With regard to advancing the Act deck, is there a functional difference between "Advance" and "Advance immediately"? If there is an objective on the Act deck that says "Advance" but does not say "Advance Immediately," can investigators delay the advance?

For example, if the Act deck says "If there are no clues on ___Location X___, advance," can the investigators choose to delay advancing the act deck?

I don't think they can, it's a conditional rule that basically says 'if this condition is true, advance'. Another common one is that the investigators, usually as a group, may spend the requisite number of clues to advance. As the conditional rule is based on whether the investigators take that step, they can delay advancing the act. That's also based on the fact there's at least one I've come across which requires the investigators to spend that requisite number of clues immediately.

So, if it's a simple 'when this specific game state occurs, advance' I don't think you can delay. If it's based on investigators doing a certain thing (such as spending clues) with no stipulations for when or how, I think you can.

This seems like a distinction that requires contextual clues to land on a correct interpretation. Was there a specific card you were wondering about?

Generally, spending clues to advance is a free trigger, so it's voluntary. An "Objective" can override that, though.

If you aren't spending clues (and assuming the text is a passive rather than a react trigger), I'd say your hypothetical act advances as soon as the location is empty.

FFG is inordinately fond of using the term "immediately", but it never has any real game definition.

Whether the ability goes off or not will depend on the type of the ability, and the terminology. Your example doesn't seem to fit into any of the defined types. AH is pretty good about making the type clear - it should either have the Forced keyword, or either the action or reaction icons. These icons would define whether it was optional - the action/reaction would be optional, the forced would not be.

I still haven't gone through much of Dunwich, is this an example from an actual card? Or a hypothetical?

14 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

AH is pretty good about making the type clear - it should either have the Forced keyword, or either the action or reaction icons. These icons would define whether it was optional - the action/reaction would be optional, the forced would not be.

These conventions aren't generally used in the context of advancing acts and agendas.

Forced is difficult to template because it creates a double condition with Objective, so they instead use Objective, then in the ability use terms like investigators so:

"Objective - When the investigators have collected the requisite number of clues, they must immediately spend them and advance." (Beginner's Luck).

But the must immediately language is only relevant if investigators would normally be able to delay, as when they are spending clues to advance (as a free trigger, per normal procedure).

For objectives that don't require you to spend clues (such as if a location is emptied of clues), there is no voluntary aspect to the ability. So it happens as soon as the condition is met, and the investigators have no choice in the matter. Such as on The Chamber of the Beast (spoiler):

Objective - If there are no clues in the Hidden Chamber, advance.

TL;DR: Spending clues is a free trigger, so investigators may do so when they wish unless an objective says otherwise. Other means of triggering Objectives are not voluntary (unless they say so via "may" or similar), so the investigators can't delay.

Bleh. No real reason they couldn't have used "Forced" instead of "Objective". The consistency would have been better (FFG dramatically undervalues consistency in terminology and structure, IMHO). I think they may come to regret that in the long run, as it will limit the flexibility for those effects, but sure.

As it stands though, if the objective doesn't specify a choice for the investigators (whether it is a modification to the normal "spend clues to advance" or some other action) the advance is not optional.

I think Objective is more appropriate because it indicates a goal, what you need to be working towards because it's on the Act card and is about advancing the story, not an ongoing in-game mechanic. They've been very consistent about using Objective on the Act cards. It makes it much more clear that it is something you need to achieve.

2 hours ago, mwmcintyre said:

I think Objective is more appropriate because it indicates a goal, what you need to be working towards because it's on the Act card and is about advancing the story, not an ongoing in-game mechanic. They've been very consistent about using Objective on the Act cards. It makes it much more clear that it is something you need to achieve.

This is true thematically, but Objectives are still just abilities. There's a reason the other ability types - action, constant, reaction, forced - are as strongly defined as they are. It makes it very clear exactly when they can be triggered, whether they're optional, etc.

The rules for Acts even seem to recognize this - "This is normally done as a [Free Triggered Ability] ." So for a normal advance, it fits into the framework (albeit in a default and annoyingly buried-in-the-rules sort of way). But once you add an objective, all bets are off. What would otherwise be defined with clean game terms falls back to text that forces us to guess at what it really means. It could just as easily have said "Objective: Forced - ..." or even just Forced. The only place I can find a reference to "if" as a game term is in the timing for forced abilities - so is this objective Forced? Maybe? Probably? <shrug> How do we actually know?

"Objective" might make it clear that it's something you need to achieve, but I honestly don't think people needed to be prodded on that front. I'd much rather have the game effect be clear. Again, there's a reason every other effect in the game defines its type. Skipping that definition for this sole effect is poor wording.

