I'm curious how everyone treats using a guard token, specifically when a hero can (and cannot) do the interrupt attack.

Sample Over lord turn:

1-Overlord collects 4 threat for the turn (4 heros).

2-Over lord draw 2 cards. (One is a dodge, he could now play)

3-Overlord plays the power that allows any monster to dodge an attack by playing 2 threat (name escapes me)

4-Overlord spawn a beast man war party.

5-Overlord activates monster with regeneration 4, hero attack can now no longer kill this monster.

6...

I typically view a guard order as a delayed battle action of sorts. Because of this, I have no problem with the attack taking place under the same circumstances as the second attack battle would provide. However there are a few things that have me questioning this assumption.

1) It is NOT a battle. By guarding, the hero is choosing to not (potentially) make an attack in the same situation.

2) The guard may change the legality of certain actions:

3) Leadership. By giving a different hero the order, he is (potentially) getting three attacks.

EXAMPLES:

If tahlia triggers her guard when the over lord spawns some monsters and she moves to gain LoS where the monsters would be spawned.

If a hero attacks a monster before he regenerates, and the healing is the difference between life and death.

A monster may be able to dodge the attack because of changes to the overlords hand or threat amount.

How does your group handles such situations?

I suspect most people treat the guard as being able to interrupt anything. If so how do you treat the above examples?

We have always played by what I've understood to be the RAW: The Guard action can be declared at any time during the OLs turn (ie before gaining threat, before cards, before spawning, etc etc).

It can create some strange circumstances at times, especially with Tahlia involved and spawning. Like your example, if the OL plays a spawn card. If Tahlia then declares a Guard as the OL plays it, moves to block the available spawn area, the spawn is then going to get wasted according to the faq:

"A: Guard orders can interrupt the overlord at any time. However, each action should be resolved in its entirety once it’s been begun." (from the entry concerning Dark Charm and Guard)

In the spawning case, if the OL played the card then he's taken an action. If he no longer has a viable place to place the monsters, then he can't place them but he can't take the action back so the threat and card are wasted.

In the example for regeneration, depends on when the regeneration happens. If its the start of the OLs turn and the player interupts with the Guard to attack the monster it gets tricky IMO. I'd lean on giving it to the OL, because if his turn hadn't already started then the Guard couldn't have been triggered. I guess one could take the ruling about the Titan's Stomp ability always activating before Guard orders and extend it to cover this.

Big Remy said:

That ruling suggests to me that the spawn card would never be wasted. Either Tahlia chooses to do her guard before the overlord plays the card, or after, not in the middle of the card, since each action should be resolved in its entirety. So if Tahlia wants to to use it before the overlord spawns to block LoS, then perhaps the Overlord will have nowhere to spawn, or she can do it after the card has been played and the monsters spawned, and I guess start beating them down or something.

The spawn would not be wasted. The OL can put the card back in his hand and take his threat back if there is no viable spot to spawn. The only way that tahlia can prevent spawning is to cover areas of l.o.s. BEFORE the card is played, since if she lets the card get played those monsters are technically instantly placed/were already there. She can interrupt, but that pushes the clock back to before the spawn happened. In that case, the threat wasn't spent and the card wasn't played. OL can choose to still play the spawn, not play the spawn at all, or even play a different one.

Because you can interrupt at any point, you can sometimes say "before you do that, I will do this"...but that means "that" hasn't even happened yet. So after the guard resolves we are back to the point right before "that" would have happened...and the OL gets to react accordingly.

Feanor said:

@Feanor: Where do you get that the OL could take it back?

If the OL declares that they are playing a spawn card, and then Tahlia then interrupts to move and block the spawning area by gaining LOS then the card is wasted. Show me the rules that say "The OL gets to change his mind after declaring that they are playing a card if a Hero decides to interrupt it."

Also, where does it say the monsters are "instantly there"? A Guard can happen at any time, so how does fit into the instantaneous? From what I can see of the Guard rules, the OLs turn is postponed until the resolution of the Guard order, so I don't see anything that says Tahlia couldn't do this.

And where does it say it "pushes the clock back?". If that were the case, then there's something wrong with that Dark Charm example. If I played a Dark Charm card, and a Hero says they are going to Guard and kill that Dark Charm person, I can't "rewind" my turn to not play it according to that example.

As for that last part, that's purely game style. Nothing in rules says that actually how it works. If you want to give your OL the chance to rewind, that's fine but that's not something that is actually RAW. I for one, as a player and an OL, don't expect my players to give me those chances to reverse my declared action a lot of the time. That to me is doing the equivalent of telling an Advancing player that I'm going to play a trap card on them right after the decision and then let them decide to not Advance.

Tahlia causes a lot of problems with her ability to move during the Guard, but I really don't see how this is wrong from anything I can find in the RAW.

@Hammerdal: I should have quoted the rest of the example.

