Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Game of Thrones: The Iron Throne» Forums » Rules

Subject: Sequencing of character card play rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Renaud Verlaque
United States
Shelter Island Heights
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
The rules make it clear how to sequence the resolution of two or more character cards played in the same "step" (such as after house cards are played but before they are revealed), and that is starting with the challenger and going clockwise. #1 Does that sequencing also apply to playing the cards? And #2 must the cards be revealed as they are played or only revealed (and then resolved) after all players have had a chance to play?

In our first session tonight, I declined to play a card (although there does not seem to be anything in the rules about proactively declaring that one will not play a card), but the player after me (clockwise and farther from the challenger than I was) played a card which would have made me changed my mind if allowed as his playing (forcing me to withdraw from what proved to be a winning encounter) denied me a joint victory while my playing (allowing me to withdraw and still share in the spoils of victory) would have preserved it. So the question is whether I lost the opportunity to play my card by not playing it before him or whether I could still have played after him, having seen his card, and then benefit from the priority order for resolving cards played in the same "step" to share I. The victory but effectively rendering his card moot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schulz
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
I believe that you would have been able to play a character card after him as the rules do not state any sort of order with regards to playing character cards (other than character cards must be played during their specified timing). For most cases, it doesn't matter in which order the cards resolve.

When there is a conflict, as you suggested, you should use page 10 of the rule book which states: "If other effects conflict, they are resolved in clockwise order starting with the challenger. If the effects cannot be resolved in this manner, the challenger decides the resolution order."

I would argue that for your example, the effects cannot be resolved by the first sentence (as one of the effects would no longer have a target). Therefore, the challenger would decide on the resolution order.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Renaud Verlaque
United States
Shelter Island Heights
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
Thanks, though I'm not sure about the need for the challenger to rule as one could say that it is an intended effect of my card to make any adverse effect from the encounter moot,
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The issue at hand in our game last night (which Renaud participated in and which brought this to light) is that although he would have had priority for his effects, he did not choose to play a card until a player later than him did. That card removed his character as a participant, so he would be unable to play his own card if the first one is resolved.

I don't think the game is meant to get into "response timing". We just went around the table and asked each player if they wanted to play something.

An alternative is ask all players who wants to play a card, then all are played simultaneously and resolved according to the priority order laid out in the rules.

The rules for playing character cards say absolutely nothing about timing between players, and the timing rules refer only to 'effects', with no reference to what sequence players choose to play cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Renaud Verlaque
United States
Shelter Island Heights
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
Right, though one may wonder why the designers felt compelled to specify the sequencing of resolution if it is NOT different from the sequencing of card play in the first place...

I agree that probably the simplest way to approach it is to require players, starting with the challenger and going clockwise, to put down the card(s) they intend to play in a given step, but without revealing them (so as not to advantage the players who have yet to act), and then, once everyone has played or passed, reveal and resolve leader cards one by one, starting with the challenger and going clockwise, and then reveal and resolve other character cards one by one, in the same order.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schulz
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
sdiberar wrote:
The issue at hand in our game last night (which Renaud participated in and which brought this to light) is that although he would have had priority for his effects, he did not choose to play a card until a player later than him did. That card removed his character as a participant, so he would be unable to play his own card if the first one is resolved.

I don't think the game is meant to get into "response timing". We just went around the table and asked each player if they wanted to play something.

What is the point of the Conflict Resolution where it states "If effects occur at the same time..."? If character cards are played in some sort of specified order and they resolve immediately, how can effects ever resolve at the same time?

sdiberar wrote:
An alternative is ask all players who wants to play a card, then all are played simultaneously and resolved according to the priority order laid out in the rules.

If this is supposed to be a simultaneous action selection mechanism, then this is a huge omission from the rule book.

sdiberar wrote:
The rules for playing character cards say absolutely nothing about timing between players, and the timing rules refer only to 'effects', with no reference to what sequence players choose to play cards.

The only rules stated in the rule book regarding the playing of character cards is that one must be participating in the encounter with the matching character (or using the character card that matches their leader while participating in the encounter) and it must be used during the specified timing listed on the card. Since the timing rules only refer to effects and in which order to resolve them, I would surmise that the character cards can be played in any order.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Keraptis wrote:
The only rules stated in the rule book regarding the playing of character cards is that one must be participating in the encounter with the matching character (or using the character card that matches their leader while participating in the encounter) and it must be used during the specified timing listed on the card. Since the timing rules only refer to effects and in which order to resolve them, I would surmise that the character cards can be played in any order.

And yet there are timing conflicts, and the rules are silent about how to process the intention to play a card. Back to our example, player B plays a card, and now player A (who would have priority if simultaneous) wants to intervene so as not to lose the opportunity to play. Allowed or not, under your understanding of the rules?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schulz
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
sdiberar wrote:
Keraptis wrote:
The only rules stated in the rule book regarding the playing of character cards is that one must be participating in the encounter with the matching character (or using the character card that matches their leader while participating in the encounter) and it must be used during the specified timing listed on the card. Since the timing rules only refer to effects and in which order to resolve them, I would surmise that the character cards can be played in any order.

