Parattani vs Kattani game.

1) How do we resolve "Start of combat phase" effects? According to PS or check legality first before everything goes onto stack?

Case in point - both players have Manaroo. He has Asajj. I have Old Teroch and Ketsu (both PS7) .

I was of the opinion that both Manaroos resolve first, followed by his Asajj, followed by Ketsu, then Teroch (my choice). I wanted to Tractor Fenn into Range 1 and arc of my Teroch so I could strip all the tokens. He was adamant that we checked legality of Teroch's effect before starting to resolve his Manaroo.

Initiative. Whoever has initiative resolves all "start of combat phase" effects first; then their opponent resolves theirs.

OK. In my case, can I tractor a ship into range 1 of my Teroch to strip tokens? (ideally I want to strip tokens first then Tractor Fenn into range 2 , but this method works as well)

A player can resolve any effects they have that share a timing window in any order they choose.

If both players have effects with the same timing window the player with initiative resolve all of their effects first.

@spacelion none of these abilities use PS to determine order. It's always initiative.

OK thanks.

So i guess I can tractor a ship into Teroch token stripping then?

You can tractor someone in so Teroch strips tokens, yes.

Worth noting that they must have Teroch in their arc and not the other way around for Teroch to trigger. Forcing Fenn Rau to have Teroch in arc range 1 seems like a risky proposition but may pay off if he's tractor beamed and has no focus though I suppose.

14 hours ago, spacelion said:

...before everything goes onto stack?...

Okay, this question has already been answered correctly, and what's about to happen is I'm about to nerd out about the intersection of game design and computer science, so feel free to skip this post.

There's no stack in X-Wing. The term stack was borrowed by Magic: the Gathering from computer science. It describes a sequential data structure with Last In First Out behavior. "Sequential" means the order of the elements is maintained. "Last In First Out" means pretty much what it sounds like: items added to the stack first will come out last, after anything added after. The common example is a stack of plates at a salad bar. It's trivial to get the top plate off the stack, or add any number of plates to the top of the stack, but to get at the plates on the bottom of the stack, which have been there longest, you have to remove the plates above them.

The reason Magic borrowed this concept for their game is that it correctly models the way effects resolve in Magic. When you trigger an effect, it goes in the stack, and if I trigger an effect in response to your effect, my effect will resolve before yours.

I say X-Wing doesn't have a stack because effect resolution in X-Wing is neither sequential nor Last-In First-Out. All the effects that you want to trigger go into a collection, but you can pull them out in any order.

• Timing Window Arrives
  • Player with Initiative, do you have any effects you want to (or have to) trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events, and resolve them all in any order you choose.
  • Player without Initiative, do you have any effects to trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events and resolve them all in any order you choose.

7 hours ago, digitalbusker said:

• Timing Window Arrives
  • Player with Initiative, do you have any effects you want to (or have to) trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events, and resolve them all in any order you choose.
  • Player without Initiative, do you have any effects to trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events and resolve them all in any order you choose.

I think this is off a bit. All of the effects that are eligible to trigger are collected and then they are either resolved or not in any order that you choose. The decision point is at the time of resolution, not at the time of the triggering event.

If you've got multiple effects with the same timing you don't need to decide which of the effect you will resolve before you start resolving anything.

Just now, WWHSD said:

I think this is off a bit. All of the effects that are eligible to trigger are collected and then they are either resolved or not in any order that you choose. The decision point is at the time of resolution, not at the time of the triggering event.

You don't think you have to decide on the full set of things you're triggering before starting to resolve them?

I can't think of an easy way to check which interpretation is correct.

1 minute ago, digitalbusker said:

You don't think you have to decide on the full set of things you're triggering before starting to resolve them?

I can't think of an easy way to check which interpretation is correct.

Use the example in this thread. Do you have to commit to using Old Teroch before you can have Ketsu apply a tractor token?

1 minute ago, WWHSD said:

Use the example in this thread. Do you have to commit to using Old Teroch before you can have Ketsu apply a tractor token?

Okay, but what's the difference between "I choose to trigger them both and then oops it turns out OT isn't quite at Range 1 so he doesn't do anything" and "I choose to trigger Ketsu and then decide not to trigger OT because he wouldn't be able to do anything"?

6 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

Okay, but what's the difference between "I choose to trigger them both and then oops it turns out OT isn't quite at Range 1 so he doesn't do anything" and "I choose to trigger Ketsu and then decide not to trigger OT because he wouldn't be able to do anything"?

