Jeremy Murray
msg tools
How does Fluffy's action, "For each item in hand active Hero chooses one: Lose 1 health; or discard a card," work with beneficial discard cards like Remembral or Chocolate frogs?

Say you have Remembral/Chocolate Frog in your hand with one other Item. Can you discard Remembral/Chocolate Frog to fulfill the discard option for the other Item in hand and in turn remove the need to discard another card for Remembral/Chocolate Frog, i.e. discard once with two Items in hand?

Or do you have to discard two cards regardless?

Note: This is all presuming you want to avoid the health loss.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Johnson
United States
Cedar Falls
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I'd have to imagine that the mechanics for this one is similar to the mechanics for Tom Riddle.

With Tom Riddle in play, if you have two allies in hand, you can discard one ally to "pay" for the other ally.

With Fluffy, if you have two items in hand, I don't see why you couldn't discard one item to "pay" for the other item. And if there are discard benefits for the item you discard, then it's a bonus for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jones
United States
Wilsonville
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
JayJ79 wrote:
With Tom Riddle in play, if you have two allies in hand, you can discard one ally to "pay" for the other ally.


I don't recall that there ever was an official ruling stating that discarding an ally alleviated you from the penalty of having to discard for itself also. I've always assumed that you count allies first and then had to discard that many cards.

Based on the ruling given here, the implication is that when a villain attacks, its full attack happens simultaneously. Any effects caused by discarding a card do not change the way you resolve that attack; you cannot re-evaluate the attack in the middle of resolving the card.

The only way you can really work a situation to your advantage is that if a DA card requires you to make a discard, you could discard an ally before resolving Tom's card (or an item before Fluffy's card) in order avoid his attack.

Although the Monster Box manual does not explicitly state that discard effects are triggered by Creature effects, I would be genuinely shocked if this was not intended.

[edit to correct link]
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davypi wrote:
JayJ79 wrote:
With Tom Riddle in play, if you have two allies in hand, you can discard one ally to "pay" for the other ally.


I don't recall that there ever was an official ruling stating that discarding an ally alleviated you from the penalty of having to discard for itself also. I've always assumed that you count allies first and then had to discard that many cards.


I've always assumed that you resolve the attack one ally at a time and can therefore discard ally 2 to ally 1's effect.

Quote:
Based on the ruling given here, the implication is that when a villain attacks, its full attack happens simultaneously. Any effects caused by discarding a card do not change the way you resolve that attack; you cannot re-evaluate the attack in the middle of resolving the card.


The link doesn't bring up a ruling for me. However there's an official ruling here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1655922/tom-riddle-question

That ruling is definitive on three points:
1) You can choose the "lose two health" option if you have only one health.
2) You can't choose the "lose two health" option if you are already stunned.
3) The choice on whether to lose health or discard happens sequentially for each ally, *not* simultaneously for all allies. If it were simultaneous, you could choose 2 health for each ally and experience only the stunning effect.

The ruling *does not* indicate that you can discard Ally #2 to avoid the effect triggering on him -- but it doesn't explicitly rule it out. There was discussion of that particular question in this thread:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1758487/order-operations-ri...

In that thread, you opined that if it were sequential (which it is), you could stop the discarding. When did you change your mind?

davypl wrote:
If Riddle's ability is "all at once" I would simply opt to take all the damange and discard half my hand. If Riddle's ability is one ally at a time, you may have to puzzle out if its better to do some discards before or after the stun happens to figure out how to create the least number of discards. It would also mean that if you discard your other allies as part of the stun action, Riddle's attack would stop.


After quoting the ruling from the other thread (showing effect is sequential), Corey Hopkins took the same approach (situation was a six card hand, Crabb & Goyle in play, four allies in hand, 2 health remaining):

Corey Hopkins wrote:
This tells me that each Ally is considered separately. So I would say "yes" to whether you can discard another Ally to avoid the trigger. I also think that Stunning happens immediately.

So here's your best move (if I'm right):
For Ally 1, discard Ally 2 & Lose 1 Health.
For Ally 3, discard Ally 4 & Lose 1 Health.
Stunned, discard two of four remaining cards.
You still have two cards left to play.


I suggest the following approach:

Quote:
Alternately, you could do this, if stunning happens immediately:

For Ally 1, retain it and lose 2 health.
Stunned, discard three cards -- Ally 2, Ally 3, Ally 4.
You now have three cards left to play, including Ally 1.