And yet there are timing conflicts, and the rules are silent about how to process the intention to play a card. Back to our example, player B plays a card, and now player A (who would have priority if simultaneous) wants to intervene so as not to lose the opportunity to play. Allowed or not, under your understanding of the rules?

Allowed. The rules do not specify that cards have to be played in a specific order. Your card states that it must be played "Before house cards are revealed". Since the house cards have not been revealed, you should be allowed to play your card.

Look at it like this: the "specified timing" that these cards can be played allows for a back and forth between the challenger and defender. The challenging side may be behind in winning an encounter and so they play a card or two to gain an advantage. The defending side plays a card to now swing the advantage to them. Neither side plays any more cards. The cards now resolve giving the advantage to the defending side.

If the order of the cards resolving matters, then page 10 of the rule book is invoked.

As an example, let's say, as the supporting player on the challenger side I play a card that gives my character +5 power for the encounter. A player on the defending side now plays a card that causes me to withdraw. The order that these resolve doesn't matter. In the end, I withdraw from the encounter.

Conversely, if the player on the defending side played a card that halved my character's power, the order in which they resolve would matter. If I had 10 power on my character and my effect resolves first, I would end up with 7 power (rounded down). If the defending effect resolves first, I would end up with 10 power. We would have to invoke page 10 of the rule book to figure out the order of the effects resolving.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. If player B's card removes player A's participant character, then what?

Where do you get the idea that character cards aren't resolved immediately?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schulz
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
sdiberar wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. If player B's card removes player A's participant character, then what?

Where do you get the idea that character cards aren't resolved immediately?

Let me try to clear up my opinion.

Page 10 of the rule book states: "If effects occur at the same time, apply the following rules". If each character card resolved immediately, the effects could never occur at the same time. I do not believe a rule was added to the rule book that has zero effect.

It should also be noted that at no point does the rule book claim that all effects during a "specified timing" always resolve at the same time. I take this to mean that effects can sometimes occur at the same time, and other times, not occur at the same time.

A few ways to handle playing multiple character cards within a specified timing (within the confines of the written rules):

1) Make it a real time speed mechanism. Whomever plays a card first resolves their card first. "Conflict Resolution" would only be invoked when it was "too close to call" because two or more players played cards at nearly the same time. My personal opinion is that nothing in the rules indicates there should be a real time element to this game and that this isn't really in the spirit of the game.

2) Allow a short time buffer of a few seconds to allow people to play a character card at the same time. This seems like it would lead to "You didn't play that in time!", "Yes I did! Did you time me?" types of situations and would be more trouble than it is worth.

3) The way my group plays: players may invoke the "Conflict Resolution" rules which would cause the effects to resolve at the same time.

This means that Player A could play a character card and invoke the "Conflict Resolution" rules making the character cards resolve at the same time, or they could allow Player B's character card effect to fully resolve and then play their own character card (it would still be "Before house cards are revealed").

In your specific example, only invoking "Conflict Resolution" will work because if they allow the initial effect to resolve they will no longer be a participating player in the encounter.

Of course, a group could house rule in a specific order or simultaneous action mechanism as already mentioned, but that would, in my opinion, destroy the back and forth dynamic that games like this and Cosmic Encounter offer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Florian Ruckeisen
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Keraptis wrote:
Page 10 of the rule book states: "If effects occur at the same time, apply the following rules". If each character card resolved immediately, the effects could never occur at the same time. I do not believe a rule was added to the rule book that has zero effect.

Unless people announce playing a card simultaneously, as you suggested it being handled as per your 1) "real time mechanism". Which I would argue is a perfectly "natural" way of handling things and would lend the rule quoted above a lot of sense.

Quote:
My personal opinion is that nothing in the rules indicates there should be a real time element to this game and that this isn't really in the spirit of the game.

And likewise, there is nothing in the rules that indicates abilities/effects aren't resolved immediately after the card has been played, and instead only "fire" at the end of their respective timing windows.

I'm not sure what I find to be in the spirit of the game here, but I have tripped up over this stuff myself. I'll say that I'm not 100% happy with neither "first come first served" effect resolution nor with "you made me retreat, yet I retroactively still get to use my ability"...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schulz
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
Snapshot wrote:
Keraptis wrote:
Page 10 of the rule book states: "If effects occur at the same time, apply the following rules". If each character card resolved immediately, the effects could never occur at the same time. I do not believe a rule was added to the rule book that has zero effect.

