Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

New to CoC LCG, and old Magic player, lots of rules questions!

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#21
Yipe

Yipe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 748 posts
Regarding The Guzheng (CotJe), I disagree with dboeren. I'm not much of a rules expert so it's entirely possible I'm wrong, but here's my take:

The Guzheng is a passive effect. Therefore, it would always be on and immediately reset any skill bonus given by a triggered effect, such as Tattoo Artist (MoE) or Get on Yer Feet! (Core), as it's constantly reducing the target character's skill to zero.

However, if the character in question is receiving another skill-bonusing passive effect, such as Altar of the Blessed (Core) or Springfield M1903 (TC), then according to the FAQ the active player decides in what order to resolve the simultaneous effects (FAQ 3.2 Section 1.7 "Simultaneous Effects").

#22
Yipe

Yipe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 748 posts

The FAQ specifically states otherwise:

Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player.

Thus, on playing a card during one's own operations phase, only a disrupt will stop Many Angled Thing. My buddy Arkham has talked about Lookout shutting down Nodens, but it doesn't work. Lookout will shut down e.g. Magnus, but not a response to a card played by the active player.


I'm confused here.

FAQ 3.2 Page 11, Timing Structure "Response" (lower left-hand paragraph) reads:

"Response effects are played after the resolution of the action or framework game event that meets their play requirement, but before the next player action is taken, or before the next game event resolves. Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player."

FAQ 3.2 Page 12, Action Window in Detail "6) Responses" reads:

"After all disrupts, passive abilities and/or forced responses to an action are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order (starting with the player to the left of the player who initiated the action)."

This seems to be contradictory. In the case of Nodens (KD) vs Lookout (LR), it doesn't work under the first timing sequence and does work under the second. So... what am I missing here?

#23
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
Daaaaaamooooooon!!!!!!!

The section on page 12 seems more intuitive when one considers the normal meaning of the word 'response', though the game rules generally favor the priority of the active player at every level of resolution. We play that the active player has first response; does anyone have a firm confirmation one way or the other from the boss?

#24
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
I was reading Guzheng the same way, as a constant effect. It's the only skill reduced I've seen worded that way, so it seemed correct. It came up during a game where I put it on a David Pan, so obviously he was using all his +skill chars on him to try and make him useful alone again, and I played it as they'd apply, it rechecked it's status, and reduced it back to zero.

I am receiving conflicting info on Testimony from you folks as well (which Ive seen in every discussion of it) on if it eliminates a struggle or is triggered upon a struggle.

The wording that is the catch to me is "When an icon struggle WOULD resolve" that implies it doesn't happen after this disrupt.
I don't think any other struggle activating effect uses the word WOULD. So much like Guzheng, it appears to be a unique usage of words not on any other cards. Thus I am unsure if its poor wording or on purpose.

Lookout is still an awesome card, but the blanking during phase and not turn seems very meh. So, it cannot stop a Forced Response, which makes sense as it has priority, but can it or can not prevent come into play effects that are Responses?

Ok so "come into play" for Hermetic Seal Countering purposes, means it has to be physically placed on the table as it were, so Supports, Characters etc, but not Events, Rituals, etc, yes?

As for the stories resolving, I am again confused here, and reading different things.

All stories resolve in the same framework. The active player chooses which story he wishes to resolve first. However I read that no resolutions finalize until ALL of them have. Is this not correct?
Granted it's SUPER confusing to try and keep track of that, and it seems most players don't do this for sake of ease running the game, but this would prevent "jumping character" cards other than Military Bike (as it's wording is very specific) from being at multiple stories.

A silly example I don't think anyone would do would but, I have Jiang Shi at the left story. I wish to resolve the right story first.
I misread a card and I am going to suffer losses there I don't wish too. I now move Jiang Shi to that story for backup.

Now when I go to resolve the left story, I no longer have a character there (but did) so it cannot resolve.

So why does it work 1 way and not the other, or are all stories considered staggered separate resolutions and I mis-read something somewhere?

#25
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
I think 'would' on Testimony only defines the window to trigger the disrupt. It doesn't go on to replace the struggle or eliminate the resolution of the struggle. There are fairly consistent wordings on cards that perform those functions, and Testimony's not that old.

#26
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
Well at least I know when I'm asking questions, and its causing lots of discussion, I am indeed asking good questions heh.

So while we're all trying to figure this out, I have another fun one for ya, though this may just be me overthinking it.

Ipiutak-

"After a character you control was chosen as the only target of a triggered effect, exhaust this to copy that effect choosing another character as the target of that effect"

So....if I cast...

Sacrificial Offerings-

ACTION: (which makes this a trigger correct?) Choose and Wound a character an opponent controls. THEN (So this has to occur) then that character' controller may choose and wound a character.


