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

Catelyn (Core) vs Forced Reactions (e.g. Jorah)

- - - - -

Best Answer ojimijam , 17 August 2015 - 10:36 AM

She doesn't stop forced reactions, they are not triggered by an opponent but by the game.check the catelyn thread a few for more. Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

The argument that they should be outside the circle of their general ability types seems to hinge on their different timing.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with this assessment. The argument that "forced reactions" are initiated differently from "reactions" is not really about timing. It's about the fact that the rules talk about responses being initiated and forced reactions being resolved. As Horobod has demonstrated, that's a pretty consistent difference in terminology throughout the RRG - too consistent for them to be treated as synonymous (the way "triggered" and "initiated" often were for passive effects in 1.0, for example).

 

Pointing to the fact that the first player gets to determine the order in which forced reactions are resolved, but not getting to determine the order in which reactions are initiated, is also not really about timing. It's about consistency. Generally, the First Player chooses the order in which things resolve when they cannot resolve at the same time. The First Player never chooses the order in which players initiate abilities.

 

So, if forced reactions are initiated by players, but the first player decides the order in which they are initiated, we are looking at an exception to all other situations and rules involving first player choice. We are carving out the only situation in which the first player actually decides when things initiate. (This is also inconsistent with the RRG entries describing forced reactions as something that "resolve" rather than as reactions that are "initiated.")

 

But if all valid forced reactions are automatically initiated at the same time by the game (and not by the players), the first player deciding the order of their resolution is not only consistent with all other times when the first player privilege is applied, it is consistent with the RRG entries describing forced reactions in terms of their resolution.

 

This is why I say that, in the lack of specific text saying "forced effects are triggered by the game, not the player," the "by the game" interpretation is stronger than the "by the player" interpretation. It is more internally consistent with the other rules of the game.

 

But you say you have no doubt this interpretation is correct. Why do you think that? If the two interpretations were equally justified by the rules, wouldn't there be doubt for one interpretation over the other?



#22
HOROBOD

HOROBOD

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

But there *is* mention of players using card abilities and everywhere I look, Forced Interrupts and Forced Reactions are specified as being entirely within the Venn Diagram of Interrupt and Reaction card abilities, which are used by players.

The argument that they should be outside the circle of their general ability types seems to hinge on their different timing.

We look "outside the circle of their general ability types" to avoid making errors like these:

 

Apples and Oranges are both fruit. Apples have a core. Since some fruit have a core, oranges must have a core.

 

Fruit= Card abilities

Apples= Optional card abilities

Oranges= Mandatory card abilities

Core= Player initiated

 

Optional and Manditory card abilities are both card abilities. Optional card abilities are player initiated. Since some card abilities are player initiated, Manditory card abilities must be player initiated.



#23
Bomb

Bomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts

Since there is no text describing Forced Abilities as being player initiated, she cannot prevent them from triggering. In this way a FAQ explicitly stating that Forced Abilities are initiated by the game actually isn't even necessary within the current card pool.

 

So far, this question has been asked multiple times by veterans and new players alike.  The Rules Reference Guide has been wonderful with several explicitly stated rules.  This most certainly should be one of the first entries in an FAQ considered what the acronym represents.

 

 

We look "outside the circle of their general ability types" to avoid making errors like these:

 

Apples and Oranges are both fruit. Apples have a core. Since some fruit have a core, oranges must have a core.

 

Fruit= Card abilities

Apples= Optional card abilities

Oranges= Mandatory card abilities

Core= Player initiated

 

Optional and Manditory card abilities are both card abilities. Optional card abilities are player initiated. Since some card abilities are player initiated, Manditory card abilities must be player initiated.

 

I disagree with this comparison.

 

When the RRG identifies an Action, Reaction, and Interrupt in it's own category, it's common sense to identify a Forced Reaction and a Forced Interrupt as being an inherited version of the definition of a Reaction and Interrupt respectively.  If a Reaction and an Interrupt are player initiated, and a Forced Reaction and Forced Interrupt are a different type of a Reaction and an Interrupt, then the main differences should be explicitly identified if it's an important property used in how they are meant to be interacted with.

