An issue came up last night while playing... well the heroes were playing, I was slaughtering.

I successfully hit Verikas with a beastman attack. I immediately proclaimed that I didn't need to check the damage, and threw down Crushing Blow. The text of Crushing Blow states that you play it after a successful attack. The poor victim attempted to play a Feat (the name of the card escapes me) that says play after you've been successfully attacked. Roll a power die, and if you don't get a surge, the attack is a miss.

Unluckily for him, he did roll a surge, and away went his weapon.

But this still begged the question... if his feat had succeeded, would Crushing Blow go back in my hand, or would it go to discard? I can't play it if the attack isn't successful, so my thinking is that the card would return to my hand. Of course heroes that like their gear would think otherwise. Opinions?

I would say the CB goes back into the OL's hand, as the attack is no longer successful...

Titeman said:

I second that. As there is no successful attack, the condition of playing that card is not met, and as you cannot play that card, it goes back to your hand. You only lost the (quite important) information that you have that card in your hand.

Veinman said:

I would say that the proper order of events would be to play the feat before the OL plays Crushing Blow. Crushing Blow cannot be played if the attack is not successful, therefore if we have reached the point at which cards are triggering off a successful attack then we have passed the point where that feat can be played to alter that outcome. This also implies that the OL should give heroes time to play feats before he assumes his actions are completed, which is an issue that heroes have been dealing with since the game launched (ie: assuming, perhaps foolishly, that they can successfully cross two squares without falling into a pit.) >=)

In this case I would probably agree that CB goes back in the OL's hand as we effectively rewind to the point where the feat should've been played, but the lesson to learn, and the ruling to keep in mind, is that such cards should be played before follow ups like CB are declared.

I agree with everyone here, but of course the hero in this case would never have played his feat to avoid damage to his tank from a lowly copper beastman. Only when his sword was in jeopardy did he decide to throw down a feat.

In the spirit of keeping this adversarial game friendly, especially considering how badly I was abusing the heroes, I think it was fine. Especially since the player in question is notorious for rolling a surge and wasting his feat, just as he did in this case.

I don't see any reason that one card would have to be played before the other. Both cards have exactly the same triggering condition--a "successful attack (an attack that doesn't miss)".

Certainly if the hero played the feat card first, and he succeeded, you couldn't play Crushing Blow, because the condition is no longer met.

However, if you play Crushing Blow first, I see no reason the hero couldn't still play his feat afterwards (it's still a successful attack), and what happens after that is a bit murkier.

I don't think we can say that you always rewind to the earliest opportunity to play the card (and therefore "undo" the playing of Crushing Blow), because that would imply that if the hero played the feat first and rolled a surge, and then you played Crushing Blow, that you'd have to rewind the feat and the hero would get it back--and that seems clearly inappropriate (especially because, at that point, he would immediately play it again, thus rewinding your CB, etc.).

However, the feat changes a successful attack into a miss, so it clearly has some retroactive effect. The question is what happens to the Crushing Blow card if its triggering condition is retroactively not met. I see the following options:

1. The triggering condition is only checked when you choose to play the card. The attack is a miss, but because Crushing Blow was legal when you put it down on the table, you still follow all the instructions on the card, so the hero's item is still destroyed and the feat accomplishes nothing.

2. If the triggering condition is not met when the card is resolved, we retroactively say that you never played it. The card goes back into your hand, you pay no threat cost, and it has no effect.

3. If the triggering condition is not met when the card is resolved, the card has no effect. The overlord loses the card, to no avail. For most cards, you'd also be out the threat cost, but in the special case of Crushing Blow, you pay threat for destroying the item and not for playing the card, so you'd probably get the threat back.

I'm unable to think of any situation where this issue would arise other than when a hero plays a feat, so I don't think we have any precedents to draw upon.

The rules for event cards and feats both state that they can be played at any time as long as the triggering conditions have been met, and that once played, the player "simply follows the instructions printed on the card, resolves its effects, and discards the card" (exact same words in both cases). This causes me to lean towards #1, but the Descent rules are notorious for being written in a way that only covers the simplest case and cannot be literally extended to cover cases where multiple rules interact (for example, the rules for entering mud spaces and jumping pits), so I have no doubt that the authors never considered this case and that no written rule is intended to resolve it.

I guess ultimately, now that both sides have cards to play to counteract each other, it must be decided whether Descent uses a system similar to Magic the Gathering's "Stack", or if once a card is played, it's effect must be resolved before another can be played.

Steve-O said:

I agree.

Put into different words, my thoughts:

Though the OL should give ample time for the heroes to play feat cards before playing his card. If the heroes do not play their feat cards at that point, the overlord plays his Crushing Blow, the crushing blow has to resolve completely before the heroes can do anything.

