Have I understood the new rules correctly that reactions that trigger from winning or losing challenges take effect before claim and for example keywords take effect? So that means if you want to put someone to the swords then you have to do it before you know which characters are chosen for military claim.

This would also mean that if you draw a card from insight that has a challenge response then you can't play it right away since you've gone past the framework action window where the response was triggered.

Have I understood this correctly? This would be quite an important new timing situation isn't it unless something has changed in timing since I left the game in CCG.

I'm also not sure what they mean by the "gain challenge bonuses"-framework action window.

Yes, you have understood that properly. Each event in resolving a challenge resolution takes place in its own framework window now, so reactions to each happen immediately, and before the next resolution event. The change in reaction timing and the introduction of true interrupt abilities is one of the major timing changes for 2.0.

Your reasoning on the implications of this new rule are spot on.

"Gain challenge bonus" mostly means "claim your power for unopposed." You'll determine whether or not you won an unopposed challenge as part of determining the winner of the challenge, but you won't get the power itself until you get the "challenge bonus."

yeah, I would set aside all your old mental shortcuts and just consult the Rules Reference Guide.

4.2.3 Gain challenge bonuses

If the challenge was unopposed in the previous step,

the attacking player gains 1 power for his or her

faction card for winning an unopposed challenge. This

is known as an unopposed bonus.

In a melee game, if the challenge was won against an

opponent bearing a title which is denoted as a Rival

on the winning player’s title (and the challenge winner

has not already claimed power for defeating that Rival

this round), the challenge winner gains 1 power for his

or her faction. This is known as a rivals bonus.

All challenge bonuses a player receives for this step are

gained simultaneously.

(emphases mine)

As for the rest--the timing windows are well defined in the RRG, and are significantly changed since the LCG/CCG era.

• Reactions to winning or losing a challenge take place in 4.4.2
• Claim is applied in 4.2.4
• Renown, Insight, Intimidate, et al. are applied in 4.2.5. So, freshly drawn cards from Insight would not be playable as a Reaction to winning or losing a challenge.

Ah, I hadn't read the framework event details. I only saw the flowchart. That helps alot.

This change also means that events that trigger off of losing a challenge can be played without fear of it being lost to intrigue claim. It was always rough losing your You Murdered Her Children right before you wanted to play it.

Another question which relates to the lack of moribund that I'm unsure of is whether characters that have been chosen to satisfy military claim can still be used to pay a cost (in this case a save effect since that is probably the only relevant interrupt). Essentially, if there was a card like Doomed Longshipman (which I guess would now say sacrifice as a cost) could it still be used to resolve a claim 2 military challenge by only losing the longshipman like before? Or is there something that prevents you from choosing say Asha and the Longshipman for claim and then sacrifice the longshipman to save Asha?

I guess the question is moot until we actually know if there is a card with a similar effect to the old Doomed Longshipman.

Your question actually has nothing to do with moribund in 1.0. The Doomed Longehipman thing only worked BECAUSE it was not moribund when its ability was triggered. That sort of thing can still happen if there is some sort of, "Interrupt: When this card would leave play, sacrifice it to..." ability. It can only happen with interrupts, and even then, the wording would need to be very precise.

As for general moribund, on-the-way-out weirdness, that is gone. Sort of. If you have a reaction that says, "After a character you control dies, kneel a character to...", you won't be able to kneel the character that just died to pay that cost, the way you could have with moribund, because that character is off the table before you can react. But, if you have a reaction that says, "After you lose a MIL challenge, kneel a character to...", you CAN kneel a character to pay that cost and THEN kill that same character for claim (because nothing has been chosen or died for claim when triggering reactions to winning/losing),

Ah yes, my rulesfu is a little rusty it seems.

So it seems that with the new rules and the interrupts things are alot more dependent on the wording to get timing right rather than there being a set point in the timing chart where all responses happened.

With the example of a sacrifice to save effect, does it really need the "when this character would leaves play..." text to work for soaking claim? Wouldn't it suffice with the normal save text like "Interrupt: When a Greyjoy character would be killed or discarded, sacrifice Doomed Longshipman to save that character."?

Would the wording, as I put it, work if I had chosen a random GJ character plus Doomed Longshipman for 2 claim military claim.

I don't think so. if you look at Military Claim on p13 of the RRG, it says "The chosen characters are all killed simultaneously." So without any kind of Moribund condition, your hypothetical longshipman is already gone and thus unavailable to use his interrupt, since his death wasn't interrupted.

Then again, perhaps it's the other way, and the speed of the interrupt is faster than the speed of death for both the card saved and the card with the interrupt. I'm honestly not sure--I read the sections on Military Claim, Interrupt, Save, and 4.2.4 Apply Claim Result.

So it seems that with the new rules and the interrupts things are alot more dependent on the wording to get timing right rather than there being a set point in the timing chart where all responses happened.

