21 minutes ago, executor said:

it always seems to start on the forums with people trying to overthink rules and finding loopholes in wording to cheat the game to their advantage, causing FFG to go back through the rules sets and change the wording again so that it can be played as intended, which is the simple answer

if it wasn't for people trying to constantly take advantage of situations which are very clear when you think about it in simple terms, there would be no need for these threads to come up on a regular basis.

sure sometimes a rule can cause a slight bit of confusion, but this was a pretty straight forward rule with the way that this game interacts and did not require 5 pages of back and forth banter

Why does it always have to be that when someone is trying to understand how the rules are supposed to work and explains their position, the people who think it's "pretty straight forward" start saying the people trying to understand are somehow trying to cheat or gain some sort of advantage?

For me this issue was always the resolution of the triggers. When you resolve the Ambush trigger and Rey's trigger do gain an action to be used later or do you have to take the action right after the triggers resolves? To me the rules seemed to support the latter.

It was never about trying to gain an advantage but trying to understand the game so I can play it correctly and run our events with the most correct rulings as possible.

4 minutes ago, Starbane said:

Ah yeah, that is not what he said at all. I suggest you read it again.

He acknowledges an ambiguity in the interpretation and says he will make sure it is clear in the next update.

While his intent may not have been clear to some, both the intent and rules as written were clear to others, thus the ambiguity.

The good news is someday soon it will be spelled out specifically in the RRG.

He says "this is my intent", proceeds to explain things not present in the rules, then says he will make sure that is clear next time around. Not sure what I could be missing.

6 minutes ago, Starbane said:

Accidental double post.

In all fairness, even though I correctly explained how the game was played, there is no way I could do so from the published rules. They are flat out not clear, and yes, a flow chart is needed. I can guarantee you my correct understanding of the game did not come from reading the rules, even though I did sit down for over an hour reading that novel to figure all this out.

My correct understanding must have came from watching Team Covenant's youtube channel. They have games on there from GenCon with one of FFG's staff, and they play it with Lukas and they also give a very good tutorial about the game, which they learned straight from the source, in this video. They do have a Rey deck present, so this must be addressed in that video, as there is no way I got my understanding from the rule book. However if you watched all those videos and then read the rules, your understand would probably be correct and at least several people here had the correct understanding of the rules, regardless of their poor writing.

3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

His ruling nests separate triggers within a Q, within an action, that resolve entirely (and seemingly concurrently) before the initial action/effect has fully resolved itself. Not only is that the very definition of nesting, it's also very, very bad game design.

I absolutely agree that the RRG needs more clarity, but the text within the ambush section does stipulate that stuff that actions taken outside of your turn happen immediately. They don't enter the queue immediately.

26 minutes ago, KalEl814 said:

I absolutely agree that the RRG needs more clarity, but the text within the ambush section does stipulate that stuff that actions taken outside of your turn happen immediately. They don't enter the queue immediately.

Where exactly does the rule book define immediately, then? In relation to the queue? The queue is pretty clear, and the queue + immediately makes sense as triggering when the ability actually comes up in the queue (again, based on how the queue section explains things are added), but that's not the ruling we were given.

And don't get WAAAGH started on Destiny's lack of definitions in its rules...

And, if y'all think this is being a rules Nazi, you a) don't understand that term AT ALL, and b), have clearly never encountered a true rules Nazi.

7 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Quote from page 12:

"When a player is allowed to take additional actions on their turn, they must immediately take them following the resolution of the current action or decline to act (this is not the same as passing your turn). They cannot save the actions for later. If they are allowed to take an action outside of their turn, they also must take it immediately or decline to act."

Emphasis is mine.

I see Lukas is going to be updating the rules, but if this is currently the rule, then RAW seems to imply that Rey cannot get 2 additional actions by playing an ambush upgrade. Playing the upgrade is action A. Rey's trigger gives action B and the ambush upgrade gives action C, however both actions B and C are required to be taken immediately after A or else be declined, so one will have to be forfeited. If she uses action B to activate Rey, then Jango can activate and it is then Jango's turn, as action C cannot be saved until after she has taken action B.

6 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Where exactly does the rule book define immediately, then? In relation to the queue? The queue is pretty clear, and the queue + immediately makes sense as triggering when the ability actually comes up in the queue (again, based on how the queue section explains things are added), but that's not the ruling we were given.

And don't get WAAAGH started on Destiny's lack of definitions in its rules...

And, if y'all think this is being a rules Nazi, you a) don't understand that term AT ALL, and b), have clearly never encountered a true rules Nazi.

I didn't call anyone a rules Nazi... I'm not sure if that was directed at me or if you quoted the wrong person?

In any event, I thought that immediately was pretty clear, though that's obviously not the case.

