Quote and repeat what I've said: MISprint. It's pretty obvious to me from the wording.

Card text and the word Action here come from different criterias: the ability itself is a typical passive wording.

On the other hand, if the misprint is not about "action" we have a bad wording: if that's the case, the card was intended to be used "during" KP (in the appropriate action window) and the "at the beginning" part is a mistake.

IMHO.

The Kingdom phase IS the start of a players turn. The flow chart, in that respect at least, is correct. Constant effects and Forced effects that initiate at the beginning of your turn do so as soon as your opponent says he is finished with his Battlefield Phase and both players have passed on playing actions consecutively. Constant and Forced effects that say they initiate after your turn begins, do so next. Apparently Abandoned Mine can be triggered in between the two, and yes because it is an action with no effect limitation, it could be triggered multiple times. Only after these three steps take place do you move on to the framework actions where the active player's resources are dumped back into the pool, they gain new resources, and restore a corrupt unit.

Nate has passed on a chance to errata the card and said this card works by creating an action window for its effect. This card breaks/modifies the rules in the process... but this is really just an extension of any card effect, since none of the effects outside of keywords actually exist within the rules themselves. Most cards in most games do not go to this drastic of a departure from the basic rules, rewriting the timing structure, or otherwise ignoring some aspect of turn order or flowchart... but it should be pointed out, adding an action window is actually less drastic than the various cards that repeat windows or turns, or force you to lose a window or turn and these exist in other LCG's and CCG's (including Magic).

It should be noted that the implication of Nate's response is that this card was not misprinted, and it in fact was intended to work this way. I would encourage anyone who still thinks this was printed incorrectly, or who feels that this clarification complicates the game rather than simplifies, and this particular ruling confuses rather than illuminates, email Nate and, politely, express your concern and ask for further detail of his clarification, or even provide what you feel would be a better method of handling this card. He might decide there is enough concern/confusion over the card to change it (though admittedly he could also decide to ban it if the case is over-made and the emails are all doom and gloom).

man! Im a very focal critic of the rulebook and lack of FAQ and such, but this particular card seems so clear, straightforward and obvious to me. It just seems to work exactly as intended, overriding a rule in the rulebook, as cards are sometimes intended to do via golden rule. Whats wrong with me this week? Am I getting into the holiday spirit?

Either way, Im totally happy with the ruling, as it simplifies the game, can played literally as written and is nice and easy for simple folk like me.

It even made me happier than the sadistic mutation/deal damage ruling! actually, no matter how riled up and annoyed I get by these debates, I tend to be totally satisfied with the final Nate ruling.

Happy Holidays.

I'm always satisfied with the rulings, since my number one interest is simply understanding how to play the game. I do believe that because no where in the rules does it say that some cards can create action opportunities where there are none, and the card says when the effect takes place but is not clearly phrased so as for you to know that is when the card must be played that the wording is a problem. I'm simply encouraging people to actually bring any continued complaints to Nate. Perhaps he can better explain to them what and why in a way that satisfies them, or maybe he will understand why the wording is unclear will give pause to future effects that he wishes to be used in this way and be more precise in the phrasing.

Here is an example, in AGoT there is no player action window between selecting your plot card and playing your plot card. There is one before selecting and one after revealing, but nothing in between. Nate created a card called Dragonstone Port whose text reads -

" Players may take actions after plot cards are chosen as part of the plot phase, but before they are revealed.

Plot: After plot cards are chosen but before they are revealed, name a plot card. For each opponent that reveals the named plot card this phase, claim 1 power for your House. "

This card clearly creates a player action window when it is in play where before there was none. Abandoned Mine could quite easily have been worded in a similar manner to clearly create a player action window, even a one sided one, rather than how it is currently worded. The current wording allows for it to be easily interpreted as the creation of a constant effect which resolves at the beginning of your next turn, in the same way that Grudge Thrower allows you to boost units which have yet to be declared as an attacker or defender.

So it isn't the ruling I have a problem with at all, it is the choice of wording. Even then I am perfectly willing to accept Nate's clarification, but people coming on here and arguing against it is pointless. They would be better served just accepting it or bringing the point up with Nate.

Believe it or not dormouse, we have the same goal. I too want to understand how to play the game.

The problem is that in the current environment (and any environment where designer's intent overrides what the rules and cards say) we simply can't do that without Nate holding our hand. There's no consistency to the rulings, and no ability to derive what is going on. Every ability that can have a too-powerful interpretation becomes a great big question mark, because who knows if they intended it like that?

You're right that railing against it doesn't actually do any good, but there's not much else to do but that.