No one in that thread brought up the possibility that the number of times Riddle's effect would occur was fixed by the number of allies in his initial hand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davypi wrote:
The only way you can really work a situation to your advantage is that if a DA card requires you to make a discard, you could discard an ally before resolving Tom's card (or an item before Fluffy's card) in order avoid his attack.

Although the Monster Box manual does not explicitly state that discard effects are triggered by Creature effects, I would be genuinely shocked if this was not intended.


I've been playing that creature-based discards *do not* trigger DADA, since it explicitly confines the effect to Dark Arts and Villains discard triggering. We know that other cards that say "Villains" (e.g. Death Eater or Heir of Slytherin dark arts card) are not triggered by Creatures. This does unfortunately make DADA weaker than it was pre-expansion.

If it was intended for DADA to cover this, a replacement DADA card should have been included in Box 1.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Johnson
United States
Cedar Falls
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I don't have the card text in front of me (my copy of the game is loaned to a friend at the moment), but I don't believe Remembral/Chocolate Frog mention anything about Dark Arts or Villians, so that their discard effects could be triggered by Creatures (or by other Hogwarts cards or Horcrux effects that require discarding).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Murray
msg tools
I would think that if Fluffy or Riddle were meant to be resolved all at once as opposed to sequentially, the cards would have specified as the Diadem Horcrux does," At the start of each turn, if the Active Hero has at least one Ally, Item and Spell in hand, that Hero loses 2 heart
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jones
United States
Wilsonville
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dalestephenson wrote:
The link doesn't bring up a ruling for me.

Sorry, I meant to reference this thread:
Resolving order of attacks (possible year 3 & 4 spoilers)

Quote:
However there's an official ruling here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1655922/tom-riddle-question

That ruling is definitive on three points:
3) The choice on whether to lose health or discard happens sequentially for each ally, *not* simultaneously for all allies. If it were simultaneous, you could choose 2 health for each ally and experience only the stunning effect.


While the penalties are applied sequentially, note that Andrew says after you are stunned, you still have discard a card for the second Ally. He doesn't attach a conditional statement like "if the second Ally is still in your hand." The post implies that you pay the cost one at a time, but it does not imply that any given payment allows you to reduce the cost of the overall attack.

Quote:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1758487/order-operations-ri...

In that thread, you opined that if it were sequential (which it is), you could stop the discarding. When did you change your mind?


Well, I have to admit in retrospect that I'm not 100% sure where my mind was when I said that. I also think I stopped participating in the conversation at that point in the hopes that Andrew was going to say something. So my silence was not agreement with anything said thereafter, but rather trying to avoid making a possibly contradictory conjecture.

Also, in that thread, the OP asked a question if he had to lose 8 health for four allies. In my head, losing eight health is not the same thing as losing two health four times. So part of my reply was based on this idea that the OP was asking if Tom's attack meant the individual health losses were summed together or individual attacks. Since then, Andrew's reply about how multiple attacks affect Harry's cloak makes it clear that damage from Tom would be taken in packets rather as a single lump sum.

Quote:
No one in that thread brought up the possibility that the number of times Riddle's effect would occur was fixed by the number of allies in his initial hand.


You are correct and I think its a gross oversight on all our parts. I think we all got into a mindset that the whole card was damaged all at once or the whole card was re-evaluated all at once without considering the possibility that the correct answer was a hybrid of the two.

I think the correct way that Tom is supposed to be resolved is as follows:
1) Count the number allies. This is the number of penalties you must pay, and it is not reducible.
2) Pay each penalty one at a time. The only effect that can interrupt payment is stunning. (And now, also Detention!)
3) Take any "rewards" acquired from discard effects on Hogwarts cards.

In response to your question about "What has changed my mind?" First, I would say this is always how I have resolved the card. Again, I'm not sure where my mind was in the original post you quoted and part of my reply was simply conjecturing on alternate ways that it could be resolved. Second, I cannot point to any specific post, but I think that in the five months since that conversation happened I've become more confident that I understand Andrew's mindset regarding the game's rules. In particular, when discussing timing rules and it is unusual for a "good" thing to interrupt a "bad" thing. The idea that reducing your ally count would interrupt a Villain cost doesn't really fit in with this philosophy.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davypi wrote:
dalestephenson wrote:
The link doesn't bring up a ruling for me.