Would you call out an opponent on a missed opportunity if they resolved Ketsu and then attempted to resolve OT without declaring that they had multiple effects that they are triggering before hand?

6 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Would you call out an opponent on a missed opportunity if they resolved Ketsu and then attempted to resolve OT without declaring that they had multiple effects that they are triggering before hand?

I wouldn't, but that's more about me not wanting to force people to show their work (or listen to it all) than not thinking it's happening below the hood.

33 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

I wouldn't, but that's more about me not wanting to force people to show their work (or listen to it all) than not thinking it's happening below the hood.

Let's reverse the question then. Do you declare all of the effects that you plan on resolving before resolving any of them?

What if another player stopped you after resolving your first effect and told you that you had missed the opportunity to resolve the rest of your effects because you didn't first declare them?

Would it be a "You're not wrong, you're just an *******" moment and you'd comply with your opponent's request or would you tell him he's full of **** and call a judge over if he was insistent?

Personally, I would rather have the more flexible situation with less "gotchas" to be abused.

17 hours ago, WWHSD said:

Let's reverse the question then. Do you declare all of the effects that you plan on resolving before resolving any of them?

What if another player stopped you after resolving your first effect and told you that you had missed the opportunity to resolve the rest of your effects because you didn't first declare them?

Would it be a "You're not wrong, you're just an *******" moment and you'd comply with your opponent's request or would you tell him he's full of **** and call a judge over if he was insistent?

Personally, I would rather have the more flexible situation with less "gotchas" to be abused.

Well if it's a game I'm playing in, chances are it's either very casual or a tournament that I'm judging, so I'd call the backup judge over just to recuse myself.

But you're right, I can't see myself telling somebody they'd missed their opportunity if I got called over to adjudicate something like this. I guess I just defaulted to the "collect all your things, then execute all your things" model because it's easier to express than the idea of going back to the triggering event each time you finish resolving something.

On 3/2/2017 at 10:32 AM, digitalbusker said:

Okay, this question has already been answered correctly, and what's about to happen is I'm about to nerd out about the intersection of game design and computer science, so feel free to skip this post.

There's no stack in X-Wing. The term stack was borrowed by Magic: the Gathering from computer science. It describes a sequential data structure with Last In First Out behavior. "Sequential" means the order of the elements is maintained. "Last In First Out" means pretty much what it sounds like: items added to the stack first will come out last, after anything added after. The common example is a stack of plates at a salad bar. It's trivial to get the top plate off the stack, or add any number of plates to the top of the stack, but to get at the plates on the bottom of the stack, which have been there longest, you have to remove the plates above them.

The reason Magic borrowed this concept for their game is that it correctly models the way effects resolve in Magic. When you trigger an effect, it goes in the stack, and if I trigger an effect in response to your effect, my effect will resolve before yours.

I say X-Wing doesn't have a stack because effect resolution in X-Wing is neither sequential nor Last-In First-Out. All the effects that you want to trigger go into a collection, but you can pull them out in any order.

• Timing Window Arrives
  • Player with Initiative, do you have any effects you want to (or have to) trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events, and resolve them all in any order you choose.
  • Player without Initiative, do you have any effects to trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events and resolve them all in any order you choose.

I think it was actually the Decipher Star Wars CCG that first used "stack." MtG then co-opted it about the time they eliminated the "interrupt" card type. But "stack" came into use for many CCGs at about the same time. In either case nice explanation.

19 hours ago, WWHSD said:

Let's reverse the question then. Do you declare all of the effects that you plan on resolving before resolving any of them?

What if another player stopped you after resolving your first effect and told you that you had missed the opportunity to resolve the rest of your effects because you didn't first declare them?

Would it be a "You're not wrong, you're just an *******" moment and you'd comply with your opponent's request or would you tell him he's full of **** and call a judge over if he was insistent?

Personally, I would rather have the more flexible situation with less "gotchas" to be abused.

I'd go with "You're not wrong, you're just {not flying casual} and deliberately abusing conventions of play. You gonna stick with that or do I need to call the judge and otherwise let the entire room know you're being a jerk?"

OK... so if some card game used the term "stack" first (whichever one)...

I guess I can point out that "Last in, First out" is a derivative of terms used in accounting.