Sorry, dormouse, but If your post was against me you misunderstood (or maybe I explained it in a wrong way)...

I didn't know anything aobut the Nate's ruling (sorry if I didn't read it if it was written) at the time of my previous post and it wasn't meant to be a concern or an argument (you should know I never do that).

I was just guessing...that's it.

NOW i'm beginning to understand the design criterias and wording and maybe I didn't before...But I've never tried to say anything offensive against design or wording. I just try to understand and maybe say my opninion, but I do change my mind when I'm wrong and accept rulings with no reactions.

Just to be clear.

2) Actions that are played "at the beginning of your turn" are optional effects that can only be played when your turn begins, prior to the start of the Kingdom phase. This is currently the only card with such a restriction

Does this even answer the question? We already knew actions are optional and beginning of your turn was prior to the kingdom phase. So the only actual information is "can only be played when your turn begins". This answers a question on whether actions with timing can be used outside the phase and they hang around the phase occurs. The "at the beginning of your turn" or "during the quest phase" are part of the cost of the action and must be meet when the action is triggered, they are not part of the actions effect. Mind you troll's vomit does the same thing but makes it much clearer on what is going on. What the answer left out is how you would have a chance to trigger the action. The answer specified when the action could be played but not how and the how was the issue due to the beginning of your turn not having an action window.

To make this card work with what we now know you have to add a game rule like "At the beginning your turn actions create a opportunity to respond." So the answer is to add a rule and not just a minor rule but one that completely changes the nature of action? Uggh creates so many issues it's ridiculous. So it's an action with a forced effect inside it. Rather then waiting for you to trigger it like every other action "at the begining of the turn" it triggers itself. It has to monitor the game state and when it is appropriate create the window for it's use. It's unclear whether this window can be reponded too. If it can be responded to the entire game just changed. You can respond to the window and essentially use 2 turns resources in 1 while using play during your turn cards. Troll's vomit & waagh just got 100% better. As resources from the previous phase aren't lost until the start of the kingdom phase you can use extra resources from the previous turn to boost your attack this turn. I'm sure we can come up with a million other ways to do similiar things. If the window can't be responded to this introduces complicated pointless rules. It is 100% identical to a constant/forced effect but rather then errata the card, or accept the card doesn't work 100% like they intend, they are making the rules more cumbersome. That's before going into the implications for other actions. I'll wait for the faq but the present plan of changing the rules to make a single card work like the author's intended rather then changing the card to work with the rules makes the long term prospects for the game dim. Changing rules changes multiple cards and results in unattended consequences. What actions monitor and present opportunities and what one's sit passively until triggered? What's the difference between pausing the game for an "optional effect" and an action window. I have no idea and there was no need to introduce additional complications of these kinds. It's not the ruling so much as that to avoid changing a poorly worded card they are changing game fundamentals which are going to have lots of consequences.

I'll wait for the FAQ to make a final decision but the indications that the games rules are heading towards a quagmire is leaning me towards dropping the game sooner rather then later.

I think Nate's answer addresses the question asked, but I'm not sure the question asked was phrased in a way that lets us fully understand what is going on here. I think it was a little too specific in its wording with assumptions already built into it to get an answer that helps us understand the when and why. I think the base question is, when does a player actually play this card? I would then would have followed it up with the various interpretations people have been expressing and then asked for a brief explanation of his answer to better explain it to my play group and better understand it and the wording on the card, for myself.

I think I'm going to ask Nate for a bit of a clarification, so we can better understand the wording choice and how it impacts the game as a whole. I don't expect to get a different answer, just one which maybe a little easier to understand the how, when, and why.

Those are all valid concerns, so perhaps you should mention them to Nate. You can not assume that every "official" ruling, or that the rulebook, or card text have considered the exponentially huge and ever increasing number of card combinations and interactions. Nate is just a dude, like anyone else, and might not have considered the potential interactions between Abandoned Mine and Waagh or Troll's Vomit. We are already to the point where it is essentially impossible to play the game correctly without access to the forum in the abscence of a FAQ, so what's one more card interaction?

Raging wont help, but discussing with the designer might. Its surprising sometimes how quickly people get to the point of threatening to a game they seem to enjoy, based on one ruling/interpretation. You just might get him to errata the wording to say FORCED instead of ACTION, which would clearly have the card play just as everyone seems to want it to play, without adding what you feel is an unintentional strengthening of a few action/response cards. Personally I agree that it would be easier to fix one card than to have to add a new rule to address one specific interaction... of course, an errata is really just another rule.