Unless people announce playing a card simultaneously, as you suggested it being handled as per your 1) "real time mechanism". Which I would argue is a perfectly "natural" way of handling things and would lend the rule quoted above a lot of sense.

What I meant was that two cards can't be physically played at exactly the same time even if the difference is only a few milliseconds. What we are really discussing here is the length of the window where an effect can be claimed to have been played simultaneously.

My group uses a very lenient length in which as long as the original effect hasn't been physically resolved, another effect can be played and the simultaneous claim can be made.

We do this rather than trying to define exactly what constitutes an effect being played. Is it when someone separates a card from the rest of their hand? Is it when someone begins or finishes announcing the effect? Is it when a card physically hits the table?

The downside, of course, is that with a large window of opportunity people can (and will) play effects and respond to previously played cards. We have, however, found that this happens rarely and generally the differences are rather small.

In the original situation, for example, the game is still going to end (regardless of how you played it). The Lannister player is still going to lose and the challenger is still going to win. The only difference is whether the OP shares the victory or not, and they were given the chance to when the challenger accepted their pledge of support. The difference, in my opinion, is fairly small.

It should be noted that I am not trying to sway people's opinion on what the correct interpretation is. I think whatever length of window a group decides upon is perfectly valid (within reason). I am not fond, however, of instituting some sort of order to play cards nor making cards played face down and simultaneously revealed which I believe were the initial questions in the OP.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quote:
If other effects conflict, they are resolved in clockwise order
starting with the challenger. If the effects cannot be resolved
in this manner, the challenger decides the resolution order
Page 10

I'm just going to weigh in and say that the simplest way to deal with this kind of thing is to let the challenger decide in any "grey" area.

Cards should be able to be played in response to other cards that haven't resolved completely but if there is any reasonable doubt then first the conflict rules should be invoked and if necessary the challenger can decide how it plays out if this doesn't answer the question or anything is still unclear.

e.g. If a player/character is able to retroactively escape being targeted by an effect then perhaps the player of the other card should be able to target another player/character if this is possible. Leaving it up to the challenger might seem arbitrary but if everyone is aware of that caprice then everyone can play to it.

You could even quiz the challenger on their likely response before playing your card and then be sorely disappointed when they change their mind after you play it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
So the question is whether or not player A is allowed to play Mace Tyrell's 'Oblivious' card, if someone else just played Tywin's "Calculating" card. Which depends on whether Calculating resolves immediately, or whether there is a timing window for someone to play another card before it resolves.

This is a good question, and I don't see anything explicitly address this in the rules.

It seems to me that the 'conflict resolution' timing rules previously mentioned implicitly assume cards don't resolve immediately they are played. Otherwise they seem redundant; and the language is such that I do't get the impression they were thinking of the marginal case when it's not clear who played their card first.

So I'd suspect in this case those timing rules apply and both card effects would apply. However, yet again I think only FFG can really resolve this issue. I have submitted another query for this one.

This game really needs at least an FAQ/clarifications pdf. And ideally a whole new online rules book in a clearer format.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
FFG response:

Quote:
4. Regarding Character card resolution timing. You do in fact follow the timing conflict rules from the rulebook. In the case that a card no longer has a legal target, the card is not wasted. It can’t legally be played so it just returns to the player’s hand.

Dane Beltrami
Game Developer


So in this case you follow the timing - player A's 'Oblivious' card can be played after player B has played Calculating, and it will trigger first if they are first in play order.

However having already withdrawn Tyrells, Calculating may no longer have a valid target (if there are no other supporting players). In which case it returns to the Lannister player's hand.

If Calculating resolves first then I think Oblivious will just be discarded, as per the Withdrawing rules on p9.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
Orion3T wrote:
If Calculating resolves first then I think Oblivious will just be discarded, as per the Withdrawing rules on p9.


I was wrong; I asked Dane for further clarification:

Quote:
Orion3T:

What happens if the cards Oblivious and Calculating are played, and Calculating resolves first due to play order? Is it still valid to resolve Oblivious since that player has been removed from the encounter before their card triggers?

I'm thinking it doesn't resolve, and is not returned to their hand since the 'Withdrawing' rule on p9 would apply. It states that any played cards are discarded when a player is forced to withdraw their support. Is that right?

Dane:

In this case, you would not be able to play oblivious. It would not be discarded as it wasn’t played, but any cards from previous steps (like before cards are placed, or at the start of your turn) will be lost.



Orion3T:

Ahh ok. So in this case cards are not considered 'played' until they have been able to legally resolve. Meaning, until any timing conflict is resolved, the player has only 'tried to play' the card. To count as 'played', the card must be able to resolve. If someone 'tries to play' a card but it doesn't resolve, then it is returned to their hand.


Dane:

That is correct.



I add this here because it seems to be a potentially important point about how conflicts resolve - if someone plays a card which means a card you already tried to play could no longer be played and/or resolved, then your card returns to your hand.

