Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BattleLore» Forums » Rules

Subject: Pick Pocket rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
C W
South Africa
flag msg tools
In my previous game I was in a situation where I needed to kill the last figure of a unit in the centre to win the game.

I played the Leadership Command card and the Pick Pocket lore card. My opponent had four lore in his goblet and played the False Orders lore card in reaction to my Command card.

At this point there was a violent debate as to whether I get to steal his lore before he uses it to change my orders.

In the end he changed my orders and went on to save his unit by making me scout the left wing. We also decided that I got to keep the Pick Pocket card (as opposed to use it to steal zero lore).

The Pick Pocket card states that it should be played alongside the Command card (which was never played) but also states it should be played immediately.

Please could someone advise on the correct order of things in this situation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
When two Lore cards are played at the same time, the 2nd one trumps. False Orders is a reaction to your Command card so it gets played first and the Lore used. You can play Pick Pocket with the new Command Card but you won't have anything to pick.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
When two Lore cards are played at the same time, the 2nd one trumps.


That is certainly true, but only when the 2nd card addresses the actions of the first.* In the instance the OP describes, Pick Pocket would affect the lore in the opponent's goblet before the play of False Orders. If by doing so the opponent now has less than 4 lore, False Orders cannot be played.

If there still is enough lore left in the opponent's goblet to play False Orders and False Orders is played, it does create a weird situation that is currently handled a little clumisly in the game but would be this way: Opponent would do the action of False Orders, and by doing so both the command card played and Pick Pocket played alongside it would go back into the original player's hand. The original player of Pick Pocket would get their lore expended back and the opponent would get their "picked" lore back. When the original players command card is chosen by the opponent from the action of False Orders, the original player would be able to play Pick Pocket again.

I like that the play is handled this way, as the strength of Pick Pocket is being able to pre-empt an opponent's lore play (along with pocketing lore for ones own use, assuming not being played out of character).

The precedence for handling it this way is not explicit within the lore compendium that DoW hosted, but is sorta in limbo until FFG picks it up again. In the meantime, Gerald Uitz's (DarkPadawan) version is available on BattleLoreMaster.com in the Downloads section of "The Guild". Here's the pertinent bit from the entries for False Orders speaking to what occurs if Spy is played alongside a Command Card and then the opponent attempts to play False Orders:

"Q: If Spy is played along with the Command card and Flase Order is played in reaction, which Lore Card takes priority?

Can the player who played Spy take False Order out [of] his opponent's hand? Or does the False Order remove Spy since it is associated with the Command card?

A: Be careful not to mix cards' types. While Spy is played along with a Command card, it is not a Command card, but a Lore card! So you could play a Command card with Spy, and your opponent could then react with a False Order to force you to play a different Command card. You would still get to play the Spy card with this (new) Command card however (assuming Spy was not used to force you to discard False Orders in the first place).

In terms of timing, the Spy card would take place first, though. So it could indeed be used to force the False Order out of [the opponent's] hand, indeed. "


So, yeah, C W, a tainted victory for your opponent

*On second thought, it is not true if taken literally, as never in the game are Lore cards played by opposing players played at the same time. The player whose turn it is who plays a command card and plays a lore card alongside it, plays the lore card first. If the opponent would chose to play a Lore card in reaction to the controlling player's Command card, it would be considered the second Lore card played.

The timing of Lore plays can lead to some sticky situations if players are sticklers for the rules, but intent is pretty easy to sniff out in this game

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Well good thing I don't care what DOW says anymore as I never agreed with that ruling. We'll see if FFG or Richard sticks with what DOW said.

As far as "When two Lore cards are played at the same time, the 2nd one trumps." It was a poor paraphrase of the rules which states "In case of contradiction between the effects of two lore cards played in succession, the second card trumps the effect of the first one."

But I agree that rule may not be applicable here as the rule is more valid when two cards are trying to do the exact same thing (in the example given: target the same set of units and one card adds and one subtracts one die). In that case, the last one played trumps.