1 minute ago, uhhsam said:

I see Lukas is going to be updating the rules, but if this is currently the rule, then RAW seems to imply that Rey cannot get 2 additional actions by playing an ambush upgrade. Playing the upgrade is action A. Rey's trigger gives action B and the ambush upgrade gives action C, however both actions B and C are required to be taken immediately after A or else be declined, so one will have to be forfeited. If she uses action B to activate Rey, then Jango can activate and it is then Jango's turn, as action C cannot be saved until after she has taken action B.

I had this same thought as well.

It is what it is, but the more I think about it the more I feel like there's no way to get to Lukas' ruling from the rules, even knowing the destination.

I believe the rules will eventually clear up immediately meaning during the current turn but only after the current action resolves. The rules currently state this, but if enough people do not understand that from reading the rules, then the rules are poorly communicated. I believe it all comes down to the word 'immediately' and its true english definition. It should not have ever been used.

They also need to differentiate the difference between an ability which gives an additional action, within that turn of course, and the actual additional action. I don't think people see the ability and action as two separate things, which is why they are trying force an action in a queue which clearly given the written rules, does not support actions.

So the structure is:

Turn [Action(Queue: ability gives an additional turn, other triggered abilities), Action - given from last action ability (Queue: event or abilities, triggered abilities)]

BTW, this is actually excellent game design but piss poor written game rules. By keeping each action separate onto its own, it keeps the game simple and allows all the abilities to be resolved before moving on to the next action. In the other interpretation, it is messy and clunky and forces too many things to be tracked over too long a time. Most people are only going to hold 3 things into their head at any one time. Nested actions is something only programmers would keep track of.

The best example of how to handle all of Rey's extra actions I can thing of was done by Sling Paint on youtube (great tokens btw) where they tracked the number Rey's actions using a D6. Each action was taken in turn and fully resolved before moving on to the next action, as per the rules.

Great game, great game design and WTF rules.

This also raises the question of timing if both players have effects which grant extra actions.

We know how to resolve timing conflicts in the queue, and with simultaneous triggers, but we have nothing on how to order actions if both players have them. Indeed, the only guidance is that both must be done "immediately". Now that abilities grant actions into some undefined pool of "I get to go next" it's literally undefined how to resolve whose action would go first.

54 minutes ago, Mep said:

I believe the rules will eventually clear up immediately meaning during the current turn but only after the current action resolves. The rules currently state this, but if enough people do not understand that from reading the rules, then the rules are poorly communicated. I believe it all comes down to the word 'immediately' and its true english definition. It should not have ever been used.

They also need to differentiate the difference between an ability which gives an additional action, within that turn of course, and the actual additional action. I don't think people see the ability and action as two separate things, which is why they are trying force an action in a queue which clearly given the written rules, does not support actions.

So the structure is:

Turn [Action(Queue: ability gives an additional turn, other triggered abilities), Action - given from last action ability (Queue: event or abilities, triggered abilities)]

BTW, this is actually excellent game design but piss poor written game rules. By keeping each action separate onto its own, it keeps the game simple and allows all the abilities to be resolved before moving on to the next action. In the other interpretation, it is messy and clunky and forces too many things to be tracked over too long a time. Most people are only going to hold 3 things into their head at any one time. Nested actions is something only programmers would keep track of.

The best example of how to handle all of Rey's extra actions I can thing of was done by Sling Paint on youtube (great tokens btw) where they tracked the number Rey's actions using a D6. Each action was taken in turn and fully resolved before moving on to the next action, as per the rules.

Great game, great game design and WTF rules.

There's a difference between complex and comprehensive. They can create an ostensibly simple system that still covers all of the corner cases, but keeping it 'simple' at the outset for the sake of casuality will have dire consequences for the long term health of the game. The stack/Q, as a mechanism, is perfectly intuitive until you start nesting it inside of individual actions - and things are only going to get more complex as they release more cards. There's a reason why you resolve all of a spell's text in Magic before moving on; you'd think FFG would learn from Wizard's growing pains.

It was silly of them to have to differentiate between before and after effects in the first place, but now they'll have to write an entire section dedicated to that new (and previously non-existent) timing window inside of actions. Just acknowledging that actions do in fact create abilities/effects would right this ship without nearly as much effort, because it jibes with how the rules are already written. That's good game design.

And there is an actual scenario where this could happen, now.

You're playing Rey. Deploy a Holdout Blaster on her so you get two actions. With your first action, you resolve some damage and kill Obi-Wan.

Before he's defeated I deploy an upgrade to my own Rey. Everything else resolves.

We both have one action pending. Which goes first?