"Objective" isn't "Forced" for the same reason "Forced" isn't a react trigger that specifies "when x, you must y," or "Fast" appears on events and free trigger symbols appear on assets. They do different things, and have different "built in" assumptions.

Actually, I find the timing system and terminology less clear and consistent in Arkham Horror than in other LCGs. An event with "Fast" could have the same timing as either a free trigger (possibly with some restrictions) or a reaction (a term that covers the equivalents of both reactions and interrupts in other LCGs).

2 hours ago, BD Flory said:

"Objective" isn't "Forced" for the same reason "Forced" isn't a react trigger that specifies "when x, you must y," or "Fast" appears on events and free trigger symbols appear on assets. They do different things, and have different "built in" assumptions.

Do we really have to go into why Fast matters on events? Or why every triggered ability on every persistent card has one of the trigger icons (or Forced)? These appear on different cards because they make those cards function differently, and the icons distinguish those functions. Which is exactly why Objectives should have used them as well.

So what is the different function that comes from Objective? You say there's a "different built-in assumption", what does it actually do that's different? Because the Objective cited by the OP uses terminology cited for forced effects ("If..."), it's apparently mandatory, your answer above certainly treats it like a forced effect... I'm not seeing any difference in how it actually works. If a location said "Forced - If there are no clues here, advance the Act deck" it would function exactly the same as "Objective - If there are no clues at that location, advance". If the Act deck said "Forced - If there are no clues at that location, advance", would it play any differently?

I'm not going to do a comprehensive review since I'm still avoiding most of Dunwich for spoilers, but is there an Objective requirement which couldn't be phrased as an equivalent forced, reaction, or free ability? So far I haven't seen one.

About the only thing "Objective" does do is turn off the standard "Spend clues to advance" free trigger. Which is fine, but it probably could and should have been a standalone keyword, just like LOTR uses Battle or Siege. Then it would not have encompassed forced, reaction, and free trigger effects all at once.

38 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

An event with "Fast" could have the same timing as either a free trigger (possibly with some restrictions) or a reaction (a term that covers the equivalents of both reactions and interrupts in other LCGs).

Fast doesn't have anything to do with the timing of playing an event. It just means you don't have to use an action to play it. The timing is defined entirely by the text of the card, and every Fast event has text which does so.

They could probably have made use of the icons for a lot of those timing definitions, but others (such as the common "Play only during your turn") wouldn't have worked, so I can see why they wouldn't have. But I do wish they had.

Whether you need an action to play a card is timing information. I also wish they'd indicated timing on events the same way as on cards that stay in play. "Play only during your turn" could still appear where required, but "Fast" could disappear from events (it would still be needed on assets). A few examples:

Emergency Cache - [action]: Gain 3 resources.

Evidence - [reaction]: After you defeat an enemy, discover 1 clue at your location.

Shortcut - Play only during your turn. [free]: Choose an investigator at your location. Move that investigator to a connecting location.

Expose Weakness - [free]: Choose an enemy at your location. Test [intellect] (X), where X is that enemy's fight value. For each point you succeed by, reduce that enemy's fight value by 1 for the next attack performed against it this phase.

8 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Do we really have to go into why Fast matters on events? Or why every triggered ability on every persistent card has one of the trigger icons (or Forced)?

Do we really have to go into why different triggers and templating are used in different situations? The attitude is unnecessary.

Forced effects have unique timing that Objectives do not. All keywords and timing triggers, fundamentally, contain rules information. Fast and Free Trigger could have been the same, if every Fast effect added "Play this from hand..." while every Free trigger added "If this card is in play..." or similar.

Same thing here. Objective stands in for, "In addition to or instead of normal requirements," (or something like that), in a way Forced or various trigger icons can't, without carrying additional rules and timing implications and interactions.

There are some already present , such as "Forced" effects' timing priority over triggered abilities with the same timing, which cuts both ways. Forced act/agenda effects would have priority over triggers, while triggered act/agenda effects would be beaten by Forced.

Triggered abilities are also formatted such that the actual icon is a cost, and a distinct step from attendant effects in the initiation and resolution sequence, which isn't the case for Objectives. Does this matter? As you say, I'm not going to do an exhaustive review, but because this is an LCG, it certainly could, even if it doesn't in the current card pool.

7 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Whether you need an action to play a card is timing information. I also wish they'd indicated timing on events the same way as on cards that stay in play. "Play only during your turn" could still appear where required, but "Fast" could disappear from events (it would still be needed on assets). A few examples:

I don't think such cards exist yet, but an event that stays in play by attaching to something else (like Lure) could be Fast, but have a free trigger ability once in play. Having the standard as it is now spares that confusion or additional text later.

