The Attack Action(s) - Rules Clarity

[Zimagic]

Our playgroup is used to playing games like MTG that have spent years refining the layers of every single action and reaction. Very few situations are left unclear as to when you may do something, who can do what first and what will happen when you start messing with any particuliar aspect of those rules. I generally let things slide when other games don't have that pedantic approcah to how things are ordered and resolved because, well, life's too short. In Shadespire we have a certain number of reaction cards which, taken individually, seem to be quite explicit as to when they should be played but, as with every game that lies  in the understanding of the language used to apply a card effect, there are important differences.

 

Complicating these differences are two rules:

1. that, whenever you do something, the player whose activation is next takes precedence and the quite bizarre 

2. only one reaction can be played at each such opportunity.  If the player whose activation came next would decide to use their reaction, the other player cannot use their reaction at all.

But, what happens when the player whose activation came next plays a reaction to a game situation that comes later in the resolution of that situation than the active player? Do we rewind? Do we now ignore all the possible response situations up until the point in the resolution that the first reaction applies to? Do we resolve the first reaction and then go back and resolve the second reaction? What if the second reaction is something that would void the first?

The rulebook actually addresse some of these things: 
"Once a reaction is resolved, play continues from the point where it was interrupted. If this was part way through
resolving an action or effect (e.g. an Attack action or a ploy card), finish resolving that action or effect, unless the reaction has made this impossible (e.g. if a fighter’s position has changed so that they are no longer in range to complete an Attack action). In that case, the action or effect ends without being resolved."

So, we actually go backwards and forwards on resolving attacks, remembering each time whether players have already reacted to a particuliar event (as only one player may react to one event). Ever had a situation where you want to "Trap" an opponent's figurine to kill them but hopefully before they play "My Turn"? Driving Back is stated as part of the resolution of damage. Under the rules, you cannot "Trap" the opponent's figurine if they react with "My Turn" because you cannot both react to the same event. Instead of adding that extra point of Ploy damage, you risk losing your figurine and not putting theirs out of action at all. 

And, in addition, though the rules state that you continue play "from the point where it was interrupted", what "point" is that exactly, as no step-by-step breakdown has been made?

So, I decided to make a step by step breakdown to figure everything out. I took every card in the game that says "Reaction" and broke them down linguistically into categories. There are 5 with cards that apply to each group:

1.       Decision to Attack:
2.       Moves (as part of Charge):
3.       Dice:
4.       Place wounds & driving back:
5.       Attack resolution:

Within groups 3 & 4, however, we have subgroups with differing language which clearly suggest that some must happen before others during the different steps taken to resolve an attack. Here's the list again but with the sub-categories and with each card that applies to each sub-category:
 

1.       Decision to Attack:
     a. After choosing an attack action but before performing it. 
367    423

2.       Moves (incl as part of Charge)
     a. After move resolution.
101    347

3.       Dice:
     a. Before dice are rolled
309
     b. After dice roll, before resolution [Re-Roll]
108    380    417
     c. After dice resolution, before placing wounds. [would]
141    336    345    349    387
     d. After dice resolution, after reaction resolution that could but doesn't save fighter from being taken out of action, before Place wounds. [will]
102    167    197    316
     e.  After dice resolution [succeeds/fails]
44    45    52    372    58    77    129    138    226    385    404    406    422

4.       Place wounds & driving back:
     a. After Place wounds, fighter out of action
12    14    15    18    19    46    68    81    103    115    155    184    186    187    189    193    337    353    370    420    424
     b. After Place wounds, fighter not out of action
23    220    343    369    328    364
     c. After Place wounds, fighter not out of action, after "Could be driven Back" reactions
364

5.       Attack resolution:
     a. After attack resolution, before power phase
54    69    98    202    219
 

The language of the cards makes it more complicated in reality than it seems without going into it in detail.

Any reaction that you get to play that advances your ability to kill an opponent's figurine before they react to the same event, or by reacting to a specific event takes away their ability to do the same, or makes a prior reaction void or redunant (generally though movement) is extremely valuable.

 

Now, where my argument really breaks down is that I've already posted this twice, been interrupted a couple of more times and I can't realy remember any more if I'm requesting an overhaul of the entire rulebook or showing you how I think things should be done because we're doing them wrong. Either way, I hope this is a helpful resource for someone and that someone will either come to correct the obvious flaw in my discours or say "Yeah, it should be like this!"

[Zimagic]

It's all coming back to me now:

 

We don't need Mtg-level rules complexity, but we do need a slightly cleaner system and, above all, more clarity.

[RafaBO]

An impressive task you have undertaken here. I completely agree with you. Having so many windows of opportunity bogs down the game sometimes, and it is a a frequent point of discussion. Together with GW inability to use the same wording for otherwise identical actions/reactions, it is becoming unnecessarily complicated. I would love if they are able to listen to feedback on wave 1 and use it to streamline the rules and (big hopes) reprint some cards and include them in the wave 2 starting set. I just feel a game like shadespire should not have that many FAQs within his short life.