Both players do not have a pending action. The defeated Obi-Wan triggers an ability, not an action, and that ability resolves inside the action it occurred. So it is very very clear, when Rey does damage to Obi-Wan and kills him (Rey, how could you?) inside that same action, Obi-Wan's ability triggers which allows the playing of a blue card, which resolves then. So the first action is deploy holdout blaster. There are now two more actions. Action number two is resolve damage which kills Obi-wan and triggers the ability of playing a blue card, which gets fully resolved within action #2. Action number 3 can be play an upgrade on Rey, which triggers the ability granting another action. After action 3 fully resolves, then action #4 can happen.

As to the magic example. One doesn't play Time Walk, then suspend the current turn, take a whole other turn, and then go back to the turn the Time Walk was cast in and finish that turn. Not even Magic is that clunky. Magic has spells that fully resolve but their effects happen at end or turn or upkeep or attack phase. Those spells do fully resolve even if their effects have yet to happen. Additional actions are just that, they happen after the current action resolves. It really is just that simple. And it took years for Magic to figure itself out and it still has to ban in print cards.

How the rules are currently written do support how the game is suppose to be played. It is also how they explained how the game should be played outside of the rules during demos and other press events and how it always has been played. The queue was always inside of actions. This always existed, so none of this previously non-existent stuff. A lack of understanding the game until just this moment doesn't mean those of us who were playing it correctly were some how playing with non-existent rules.

It is actually good game design, and when fully explained, makes perfect sense and gets a good game flow going. People reading something else into the rules and deciding that is a better way may be doing so only because that is their personal preference or maybe they are just saying that because they think the rules are stupid because they didn't understand them at first.

Either way, good solid game who's rules need a little work.

In your example there is no clear indication of which player would take an action next. I believe the intent is that the current player would finish their action and the opposing player would then take 2 actions next. It could also depend on battlefield control. They will have to clarify things before the next set

26 minutes ago, Mep said:

Both players do not have a pending action. The defeated Obi-Wan triggers an ability, not an action, and that ability resolves inside the action it occurred. So it is very very clear, when Rey does damage to Obi-Wan and kills him (Rey, how could you?) inside that same action, Obi-Wan's ability triggers which allows the playing of a blue card, which resolves then. So the first action is deploy holdout blaster. There are now two more actions. Action number two is resolve damage which kills Obi-wan and triggers the ability of playing a blue card, which gets fully resolved within action #2. Action number 3 can be play an upgrade on Rey, which triggers the ability granting another action. After action 3 fully resolves, then action #4 can happen.

I think you're missing part of the scenario here.

Player A has Rey. Player B has Rey and Obi-Wan.
Player A plays Holdout Blaster on Rey(A). Ambush clears the queue, Rey(A) clears the Queue, Player A now has two more actions.
Player A does something that kills Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan's ability triggers before defeat.
Player B uses Obi-Wan's ability to play an upgrade on Rey(B). Rey(B)'s ability enters the queue. Everything resolves - Obi-Wan is removed, Rey(B)'s ability resolves. Player B now has a pending action.

Player A has an action left to spend. Player B also has an action to spend.

There is, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing that defines what happens here. The action rules don't cover it. The timing rules only apply to effects, so don't apply. The queue isn't relevant - that's what started this whole mess.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

As to the magic example. One doesn't play Time Walk, then suspend the current turn, take a whole other turn, and then go back to the turn the Time Walk was cast in and finish that turn. Not even Magic is that clunky. Magic has spells that fully resolve but their effects happen at end or turn or upkeep or attack phase. Those spells do fully resolve even if their effects have yet to happen. Additional actions are just that, they happen after the current action resolves. It really is just that simple. And it took years for Magic to figure itself out and it still has to ban in print cards.

I'm confused by your argumentation technique. Why would you take the exact same example I used to make a completely unrelated point? I already said that spells are resolved in their entirety, so we're in agreement on Time Walk. So why would you stop in the middle of resolving a card (here, Holdout Blaster) to resolve two other triggers? Because that's what Lukas is saying happens: they resolve, and then the actions are stored in some nebulous space in the middle of as of yet undefined player turn... even though you can't store them for later use. And for that matter, how do delayed triggers - which we even have separate rules for in Destiny - factor into any of that?

If we're going to continue down that road then the analogies are a lot simpler than you're making them out to be. A game turn in Destiny is a main phase, and an action is any given spell or ability. All spells and abilities generate effects that go into the queue/stack upon playing them, regardless of where their card goes. Spells/actions/abilities/effects/triggers, whatever you want to call them, are separate and insulated from the queue mechanism, which only exists to tell you which order they're resolved in. They are separate, not one nested inside the other .