 

If a Forced Reaction and Forced Interrupt are not actually variations of a Reaction and an Interrupt, then they should be explicitly defined completely.  Otherwise it's assumed that they inherit all the same rules with their differences being explicitly noted.   So far, they have identified multiple differences, but it's only implicit that they aren't player initiated.  If it was explicit, these types of threads would be few and far between each other.



#24
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

Your syllogism is wrong.

Apples and Oranges are both Fruit. Fruit has seeds. Since Oranges are fruit, oranges have seeds.

Optional and Mandatory Card Abilities are both card abilities. Card abilities are player initiated. (Sometimes they have a choice to do so, sometimes they don't.) Therefore mandatory card abilities are player initiated.

You're begging the question by stating as a premise that "Optional card abilities are player initiated."

To answer Ktom's question, the reason I have no doubt that your interpretation is correct, is because having Catelyn shut off Forced reactions is dumb. She's designed to screw over your opponent, and it's perverse that she would impose a fringe benefit. But that's 100% rules-as-intended talking.

I'm just maintaining that the alternate interpretation is defensible. I don't think we can fully resolve this based on extrapolating from niceties of language that I cannot believe were written with this scenario in mind with the intention that they ought to be used to resolve the dispute.

The rules should say whether Forced Interrupts and Forced Reactions are automatic game effects, or whether they're imposed on the player to execute. Until that language exists, I'm going to be unconvinced.


  • Bomb likes this

#25
Slio9

Slio9

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Well, they've said as much that they've learned more about LCG design with recent projects, so it stands to reason that other games could be looked at for background knowledge.

 

Thing is, it's not background knowledge. There's an entire ongoing debate going on in the Star Wars rules forum about this exact same text, except with all of the players interpreting the same words completely the opposite of this thread (Forced Responses being Player Triggered somehow). It's absolutely baffling to watch. 

 

As you also said though, GoT 2.0 comes down way cleaner in how this effect is implemented, with rules governing what is and isn't blocked by Cat. 



#26
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Since some fruit have a core, oranges must have a core.

 

A demonstrable logical fallacy. But that, of course, is your point.

 

Card abilities are player initiated. (Sometimes they have a choice to do so, sometimes they don't.) 

 

But isn't this demonstrably incorrect in that continuous abilities and delayed effects - which are card abilities - are not initiated by players, chosen or otherwise? Or should "card abilities" be replaced by "triggered effects" in your syllogism?

 

I'm just maintaining that the alternate interpretation is defensible.

 

I can agree that it is defensible. I just don't agree that its defenses are as convincing as the defenses for the opposite outcome.

 

I don't think we can fully resolve this based on extrapolating from niceties of language that I cannot believe were written with this scenario in mind with the intention that they ought to be used to resolve the dispute.

 

Whereas I'm coming into it with a bias (as demonstrated and disclosed by the rulebook credits) that yeah...these niceties of language are actually in there with this exact dispute in mind....

 

That doesn't stop me from agreeing with you and Bomb that a clear statement addressing this question should (even "must") appear in the first official FAQ, because clearly, the niceties of language are not getting the job done.

 

Until that language exists, I'm going to be unconvinced.

 

For what it's worth, I can assure you what the outcome will be. I do respect the desire for a definitive statement in an FAQ.

 

Thing is, it's not background knowledge.

 

Agreed. Some of the differences and inconsistencies were explicitly chosen for 2.0 because the designers/developers didn't think it should work the same way for this game. The mechanical differences between the games do not necessarily argue for a consistent treatment of things like "forced" being player or game initiated across all LCGs.



#27
HOROBOD

HOROBOD

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Optional and Mandatory Card Abilities are both card abilities. Card abilities are player initiated. (Sometimes they have a choice to do so, sometimes they don't.) Therefore mandatory card abilities are player initiated.