I'm not sure if this same point might clear up some other queries people had.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar Molas
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion3T wrote:


Quote:
Orion3T:

What happens if the cards Oblivious and Calculating are played, and Calculating resolves first due to play order? Is it still valid to resolve Oblivious since that player has been removed from the encounter before their card triggers?

I'm thinking it doesn't resolve, and is not returned to their hand since the 'Withdrawing' rule on p9 would apply. It states that any played cards are discarded when a player is forced to withdraw their support. Is that right?

Dane:

In this case, you would not be able to play oblivious. It would not be discarded as it wasn’t played, but any cards from previous steps (like before cards are placed, or at the start of your turn) will be lost.



Orion3T:

Ahh ok. So in this case cards are not considered 'played' until they have been able to legally resolve. Meaning, until any timing conflict is resolved, the player has only 'tried to play' the card. To count as 'played', the card must be able to resolve. If someone 'tries to play' a card but it doesn't resolve, then it is returned to their hand.


Dane:

That is correct.



I add this here because it seems to be a potentially important point about how conflicts resolve - if someone plays a card which means a card you already tried to play could no longer be played and/or resolved, then your card returns to your hand.

I'm not sure if this same point might clear up some other queries people had.


David, just to make sure I understand the timing and the withdraw rules help me analyse this situation:

Player A (challenger support): plays a card that doubles the power of the challenger's character.

Player B (defender): plays a card that forces Player A to withdraw.

Resolution 1 (Player A is first in player order): per the timing rules Player A's card resolves first, then Player B's card resolves. Since the withdraw happens last, per the withdraw rules, Player A's card is discarded an has no effect.

Situation 2: (Player A is last in player order): per the timing rules Player B's card resolves first, then Player A's card resolves. In this case the withdraw happens first, so Player A's card can't be played and goes back to his hand.

Are those situations correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
EdgarMolas wrote:
David, just to make sure I understand the timing and the withdraw rules help me analyse this situation:

Player A (challenger support): plays a card that doubles the power of the challenger's character.

Player B (defender): plays a card that forces Player A to withdraw.


Well, bear in mind I have the same information you do since I posted everything I was told and I'm just a player like you.... but for what it's worth:

Quote:
Resolution 1 (Player A is first in player order): per the timing rules Player A's card resolves first, then Player B's card resolves. Since the withdraw happens last, per the withdraw rules, Player A's card is discarded an has no effect.


I don't see why player A's card would not remain in effect - as you said, it resolves first, while they are still a supporting player.

The Withdrawl rules do say to discard any cards played, which suggests the card still counts as being played. Nothing made it illegal to play at the time it resolved, so I think the Challenger would still get their power doubled.

Unless you think there's something I'm missing?


Quote:
Situation 2: (Player A is last in player order): per the timing rules Player B's card resolves first, then Player A's card resolves. In this case the withdraw happens first, so Player A's card can't be played and goes back to his hand.


I'd agree with this, assuming that player A's card has a requirement that they be a supporting player which, at the time it should resolve, would no longer be the case so the card cannot be played and returns to hand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar Molas
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion3T wrote:
I don't see why player A's card would not remain in effect - as you said, it resolves first, while they are still a supporting player.

The Withdrawl rules do say to discard any cards played, which suggests the card still counts as being played. Nothing made it illegal to play at the time it resolved, so I think the Challenger would still get their power doubled.

Unless you think there's something I'm missing?


I don't know. It seems weird that the reason to withdraw other players is to keep their character out of the battle and SOMETIMES, depending on player order, stop them from playing cards.

The rules never use word discard except in the withdraw section. It seems to mean more than just "place the card in the discard pile". But it's probably just bad interpretation from my part.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
EdgarMolas wrote:
Orion3T wrote:
I don't see why player A's card would not remain in effect - as you said, it resolves first, while they are still a supporting player.

The Withdrawl rules do say to discard any cards played, which suggests the card still counts as being played. Nothing made it illegal to play at the time it resolved, so I think the Challenger would still get their power doubled.

Unless you think there's something I'm missing?


I don't know. It seems weird that the reason to withdraw other players is to keep their character out of the battle and SOMETIMES, depending on player order, stop them from playing cards.

The rules never use word discard except in the withdraw section. It seems to mean more than just "place the card in the discard pile". But it's probably just bad interpretation from my part.


I think it does just mean place in the discard pile.

Note in Danes response above that cards aren't considered played until they resolve; in this case the card triggers and resolves, is thus considered played and therefore discarded when the player is removed.

If their card hadn't managed to resolve (as in case 2) then it isn't played and so not discarded either.

That's how I would rules it anyway - and it seems you have nothing in mind which clarifies otherwise. There's nothing to say that when someone is forced to withdraw that cancels the effects of any cards they played which have already resolved, which seems to be what you were suggesting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.