Well, I the real difference is that interrupts and reactions take place in their own timing windows rather than being included in the windows of the primary actions. They do take place a set point in the timing chart, they just aren't drawn in. Interrupts always take place between the initiation and resolution of a triggering condition, so every point on the timing chart includes an interrupt window. Reactions always take place right after the resolution of a triggering condition, so every point on the timing chart has a reaction window right after it. Imagine how useless the timing chart would be if they drew that in there.

With the example of a sacrifice to save effect, does it really need the "when this character would leaves play..." text to work for soaking claim? Wouldn't it suffice with the normal save text like "Interrupt: When a Greyjoy character would be killed or discarded, sacrifice Doomed Longshipman to save that character."?

A "sacrifice to save" interrupt could be worded as you say. But unlike 1.0 - where the only interrupts possible were cancels or saves - 2.0 can have anything happen as an interrupt. So, for example, you could have something that says, "Interrupt: When an opponent's character is returned to his hand, sacrifice this card to discard a random card from that opponent's hand." That ends up being different from "Reaction: After an opponent's character is returned to his hand, sacrifice this card to discard a random card from that opponent's hand" because with the interrupt, you could never discard the card that is being returned to the opponent's hand (since it's still on the table), but with the reaction, you could (because the character is already in his hand).

Anyway, long story short, Something like the old Doomed Longshipman's "sacrifice to save" could still "soak" a 2-claim MIL loss because you are still able to choose your claim targets before it comes time to save them from the claim kill. The point I was trying to get across, though, is that the wording would have to be very precise to make sure the save is interrupting the resolution of MIL claim since the interrupt timing is not locked into just saves and cancels anymore.

Then again, perhaps it's the other way, and the speed of the interrupt is faster than the speed of death for both the card saved and the card with the interrupt. I'm honestly not sure--I read the sections on Military Claim, Interrupt, Save, and 4.2.4 Apply Claim Result.

Not the most elegant way to put it, but essentially correct. All save effects (and we know they will be in 2.0 because we've seen at least one) have to interrupt the effect that would remove the character from play - meaning that saves have to happen before the kill is complete. If all characters chosen for military claim are killed simultaneously, the opportunity to save character #1 chosen for a 2-claim MIL loss must happen before character #2 dies and is removed from the table. As such, character #2 is there to participate in any save effect that would attempt to save character #1.

So it seems that with the new rules and the interrupts things are alot more dependent on the wording to get timing right rather than there being a set point in the timing chart where all responses happened.

Well, I the real difference is that interrupts and reactions take place in their own timing windows rather than being included in the windows of the primary actions. They do take place a set point in the timing chart, they just aren't drawn in. Interrupts always take place between the initiation and resolution of a triggering condition, so every point on the timing chart includes an interrupt window. Reactions always take place right after the resolution of a triggering condition, so every point on the timing chart has a reaction window right after it. Imagine how useless the timing chart would be if they drew that in there.

Well, yes, there might be windows for them at every point so timing itself is perhaps not that unclear but what I was getting at is that with the new system you need to very clear about what the triggering condition is and when that actually happens to make sure you use your responses at the correct time. In the old system you had the response window where you played responses to everything that had happened in the past several framework windows whether it was in reponse to winning, claiming power, someone dieing, a card being discarded from hand etc. Now with the new system all those responses/reactions would happen in their own seperate windows rather than one single response window for everything. That's what I meant with one having to be more careful with wording to make sure you react at the correct time.

what I was getting at is that with the new system you need to very clear about what the triggering condition is and when that actually happens to make sure you use your responses at the correct time.

Well THAT is certainly true. Order of triggering conditions does matter more for reactions in 2.0 than it did for responses in 1.0.

Keep in mind, though, that multiple triggering conditions can be created by the same effect, so reactions to those are lumped into the same reaction window. So, for example, an effect that said, "Action: Choose and kneel a character. Discard all power and attachments from that character" would have a single reaction window for all 3 things happening in that one effect (kneel, discard power, discard attachments).

The order would be: "Kneel, discard power, discard attachments (reactions to all 3)," not "Kneel (reactions to kneeling), Discard power (reactions to the discarded power), Discard the attachments (reactions to discarding the attachments)."

what I was getting at is that with the new system you need to very clear about what the triggering condition is and when that actually happens to make sure you use your responses at the correct time.

Well THAT is certainly true. Order of triggering conditions does matter more for reactions in 2.0 than it did for responses in 1.0.

Keep in mind, though, that multiple triggering conditions can be created by the same effect, so reactions to those are lumped into the same reaction window. So, for example, an effect that said, "Action: Choose and kneel a character. Discard all power and attachments from that character" would have a single reaction window for all 3 things happening in that one effect (kneel, discard power, discard attachments).

The order would be: "Kneel, discard power, discard attachments (reactions to all 3)," not "Kneel (reactions to kneeling), Discard power (reactions to the discarded power), Discard the attachments (reactions to discarding the attachments)."

Yes, that's true. It's mostly in situations where the game has several framework actions happening as part of a game element that the difference is biggest.