You never knowm maybe Nate meant to have this extra opportunity to respond to actions, which might help out all sides about the same, since every side would like to have the opportunity to spend those unused before their turn starts, or he might have totally not considered it, in which case he can, well, do whatever he thinks to fix or not fix it. If you hate the ruling, feel free to the game sooner rather then later, or just dont use the card, or play the card however you want.

Already did it. This is what I wrote -

" There has been a lot of discussion about the card Abandoned Mine from the Skavenblight Threat Battle Pack.

The card -
#19 Abandoned Mine (Neutral Support)
4 Resources

2 Power/0 HP

Building.

Kingdom. Action: At the beginning of your turn, you may return one of your developments to its owner's hand.

When does a player actually play this card? As an action according to the rules it needs to be played during a player action window. Other effects worded this way are Forced or Constant effects which obviously initiate and resolve as the Kingdom Phase begins but before any framework or player actions, was this card intended to be a Forced effect? Does this card need to be played during an action window prior to the beginning of my turn or does it create an action window by which it can be played, where no previous action window existed?

If it is played in an action window shown in the rulebook, I assume any response to it would need to be played immediately, during that same window. If it creates its own action window, does it also create an action chain, allowing other actions to be played in this newly created window in response? If all responses are played and resolved, including the Abandoned Mine, is there still an action window by which actions can be played until both players have passed consecutively or does the action window shutdown as soon as Abandoned Mine resolves?

Because Abandoned Mine uses the word "may" is it possible to trigger it if it creates its own action window, choose not to return a development to hand, simply to create an opportunity to play effects in response prior to the framework actions of the Kingdom Phase?

Can you provide a bit of insight into the wording of this card and the way it is played so I can get a better understanding of how, when, and why this card works the way it does? (obviously I'm not asking you to justify yourself, I'm just looking to get some "ktom" level insight that can be used to discern current and future card effects and timing issues.)

As always, thanks for the time for answering this question. "

Looks good. This ruling definitely needs a second look.

Well phrased. I would definitely mention the potential interaction with Trolls Vomit and other cards like that, because those are not obvious ramifications of adding another potential action/response opportunity, as mentioned by Ratcur.

I like how none of these guys even asked what you meant by "ktom." And I look forward to hearing what Nate has to say.

I don't know who Ktom is in real life, but he posts answers to rules questions for A Game of Thrones and has extensive knowledge of that LCG. Dormouse is indicating he wishes to acheive the same insight as Ktom but with regards to this game.

Edit: I still think having one more phase in the game, one just before the Kingdom phase, that would include all the beginning of turn effects followed by a voluntary Action window, would work well and also answer many of the timing questions related to such cards.

Okay, so I talked to Nate, he is considering how this card is going to work (concerns were potential for abuse, confusion over timing, and potential restriction of design space). If anything new comes up, I'll post here and make suitable changes to the unofficial flowchart. Just proof that he and FFG listen to our concerns.

Dormouse

Did you ever get follow-up from Nate on Abandoned Mine?

One additional question I have is can you "activate" the same Abandoned Mine multiple times at the beginning of your turn to retrieve multiple cards?

Thought the answer was no but now I cannot find a post that tells me that.

No. Because the effect says at the beginning of your turn is when you must activate it, you get one action and then it is no longer the beginning of your turn. Forced Effects and Constants would be the same way, only initiating once each simultaneously and then the order of the effects playing out and then resolving in the order selected by the active player.

And no, there has been no further follow up from Nate, just that he is looking at it and considering how best to handle the effect in regards to the official flowchart and if the way it is now is going to be too difficult for players to grok, or cause too many other problems (mostly regarding abuse of existing cards and constraints on future design space) and should be changed/simplified. I'm not sure he will tell me before the FAQ with all the other things on his plate.

Is there anything currently which would prevent you from responding to the Abandoned Mine with itself?

Also, are you sure there's only a single opportunity to trigger a timed action? That would imply, for instance, that if both my opponent and I had "When damage is dealt..." actions, playing mine would prevent him from playing his because once mine has resolved it's now outside the window for the trigger. Just because all Forced effects trigger at the same time it doesn't follow that there is only a single opportunity for them to do so based on the trigger.

Actually it does follow. The window for responses to an action is immediate and once passed is closed and unable to be responded to until another opens. When a unit is damaged you must play all your responses to that unit in that chain. Once that chain closes down and resolves LIFO, it is simply gone. That said, taking a separate action and a response are not the same thing. You have to be aware of when an action can be used on it's own separate to a triggering event, and when it is required to be played as a response.