Which, more broadly, is something to remember. As an LCG, a lot of decisions have to be made with a mind toward whether a distinction will ever matter, rather than if it matters with current cards.

57 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

There are some already present , such as "Forced" effects' timing priority over triggered abilities with the same timing, which cuts both ways. Forced act/agenda effects would have priority over triggers, while triggered act/agenda effects would be beaten by Forced.

Except that Objectives, as they currently exist, are not triggered effects. They don't fit or hold to any of the defined timings. If a Forced effect conflicts with an Objective effect, which wins? At the moment, it's completely undefined because Objective effects aren't really anything.

59 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Triggered abilities are also formatted such that the actual icon is a cost, and a distinct step from attendant effects in the initiation and resolution sequence, which isn't the case for Objectives. Does this matter? As you say, I'm not going to do an exhaustive review, but because this is an LCG, it certainly could, even if it doesn't in the current card pool.

This is not a good thing. Rules like the separation and definition of cost as part of effects exist for a reason. If you're going to remove that, it's going to cause problems, so you should only do it with a very good reason. This is something else FFG never seems to quite learn - every one of their games seem to launch without good definitions for cost vs. effect, and it always ends up breaking things and requiring new rules/errata. Arkham seemed to be the exception, except for this one little corner case.

13 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Except that Objectives, as they currently exist, are not triggered effects. They don't fit or hold to any of the defined timings. If a Forced effect conflicts with an Objective effect, which wins? At the moment, it's completely undefined because Objective effects aren't really anything.

It depends on the effect, of course. Do note, though, that Objective effects tend to have subtly different timing from Forced and trigger effects, in that they process "If..." a condition is met.

This is consistent with passive effects like Dark Horse, which suggests Objectives are more like lasting effects than they are triggers.

This is also consistent with, "If successful," in skill tests and on skill cards, another lasting effect where subtly different templating is used to define the timing as different from Forced and react triggers.

This is also useful because lasting effects are a sensible way to modify free triggers on an ongoing basis, which is required due to the fact that advancing the act by spending clues is a free trigger.

22 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

This is not a good thing. Rules like the separation and definition of cost as part of effects exist for a reason. If you're going to remove that, it's going to cause problems, so you should only do it with a very good reason. This is something else FFG never seems to quite learn - every one of their games seem to launch without good definitions for cost vs. effect, and it always ends up breaking things and requiring new rules/errata. Arkham seemed to be the exception, except for this one little corner case.

It's not a corner case. You're just applying triggered ability logic to something that's more consistent with lasting abilities.

They could have omitted Objective entirely, but then they would have had to apply additional text to Objectives to the effect of, "Instead of advancing normally."

5 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

It depends on the effect, of course. Do note, though, that Objective effects tend to have subtly different timing from Forced and trigger effects, in that they process "If..." a condition is met.

This is consistent with passive effects like Dark Horse, which suggests Objectives are more like lasting effects than they are triggers.

Not really. Forced abilities:

A forced ability is identified by a bold “Forced –” command. Forced abilities initiate and interact with the game state automatically at a specified timing point. Such a timing point is usually indicated by words such as: “when,” “after,” “if,” or “at.”

The Objective the OP cites is almost a gold standard case for a Forced ability, or at least would be if it put "Forced" in front. That was my point above - if you replaced "Objective" with "Forced" the ability would function identically, except that it would be clearly defined.

Ongoing abilities are continuous modifications to the game state, possibly with conditions attached. That's what Dark Horse is. If the ability triggers, does something, and then is done, it's a Forced.

2 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Ongoing abilities are continuous modifications to the game state, possibly with conditions attached. That's what Dark Horse is. If the ability triggers, does something, and then is done, it's a Forced.

Effects can be both lasting and Forced, in both directions.

A forced trigger can create a lasting effect, and a lasting effect can create a forced trigger (which I believe would generally be phrased as, "while x, [game element] gains 'Forced - Y'").

Again, see the other common example of "if": "If this skill test is successful," which is a lasting effect from the moment you initiate an action or commit a skill card to the end of the skill test, and processes at a separate timing point from "Forced -", "When", "After," and etc.

3 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Effects can be both lasting and Forced, in both directions.

A forced trigger can create a lasting effect, and a lasting effect can create a forced trigger (which I believe would generally be phrased as, "while x, [game element] gains 'Forced - Y'").