@Buhallin

Ah, okay, that is a cool example. Player B gets an action on Player A's turn after Player A takes their 3rd action is how I read the situation. The game flow is very consistent, so I think that is a safe assumption. The rules don't cover how multiple actions are ordered. I would also assume if Player A played an ambush card on action #3, Player B would get their action gained from the action which included Obi's demise before the gained action from ambush in action #3. Although we may be getting a bit silly here with the hypertheicals.

FFG has some work to do on that shiny new flow chart.

6 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I'm confused by your argumentation technique. Why would you take the exact same example I used to make a completely unrelated point? I already said that spells are resolved in their entirety, so we're in agreement on Time Walk. How do delayed triggers - which we even have separate rules for in Destiny - factor into that?

Umm, yeah, you are confused. You do know that Time Walk gets fully resolved however the text on the card isn't carried out when the spell is resolved, in other words, you don't get a turn inside of a turn. You can cast Time Walk, then attack, which gets it's own stack, cast another spell with it's own stack and then end of turn gets yet another stack. So upgrade blaster gets fully resolved and you would get an extra action, or turn in magic, only after the current action is finished.

These magic examples probably don't help at all, because if someone is trying to play magic with destiny cards, they are going to be very confused.

I... guess that's a response, if you think that ignoring my questions is somehow a response. I'm noticing a pattern here.

Maybe it's because most of your questions are either rhetorical, troll bait, or just flat out crazy? Or maybe it's because I did answer your question and you simply don't like the answer, so you feel unsatisfied and that your question hasn't been answered?

Note, those are the types of questions that don't need a response. Seriously, they don't need a response. We aren't owed any answers to any of our questions in life, best to get use to it.

So why respond at all if you a) don't value the conversation and b) don't intend to give a reasonable response? That's hardly a step up from the trolling you're accusing me of. If I don't need a response then you don't need to give me one, and you may kindly go away. Object lesson learned.

Thankfully I know that my questions were none of those things. Let me try again: what do delayed triggers have to do with the price of tea in China? That's not an apples to apples comparison in either game. In Magic, at least, the timing windows are explicit. Here in Destiny we have an interaction where you're resolving triggers within a distinct effect - the Holdout Blaster being played. Neither of those triggers are delayed (and to my knowledge, the only such example currently is Crime Lord). It seems to me like you're trying to justify a mid-action trigger, but I don't see where in the rules it says that the Q resolves in the middle of another effect resolving. Again, that's nesting, and we're supposed to finish one thing before moving on to the next.

5 hours ago, Mep said:

@Buhallin

Although we may be getting a bit silly here with the hypertheicals.

I'm a software engineer - the difference between good programmers and bad ones is how well they handle corner cases. I'm a good programmer If FFG and their playtesters spent more time exploring those corner cases (hypotheticals) then we'd all have a much better game for it.

In this case I point it out more to illustrate the rather baffling gaps in the rules. If this is what they intended, why isn't there timing for resolving conflicting pending actions? Did they really say "This should be in the rules but it can't happen until Spirit, so leave it out and we'll errata it later"?

I'm having serious feelings of deja vu from the early days of X-wing. I fought hard to decipher the underlying rules structure - the reality of the rules which were so poorly transmitted to us as players. Eventually I realized there was no underlying rules structure - they were just making it up as they went. I'm really starting to think we're going through the same thing here again.

7 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I'm a software engineer - the difference between good programmers and bad ones is how well they handle corner cases. I'm a good programmer If FFG and their playtesters spent more time exploring those corner cases (hypotheticals) then we'd all have a much better game for it.

In this case I point it out more to illustrate the rather baffling gaps in the rules. If this is what they intended, why isn't there timing for resolving conflicting pending actions? Did they really say "This should be in the rules but it can't happen until Spirit, so leave it out and we'll errata it later"?

I'm having serious feelings of deja vu from the early days of X-wing. I fought hard to decipher the underlying rules structure - the reality of the rules which were so poorly transmitted to us as players. Eventually I realized there was no underlying rules structure - they were just making it up as they went. I'm really starting to think we're going through the same thing here again.

That is the FFG way. I will say, though, that I've appreciated their dedication across their games, but you can definitely feel when there are different design teams across their titles.

If they were ever to, "set it and forget it," though, most of their releases would have moments that are simply unplayable.

How many software engineers actually write the user manual? If it isn't a tiny operation, then usually the software engineers communicate their details to the manual tech writer which puts everything together. The manual is often clunky and incomplete too. On top of that, how many people actually read the thing? The best way to teach software is through tutorials. Same with games, and clearly the way to learn this game is through the online tutorials, not the rule book.

However when cases like this do come up, the game designers directly communicate with the customers and clear up the situation. The rules are constantly updated to solve confusion. They put a lot of work into communicating.

BTW, this is a CCG, new stuff gets made up all the time in these games. They are anything but static.