Imagine the situation:

I play Orks, I have Lobber Crew (Kingdom. Action: Sacrifice this unit to force an opponent to sacrifice a unit he controls, if able.) in my Kingdom, and I'm actually in the Capital Phase. I decide to play Followers of Mork ( Forced: After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage. (Players allocate their own indirect damage.)).

I use the rule of overassigning damage. I decide to assign 2 damage tokens to Lobber Crew. At that moment, I use the rule, that between assigning and applying damage is an action window. As a result of not applying the damage, my Lobber Crew is still alive actually. Now I play Lobber Crew action and I force my opponent to sacrifice one of his units.

I'm asking you, whether this move is rule-abiding.

In my humble opinion, there is no rule in the Rulebook which could restrict such interpretation.

pancerek said:

No one has evidence that an action window exists between the assignation and the "applyance" of damages from a Forced. That's the subject of the "Timing : Forced vs Actions" topic on these boards.

There is no evidence that it doesn't though

According to the rulebook. It says:

Outside of combat, some card effects also deal damage to units or to a player's capital.
When these effects resolve, this damage is first assigned and then applied to the target in a manner similar to the way damage is handled in combat.
THE ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE is the Counterstrike keyword.

If the only exception for that rule is the counterstrike, I assume that other things are the same. If they are, I think that there is also an action window. The Lobber Crew doesn't interrupt the Forced Effect. I understand interruption as for example playing Judgement of Verena in situation described be me in the opening post. If in the Followers of Mork zone was no developments, this unit would have been killed and concerning the clockturning action resolving rule the Forced Effect couldn't be resolved. This is interruption in my opinion. Lobber Crew action isn't.

Another reason why I'm hoping they clarify that there is no Action window between assign and apply of non-combat damage, whether that damage be Forced or not.

How do you know it?

BTW. Can Lobber Crew trigger its Action during combat, after damage assigning, but before applying? You know what I mean - sacrifice them before they die.

pancerek said:

This is fine, there is a clear Action window for this (could also Pilgrimage something back to hand if you want to save a Unit).

pancerek said:

Snce Followers of Mork's ability is Forced you have no chance for the response. You could use actions AFTER Mork's effect happened, but then your Crew already died. I'm sorry, because I also tought before that there should be an action window...

Forced effects trigger and resolve fully without interruption. The question is whether or not taking an action before the effect fully resolves would be considered an interruption. I'm thinking yes, but we don't know fo rsure. Come up with a House rule and if the House Rule is wrong, then the person who made that rule has to by a 6-pack of the other persons favorite beer which will be drunk by both people at the next game night. Win/win.

I admit that I could be wrong, but I suspect that forced effects that assign damage like Followers of Mork work like this:

* You can't interrupt the forced effect, so it assigns its damage before you can play actions.

* Now you have an action window to play actions in response (assuming you can play actions now, i.e. it isn't the beginning of the turn).

* After actions resolve, the damage is dealt.

In which case yes, I would say that you can sac the lobber crew after putting the damage on it.

I wuld also agree that any stop in resolving a forced effect is an interruption (even if it resumes later).

Also i don't se that the action windows that happens after each step of combat is a part of "the way damage is handled during combat". To me the Non Combat Damage rules only state that the damage, will be asigned, and applied, in a manner similar to how damage is in combat, without any mention of adding action windows.

I sent it off to Nate so hopefully we'll have an official answer at some point.

The more I think about it, the more I think that I was wrong. Adding a assign/apply damage every time noncombat damage happens seems to complicate the game without adding much.

Here's another question: the rulebook talks about the stack in respect to actions. But what about units? Can you respond to units, supports and so on being played? How about developments?

Let's say that there is no action window when forced damage happens. My opponent plays Followers of Mork during his capital phase. Can I respond to the FoM with Steel's Bane on my unit, then assign the indirect (forced) damage from the FoM to that unit?

According to the rules you can only respond to Actions, so you would not be able to respond to a unit, a development or a support card being played, unless they come into play due to an action. So unless there is an action window between assigning and applying damage you cannot play Steel's Bane in response to Followers of Mork.

"A player is considered to be taking an action when playing a unit or support card from his hand (or when playing a card face down as a development)." (last part about the capital phase pg.11)

So yes you can play actions in response to that, keep in mind that the card isn't put into play untill after your action is resolved then.

Mathulus is right. Sorry for the misinformation. I only looked at the Action and responding to actions rules on page.

You can respond to your opponent playing a unit, support, quest, or development with a triggered action, but you may not respond to a triggered action (even if it your capital phase) by playing a unit, support, quest, or development unless doing so is a triggered effect. Playing those cards is considered taking an action, but they are not Action abilities/effects which the rules state they must be in order to be played in response... so it only works one way.

mathulus said:

Then it isn't handled in a manner similar to combat damage, it is handled in a manner similar to Counterstrike, which would be odd since the section detailing non-combat damage says clearly that the sole exception to this is Counterstrike, which we know is assigned and immediatly applied.

You may be completely right, but the rules in this section seem to strongly imply a different interpretation. Here is what we know because it is stated directly in the rules -

1. Combat damage goes through a three step resolution process, Assign, Action, Apply ( pages 12, 13, and 14 ).
2. Non-combat damage is handled in a similar manner to combat damage ( page 17 ).
3. Counterstrike is the one exception to how non-combat damage is handled ( page 17 ).
4. Counterstrike damage is always applied as soon as it is assigned before any other actions can be taken ( page 16 ).

I can find only a single thing in page 16 dealing with Counterstrike that could possibly referenced as what FFG meant when they said that non-combat damage was handled similar to combat damage with the one exception being Counterstrike. I don't personally find it very compelling but it is there so I bring it up so we can better discuss what is actually written in the rulebook.

" Counterstrike
The Counterstrike keyword allows a defending unit
to immediately damage an attacker whenever it is
declared as a defender. The Counterstrike keyword
is always followed by a numeric value (Counterstrike
1, Counterstrike 2, etc.). Whenever the unit with the
Counterstrike keyword is declared as a defender, it
immediately deals uncancellable damage equal to this
numeric value. This damage must be dealt to a single
attacking unit of the defending player’s choice; a unit
with Counterstrike cannot split the Counterstrike
damage amongst more than one unit. Counterstrike
damage is always applied as soon as it is assigned,
before any other actions can be taken."

Emphasis mine. This is a departure from how combat damage is handled, being able to be assigned amongst multiple units, where Counterstrike demands it is all dealt to a single unit. The flaw with this argument is that a significant amount of non-combat damage is also applicable to only a single unit, as defined by the targeting aspect the effect demands.

There s also a difference for Counterstrike favor : it could not be prevented by Tougness or abilities like Warrior Priest snce there is no assign/apply. The same won't be true for other non combat damage, even if there is no action window.

Any damage that is applied, even if it is applied immediately after being assigned can be canceled by Toughness because toughness is the first part of the apply damage step, so any damage that is applied is automatically valid for an automatic cancel like Toughness unless the damage effect itself says cannot be canceled (as Counterstrike clearly states).

Dormouse, could you please state clearly? Is there an action window during non-combat damage dealing?

Im typing this long awnser @ dormouse and then the FAQ comes out that awnsers the question (no action window for non combat damage). Aww delete

THE OFFICIAL FAQ IS OUT!!! Rejoice!

<- does a little mocking jig

(Humble isn't in my nature )

pancerek said:

Doesn't particularly matter anymore, but I was saying that in order for non-combat damage to be handled in a similar manner it would require the same steps that combat damage goes through with the action window being your response opportunity.

So very happy for the FAQ!