A: Guard orders can interrupt the overlord at any time. However, each action should be resolved in its entirety once it’s been begun. (For example, although you can interrupt the overlord if he declares an attack, if you choose not to the attack is resolved in its entirety before you have another chance to use your Guard order. You can’t wait to see if the attack missed or not before deciding to Guard.) So, for Dark Charm, once the overlord has played the card you must immediately decide whether to interrupt it with a Guard order. If you choose not to, the overlord proceeds to roll dice and you must wait for the card (and its attack, if any) to be completely resolved. If you interrupt the Dark Charm and kill the target hero, then the card is canceled without further effect.

That bolded part gives an example of what I was talking about. If you kill that Hero who is being Dark Charmed the card is wasted. And notice its as soon as the card is played , not after the dice roll that you have to decide. And if you do kill the Hero, the card is wasted. I don't see how this is any different than a Spawn card. For the exceptional case of Tahlia, where this is pretty much the only one it applies to, she has to decide to interrupt as soon as the spawn card is played . The OLs turn is halted, the Guard is resolved, then the OL continues the spawn action but if there is now no where to spawn then the card is wasted.

Big Remy said:

Ok, now I see where you're coming from on that. Without that full example, it suggested to me that once the spawning process begins with the card being played, it must be fully played out and the creatures spawned before you could do your guard; or, you could do your guard before the spawn card was ever considered played. Perhaps they didn't phrase that so well, but in the example, where it says that if you kill the target of the card the card is wasted, comes accross differently. Kinda reminds a bit of how the spell casting works in Magic: The Gathering, for those who play that. So it sounds like you could also interrupt the OL using Charge/Enrage/Aim and kill the monster targeted by those cards, causing those cards also to be wasted.

Hammerdal said:

From my point of view of the rules, yes you could. Of course in those cases it doesn't matter as much because for those you might as well let him play the card and then kill the monster after the card has been played.

Big Remy said:

I'm going to correct myself a bit here. If the OL changes his mind about playing the card they can take it back. I forgot about that clause.

That FAQ answer does imply that Dark Charm would be wasted, but it's specifically contradictory to every other ruling on Guard if you interpret it that way, so I choose to read "canceled" as meaning that it's as if it were never played, not as if it were played but had no effect.

From the GLoAQ:

The OL may change his mind after being interrupted. (…) the OL can change his mind after being interrupted, (…) treat it as though you did a little 'rewind' to right before he declared an attack. The OL, after being interrupted after declaring an attack, may choose to continue with the attack, change its target, or even not to make the attack at all.

Antistone said:

Yep, that's what I was referring to. The example is of an attack, but I would think if the action is to play a card, that he could "rewind" to right before the guard happened.

If the guard doesn't go off first, then it has to go off after, which means that the effect resolves. If it happens first, then technically the other thing (like declaring a spawn, etc.) hasn't even happened yet. The heroes already have the big advantage of knowing that card is in hand, it shouldn't force you to lose or use it...especially given what tahlia can do.

Those 2 rulings that Big Remy and Antistone brought out really seem to contradict eachother. One says specifically that Dark Charm is cancelled without further effect (which suggests to me it's a waste of a card and threat), while the other says he can take back something he was planning to do if he was interrupted. Seems pretty stupid to me. Does one ruling take precedence over the other? They both seem pretty specific to the same situation.

The one from the FAQ is talking about cards, while the one from the GLoAQ refers to an attack. To me those are different situations, since the attack doesn't require the OL to spend anything. I still think, again the rare case of Tahlia and this ever actually happening, that the card and threat get wasted.

you can combine the examples, but it ends up weird.

The general idea is that once some action is complete, it can neither be interrupted or taken back. So, if there are 3 phases to card play, Declaration, Paying the threat cost, and Resolving its effects, the Dark Charm example implies that declaring and paying for a card is a complete action. Basically, if the OL declares they're going to play a card and is interrupted, they may change their mind. However, once a card has been payed for, interrupting it doesn't let the OL change their mind anymore. It's kind of like: if the OL plays a rage card on a monster when activating it and the heroes guard kill the monster after the threat has been payed but before the monster does anything, the rage is wasted.

It opens up a few loopholes for exploitative play, but it seems that's the only way to reconcile things.

Big Remy said:

Yes it does: it uses up the monster's attack for that activation. That's not described as "spending" an attack in the rules, but neither do the rules refer to "spending" a card, and the FAQ answer doesn't use the word "spend" anywhere anyway.

The OL can also play cards like Aim or Dark Power as part of making an attack; if the attack is rewound but the card isn't, then the card play becomes retroactively illegal because the triggering condition isn't met.

The only reference I've seen that even hints at anything other than the full rewind policy is that last sentence about Dark Charm being "canceled without further effect." And since "canceling" a card isn't a defined game term, and the answer says nothing about discarding the card or spending threat, I think it's reasonable to read that as meaning "the act of playing the card is canceled (so it's back in your hand and you don't pay threat for it)", which makes all rulings on this subject logical and consistent.

Even if you don't read it that way, we are never told that attacks and cards work differently, or given any firm criteria for determining what parts of the card must be decided before the interruption, or for determining whether the card is canceled or proceeds after the interrupt. Does the OL have to declare what attack the Dark Charmed hero will make before a hero chooses to interrupt? If it's a spawn card, does the OL have to place the monsters before the interrupt, or can he choose new spawn locations (for the same monsters) afterward? Do special quest abilities follow the rules for attacks or cards? Can the OL play another card (e.g. Dodge) in response to your interrupt attack? You're inferring an entire implicit resolution process from one vague sentence describing the result of one special case; even assuming that the card is supposed to be wasted, there's no way to tell how the whole process is really supposed to work from so little information.