Again, see the other common example of "if": "If this skill test is successful," which is a lasting effect from the moment you initiate an action or commit a skill card to the end of the skill test, and processes at a separate timing point from "Forced -", "When", "After," and etc.

There's no such thing as a forced effect. You seem to be confusing effects and abilities here, and generally.

But whatever. It's unclear, and you know it's unclear - if it weren't unclear, your initial response to the question would not have been "You have to look at the context". If someone asks when you can play Ward of Protection, the answer isn't "You have to look at the context." It's clear and exact. There's nothing in the text that suggests it should be treated as a constant effect, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

There's no such thing as a forced effect. You seem to be confusing effects and abilities here, and generally.

The distinction is unimportant here, but yes, I didn't bother to unpack, "An ability can be forced and produced a lasting effect, and a lasting effect can create a Forced ability." I think you well know what I was saying.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

But whatever. It's unclear, and you know it's unclear - if it weren't unclear, your initial response to the question would not have been "You have to look at the context". If someone asks when you can play Ward of Protection, the answer isn't "You have to look at the context." It's clear and exact. There's nothing in the text that suggests it should be treated as a constant effect, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

I brought up context because they weren't asking about a card, they were asking about the difference between one word and two on a hypothetical card.

I would say exactly the same thing if someone asked what two random words meant on any hypothetical card, because cards and card interactions are complex.

Notice that I did indicate a general ruling on the question. It really isn't complicated unless specific text makes it so. Which is why context matters.

As far as text indicating it's a lasting effect, the RRG indictates that an Objective "overrides or adds additional requirements" to advancing by spending clues to advance or meeting the doom requirement.

This effect modifies that effect is about as clear an example of a lasting effect as you can get, and once again, is the same formatting used on skill cards that create lasting effects to grant bonus damage or an extra action or so on, as well as on lasting effects on locations and other cards that modify or restrict game procedures, such as "This location cannot be investigated," or "You mus spend an additional action to investigate this location."

Could they have literally used the words, "this is a lasting effect," in the rules? Maybe. But misinterpreting it to assume it is a Forced effect or a free trigger is still a misinterpretation, whereas interpreting it as a lasting effect is entirely consistent with extant templating and the RRG.

Forcing another mechanic -- here, triggers -- into its place where it doesn't belong is naturally going to be confusing.

On 6/19/2017 at 7:14 PM, Buhallin said:

Bleh. No real reason they couldn't have used "Forced" instead of "Objective". The consistency would have been better (FFG dramatically undervalues consistency in terminology and structure, IMHO). I think they may come to regret that in the long run, as it will limit the flexibility for those effects, but sure.

As it stands though, if the objective doesn't specify a choice for the investigators (whether it is a modification to the normal "spend clues to advance" or some other action) the advance is not optional.

"Objective" has an independent meaning that could not be covered by "Forced"

There is one Objective [will not name which to avoid Spoilers] that says "Satisfy the requirements for some other Objective in Play to advance."

And then there are cards in play that say "Objective: If players on location _____ spend ____ clues to (-> R1)"

Having cards that have the keyword "Objective" makes sense here.... but it would be doubly problematic to replace it with "Forced" as there would no longer be the keyword "Objective" to clarify which elements were being referenced by the Act and the specific Objective in question is not a forced action.

Good example! Was trying to think of a case where they did this and it didn't come to mind, but I know which card you mean.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:34 PM, General Zodd said:

I don't think they can, it's a conditional rule that basically says 'if this condition is true, advance'. Another common one is that the investigators, usually as a group, may spend the requisite number of clues to advance. As the conditional rule is based on whether the investigators take that step, they can delay advancing the act. That's also based on the fact there's at least one I've come across which requires the investigators to spend that requisite number of clues immediately.

So, if it's a simple 'when this specific game state occurs, advance' I don't think you can delay. If it's based on investigators doing a certain thing (such as spending clues) with no stipulations for when or how, I think you can.

Upon reflecting on the use of "immediately," and the errated definition of "If," I agree with you. I had not noticed that the "Immediately Advance" stipulation has only been used thus far for voluntary actions, and this clears up the ambiguity completely.

I think FFG is being consistent here. The words When, After, Then all have definitions in the rule reference linking them to specific moments in time. In the errata, If also has a clear meaning in terms of timing. So as long as you use the same logic for triggering of Objective "events" as you do for triggering of other events, there is really only one possibility---if the Act's Objective uses When, After, Then, or If to specify a timing, then the advance is a triggered effect just like any other and there is no option to delay.

Well, triggered in the sense of happening at that timing point, yes. If it were actually a triggered ability, you could choose not to trigger it.