FIFO and LIFO are methods of tracking inventory assets. Many items have a date on them so that the oldest of duplicate items in inventory would be used or sold first (like milk in a grocery store or batteries in an automotive store). Those are the FIFO or First In, First Out items.

But items that are stacked or piled (like cow manure) might be simply put in a pile on the ground in and the highest, most recent part of the stack would be sold first and the oldest stuff would be sold when the stack was nearly depleted, First In, Last Out.

So if I have initiative and have Old Teroch, and the other player has no initiative and has Manaroo, then if I strip tokens from e.g. opponent's Fen Rau with Old Teroch, he is able to pass tokens from Manaroo to Fenn - so that my Old Teroch's ability becomes useless in some way?

Yes. but if you take them after she passes that's it. You should be aiming to give init to the manaroo player if possible.

On 3/2/2017 at 6:32 AM, digitalbusker said:

Okay, this question has already been answered correctly, and what's about to happen is I'm about to nerd out about the intersection of game design and computer science, so feel free to skip this post.

There's no stack in X-Wing. The term stack was borrowed by Magic: the Gathering from computer science. It describes a sequential data structure with Last In First Out behavior. "Sequential" means the order of the elements is maintained. "Last In First Out" means pretty much what it sounds like: items added to the stack first will come out last, after anything added after. The common example is a stack of plates at a salad bar. It's trivial to get the top plate off the stack, or add any number of plates to the top of the stack, but to get at the plates on the bottom of the stack, which have been there longest, you have to remove the plates above them.

The reason Magic borrowed this concept for their game is that it correctly models the way effects resolve in Magic. When you trigger an effect, it goes in the stack, and if I trigger an effect in response to your effect, my effect will resolve before yours.

I say X-Wing doesn't have a stack because effect resolution in X-Wing is neither sequential nor Last-In First-Out. All the effects that you want to trigger go into a collection, but you can pull them out in any order.

• Timing Window Arrives
  • Player with Initiative, do you have any effects you want to (or have to) trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events, and resolve them all in any order you choose.
  • Player without Initiative, do you have any effects to trigger?
    • If yes, collect all those events and resolve them all in any order you choose.

This is mostly true. There is no "stack" for simultaneous effects, and you resolve them in whatever order (if they all belong to one person). There IS a stack for nested effects though. Think a decimator with dauntless, ptl and experimental interface. You dauntless for an action, ptl off that for a second action, then experimental interface for a third, then get stress from EI, then stress from ptl, then stress from dauntless

On 3/3/2017 at 2:01 PM, Frimmel said:

I think it was actually the Decipher Star Wars CCG that first used "stack." MtG then co-opted it about the time they eliminated the "interrupt" card type. But "stack" came into use for many CCGs at about the same time. In either case nice explanation.

Fair enough. MtG was the first place I was exposed to the term in gaming, but I shouldn't have assumed that they took it directly from CS and not from some intermediate source.

On 3/3/2017 at 5:49 PM, Sephlar said:

OK... so if some card game used the term "stack" first (whichever one)...

I guess I can point out that "Last in, First out" is a derivative of terms used in accounting.

FIFO and LIFO are methods of tracking inventory assets. Many items have a date on them so that the oldest of duplicate items in inventory would be used or sold first (like milk in a grocery store or batteries in an automotive store). Those are the FIFO or First In, First Out items.

But items that are stacked or piled (like cow manure) might be simply put in a pile on the ground in and the highest, most recent part of the stack would be sold first and the oldest stuff would be sold when the stack was nearly depleted, First In, Last Out.

Yeah, coders will borrow terms from anywhere. Often it's because when working on a system to enhance some existing field of activity we have to learn a lot about that field, and we sometimes encounter specialized terminology there that we decide to adopt.

On 3/4/2017 at 2:15 PM, VanderLegion said:

This is mostly true. There is no "stack" for simultaneous effects, and you resolve them in whatever order (if they all belong to one person). There IS a stack for nested effects though. Think a decimator with dauntless, ptl and experimental interface. You dauntless for an action, ptl off that for a second action, then experimental interface for a third, then get stress from EI, then stress from ptl, then stress from dauntless

Yeah, that works like a stack. The fact that effects have sequences that will resume where they left off after the interrupting effect is resolved, and the interrupting effect generates a new sequence that can itself be interrupted, complicates things. Usually something is either on the stack or off it, not "in progress". But you could use a stack to model that kind of behavior.

Aaaaaaaaand....... now the new FAQ covers this question in detail.