[Tutenkharnage]

I can't read all that right now, but Trap clearly states that it is played "during a friendly fighter's Attack action that drives an enemy fighter back," and My Turn states that it is played "after an Attack action or ploy that damages a friendly fighter." "During an Attack action" and "after an Attack action" are separate triggers, as explained verbatim in the rulebook, so there's no conflict: one player can play Trap, and then, when the Attack action is complete, the other player can, if his fighter is not yet out of action, play My Turn. There's no conflict between the timing of these two cards. If they both said "during" or they both said "after," the player whose turn is next would be able to play a reaction first, and the other player would be unable to play one at the same time.

In this case, the trigger for Trap is "during a friendly fighter's Attack action"; the qualifier is that the action must push the enemy fighter back. If the action did not involve a pushback, the attacker can't play Trap; if the other player has another "during" reaction and has the next turn in the activation order, the other player can play a card instead, and Trap can't be played. That's it. There's no element akin to "Well, he played My Turn, so I guess I can't play Trap now!" Trap triggers first if the player with Trap wants to play it because "during the action" comes before "after the action."

If you're looking to make it clearer to your players, maybe you could ask about any "during" or "after" effects. For example, if you and I are playing a game, and it's my turn, the sequence might go like this:

Me: "I'll activate Bloody Saek. He'll take a Charge action." [I complete my Move action. If you have Quick Thinker, you'd obviously play it right away.]

Me: "So that's two dice on hammers against one dice on shields." [We roll. I get a hit. I push back the target.]

Me: "That's three wounds, and I'm going to push Sanson back to this hex. Do you have a 'during' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Nope, I'm good."

Me: "OK. I'm going to play Trap. Since I pushed him back, he'll take an additional point of damage. Looks like he's dead."

You: "Oh, that's too bad. I was going to play My Turn OMG WHY DID I SAY THAT AND GIVE INFO AWAY?!?"

Let's look at the same sequence, but this time Saek is attacking Gurzag, who has 5 wounds and will therefore be alive after I use Trap.

Me: "I'll activate Bloody Saek. He'll take a Charge action." [I complete my Move action. If you have Quick Thinker, you'd obviously play it right away.]

Me: "So that's two dice on hammers against one dice on shields." [We roll. I get a hit. I push back the target.]

Me: "That's three wounds, and I'm going to push Gurzag back to this hex. Do you have a 'during' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Nope, I'm good."

Me: "OK. I'm going to play Trap. Since I pushed him back, he'll take an additional point of damage. Here's another wound token."

You: "Ouch!"

Me: "Do you have an 'after' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Sure do! I'm going to play My Turn. I'll push Gurzag one hex over here and return the favor on Saek."

Let's take another example, but this time we'll use two cards with an identical trigger window: Stumble (for the attacker) and My Turn (for the defender).

Me: "I'll activate Bloody Saek. He'll take a Charge action." [I complete my Move action.]

Me: "So that's two dice on hammers against one dice on shields." [We roll. I get a hit. I push back the target.]

Me: "That's three wounds, and I'm going to push Sanson back to this hex. Do you have a 'during' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Nope, I'm good."

Me: "Same here. Do you have an 'after' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Yep! I'm going to play My Turn." [You resolve My Turn, and since only one reaction can be played in response to the "after Attack action" triggers, i can't play Stumble to push Sanson an additional hex.]

Next, let's look at a case in which both conditions are met, but only the player who is next can play a card as a reaction: Scavenge (for the attacker) and Legacy (for the defender). For this example, we'll assume the defender has one universal upgrade and is standing adjacent to another fighter in his warband.

Me: "I'll activate Bloody Saek. He'll take a Charge action." [I complete my Move action.]

Me: "So that's two dice on hammers against one dice on dodges." [We roll. I get a hit and deal 3 damage, taking the target out of action.]

Me: "That's three wounds. Looks like the Champion is out of action. Do you have a 'during' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Nope, I'm good."

Me: "Same here. Do you have an 'after' card you'd like to play?"

You: "Yep! I'm going to play Legacy and give Great Fortitude to the Harvester." [And now, given that only one reaction could be played in response to the "after an Attack action" trigger, I can't play Scavenge and can't score an extra glory for it even though Saek took a fighter with an upgrade out of action. Looks like I'll have to find another opportunity to score that sweet, sweet glory!]