So can Ipiutak target Sac Offerings? If so, does it copy 1 effect, both effects?
A character I control is being targeted, and it is the only chosen target of mine and of that portion of the effect, but the total event targets 2 characters, so this makes Sac Offerings not a viable target?

This is either dirt simple or insanely fun and complicated to think about how it resolves. I hope it works the fun way, as it would make a deck I'm working on much more fun

Cheers!

#27
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
Wilbur,

I don't disagree, except that I cannot find 1 other card that uses the word "Would" in any circumstance like this. It is always before a struggle resolves, after a struggle resolves on every card I own that works like this, except this one. So, is this just a unique wording, or is it intended to act as a replacement effect, but they used different wording since it produces so many other effects?

I've seen arguments for both, and Damon has spoken on this card before, but this 1 issue with it I've never seen confirmed or denied

#28
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
Can you give an example of 'would' in the sense you read it elsewhere?

If you mean something like Andrew Chapman, the 'instead' in the text indicates that the discard replaces the normal resolution of the effect being disrupted. The 'would', as I'm reading it, again merely defines the timing of the effect. Same with Maurice Diggs.

Would = 'When X is about to happen, do Y.' Then continue according to the game rules.

#29
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
I read Testimony as:
1) when a struggle would resolve absent your character you
2) commit a MU character to the story and
3) resume resolution of struggles (adding an investigation struggle) with the MU character now affecting their outcome.

In short, disrupt Arcane, not Combat. Otherwise, poor Bruno Carioli gonna get smoked.

I haven't found the wording particularly misleading. Unless, of course, I've been misled.

#30
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Can you gives an example of 'would' in the sense you read it elsewhere?

If you mean something like Andrew Chapman, the 'instead' in the text indicates that the discard replaces the normal resolution of the effect being disrupted. The 'would', as I'm reading it, again merely defines the timing of the effect.


I'd give an example if there was another one. That is kind of my issue.
Instead is used as Instead everywhere,
All other struggle triggered events, effects etc, all say "Before XXX struggle" or "After XXX Struggle"
I have not seen another card use the word "Would"

So I read the card as, when a struggle WOULD resolve (implying it won't after this, because its preventing it) which is acting as a replacement effect.
This could be an English being an obnoxious language issue with all its rules, or a "1 of" written style card, or it's meant to be a replacement effect but not worded as such because it's producing so many effects. I've seen posts on forums agreeing with both.

Again, I don't care either way, but I wanna make sure I'm using this properly, and as an English junkie, WOULD is a precursor to something that is no longer happening.
"I would have made it at 3pm, but there was an accident" Would has created a scenario where I did not arrive. So it's like the Expert Testimony guy jumps into the middle of the Combat Struggle and goes "WAIT GUYS PUT THE GUNS DOWN LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE!" and everyone drops their guns/tentacles whatever and goes "Whatcha got?"

#31
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
Did you see my edit? Andrew Chapman and Maurice Diggs, the two which came to mind (I'd guess there are others), do, in fact, employ 'would'.

#32
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
I did not see the edit, apologies. Lemme go pull those guys, I have them handy oddly enough

#33
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
I take it 'would' does imply an alteration to the resolution of the effect disrupted:
1) Testimony- now there's a dude there
2) Chapman- that dude doesn't die
3) Diggs- now that token is over here

It doesn't mean, however, that something has gone missing from the game. The game rules continue to unfold as usual, but the game state has changed. The integrity of 'would' seems to be intact... and I applaud your Thucydidean concern for the meaning of words.

It's not a past contrafactual statement like your example, but something like:
'When you would eat a second piece of cake, put down your fork to ensure a long and healthy life.'
Fork placing is only relevant to longevity and health in the timeframe defined by the 'would' clause. It is, after all, a question of timing.

#34
BeldVanGuard

BeldVanGuard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
Upon reading the other cards, I see what you mean. I'm thinking it's just the wording of it, coupled with it being a disrupt and a major moving effect along with a struggle trigger that makes it read as better than it is to me.

At least Chapman has the word Instead (also furthering your point) to give me a grounds to differentiate the 2.

Also, I had to look that Greek fella up, he sounds awesome, and I shall go learn about him now, thank you lol

Now if we can just figure out all those other conflicting questions I'll be all set heh
  • Jan likes this

#35
arkhaminmate

arkhaminmate

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts
Lookout stops Nodens and Many-Angled Thing etc, confirmed by Damon. Responses after story resolution and game effects go to active player, Responses after actions go to player who didn't initiate action (as per core rulebook). Looking for the reply now.