Sorry, I meant to reference this thread:
Resolving order of attacks (possible year 3 & 4 spoilers)


I'm not sure how that thread helps. That thread rules that the all-player discard is simultaneous. We know that Riddle's effect *isn't* simultaneous, or you could take the health penalty for all allies at once if you weren't already stunned.

Quote:
Quote:
However there's an official ruling here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1655922/tom-riddle-question

That ruling is definitive on three points:
3) The choice on whether to lose health or discard happens sequentially for each ally, *not* simultaneously for all allies. If it were simultaneous, you could choose 2 health for each ally and experience only the stunning effect.


While the penalties are applied sequentially, note that Andrew says after you are stunned, you still have discard a card for the second Ally. He doesn't attach a conditional statement like "if the second Ally is still in your hand." The post implies that you pay the cost one at a time, but it does not imply that any given payment allows you to reduce the cost of the overall attack.


Sure, it doesn't imply it -- but the *question* Andrew was responded to also doesn't imply that the second ally would be discarded and flat out stated that he would be discarding for the second ally. I'll agree it doesn't imply that you can avoiding the second effect by discarding the second ally, but it certainly does not explicitly rule it out.

Quote:
Quote:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1758487/order-operations-ri...

In that thread, you opined that if it were sequential (which it is), you could stop the discarding. When did you change your mind?


Well, I have to admit in retrospect that I'm not 100% sure where my mind was when I said that. I also think I stopped participating in the conversation at that point in the hopes that Andrew was going to say something. So my silence was not agreement with anything said thereafter, but rather trying to avoid making a possibly contradictory conjecture.


Fair point, I'm just pointing out that what you actually posted *did* agree with what was said thereafter. However, since you apparently never played that way, I'll accept that what you wrote was not what you actually thought at the time--and certainly is not what you think now!

Quote:
Also, in that thread, the OP asked a question if he had to lose 8 health for four allies. In my head, losing eight health is not the same thing as losing two health four times. So part of my reply was based on this idea that the OP was asking if Tom's attack meant the individual health losses were summed together or individual attacks. Since then, Andrew's reply about how multiple attacks affect Harry's cloak makes it clear that damage from Tom would be taken in packets rather as a single lump sum.


You are misremembering the OP's question. He is not asking if he "had" to lose 8 health, he is asking if he *can* lose 8 health at one go -- because Crabbe and Goyle were in play and stunning was inevitable, that would obviously be the best outcome if it were possible; but it's only possible if the choices for each ally are taken and assessed *simultaneously*. He's looking for the optimal solution.

Quote:
Quote:
No one in that thread brought up the possibility that the number of times Riddle's effect would occur was fixed by the number of allies in his initial hand.


You are correct and I think its a gross oversight on all our parts. I think we all got into a mindset that the whole card was damaged all at once or the whole card was re-evaluated all at once without considering the possibility that the correct answer was a hybrid of the two.


True, no one brought up that possibility, and it is indeed a possibility.

Quote:
I think the correct way that Tom is supposed to be resolved is as follows:
1) Count the number allies. This is the number of penalties you must pay, and it is not reducible.
2) Pay each penalty one at a time. The only effect that can interrupt payment is stunning. (And now, also Detention!)
3) Take any "rewards" acquired from discard effects on Hogwarts cards.


Do you have a ruling that indicates the discard rewards only happen *after* the card is completely resolved? Detention and Crabbe & Goyle would both take immediate effect from discarding, so why wouldn't DADA or discard rewards? I think it makes more sense to give the rewards immediately after the discard.

Quote:
In response to your question about "What has changed my mind?" First, I would say this is always how I have resolved the card. Again, I'm not sure where my mind was in the original post you quoted and part of my reply was simply conjecturing on alternate ways that it could be resolved. Second, I cannot point to any specific post, but I think that in the five months since that conversation happened I've become more confident that I understand Andrew's mindset regarding the game's rules. In particular, when discussing timing rules and it is unusual for a "good" thing to interrupt a "bad" thing. The idea that reducing your ally count would interrupt a Villain cost doesn't really fit in with this philosophy.


For cooperative games it's true that the Golden Rule tends to be ruling against the player. However, I think the ally discard rewards clever play, and I like games that reward clever play. Absent an official ruling, I intended to continue playing the way *I've* always resolved the card, which allows mitigation through ally discarding.

