that FAQ entry:

3) Action is executed
The active player now executes the
effects of the action. If this action
discards or destroys one or more cards,
returns one or more cards to a player’s
hand or deck, these cards immediately
leave play.

4) Passive abilities are triggered
Any passive abilities that are triggered
as a result of the action (or a disrupt
response hereto), are now initiated. As
with the action itself, before a passive
ability is executed, all players have the
option to disrupt the passive ability. If
all players pass on the disrupt option,
the ability is executed. Remember that if
two passive abilities are triggered at the
same time, their order of resolution is
determined by the active player.
Any cards that are killed, discarded,
or returned to hand as a result of the
passive ability immediately leave play.

 Since nothing you quoted in any way states that the passive is now resolved outside of step 4 if it is not a replacement effect and during step 3 if it is, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. My suggestion is to contact Damon.

Penfold said:

What about the part where I quoted:

""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."

That is at the heart of my arguement.

Becuase EM is an altering passive abliity (as we both believe it to be one in some form anyway), it resolves first on the action. Then its initiated which is all done in step 1. WIthout this note I would agree that it would only ever resolve in step 4.

But that is ulimately what lets this resolve outside of step 4. In my opinion. :)

As for contacting Damon… I rather not. I'm sure he'd only be annoyed with me at this point. After all, we have his ruling.

Also,  I didn't leave out mentioning step 3 and 4. I mentioned them several times. I didn't quote them, true, but I didn't see the need to quote em for my example.

PS. jhalen  - you're right thats it is not a targeting action. I apologize. Please read my comments as saying "designated card that will be effected (or affected as this is likely another minor typo in the FAQ)" when I'm not quoting FAQ scripture. As for the "we won't know if it'll be wounded or not until after disrupts" comment… Ya… I don't think thats how it works regardless if you agree or disagree with Damon's or my ruling. As disurpts as a concept just wouldn't really work right as their triggers would likely never trigger under our current structure. Unless of course we muff how we read cards again (or again to me lol)… in which case I would concede.

 Ah, you are misreading that part… the passive alters the action, that now altered action resolves… but it does not jump the timing structure, it resolves with the standard timing structure. In other words everything else happens at exactly the same pace which still has all the characters being wounded and EM being attached in the same step. Your interpretation would require for just the passive effected EM to resolve through all steps in exclusion from the unaltered effect, and then have that unaltered effect resolve after. I can't see how that was intended to be the method of resolution given the breakdown we have in the FAQ and Damon's ruling clearly shows that wasn't how he was interpreting it either.

I think it is safe to say everything, even excluding Damon's ruling, points to it as a replacement effect which means it is resolved along with the other woundings, just what happens when EM would be wounded is changed.

Though it looks like you are rather attached to your interpretation so I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

Penfold said:

Aww, please convince me. Seriously. I'm learning a ton here.

The Note it specifically says "the passive ability is first resolved on the action." So resolved completely right? To its full extent? 

Soooo, since EM's replacement effect alters the action, according the note, its to be resolved in step 1 Action is initiated.

If I'm misreading… I don't know where I'm misreading.

To take it into a more step by step form. (to help me out)

1. If a passive ability would alter an action as its being resolved… ---> EM's replacement effect would alter the action if it would be wounded by said action.

2. The passive is first resolved on the action. ---> In order to resolve the passive, EM must become an attachment.

3. Now altered, the action is initiated. ---> Go through steps provided in step 1 Action is initiated.

Also the enitre second sentence that I'm not focusing on…. A Disrupt (aka step 2.) can't cancel the action until the passive is applied. Which a disrupt couldn't do if we had to wait until step 4 to apply the passive effect.

As for me being attached. Not really. I could care less about how this is ruled in tournaments. However, a ruling like this could affect how one plays the game and could easily be the difference in a crucial match. That I do care about. At this point I'm hoping for one of two results either I'll have that AH HA! Moment and I'll see things the way Damon does and I'll see them in a way I can explain it to others. Or, I'll convince you guys to have that AH HA! moment and see things how I do and the ruling ends up being reversed or eventually changes will be made to reflect how Damon intended them.

Or nothing will happen and we'll just use this ruling and I'll linger on confused. Aka. the likely scenario. lol ;)

'The passive is resolved on the action' that is to say that when the action itself resolves it will do so as the changed version and not the original version. That is the misapplication here. The passive resolving on the action not the end result of the passive resolving before the action itself resolves. If it worked your way then there is no point in ever having a passive resolution anywhere else in the action chain.

Ask Damon why it doesn't work your way. I'm sure he could come up with a detailed answer that will outline where the confusion is… hell he might even reverse himself.

That said, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it is this point, the passive resolves on the action, so when it resolves within the normal timing window, it does so in its new altered form.

Penfold said:

You could, and probably are right. And even more right that I'll likely have to go to Damon myself.

A quick point though, there would still be a need for an step in the action chain as there are passive effects that are worded like responses in that they wouldn't trigger until after an action was done being executed. Like Smuggles for example.

Oh well.

I emailed Damon this question, just waiting for a response back.  When I get it, I'll post what he wrote me.

I'm answering this question here and in the Rules Discussion sub-forum to get the conversation back to its proper place.  It's probably best to keep the rules questions in that forum so they're easier to find.  This forum is already hard enough to use as is, no need to make things more difficult to find…

RE: EXPENDABLE MUSCLE

Q: What happens when Expendable Muscle and another friendly character are committed to a story where all characters are wounded simultaneously (e.g. through Feeding Frenzy, Dynamite or Ravager of the Deep)?

A: Expendable Muscle becomes an attachment that grants +1 Toughness to any character you control after it would receive the wound. Since all the other characters at that story have been wounded at the same time Expendable Muscle becomes an attachment unless they have Toughness already they will be destroyed and will not be legal targets to receive him as an attachment. If you would like I can show how this works in the Timing chart.

Here's a link to the thread in the Rules Discussion forum:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

EDIT: I have asked Damon for a detailed explanation of how this works with regards to the passage from the FAQ's Timing Structure quoted by Magnus Arcanis (i.e. a passive effect altering an action).

Yipe said:

Damon kindly replied to me with a detailed answer.  You'll find it here:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp