Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
4
Quill & Tankard Regulars - Volume II, Issue 4
Jul 10 2015 02:15 PM |
WWDrakey
in Articles
Quill & Tankard Regulars Ratatoskr WWDrakey Ire JCWamma Istaril Small Council
Quill & Tankard Regulars - Volume 2, Issue 4I do believe all of this can be explained quite easily by…
BUGRIT! HAM SAMMICH!
Krhm. Where was I? Anyway, it’s quite clear to me that…
BUGG-GG-GRIT! Ken ye not ho’ ta bear tankards ye lazy sod? Ye coulda lost me precious lagers!
Anyway, as I was saying, all of these mystical happenings must be caused by…
NA STOUT??? Wha’ mean ye, we ha’ na stout??? BUGGGRIT!
These seats next to the counter are killing me! Still no tables free?
Nope.
Seven save us!
Seen in Flames - Interrupts, Cancels and Saves
Seen in Flames exclusively previews rules mechanics changes for the upcoming A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition, putting them into context through a card spoiler. The rules knowledge and card examples have been graciously provided via raven by the Archmaesters at the (FFG) Citadel.
In our previous three articles we have looked at elements of the rule set - Reactions (the former Responses) and Challenge resolution, Attachments, Duplicates and Setup, the Phase Structure - that have been around in 1.0, and discussed how they evolved in 2.0, what changed, what stayed the same. This week, we’ll put a type of card ability in the spotlight that hasn’t existed in AGoT LCG (or AGoT CCG) before - the Interrupt.
Interrupts have a lot in common with Reactions. Like Reactions, Interrupts can only initiate if a specific Triggering Condition is met. And again like Reactions, they come in two basic varieties - triggering Forced Interrupts is compulsory, whereas plain, vanilla Interrupts can be triggered at the controlling player’s discretion.
Where Interrupts do differ from Reactions is at which points in the timing structure they happen. As a general rule, Reactions occur after their Triggering Condition has fully resolved. Their ability text usually begins with the word “Afterâ€. Interrupts, on the other hand, use the word “Whenâ€, and they occur after their Triggering Condition has initiated, but before it resolves. In other words, Interrupts interrupt the resolution of their Triggering Condition. Who would’ve thought, huh? In their own way, Interrupt timings are some of the most complicated portions of the new AGoT 2.0 rules, and so also merit quite a thorough discussion.
So, what are Interrupts used for in 2.0, and why are they needed in the first place? After all, 1.0 did just fine without them, right? Well, let’s have a look at the Interrupt abilities we’ve seen on cards spoiled so far. They can be classified into four types (with a fifth hinted at, more on that later).
Type I: Cancel Interrupts
Let’s start with Bran Stark (as seen in FFG’s House Stark preview article). The pertinent Text is:
"Interrupt: When the effects of an opponent's event would initiate, sacrifice Bran Stark to cancel those effects."
Compare to how an effect like this would be worded in 1.0:
"Response: Discard Bran Stark from play to cancel the effects of an opponent’s event card just played."
And this is what we learn from the comparison:
- Cancels resolve as Interrupts in 2.0 instead of Responses (surprise!).
- The new wording provides much more detailed information on the timing of the effect than the 1.0 text. It clearly spells out when exactly the Interrupt is supposed to be triggered (“When the effects...would initiateâ€). In 1.0, the only timing indicator was the use of the word “cancel†itself.
- The cost of the effect uses the term “sacrificeâ€, which didn’t exist in 1.0. It is a technical term used for cards leaving play as a cost, and its definition entails the usual rules attached to that: The card is put in the discard pile (without counting as being “discarded from playâ€), it cannot be saved, and if it does end up remaining in play for any reason, the cost is not considered to have been paid.
Up next is not a previously spoiled card, but ...*drum roll*... the exclusive spoiler FFG was kind enough to provide for this issue! And it is an old acquaintance.
As seen above, the text for the 2.0 Bodyguard reads:
"Lord or Lady character only. Interrupt: When attached character would be killed or discarded from play, sacrifice Bodyguard to save that character."
Let’s compare this to what the 1.0 version says:
"Lord or Lady character only. Limit 1 per character Response: Discard Bodyguard from play (cannot be saved) to save attached character from being killed or discarded from play."
There are a few important power-level changes here. Firstly, the 2.0 Bodyguard is not Terminal (see our previous article for details). So, if your opponent finds a way to remove the character without killing or discarding it (such as by bouncing it back to hand), then the Bodyguard can be reassigned to protect another character.
Secondly, the “Limit 1 per character.†limitation on the card is gone. This is both nedly (an important King or Queen should be able to have multiple guards), as well as allows easier running of Bodyguard at 3x, especially with it now being an excellent setup card.
Gameplay changes aside, the wording for the effect on the two cards is rather different, although they both do pretty much exactly the same thing. That gives us a great chance to analyze the differences in the timing structures of the two versions.
NOTE: For newer players, it should be noted that flavor-wise AGoT “save†effects resemble evading something bad happening (before it happens), instead of undoing the damages caused by something bad (after it has happened).
So, what can we learn from the divergent wordings of save effects in 1.0 and 2.0?
- Saves are also Interrupts instead of Reactions (the usual replacement for Responses) in 2.0. This is one you definitely should have seen coming!
- Like Bran Stark’s cancel effect, the wording of the save effect again gives detailed timing instructions. Note, though, that here’s an important difference between the two. The save effect lacks the important signal word “initiate†that is present in the cancel effect. This indicates that saves resolve at a different time than cancels.
- Cancel interrupts happen when the effect they cancel “would initiateâ€, i.e. right at the start of the initiation of said effect. Save Interrupts happen after the effect they interrupt has initiated, and a specific part of that effect is about to resolve (in the case of Bodyguard, when the character is about to be killed or discarded from play). In short, cancels happen before saves.
Type III: Triggering Condition: Card leaving play
Another type of Interrupt can be seen on Viserys Targaryen CS167 (spoiled here and here):
"Interrupt: When Viserys Targaryen leaves play, choose an attachment, and discard it from play."
Here, the triggering condition for the interrupt is Viserys Targaryen leaving play (which includes him being killed, discarded, sacrificed, taken back to hand, returned to the deck, removed from the game, and whatever nastiness the design team can come up with in the future). In 1.0, this effect would have been a Response with the text:
"Response: After Viserys Targaryen leaves play, choose an attachment, and discard it from play."
So why does it have to be an Interrupt? Why can’t it be a Reaction in 2.0? Well, that’s a consequence of the rules for moribund going away.
A little historical reminder: In 1.0, a card that is killed, discarded from play, or made to leave play another way would be regarded as having been killed etc. once the effect doing the killing has fully resolved. But it wouldn’t be put in the dead pile (or whatever destination it’s headed to) right away. Instead, it would remain physically on the table for the duration of the action window in a state called “moribundâ€, and it would be in that state that an ability like Viserys’s would be triggered.
If that sounded somewhat complicated, there’s no need to worry. In 2.0, moribund is gone. A card that is killed is put in the dead pile immediately when the killing effect resolves successfully. So, if Viserys’s ability were a Reaction, it would have to be triggered from the dead pile. And the general rule in 2.0 (as in 1.0) is that abilities can only be triggered from out-of-play areas (hand, deck, discard/dead pile) if they explicitly say so. Adding text to every single card with this kind of an ability to make it work seems rather inefficient, so this is elegantly handled with Interrupts.
The above also explains why the ability of Joffrey Baratheon CS86 (seen in the Tutorial video) is a Reaction, even if it seems very similar to Viserys at first glance:
"Reaction: After a Lord or Lady character is killed, Joffrey Baratheon claims 1 power. (Limit 3 times per round.)"
As opposed to Viserys, Joffrey’s triggering condition is a different card leaving play rather than himself, so he should be around to trigger his ability from play. Unless, of course, he himself is made to leave play before he gets around to trigger the Reaction. If that’s the case, his Reaction couldn’t be triggered at all - a subtle change from how his 1.0 version worked.
Again, the wording of the ability tells us all we need to know about the timing of the effect. It says “When Viserys Targaryen leaves play…â€, so we trigger it when Viserys Targaryen leaves play, simple as that. Or, if we insist on technical exactitude - and of course we do, we’re the Quill & Tankard Regulars, after all - after the effect that makes him leave play initiates, but before it resolves.
Compare the wording with that of the save/cancel Interrupts discussed above, and you’ll note the absence of the signal word “wouldâ€. These seemingly innocuous differences are actually pretty important, since they establish a priority for the different types of interrupts. Interrupts that happen when something “would initiateâ€, e.g. cancels, come first. Interrupts that have the word “wouldâ€, but not the word “initiateâ€, come next (“When A would happen, do Bâ€). Saves are the prime example. The rest of the interrupts, the ones without the signal word “wouldâ€, come last (“When A happens, do Bâ€).
Due to the above timings being separated, the rules also avoid running into tricky abuses such as being able to use Viserys’ effect multiple times by killing him, triggering it, and finally saving him with a Bodyguard. That’s something that would have been possible if saves, cancels and other interrupts all functioned at same timing step. Now, Viserys’ effect can only be triggered if players have moved past the step for saving him.
Type IV: Triggering Condition: End of a Phase
Another new type of Interrupt we’ve encountered on spoiled cards is nicely exemplified by Varys (seen here):
"Interrupt: When the dominance phase ends, remove Varys from the game to discard each character from play."
Again, the card text tells us in no uncertain terms what the Triggering Condition is – “When the dominance phase endsâ€. As for why this effect isn’t a response - that should be pretty obvious. How can anything happen “after the dominance phase endsâ€, after all? If anything were confusing, then something happening in the darkness lurking between phases would be it!
This type of effect does not have a direct equivalent in 1.0. The rules explicitly prohibited the triggering of Responses during the “End of Phase†framework action windows, so the only effects that could happen “at the end of†a phase were passives. So triggered effects “when X phase ends†are a genuinely new aspect of 2.0. An effect like Varys would have to be framed as a Dominance action in 1.0 (and indeed such an effect existed).
Type V: The Curious Case of Benjamen Stark
So these are the four types of Interrupts we’ve seen so far. Above we have also hinted at a fifth type. Let’s have a look at Benjen Stark CS122 (seen in the Tutorial video):
"Interrupt: When Benjen Stark is killed, gain 2 power for your faction. Then, shuffle him back into your deck instead of placing him in your dead pile."
The Interrupt ability consists of two parts. The first one (“When Benjen Stark is killed, gain 2 power for your factionâ€) is the “card leaves play†type we discussed above with Viserys. The second part however, after the “Thenâ€, is new and unique (so far). This “When a card leaves play, do X with it instead of placing it in its usual destination†type of effect is called a replacement effect. They were not uncommon in 1.0, and timing-wise, they were handled as a special kind of constant effect. Benjen Stark CS122 suggests that replacement effects will be handled as Interrupts in 2.0, and the 2.0 rules reference confirms it. So players should get used to the idea that they’ll have to remember to trigger their replacement effects in 2.0 (as opposed to them happening automatically like in 1.0).
Conclusions, Summaries And Last Words, With Some Final Remarks On Top
So, that’s pretty much the gist of what can be said about Interrupts in 2.0 so far. There’s at least five types:
I) Cancel Interrupts
II) Save Interrupts
III) Triggering Condition: Card leaving play
IV) Triggering Condition: End of a Phase
V) Replacement Effects
These types occur at different points in the timing structure, with the ability text telling us what those points are. If unsure, look for the signal words of each type to identify them. The priority is basically like this:
Cancel Interrupts (Signal words: would initiate, cancel, “When A would initiate, cancel…â€) before Save Interrupts (Signal words: would (but not initiate!), save, “When A would happen, save…â€) before regular Interrupts (No would, “When A happens, do Bâ€) before Reactions (“After A happens, do Bâ€).
At each of those steps, Forced Interrupts/Forced Reactions have to be triggered before non-Forced Interrupts/Reactions can be triggered. Note, however, that nobody has seen forced saves or cancels yet. Let’s see if anybody has the guts to design some cards that have them.
Let’s give a concrete example using some of the cards discussed above:
- Viserys Targaryen CS167 is in play.
- An opponent plays an event that would kill Viserys.
- Cancel Interrupts like Bran Stark can be triggered to cancel the effects of the event. If one resolves successfully, no further Cancel Interrupts, no Save Interrupts and no other Interrupts or Reactions related to Viserys being killed can be triggered.
- If the event is not canceled, Save Interrupts like Bodyguard can be triggered. If Viserys is saved, no further Save Interrupts and no other Interrupts or Reactions related to Viserys being killed can be triggered.
- If Viserys is not saved, pertinent regular Interrupts (like his own ability) can be triggered.
- After all Interrupts have resolved, Viserys is put in the dead pile.