That's just not supported by the rules at all.

 

“An ability is the special game text that a card contributes to the game.” (RR2) Here we see that it is the card itself that contributes its text to the game.

 

There are two kinds of card abilities Optional and Manditory (RR2)

 

Optional: actions, interrupt, and reaction abilities

Manditory: constant abilities, when revealed abilities, force interrupt abilities, and forced reaction abilities

 

Every reference to player initiation of abilities is in reference to Optional abilities, but it would be a mistake to apply this universally to all card abilities.

 

The language used for Optional Abilities: “These abilities [actions] can only be initiated by a player during an action window.”, “Within the interrupt window, the first player always has the first opportunity to initiate an eligible interrupt”, “Within the reaction window, the first player always has the first opportunity to initiate an eligible reaction”.

 

Notice the following features that are present in all optional abilities: a defined window and player initiation.

 

 

Contrast this to the language used in Mandatory Abilities: “A constant ability becomes active as soon as its card enters play”, “[a when revealed] ability must resolve whenever a plot card bearing it is revealed.”, “[forced] abilities must be resolved immediately whenever the triggering condition specified in the ability text occurs.”

 

Notice there is no mention of windows or player initiation, instead we see: Application of effects actively contributed by a card, immediately when the activation condition is met. The only reference to “who” makes this happen is the card ability itself (becomes active, must resolve, and must be resolved).

 

The rules require us to check if the condition for the mandatory card ability has been met, (the card has entered play, a plot card has been revealed, or the triggering condition occurs), if it has, the ability takes effect (becomes active, must resolve, or must be resolved) "immediately". Nothing in this language asks if a player has initiated the ability.



#28
palpster

palpster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts

Nothing in this language asks if a player has initiated the ability.[/size][/font]


Catelyn Stark doesn't state "the opponent cannot initiate a card ability" though, she doesn't mention initiation at all, she mentions triggering...what it means for an "opponent to trigger a card ability" can be extrapolated, sure, but is not defined as such, I believe. Triggered Abilities are defined, Triggering Conditions are defined, but "to trigger" is not. RRG page 2 mentions that a player can use an ability, it also mentions that a player can initiate an ability, but I cannot find that a player can trigger an ability.

Once again ( I will repeat this ad nauseam) I believe you are correct in the interpretation that Forced Reactions are not affected by Catelyn, but it still remains an interpretation and needs to be addressed with a ruling in official FAQ.

#29
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

You're right, I should have been more specific in my syllogism, to say "Triggered Abilities are player initiated" because that's how I read the rules.

 

All in all, though, I think after all of this "we're in violent agreement," as they say. I think Horobod at this point is just doggedly determined to have the last word, so I won't belabor the point.

 

 

Whereas I'm coming into it with a bias (as demonstrated and disclosed by the rulebook credits) that yeah...these niceties of language are actually in there with this exact dispute in mind....

 

That doesn't stop me from agreeing with you and Bomb that a clear statement addressing this question should (even "must") appear in the first official FAQ, because clearly, the niceties of language are not getting the job done.

 

I salute your very diplomatic use of "pulling rank," as it were. I think I'm done, and I look forward to the next FAQ.



#30
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

For the record, it's nothing personal. I learn the rules by not just flogging the dead horse, but butchering, draining, grinding, and rendering the rest for glue. Until the bare-bones principles in play have been laid bare and every possibility critically examined. I've let my 1.0 knowledge get really rusty and I'm trying to get back in the groove under 2.0. There's a Judge program coming and I want in.



#31
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Hmm. I would have said "inside knowledge" instead of "rank," but you made your point well.

 

There's a Judge program coming and I want in.

 

I wonder if they'll have istaril write an entrance exam for such a program....



#32
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

I asked about it at Gen Con. They're focusing on Floor Rules first, as those need to be in place before they can start certifying judges. Hopefully something by the time Worlds rolls around.



#33
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1051 posts

Damn, I missed that discussion. I want in as well.