Further, the main flaw with this game has always been unbalanced outcomes; either a death spiral or steamrolling the game with little in between; with the result that most of the time when Voldy shows up the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The expansion has done a good job of reducing this somewhat, but it's still a big problem. Interpreting Riddle your way leans towards reducing the effect, since it's especially punishing for players with multiple allies, who are presumably doing well (at least well enough to purchase more allies). But Fluffy's a different story because it punishes items, Detentions are items, and too many Detentions is *the* road to reaching a death spiral in the game. If you have multiple detentions in hand and low health, your interpretation of Fluffy will cause an empty hand for someone who is obviously already doing poorly, while my interpretation will allow a discard of a detention to trigger a stun, allowing other detentions to get tossed as part of the stun and allowing the player to retain his few good cards to actually play. I think that makes the game more fun and more balanced. YMMV.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jones
United States
Wilsonville
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dalestephenson wrote:
Do you have a ruling that indicates the discard rewards only happen *after* the card is completely resolved? Detention and Crabbe & Goyle would both take immediate effect from discarding, so why wouldn't DADA or discard rewards? I think it makes more sense to give the rewards immediately after the discard.


The timing rules given in the FAQ indicate that villain effects take precedence over the effect of Hogwarts cards and Proficiencies. These have been scrutinized by both Andrew and Kami.

The difference Detention and C&G vs Hogwarts and DADA is penalties vs rewards. I have to admit that there hasn't been a question about where Detention! applies in the timing rules, but I'm willing to bet that its going to show up near the top.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davypi wrote:
dalestephenson wrote:
Do you have a ruling that indicates the discard rewards only happen *after* the card is completely resolved? Detention and Crabbe & Goyle would both take immediate effect from discarding, so why wouldn't DADA or discard rewards? I think it makes more sense to give the rewards immediately after the discard.


The timing rules given in the FAQ indicate that villain effects take precedence over the effect of Hogwarts cards and Proficiencies. These have been scrutinized by both Andrew and Kami.


Don't be so modest. The timing rules given in the FAQ were composed entirely by you, were they not? Since it's been scrutinized by both Andrew and Kami, I assume the timing list you composed as a "general rule" must be generally correct.

However, there are two kinds of effects in play, effects that happen because you are executing the text, and effects that happen in reaction to executing the text of a differnt card. The second source listed is all about the order of the *first* kind of event, not really about discard-related timing or other reactions. The ruling talks about when the heroes can *act*, not when their passive abilities can *react*. The first source merely is a ruling about immediate stunning interruption. (And I note that discards from stunning *does* cause discard relating triggers to fire, per the rulebook) . The sources listed in the FAQ to justify the summary really don't have rulings that deal with *reaction* timings at all.

If we take your order listing as authoritative for reactions as well *and* assume that stunning and only stunning is capable of "interrupting" a dark arts card in practice, then it would not only be discard rewards that would have to wait for the card to be fully resolved, but *also* effects from Crabbe & Goyle or DADA. Is that your view? I've certainly not played that way or even considered playing that way--in other games I've played with passive/Reaction/Response type effects there definitely are rulings on which order to resolve multiple triggered effect, but their universal behavior is having them happen when they are triggered and not some future time. Note that stunning itself *is* a reaction.

Quote:
The difference Detention and C&G vs Hogwarts and DADA is penalties vs rewards. I have to admit that there hasn't been a question about where Detention! applies in the timing rules, but I'm willing to bet that its going to show up near the top.


Logically, Detention is just a card discard effect. It didn't come from the Hogwarts market, but neither does the Remembrall. There's absolutely no reason that discarding Detention should trigger *before* Crabbe & Goyle while Remembrall triggers *after*. That would be most unintuitive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jones
United States
Wilsonville
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dalestephenson wrote:
Don't be so modest. The timing rules given in the FAQ were composed entirely by you, were they not? Since it's been scrutinized by both Andrew and Kami, I assume the timing list you composed as a "general rule" must be generally correct.


I'm not sure why you care, but the original timing list was actually written by Byron. After about the dozenth time I ended up referring to it, I felt it needed to be in the FAQ. The main thing I did was to look at some of Andrew's other replies, add items to the list that were consistent with those rulings, and politely asked him to confirm those findings. So, sure, I'll take credit for extending the list to its natural conclusion, but it was not my original idea nor was the list constructed with any agenda in mind other than accuracy. I honestly have nothing to gain by its correctness or incorrectness, but the point of the rule is to have a non-arbitrary way of resolving issues when an official rule does not otherwise exist, which is exactly what the situation we are discussing is.