Right now that line is a little blury because a lack of an official flowchart. My chart is simply the accumulation and concentration of all the rulings and clarifications added to what was outlined in the rules, it does not actually provide any new information.

Abandoned Mine must be triggered at the begining of your turn, as soon as it is triggered it is no longer at the beginning of your turn (same deal as Defend the Border about the first damage). Whether a response played during the response step in that newly created window still counts as the beginning of your turn or not is a thing for the FAQ/flowchart. I'd say no erring on the side of caution as a TO, but a logical argument could be made based on the assumption of steps and windows in how the flowchart will or is meant to be . The fact it is based on a nonreleased document with no further clarification is precisely why I wouldn't rule in it's favor.

It could work just as well if events gave the opportunity to respond until the next event. I do see your point, but your potential ruling to stop multi-Mining would have a rather dramatic limitation. Your ruling would only ever allow a single action with a trigger to be played - for instance, if I have a tactic which saves a unit when it is destroyed and you have a tactic which kills another unit when a unit is destroyed, only one could be played because after the first one it's not "A unit was just destroyed" any more.

I think in the long run that's a train wreck waiting to happen, mostly from tactics. Right now there aren't a lot of tactics available. As that pool increases over time the potential for collisions will increase dramatically.

It is all about wording, a tactic that said, after a unit is killed is markably different than just after a unit is destroyed. Again it all depends on the flowchart.

All of this is contingent on nothing new being added to the Flowchart, IOW, what I'm saying here is how I believe this card should work (after a discusion with Nate) based on our current understanding of the Flowchart. All it takes is a framework window that sets up responses to an initiating event all being played and resolved in the same window as the original initiating event and it is taken care of. It would allow for multiple Mines to be triggered. As of right now we don't have that so I believe it can't be played that way based on the rules we have.

Again, I'm not stating a preference about this. I honestly don't care how any of the cards work. That sounds weird but I think you get what I'm saying, I'm not tied to a specific interpretation of a card effect, I care about understanding the rules to the best of my ability and the game being fun. It is why I don't get upset when I end up being wrong. We all make mistakes, now that I know the right way for any given ruling Nate has clarified, regardless of whether it confirms or refutes my previous statements of opinion, I take that and try to become a better player, and pass that knowledge on with explanation to future questioners.

My honest opinion about Abandoned Mine is that it is a bit of a headache and until there are more cards following a clearly spelled out mechanic in the FAQ we will have dozens of questions regarding its use... but Eric wanted the language to be less strict than the other LCG's and the action format less structured, so he got what he wanted. And it is now up to him and Nate (and now James Hata) to work out the how.

If you rule it, that the beginning of a turn has ended if you triggered mine once, what is with forced effects kicking in? Is only one triggered because it is not the beginning anymore, do the build a LIFO chain (and would actions be able to get added to the chain?).

I would rule it the way, that you are able to trigger mine as often as you like, if intended in another way a restricition should be there.

Not if the restriction is already in the wording.

Forced effects all initiate simultaneously, the active player chooses the order they resolve in. There is no action phase before the Kingdom Phase, Abandoned Mine's text allows it to be played anyway at the beginning of your turn, technically the only reason why Forced effects would occur first is because the rules say they occur before actions. You cannot trigger to cards imultaneously therefor only one could be triggered as an action.

There is no way to take multiple separate actions with Abandoned Mine because after the first resolves it is no longer capable of meeting it's timing restriction. The only valid question I see (and by valid I mean specifically the way the rules are currently written and the most up to date info we have from Nate, this does not preclude new information or an altered ruling changing this) is whether or not you could trigger Abandoned Mine to respond to it's own action. To the best of my knowledge Nate has said nothing that disallows this, nor can I, at this moment and time, think of anything in the rules that would make this illegal. Then again, I'msick so I might have missed something very obvious.

Abandoned Mine breaks the rules though, no other card creates its own window in the game except this card, so I could be very wrong. The only reason why I say it works this way is because that was what I got from a conversation with Nate about it. He may change his mind which of course could invalidate all of this. Or James who is doing some design on the game now too.

Even if there is some restriction hidded in some confusing wording and timing, it would be wiser to write it down again.

But why is it still beginning of the turn, if the first forced effects resolved but not if a first action resolved? I think it is easier for all (and no downside on gaming) if we understand "beginning of the turn" as a phase, where only forced effects can kick and special actions executed.

jogo said:

Thing is, Temple of Shallya works just fine without "Action:" at the start, so from that POV, the Abandoned Mine card seems overly confusing.