In this case it sounds like the OL did not give enough time for the heroes to play their feat cards, so he has to retract his crushing blow as if it was never played. The heroes are then given the opportunity to play their feat cards. Then the OL can decide whether or not to play his crushing blow.

avianfoo said:

Even supposing this is correct, after Crushing Blow is fully resolved, it is still immediately "after a successful attack," so why can't the hero still play the feat card? And if they do, and they don't roll a surge, that changes the attack into a miss. That's clearly intended to be able to retroactively negate the attack's damage, even though it's played "after" the attack. What makes you think it should be able to negate the attack's damage, but not the effects of cards that were dependent on the attack's success?

And if you argue it's not immediately after the attack because a card was played, then why can the overlord play a card with the same triggering condition after the heroes have played a feat?

Antistone said:

My point is that the OL should give the heroes opportunity to play the feat card before the OL even reveals what he is going play. Once the OL reveals the card, it is too late. I believe a similar ruling was done with Dark Charm in the FAQ, though I could be mistaken.

I am not saying this is how it currently works because the rules are vague at best, I am saying that this a way to mediate these situations. A suggested house-rule (at least until a FAQ clarifies this situation).

Nope, the players can rewind one step. This means that if a player is being hit with a Crushing Blow, then they can rewind that step and play a feat, making the hit miss.

The overlord however will then still have the card in hand (again) and is able to play it with his next hit.

NoNamium said:

I do not disagree. But I would like to know where this is stated in the rules/FAQ (if at all).

avianfoo said:

From the FAQ:

Q: How does the timing of Guard interact with Dark Charm? Can I use my Guard order to attack when the overlord plays Dark Charm on me so I don’t lose it? Can I use a Guard order to attack the hero the overlord is using Dark Charm on? In either case, can I do so before or after the die is rolled to see if the card takes effect?
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.

I can't remember where the thread about the "Cancelled" card is, but the conclusion of this and other rules found in some of the books were that cancelled meant: "Goes back into hand and threat cost is retrieved".

It could be this from the "Descent: Journeys in the Dark"-rules, but I'm not sure:

At any point during the overlord player’s turn (not during
a hero’s turn), a hero may use his guard order to
immediately “interrupt” the overlord player’s turn and
make one attack (following all the normal rules for line
of sight and attacking). The overlord player’s turn is
immediately halted (even if the overlord player was
about to attack with a monster), allowing the hero to
resolve his interrupt attack. After the interrupt attack is
completed and any casualties are removed, the overlord
player may continue his turn.
The overlord player must allow for an interrupt attack at
any time, and must reverse any movement/attack if it
was made too fast for the hero player to have a chance
to declare an interrupt attack. If a hero player declines to
make an interrupt attack, however, he may not change
his mind later.

I stand corrected.

avianfoo said:

That is absolutely not what happened here. The feat only came out to prevent Crushing Blow.

Antistone said:

You're right, of course. Up until ToI the closest thing the heroes could do to interrupting the normal sequence of play was a Guard attack, thus any cards played on triggering conditions were by default the OL's (and he can choose what order to resolve them in subject to normal limitations.) Now that heroes have Feats, it becomes important to know who is expected to play first on a triggering event. I'm guessing the ToI rules don't clarify that (based on the fact that no one has yet quoted a relevant section of text.)

Another question that is raised is this: The old rules stated that only one card can be played per triggering event. In the past the only cards that could be played in response to a triggering event were the OL's, so all he had to do was choose one. Now that heroes have Feats, we need to know if this rule is communal to both sides or exclusive to each. ie: if the OL plays CB first, does that mean the Feat cannot be played because a card has already been played in response to the triggering event of a successsful attack (or vice versa?) Or are the heroes and the OL each allowed to play a card in response to a single triggering event?

Based on the discussion in this thread to date, it would seem that most people are assuming each side gets to play a card on a single event (as indeed was I, until I started writing this post.) If we assume each side is allowed to play a card on one trigger, then we should also clarify if EACH hero is allowed to play a card on that event, or if the heroes must play one card as a team (I would be inclined to say one card as a team.) If we assume that only one card may be played per trigger, period (OL or hero card), then we need to clarify who gets first option after a triggering condition has been met. I think that saying "whoever speaks up first" would be a bad call, so timing does become important. Either way, I think this is definitely a question for the GLoUQ. Hopefully Kevin is reading =)

Edit: Now that I've thought about it a bit, I think I'm leaning in favour of the idea that only one card may be played per trigger. So the answer to the OP's question would be that the hero is not allowed to play the Feat card because the OL already played a card in response to the triggering event. I'm undecided ont he question of which player should get first option to play a card though. I think for now, at least, I'm going to go with "the player who triggered the event is NOT the player who gets first option." Meaning in the case of the OL attacking with a monster, the heroes would get first option to play a card. In a hero was attacking (or moving, or whatever) then the OL would get first crack. Note that the answer to the OP's question even with this decision remains the same, as he has made it clear the player was responding to the CB and not just slow on the draw. The answer would remain "a card has already been played" and the Feat card would stay in his hand.

Having only one card per triggering event is clearly not the intent of feats. A very clear-cut example is the feat "Disarm" (I think I got the name right). 99% of traps are triggered via Overlord cards based on player actions such as moving to an open space or opening a door / chest. If you couldn't play a second card, then this feat is completely useless.

edit- Now that I think about it, technically the "Disarm" feat's triggering event is that a trap card was played. Hmmmmm.