As to this situation, DOW did us a disservice by not clearly defining order. The precedence with the Ambush-type cards in the C&C system is to completely interrupt the current player's turn and resolve what you played. I think they could have simplified things by sticking to this rule of thumb and let Reaction cards get resolved completely first, then let the current player finish his turn.

But as such, they have left a murky mess. False Orders is in reaction to the Command Card played. So it happens before the card is resolved and that is how it would be played out if it wasn't coupled with Pick Pocket. So if the Command card is interrupted, how can Pick Pocket, which is played alongside it, be allowed to go first? Besides them saying so in the Compendium, it doesn't follow much logical sense.

The only viable argument I have seen to support their ruling is to play a bit of "Diplomacy" logic on it. Pick Pocket attacks Lore. False Orders attacks Command Cards. Since neither attack each other, they "bypass" each other and still resolve. But while FO goes after the Command Card, PP has taken away the Lore needed to activate FO. So FO "bounces" and PP trumps. Yeah, it sells me on the argument but it just seems too intricate for this system. It also leaves room for interpretation.

But hopefully FFG puts a final stamp on it. If they keep teh same precedence, then I'll accept it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
Well good thing I don't care what DOW says anymore as I never agreed with that ruling. We'll see if FFG or Richard sticks with what DOW said.





Quote:
As far as "When two Lore cards are played at the same time, the 2nd one trumps." It was a poor paraphrase of the rules which states "In case of contradiction between the effects of two lore cards played in succession, the second card trumps the effect of the first one."


I've always felt that that was an incompletely stated rule - that they should go into more detail about what exactly is meant by "contradicts". I've always felt that it was intended to cover situations such as Fearless played later in a turn after Mists of Terror had been played, but not instances such as when Spy or Pick Pocket are played alongside command cards.

Quote:
But I agree that rule may not be applicable here as the rule is more valid when two cards are trying to do the exact same thing (in the example given: target the same set of units and one card adds and one subtracts one die). In that case, the last one played trumps.


Yeah, like that.

Quote:
As to this situation, DOW did us a disservice by not clearly defining order. The precedence with the Ambush-type cards in the C&C system is to completely interrupt the current player's turn and resolve what you played. I think they could have simplified things by sticking to this rule of thumb and let Reaction cards get resolved completely first, then let the current player finish his turn.


Agreed...about the disservice part, but I think they should move in the direction of more intricate card play, with well defined order however. I think they have that, with the cards released to date anyway. Need to shore things up as more are released, in my opinion. I do like that cards played first affect the game first, unless the lore card explicitly acts to the contrary (dispel/foiled, ambush/first strike come to mind), but cards played later in the turn trump the affect of those played earlier. Nice balance, I feel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C W
South Africa
flag msg tools
Thanks for the help.

Having studied the replies we are going to play the Pick Pocket card as follows:

Pick Pocket played in conjunction with a Command card gets priority and is played first.

Reaction card is played second if it can still be played.

If the reaction affects the Command card or can reverse Pick Pocket (ie Foiled) then the affects of Pick Pocket are reversed.

We feel the Pick Pocket is a stab at disrupting the disruption which is why this seems to make the most sense.

And it doesn't appear to violate BattleLore rules?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
h4xz0r5 wrote:
And it doesn't appear to violate BattleLore rules?


Yeah, that's the issue - that the rules do leave some room for interpretation. They way you described it is how I would interpret the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lars Riecken
Germany
Jena
Thuringia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
But I agree that rule may not be applicable here as the rule is more valid when two cards are trying to do the exact same thing (in the example given: target the same set of units and one card adds and one subtracts one die). In that case, the last one played trumps.


Just to clear it up for me: Do the units in the end have one less die or just the same as if no card had been played?
I would have thought the latter but my understanding of trumping implies the former. Maybe just a language thing
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Polarstern wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
But I agree that rule may not be applicable here as the rule is more valid when two cards are trying to do the exact same thing (in the example given: target the same set of units and one card adds and one subtracts one die). In that case, the last one played trumps.