- Finally, pertinent Reactions (like Joffrey Baratheon CS86) can be triggered.
NOTE: This article regrouped information from the RRG (Rules Reference Guide) entries: Cancel (p.4), Interrupts (p. 10), Instead (p.10), Initiating Abilities/Marshaling Cards (p.10), Save (p.18), Triggering Condition (p.22) and Would (p.23), among others. These entries are among the most technical and complex aspects of the RRG, but, with any luck, once you understand the resulting timing structure, you’ll find that it is both far simpler, and less prone to problems, than its 1.0 predecessor.
This is the last of our Q&TR pre-Release articles for the 2.0 Core Set. Hopefully we’ve managed to prepare you enough to help you get started straight away. FFG will also be releasing the Learn to Play and Rules Reference Guide documents in their preview next week, allowing you to proceed with your preparations.
The Quill & Tankard Regulars will most likely return again soon, with our more run-of-the-mill Rules/Technical coverage for 2.0. Until then, chime in with your thoughts on Interrupts below, or click here to read previous issues of Quill & Tankard Regulars 2.0 coverage.
Antti Korventausta (WWDrakey)is a self-proclaimed Finnish AGoT philosopher and doomsayer hermit, who used to practice Quantum Mechanics, but found that it paled to AGoT in both interest and complexity. Having played and judged for more years than he would like to admit, he has found himself on the winning side of rules arguments more than he would expect. In any game he plays, he has a tendency of playing anything he considers to be off the beaten path, whether it makes sense to others or not.
Helmut Hohberger (Ratatoskr) started playing AGoT in September 2010 and has never looked back (although his wife has, longingly). As a German, he loves rules - and I mean *loves* 'em. He is the quintessential rules board morlock. While the others played and frolicked about outside, he sat by candlelight in a remote corner of the library and tried to get a grasp on the intricacies of the 1st edition rules. He even thought he did not do too bad at it, but then the Call of the Three-Eyed Crow drove him into the darkest depths of madness and despair. But he’s all better now, honest, and looking forward to new challenges.
Iiro Jalonen (Ire) Started AGoT in 2009, got pulled under the waves by Krakens years ago, and has never looked back. While not an Oldtown local, he has often been spotted in the Quill & Tankard Inn making sure that the rules of sportsmanship are maintained with the traditional finger dance games. A self-inflicted Shagga and active member of the global AGoT community, he has always strived to know the rules of the game, in order to make them do ridiculous things.
James Waumsley (JCWamma) is a first edition veteran who has judged at multiple large tournaments including the European championship of Stahleck. A renowned loudmouth and pedant, he will shout about the rules loud enough that he can be heard by those north of the wall.
Alex Hynes (Istaril) co-hosts Beyond the Wall, writes articles for FFG, created and curates the Annals - and even tried to fill in ktom’s shoes in the big ktom drought of 2013. When the Regulars asked him to be an honorary member, he, of course, refused and said he didn’t have the time. Or should have, anyway. Still, how much work can being an “Honorary†member be?
- istaril, TheGriffinReborn, mplain and 3 others like this
21 Comments
HEY! I WAS STILL PROOFREADING!
Sorry, did your proofreading get... interrupted?
It's funny that we were just having a conversation about timing of action/interrupts at end of phase in the rules forum, and this popped up.
I wonder if we ever get a card that says, for example:
"Reaction: After a player gains power, choose a character. Move as much power from that player's faction card to that character."
Can such a card be played in response to Benjen Start's ability, and choose him as the character? Is there a window in between "gain 2 power" and "shuffle him into your deck"?
What if it was an Interrupt? ("When a player gains power...")
According to Conquest, you certainly can react (or interrupt) an interrupt like Benjen's. The exact wording would most depend on the timing of replacement effects - which probably happen when the initial effect would have happened. If that's the case, then you could see
1.1 Effect which kills Benjen INitiates
1.1.1 Benjen's Interrupt Initiates
1.1.2 Benjen's Interrupt Resolves (gaining 2 power, setting the replacement effect)
1.1.2.1 Reaction (you described) initiates
1.1.2.2 Reaction (you described) resolves (moving power to Benjen)
1.2 Effect which kills Benjens resolves. The replacement effect having been set, he is shuffled into the deck instead of being placed in the dead pile.