#36
arkhaminmate

arkhaminmate

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts
Italicised responses from Damon. Sorry, but to those playing otherwise it is quite an influential error in your playing ways.


> Message from:
> coclcg
>
>
> E-mail:
> coclcg@hotmail.com
>
>
> Rule Question:
> Hiya. In regards to responses there 'seems' to be 2 different answers as to order of such. Being :
>
> 'Action, Disrupt, and Response Effects', Page 17: "Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player."

It is each player taking an opportunity to respond to things that happened but were unable to be immediately responded to, for example when the story phase resolves a character was wounded. No responses are possible until the end of the story phase. The active play gets the first opportunity to respond to that wounding. Then it goes back and forth (or left if multiplayer rules are being used).

When a new phase begins it is the active player who gets first opportunity to take an action.

When a game effect has been initiated it is the first player who gets the first opportunity to trigger a response.


> 'Responses', Page 18: "After all disrupts, passive abilities, and/or forced responses to an action are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order (starting with the player to the left of the player who initiated the action)."

The player to the left gets the first opportunity to trigger a response to an action taken by a player. The active player cannot get two opportunities to take actions (including the action which created the opportunity for Responses) in a row.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT - Excerpts from Core Rulebook:

(page 13)
4: OPERATIONS PHASE
• Actions may be taken
When the active player plays a character or support card from his hand, it is considered taking an action.

(page 12)
TIMING RULES
Actions are taken one at a time. After a player has taken and resolved an action, he must allow his opponent the opportunity to take and resolve an action before he can take another, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> I just ask as it would be vitally important to know in cases such as Richard Finchington vs Diseased Sewer Rats as to which goes first, the active or non active player.
>
> Thanks !!


It always goes back and forth, the question is just one of who gets first opportunity and the answer as you can see above is context dependent. The rule of thumb is if it is the game being responded to or first opportunity (EDIT: ie after story resolution) to take any action or player triggered effect it is the active player who gets first shot. If it is a player action being responded to (EDIT: REMEMBER that playing a card onto the table paying costs etc IS CONSIDERED AN ACTION as per core rulebook) it is the player on the left of the triggering player who gets first shot.

Does that make sense?


Damon Stone
Associate LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
dstone@fantasyflightgames.com



Hopefully that should be enough to put that one to bed forever. I definitely think this clarification NEEDS to be in the FAQ as it's going to be a complication / apparent-but-not-so-contradiction that will confuse new (and old evidently) players from now till the time this happens.
  • Jhaelen and jasonconlon like this

#37
Jhaelen

Jhaelen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1082 posts

The FAQ specifically states otherwise:

Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player.

Thus, on playing a card during one's own operations phase, only a disrupt will stop Many Angled Thing. My buddy Arkham has talked about Lookout shutting down Nodens, but I don't think it works. Lookout will shut down e.g. Magnus, but not a response to a card played by the active player.

Well, we've had this discussion before, but I'm not sure if it's been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I don't think you are correct. Here's my counter-quote from the Timing Structure (emphasis mine):

6) Responses
After all disrupts, passive abilities, and/or forced responses to an action are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order (starting with the player to the left of the player who initiated the action).

In your example, the active player's action is to play 'Many Angled Thing'. Since the active player initiated the action, 'the player to his left' gets the first opportunity to trigger a Response, i.e. 'Lookout'.

#38
arkhaminmate

arkhaminmate

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts
Thanks Jhaelen, yes you are correct and yes it is a conversation that seems to be looping every now and again. As you can see though Damon explains it in black and white above (with a little bit of red added by myself). To new players, don't fret as this was / is a BIG mis-interpretation of the rules made / still being made by many I believe.

#39
Wilbur

Wilbur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
Thanks for digging up the reply from Damon, Arkham! It does feel right that 'response' begins with the person acted upon, rather than the one 'responding' to his own action. I stand corrected.

#40
Danigral

Danigral

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1358 posts

The FAQ specifically states otherwise:

Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player.

Thus, on playing a card during one's own operations phase, only a disrupt will stop Many Angled Thing. My buddy Arkham has talked about Lookout shutting down Nodens, but I don't think it works. Lookout will shut down e.g. Magnus, but not a response to a card played by the active player.


Yes, the active player has the first opportunity to respond to framework actions, not player actions. There's another section in the FAQ on page 19:
"6) Responses
After all disrupts, passive abilities, and/
or forced responses to an action are
resolved, players may now play normal
responses in clockwise order (starting
with the player to the left of the player
who initiated the action)."

This has been a point of confusion in the past for players (myself included), arising from the seemingly directly contradictory statements. I thought I had it all worked out, but I still could be wrong...

EDIT: Sorry, should have read the whole page before responding...