So maybe the game would flow better if the active player--me in this example--prompted the other player throughout each action. Or maybe the game would flow better if the next player in the turn order--you in this example--was simply ready to play a "during" or "after" card at the first opportunity. I don't know. I'm not trying to be harsh here; I'm just saying that a lot of the confusion arises simply because (1) GW hasn't been too clear about giving us a list of triggers and providing some examples, (2) some of the wording could certainly be better or more consistent, and (3) many players are probably doing what my coworker and I do, which is rushing to play cards without remembering that "during" takes priority over "after" and that "next player" takes priority over "active player." But point 3 is a big point and isn't getting enough credit, IMO.

Anyway, I certainly agree that the Shadespire FAQ is already distressingly long, although some of the questions really shouldn't be in there because they're answered point blank in the rulebook. But I think you hit it on the head the second time with your second post, Zimagic: we don't need MtG-level complexity, or WMH-level complexity, or anything like that. We just need solid wording, a few guiding words about triggers and some examples, and maybe some agreed-upon etiquette or protocols for handling reactions in-game.

Hope this helps!

PS. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't examine all your categories and the cards within, so if I didn't address some blindingly obvious problem, let me know! I'm certainly not blowing it off; you put a lot of work into it, and I appreciate that.

[Zimagic]

On 6/30/2018 at 4:55 AM, Tutenkharnage said:

I'm not trying to be harsh here; I'm just saying that a lot of the confusion arises simply because (1) GW hasn't been too clear about giving us a list of triggers and providing some examples, (2) some of the wording could certainly be better or more consistent, and (3) many players are probably doing what my coworker and I do, which is rushing to play cards without remembering that "during" takes priority over "after" and that "next player" takes priority over "active player." But point 3 is a big point and isn't getting enough credit, IMO.

Thanks for your answer.

This exact thing (point 3) happened at lunch-time today: My opponent hit me with is Frastrider at distance, won the roll and went straight to the point where he plays his "if you succeded with a pistol, take another shot" card. He was really annoyed when I pulled out a My Turn, said he had played to quickly, that I had priority and moved my figurine out of range (though I didn't get the free attack).

Players don't want to cut up the attack phase into a 20 questions of "Do you have a card?", even me, but situations like this are common and frustrating.

There has to be a smoother application of priority that works.

 

[Tutenkharnage]

I get what you're saying; like you, I don't want the game to get bogged down in asking about cards. But I think it can be handled without devolving into "20 Questions." All I have to do, as the attacker, is ask two questions in the most common situation, which involves an Attack action:

Me: "During?"

You: "No." (If I have a "during" card, I play it here.)

Me: "After?"

You: "No." (If I have an "after" card, I play it here.)

If you have a during or an after card, I can't play one of the same type. So it's really just two questions: "During?" and "After?" And because each player holds only a small number of ploy cards, it should zip by fairly quickly.

Anyway, I'm going to try this next week when my coworker and I square off for round 2 of our Farstriders vs. Boyz match. I'll let you know how it goes!

[Anthony225]

On 7/3/2018 at 8:22 AM, Zimagic said:

Thanks for your answer.

This exact thing (point 3) happened at lunch-time today: My opponent hit me with is Frastrider at distance, won the roll and went straight to the point where he plays his "if you succeded with a pistol, take another shot" card. He was really annoyed when I pulled out a My Turn, said he had played to quickly, that I had priority and moved my figurine out of range (though I didn't get the free attack).

Players don't want to cut up the attack phase into a 20 questions of "Do you have a card?", even me, but situations like this are common and frustrating.

There has to be a smoother application of priority that works.

 

I'm not seeing a huge issue here. You do an attack and ask your opponent if they have anything to play, then they pass and you go. The cards are clear when they are to be played. If your opponent "forgets" to play a card and that effects if you play your card, it's his loss if you play yours and he wants to go back to play his. I think for all players it is required to know when you can play cards.

[themiro]

Why do we keep saying that only one "during" reaction can be played?

I think the latest FAQ has clearly established that "during" is a condition but not a specific trigger.

See example from FAQ:

Q: I make an Attack action with my fighter, and after the dice are rolled it is determined that the Attack action is successful and will cause damage. My opponent plays Rebound as a reaction, but fails the roll so nothing happens. We continue to resolve the Attack action: my fighter deals the damage, and I choose to drive the target fighter back. Can I now play the Trap reaction?
A: Yes. The trigger for Trap is after the fighter is driven back, which is a different trigger to when the Attack action is determined to be successful or not.

Both cards are "during" but have a sequential trigger (no overlap of priority), so both can be played (assuming rebound doesn't succeed because that would prevent any pushes, but that's not a reaction priority issue, it's a "trap condition not met" issue).

[Tutenkharnage]

That's a great point. I'm just trying to shorthand so the examples and flow as a little cleaner. Any qualifiers, such as Trap's "that drives an enemy fighter back," typically come after the main portion of the trigger description and can definitely affect the particulars of a reaction sequence. But if two cards have the same "during" qualifier, only one can be played.