Hm. So you're saying that it "sets the replacement effect" to happen in the future, but in your example Benjen's ability still resolves in full before I play a Reaction. Interesting.
Still, it doesn't quite tell me what I wanted to know. Let me try another example:
Arianne Martell
Action: Put a character with printed cost 5 or lower into play from your hand. Then, return Arianne Martell to your hand (cannot be saved). (Limit once per phase.)
Hypothetical Character
Forced Reaction: After this character enters play, sacrifice a character.
When I use Arianne's ability to put the Hypothetical Character into play, can I sacrifice her to his ability before she returns to my hand?
Omg, I missed the puns from the last articles, but getting them served as a interrupt to the end of this article, great work!
Though your writing skills are great, I always have a hard time getting through rules text in english (this is mostly why I am playing AGOT in my mother tongue, let the translator have his mind broken, not mine).
I am really looking forward to explain the rules to my comrades and new players, without always having to say: "well, it is like it is, sorry for that."
As this is a Forced Reaction you are describing, I would say Arianne is already gone. Her action fully resolve before you have any reaction to it, even a forced reaction.
Would it be different if this Reaction wasn't Forced?
Sry, for my previous answer, after rereading the timing think, I render myself false:
The entering of the character creates a new Reaction window (like in the case of Benjen) where you can react to entering play.
So, Arianne would be still in play while your reaction happens. What I am not sure of is the fact, where she goes now.
Reaction or Forced reaction doesn't matter in this case, the Forced Reaction would even have to resolve before an optional Reaction. If think you still can't kill her, because her effect already stated where she has to go, and as long as your reaction isn't a replacement effect, she isn't a legal target for sacrficing.
If this is all wrong, well, screw the new rules, I am confused like hell
My opponent controls Melissandre and plays Seen In Flames. I sacrifice Bran Stark to cancel it. Does my opponent still get to kneel a character?
i think it he still gets to kneel a character... he is still considered to have played that card, bran just canceled the effect of it
For definite confirmation we'd have to wait for the publication of the RR, but I strongly expect the answer to be yes. The event is still considered to have been played, even if its effects are canceled. Because that's what you do - you cancel the effects of an event that has been played. You don't undo the playing of the event.
^^That was me BTW. Sorry.
1. Viserys Targaryen would leave play. Interrupt: discard an attachment.
2. Interrupt: save him. (For example bodyguard)
3. He is saved.
Then what happened to that attachment? Since Viserys Targaryen won't leave play any more, is that discard attachments ability still triggered?
The timing described in this article very specifically tells us that saves (would...save) happen before regular interrupts (like leave play). That means that the save always has to go off first, and if it does, you wont be able to trigger the interrupt to leaving play. See the quote below
For the tl;dr crowd - the one thing you should take away from this article is this:
Cancel Interrupts (Signal words: would initiate, cancel, “When A would initiate, cancel…â€) before Save Interrupts (Signal words: would (but not initiate!), save, “When A would happen, save…â€) before regular Interrupts (No would, “When A happens, do Bâ€) before Reactions (“After A happens, do Bâ€).
At each of those steps, Forced Interrupts/Forced Reactions have to be triggered before non-Forced Interrupts/Reactions can be triggered.
So well done to FFG for making it intuitive.
So can I treat interrupt as "the reaction before effects" and interrupts happen still one by one?
So two probably very stupid questions:
1) Comparing Joffrey in the two versions, in 1.0 he could trigger gaining a power off himself if he was a Lord and you could then win if you hit 15 even if he was moribund(can't remember if he was but imagine he had the title added somehow) but in 2.0 as a reaction he can't?
2) Can you cancel saves?
1) Yup, now he can't. He won't even be in play when he needs to react to himself being killed.
2) Sure. Each new ability initiated opens up it's own cancel (then save) (then resolution) interrupt windows, and associated reactions.
It would look a little like this
1. Effect that kills attempts to initiate (and isn't cancelled)
2. Effect that kills resolves
2.1 The "would" priority interrupt of a save attempts to initiate
2.2 A cancel for the save attempts to initiate
2.3 The cancel resolves, preventing the save from initiating, bringing us back to
2 The Effect that kills resolves succesfully
That's a little bit of a simplification, because I didn't want to get into the attempts to initiate/attempts to resolve/resolves (to help add in the third , "leaves play" interrupts), but hopefully it shows you how you can still, in theory, cancel a save.