Interesting analysis...except that there is no rule saying that only one card can be played per triggering condition. There is a rule saying that only one Event card can be played per triggering condition, and another rule saying that only one Trap card can be played per triggering condition. But it has always been possible to play an event card and a trap card both in response to the same trigger (usually "at the start of your turn"). You can theoretically play 1 event, 1 trap, 1 spawn, and 1 power card all "at the start of your turn." (See the "Important" notes in the "Types of Overlord Cards" section, pages 11-12 of the JitD rules.) This has been discussed on this forum before, and I'm pretty sure we had consensus on this.

Feat cards have no such rule, but they have a rule that each player can only play one per turn, so if you assume that each player would be limited separately, then the rule would be redundant anyway. If you want to argue that two heroes can't both play "We Are Not Afraid" at the start of the overlord's turn, I don't think you'll find any rules supporting it. But even if we "extended" the overlord's restriction to all players and card types and said that only 1 feat can be played in response to each trigger, I don't see any possible grounds for saying that a feat and event card can't both be played in response to the same trigger.

Regarding NoNamium's FAQ quote, it's an interesting idea, but it applies specifically to guard orders, and I have no idea why a feat card would follow the same rules. Guard orders can be declared at any time, and you are specifically allowed to wait until the overlord declares an action, then sneak in before he can do it. Feat cards can only be played in response to specific triggering conditions--you can't possibly rewind to before the triggering condition, or wait until something else has happened, because then the feat card wouldn't even be legal to play.

Nontheless, we have a (perhaps poorly-written) feat card that is played after an attack and changes the result of the attack. I don't know whether it's supposed to reach back in time and force you to change stuff you've already resolved, or if the writers are using some highly specialized terminology that only makes sense to them, but I think we can all agree that it isn't supposed to do nothing .

Antistone said:

I agree.
Reading through this thread after a long week away I saw the idea that only 1 card could be played per trigger but imediately thought of start of turn trigger already having multiple cards playable (even if only 1 per type by the OL.
The heroes are specifically limited to playing one feat card per player turn.There are no other limits applied. Therefore, each hero player playing a feat card on the same trigger would no break the feats restrictions. Any restriction to such would be a new rule (and therefore only a house rule unless it came from FFG), not just an 'interpretation' of existing rules.

The Guard analagy provides some evidence on 'interruption' effects and therefore might be applicable. We don't have any evidence that it is not solely applicable to guarding though, as Antistone points out.

I think it is pretty clear that both a hero and the OL may have cards that can be played on the same trigger and both should generally be allowed to play them. However we do need some guidance as to who get first choice in such a situation (question to FFG). We could also further use some guidance as to whether a player, having previously declined to exercise that choice, may change his mind (second, associated question).

FWIW I play it that the OL should generously ask the heroes if they have any further effects to play before the effects of the attack are applied. (Note that attack success is determined in step 4 (and can be modified by adding range in step 5) and that cards that trigger on a successful attack should be played before/when step 6 is begun IMO). If the heroes decline then the OL may play his CB. The heroes may now only play any cards that activate on the OL playing a card, as that is the current trigger. However, if they do not stop the CB event then it resolves. It is now too late for the heroes to play a card that retroactively changes the attack as the attack has by definition been resolved already as part of the CB effect.

Possible questions to FFG:
QX: When both the OL and the heroes (through Feats) have cards that may be played on the same trigger, who gets first choice to play?
Possible answers: a)The player whose turn it is, followed in clockwise order around the table. b)The player whose turn it is not, starting clockwise from the current player. c) some other method
Recommended answer: any

QX+1: If a player declines to play a card on a certain trigger, can he change his mind and play a card on that trigger after another card has been played?
Possible answers: a) No. b) Yes, but the first card must be resolved in full before he can play. c) Yes, and the second card interrupts the first and is resolved before the first (and a third before the second etc). d) other
Recommended answer: b), or possibly a). Definitely not c)!

Another interesting (to me, anyways) part of this situation is that, after the Feat card resolves, the attack is once again ruled either Successful or Missed. Basically, its Success "refreshes". However, this is not true of the Crushing Blow card, whose resolution encompasses both the change in the result of the attack's "Success" and the resolution of the attack itself. Thus, while Crushing Blow can clearly be played after the Feat in question (anyone catch its name?), playing the Feat after Crushing Blow is nonsensical.

Playing the Feat to interrupt Crushing Blow should still make sense, however. Crushing Blow can't interrupt the Feat, since (I believe) CB is not an interrupting card, but Feats are by their nature special interrupting cards.

In a previous interrupting case, if the target is removed (kill the hero targeted by Dark Charm), the OL Card fizzles, but that's a particular case for two reasons: one, the card's effect is already completely resolved by the time you interrupt what is essentially its aftereffect, and two, the situation here is a removal of a trigger.

I'm still on the side of submitting the question for official answering, especially since the situation manages to be subtly unprecedented.