I used the word "spend" as in the OL has to spend threat to use a card.

As for the rest of it...sure, you're probably right and I guess Dark Charm is an exception.

Big Remy said:

Um...OK. Why would spending threat be a determining factor, given that the answer in question doesn't say a single word about it?

Because I've always been under the impression that spending threat is part of playing a card. Am I mistaken on that point?

Big Remy said:

No, but you said you think this is different from the attack example because in the attack example the overlord doesn't spend anything. That is a difference, but unless you were attempting to guard yourself against the patently insane objection that the two situations are absolutely identical in all particulars, I can only assume that you meant it was a relevant difference.

I simply can't conceive of any reason that that particular difference would be more relevant than, say, the difference that the overlord revealed hidden information in playing a card, the difference that Dark Charm targets a figure instead of a space, or the difference that Dark Charm starts with the letter "D". I can find nothing in the answer that remotely hints that threat is somehow involved in the resolution mechanics or the writer's decisions.

It was in reference to the fact that in order to play a card, the OL has to spend threat. He doesn't get to say "I'm going to play Dark Charm (or Rage, or Aim, or whatever), wait to see if the Hero decides to interrupt before paying the threat. That's all I was getting at.

I do have a problem with that GLoAQ statement though. And what I'm going to say below is not there to support what is starting to look like faulty reasoning. I am genuinely curious.

From the GLoAQ: "The OL may change his mind after being interrupted. (…) the OL can change his mind after being interrupted, (…) treat it as though you did a little 'rewind' to right before he declared an attack. The OL, after being interrupted after declaring an attack, may choose to continue with the attack, change its target, or even not to make the attack at all. (Edited to keep the context of the answer)"

If this is really true and the OL gets to "rewind" the attack to right before he declared an attack, doesn't Guard on any character become useless? Look this example:

OL: I am going to have this Skeleton attack Nanok

Ronan of the Wild: Okay, well I am going activate my Guard action and shoot the Skeleton.

OL: Okay, so according to the GLoAQ answer, I now can rewind to right before I declared the attack. The Skeleton is instead going to move over here out of your LOS. However, since you had to use your Guard to cause this to happen, you no longer have a Guard order in place. My next Beastman now attacks you.

According to that statement, please tell me if that above example is wrong and exactly why it is wrong. Its not wrong because no interrupt attack was made, because its been ruled that you don't have to make an attack to activate the Guard. So by systematically doing moves such as that, the OL can remove the Heroes Guard actions without risking a monster couldn't he?

Additionally, do you think that this statement is only relevant to attacks and not cards? If its not, does that mean that playing OL cards does not count as an action?

From the FAQ: Guard orders can interrupt the overlord at any time. However, each action should be resolved in its entirety once it’s been begun.

wait, doesn't it say "after being interrupted"? Isn't the whole interruption the resolution of the Guard Token? Sure, there is rewinding, but only after the attack is made.

Right?

Thundercles said:

It does, but it also says you do a little rewind to right before he declared the attack which would mean the attack never happened. It even says in the next sentence he can choose not to make the attack, and could say then move the Skeleton out of LOS. But since the Guard order was already used to force the OL to do this, the Hero then loses the Guard doesn't he? So what is to stop the OL from then moving the Skeleton a little and shooting someone else even?

I'm sure someone will come on and say I'm completely missing the point etc etc etc, but that GLoAQ statement certainly seems to say that to me.

I think it's fairly clear that the OL is rewinding his own action(s) (or declarations), not the entire game - the effects of the guard order are not rewound.

Thundercles said:

Right. You don't get your whole turn back as OL, just the declaration of the attack in that example. If the beastman says, "now I'm attacking." The hero says "before you attack (after you entered that space that I have LOS or that is right next to me if I'm a meleer) I will attack you." If the beastman survives, he hasn't declared the attack yet. He still moved wherever he moved before the interruption ever happened.

Once you move your skeley to where the hero has LOS, he's still there. It's just if you were going to try to attack from further away to avoid the guard order so you declare from 4 spaces away and now that hero misses you can move closer if the skeley has movement remaining, etc. Interrupting means it happens when the hero says it happens. If the hero says it happens before you attack, you haven't attacked yet. You've still moved to the space he is targeting.

I agree--the guard order can pre-empt a declared action and be resolved first (e.g. "the skeleton attacks you," "I'm going to use my guard order to attack him first"). You rewind to the point at which the guard attack occurs--that is, immediately before the OL declared the action that is being interrupted (but after all actions that were completed prior to the interrupt, including activating the monster and moving into position to attack). Then you resolve the Guard attack. Then the OL continue his turn.

The only way the Guard would be wasted is if you chose to interrupt the OL before he moved the monster into a position where you could attack it. That can be avoided by...not doing that.