In all honesty, I don't really care how you play the game in your house. Some people like to go down the rule lawyer path and some don't. The rule is there for people who care about that level of specificity. I apologize if I am misunderstanding your tone, but you seem to be personally affronted by my interpretation, but really, I'm not going to get in your face if you want to play the game otherwise.

Quote:
If we take your order listing as authoritative for reactions as well *and* assume that stunning and only stunning is capable of "interrupting" a dark arts card in practice, then it would not only be discard rewards that would have to wait for the card to be fully resolved, but *also* effects from Crabbe & Goyle or DADA. Is that your view?


I'm not entirely sure what your point with C&G is. Whether you take the damage in the middle of a Dark Arts card or at the end of resolving a Dark Arts card, you'll be at the same health value once resolution is complete. Unless I am missing some subtlety this is a moot argument.

Edit: I suppose discarding Protego or some other card could give you the health needed to avoid being stunned by C&G. But I'm still sticking to my guns on this. If the combination of a DA card and C&G cause you to be stunned before the healing of a discard effect triggers, I say you've been stunned.

I have always played the game that DADA resolves after the Dark Arts card is resolved. It actually did occur to me after my last post that if the timing rules are taken literally, a hero that is stunned as a result of a discard effect would be stunned first and then gain their attack token from DADA. So, if this is the conflict you are trying to point out then, oh well, I guess you got me. Here is your prize: *shrug* I mean, seriously, one attack token is a small consolation in relation to the penalty you suffer for being stunned. Or is there some other point you are trying to make that I've overlooked?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jones
United States
Wilsonville
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
JayJ79 wrote:
I don't have the card text in front of me (my copy of the game is loaned to a friend at the moment), but I don't believe Remembral/Chocolate Frog mention anything about Dark Arts or Villians, so that their discard effects could be triggered by Creatures (or by other Hogwarts cards or Horcrux effects that require discarding).


Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. Talking about just the core game, the top of page 14 lists the specific conditions under which discard effects trigger. If taken literally, discards from Horcrux use or Proficiency cards do not trigger discard effects, but Andrew did later confirm that both of these were also valid triggers despite their exclusion from the manual. I have similarly assumed that Creature attacks and Patronuses are valid triggers that were simply overlooked in the manual. I believe end of turn discards are meant to be the only kind of discard that will not trigger a discard effect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davypi wrote:
dalestephenson wrote:
Don't be so modest. The timing rules given in the FAQ were composed entirely by you, were they not? Since it's been scrutinized by both Andrew and Kami, I assume the timing list you composed as a "general rule" must be generally correct.


I'm not sure why you care, but the original timing list was actually written by Byron. After about the dozenth time I ended up referring to it, I felt it needed to be in the FAQ. The main thing I did was to look at some of Andrew's other replies, add items to the list that were consistent with those rulings, and politely asked him to confirm those findings. So, sure, I'll take credit for extending the list to its natural conclusion, but it was not my original idea nor was the list constructed with any agenda in mind other than accuracy. I honestly have nothing to gain by its correctness or incorrectness, but the point of the rule is to have a non-arbitrary way of resolving issues when an official rule does not otherwise exist, which is exactly what the situation we are discussing is.


Thank you for the clarification. The original list by Byron is about the order of evaluation when proceeding through the turn, it has absolutely nothing to do with ordering *reaction-type* effects. Malfoy and C&G are Villains, but their effects come into play *anytime* their trigger fires. I have played that the same is true of *any* reaction-type effects, whether DADA or detentions or Remembrall or Hogwarts cards with discard effects.

But I'm not trying to dismiss your contribution. Your FAQ is a great contribution to the community and so are your postings here. However, any unofficial FAQ -- not just yours -- has its authoritativeness rest on the *official* rulings, and the linked rulings in the FAQ don't justify the ordering when discarded, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that they aren't correct! A closer look at the FAQ shows another link that does have a relevance to discard timing (Transfiguration & Marauder's Map), but that ruling is consistent with "reactions interrupt active effect" as much as with "discard effects are prioritized before proficiencies".

In the absence of a definitive ruling, consensus opinion can still be useful and even when opinions differ the discussion can still be useful.