Just to clear it up for me: Do the units in the end have one less die or just the same as if no card had been played?
I would have thought the latter but my understanding of trumping implies the former. Maybe just a language thing


It depends upon the affects of the cards themselves. For example (the example ColtsFan used), if Mass Might (all ordered units roll +1d in close combat) is played and countered with Blinding Light (all ordered units roll -1d in combat) then a blue foot ordered will roll its normal 3d in close combat (3d +1d -1d). So, Blinding Light doesn't really trump Mass Might, it just acts in tandem with it. However, if the same play were made by the controlling player but the opponent waited until the combat phase to play Slow (targeted unit rolls max of 2d in combat) then the same blue unit would only roll 2d (3d +1d then reduced to 2d), in a sense trumping the original play of Mass Might.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
Polarstern wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
But I agree that rule may not be applicable here as the rule is more valid when two cards are trying to do the exact same thing (in the example given: target the same set of units and one card adds and one subtracts one die). In that case, the last one played trumps.


Just to clear it up for me: Do the units in the end have one less die or just the same as if no card had been played?
I would have thought the latter but my understanding of trumping implies the former. Maybe just a language thing


It depends upon the affects of the cards themselves. For example (the example ColtsFan used), if Mass Might (all ordered units roll +1d in close combat) is played and countered with Blinding Light (all ordered units roll -1d in combat) then a blue foot ordered will roll its normal 3d in close combat (3d +1d -1d). So, Blinding Light doesn't really trump Mass Might, it just acts in tandem with it..

I don't believe that is what is being said in the rules. Maybe it was clarified in the Compendium but the way the rulebook reads, The 2nd card (Blinding Light) trumps the 1st (Mass Might). "Trump" typically means it cancels the other card. SO it is not, as you use in an example 3 dice +1 - 1 and you are back to 3 dice. In that case, the two cards would "cancel each other" or work "in tandem" as you described. But by it saying it trumps it, then the first card is completely ignored (or the aspects that the 2nd cards overrides, whcih is everything in this case). So it should be 3 dice -1 = only 2 dice rolled.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm happy to be wrong about this one, but I think this is another case of where some clarification of "contradicts" may be necessary. To me, this isn't an instance of contradiction, so the play of Blinding Light wouldn't trump Mass Might, as one can certainly add 1d and then take it away, allowing both cards to have their affect on the same turn. In the instance of Mass Might being played earlier in the turn followed by a play of Slow later in the turn, there is a contradiction and that is where the "In case of contradiction between the effects of two lore cards played in succession, the second card trumps the effect of the first one" rule comes into play.

Regardless, a good question for the lore compendium, as soon as FFG gets that back up and running.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
toddrew wrote:
To me, this isn't an instance of contradiction, so the play of Blinding Light wouldn't trump Mass Might, as one can certainly add 1d and then take it away, allowing both cards to have their affect on the same turn.

I would tend to agree with you. Based on the wording of the cards, it would make sense that the Mass Might adds and as a defensive move to not get rolled over, you play Blinding Light to bring it back to normal.

However, the rules themselves state: "The Wizard's Mass Might is negated by his nemesis' Blinding Light" and is listed right under the "trump" rule. So either the rules are wrong or what DOW has implied in other clarificiations is wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Speare
United States
Bedford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
tee hee, that tickles!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to say I hope this is an area where FFG improves the state of the game. I really like this game but DOW did not do a good job of making the rules and rulings clear and consistent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:


However, the rules themselves state: "The Wizard's Mass Might is negated by his nemesis' Blinding Light" and is listed right under the "trump" rule. So either the rules are wrong or what DOW has implied in other clarificiations is wrong.


Certainly needs clarification then, because Blinding Light does negate Mass Might, but it doesn't trump it in the sense that the affect of Mass Might is ignored and the affect of Blinding Light continues. I don't think the rules are wrong necessarily, just a rather loose definition of trump is being used (or maybe I'm the one with an unnecessarily rigid definition of trump ).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sometime has passed, but this came up again and DarkPadawan dug up a thread that addresses the issue:

EDIT: bad link (or, more likely, bad attempt at providing the link )

Weird, link doesn't seem to work - it did from this page:

See Reply #35
 
 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.