Quote:
In all honesty, I don't really care how you play the game in your house. Some people like to go down the rule lawyer path and some don't. The rule is there for people who care about that level of specificity. I apologize if I am misunderstanding your tone, but you seem to be personally affronted by my interpretation, but really, I'm not going to get in your face if you want to play the game otherwise.


I apologize if I am misunderstanding your tone, but you seem to be personally affronted by my not accepting the FAQ ordering as "the rule". I mean no disrespect to you and I value your contributions in this thread and elsewhere, along with the work performed in preparing the unofficial FAQ. For my part, I *do* at least have a mild curiosity on how people play the game in their houses, especially in the case when the way they play differ from mine. And also especially in the case where the way they play differs *and* is not considered a house rule by them.

Quote:
Quote:
If we take your order listing as authoritative for reactions as well *and* assume that stunning and only stunning is capable of "interrupting" a dark arts card in practice, then it would not only be discard rewards that would have to wait for the card to be fully resolved, but *also* effects from Crabbe & Goyle or DADA. Is that your view?


I'm not entirely sure what your point with C&G is. Whether you take the damage in the middle of a Dark Arts card or at the end of resolving a Dark Arts card, you'll be at the same health value once resolution is complete. Unless I am missing some subtlety this is a moot argument.

Edit: I suppose discarding Protego or some other card could give you the health needed to avoid being stunned by C&G. But I'm still sticking to my guns on this. If the combination of a DA card and C&G cause you to be stunned before the healing of a discard effect triggers, I say you've been stunned.


Yes, that would follow from a villain reaction being prioritized over a discard effect. The linked rulings in the FAQ (not for the timing list but elsewhere) prove that Horcrux effect precedes played-ally-effect, and that the discard effect precedes the active effect of Transfiguration (searching for a card) -- both consistent with your timing list.

And like those cases, the timing *can* matter. If you have one health and a Dark Arts card forces a discard, with C&G and DADA both in play, the order of application matters. If you apply DADA first, you aren't stunned, if you apply C&G first you *are* stunned. Which is better for the user really depends on the situation -- if you don't want to be stunned DADA first is better; if stunning is inevitable C&G first is better, because you'll save the attack DADA generates.

Riddle and Fluffy add a new element to the timing in that there may be multiple actions *separately resolved* (which is why you can't take an 8 health hit from a 4-ally hand). Going back to the C&G/DADA case with a multiple-discard effect from Riddle (since DADA doesn't work on Fluffy), whether the effects happen *when the discard occurs* or *only after each separate discard-or-health event has finished* it may make the difference between stunning or not (or between saving multiple DADA-generated attacks or not).

Most of the time it doesn't matter, but occasionally it does.

Quote:
I have always played the game that DADA resolves after the Dark Arts card is resolved. It actually did occur to me after my last post that if the timing rules are taken literally, a hero that is stunned as a result of a discard effect would be stunned first and then gain their attack token from DADA. So, if this is the conflict you are trying to point out then, oh well, I guess you got me. Here is your prize: *shrug* I mean, seriously, one attack token is a small consolation in relation to the penalty you suffer for being stunned. Or is there some other point you are trying to make that I've overlooked?


Sir, this is a rules discussion! Whether the effect is large or small hardly matters, the *point* of the discussion is to hash out how the rules should be actually applied. "Is that your view" is not a rhetorical question, an attack, or a "gotcha". However, it was a bad question on my part for specifying "Dark Arts" card, since I can't remember any Dark Arts card that act in the separately-considered-choices of Riddle or Fluffy. I really just wanted to confirm that in the Riddle case you defer any C&G effects until *all* discards have been processed. I apologize for my lousy wording.

In the case of Riddle multiple discards may occur. If you have two health and discard twice to Riddle with C&G and DADA in play, and prioritize C&G over DADA for execution, if you take both effects *when they happen* you end up with 2 health and 2 attack tokens. If you defer both reactions until the discards are finished and then apply them all at once, you end up stunned with 2 attack tokens. That's *not* a small difference.

(Of course, if the discard-triggered effects were applied simultaneously, or in the order of the player's choice, C&G would be unable to force stunning with DADA in play.)

Adding detention to the mix further complicates discard-related scenario -- when you take the -2 health hit from discarding a detention certainly can matter in practice. Stunning is a bad thing, but manipulating the timing of an inevitable stun is sometimes possible. Timing effects may be critical to determining how to do that.
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.