Another stacking question...

By Silent Wolf, in Warhammer Invasion Rules Questions

Let me see if i've learned something from the new FAQ with the following two situations:

1) My opponent plays Judgement of Verena and, in response, i play "something" (for example, the tactic Offering of Blood) to sacrifice/discard/etc. my Ungor Raiders to destroy one of his developments; now, following the LIFO structure, first there's the tactic i played, followed by Verena, and then the triggered action of the Raiders... am i right or not? Since the power of the Ungor is an Action (triggered by "when unit leaves play" caused by my Offering), i think it can't interrupt the action chain started by the Judgement... or could it?

2) Same as above (opponent plays Judgement), but this time i have a Stunty Smasha unit that i sacrifice in response... since the power of the orc unit includes the cost of sacrifice, first i resolve the destroying of an opponent development, and then Verena is resolved (potentially harming my opponent)... right or not?

1. Correct. Actions, whose trigger condition's been met during an action chain have to be triggered after the chain resolves. Only constant and forced effects interrupt the chain.

2. Also correct. Destroying a development in this case is a part of the sacrifice action (or more precisely,the latter is the cost of the former), so the development will go down before JoV resolves.

Thank You for Your reply, however a friend of mine is giving another reading of the first situation; he says that when i play Offering of Blood the sacrifice of the Ungor Raiders is part of the cost to trigger/play the tactic, so the unit must be sacrificed to pay for the tactic, thus triggering the Ungor's Action. Under this reading, the Ungor is sacrificed before the action chain started by the Judgement begins resolving, and a development is destroyed because of the triggered action of the raiders (thus potentially endangering the player of Verena).

Now, which version is correct?

From the wording in faq, I think actions are not something that trigger automaticaly by itself. By sacrificing the ungor raiders to offering of blood, you create an effect that lets you trigger their action (when this unit leaves play), yet at the same time, by paying the cost you start resolving the JoV chain, so you cannot trigger any actions yourself untill the chain is fully resolved. Then you can trigger the action of the now-deceased ungor raiders and kill the development. Should it be a forced effect, like that of a walking sacrifice, it would resolve within the chain instead.

Well, unless I'm reading the 1.4 faq wrong...

Silent Wolf said:

Thank You for Your reply, however a friend of mine is giving another reading of the first situation; he says that when i play Offering of Blood the sacrifice of the Ungor Raiders is part of the cost to trigger/play the tactic, so the unit must be sacrificed to pay for the tactic, thus triggering the Ungor's Action. Under this reading, the Ungor is sacrificed before the action chain started by the Judgement begins resolving, and a development is destroyed because of the triggered action of the raiders (thus potentially endangering the player of Verena).

Now, which version is correct?

I think your friend is correct.

  • Verena starts the chain.
  • You have an opportunity to respond and play Offering of Blood, part of the cost to play it is to sacrifice the Raiders, so they leave play at this point and trigger their Triggered Action.
  • Your opponent has an opportunity to respond with any action. He passes.
  • The Raiders Triggered Action has to be played in the first action window available (which is right now), so it now CAN be put on the chain ( FAQ-After this, players may only trigger a Triggered Action if it has met its trigger condition since the beginning of the Action Window, and they must do so at the first opportunity (adding it to the next chain, or starting a new one )) If you don't put it on this chain, you lose the ability to use the action.
  • Your opponent has an opportunity to respond with any action. He passes. You pass.
  • Chain resolves in LIFO, so the development is destroyed, Offering of Blood is resolved, then Verena goes off.

The only case I could see someone making for not being able to put the Raiders action on the current chain is the line "adding it to the next chain". However, that line is just a clarification of the phrase "and they must do so at the first opportunity". The "next chain" phrase is there to tell you what to do when you have an action that triggers outside an action window.

Also, by paying the cost of Offering of Blood you do not start resolving the chain. Targeting and paying costs are what it takes to add an action to the chain.

Entropy42 said:

Also, by paying the cost of Offering of Blood you do not start resolving the chain. Targeting and paying costs are what it takes to add an action to the chain.

Seems like it. I think I've been doing it wrong all along then. I stand corrected.

Entropy42 said:

The only case I could see someone making for not being able to put the Raiders action on the current chain is the line "adding it to the next chain". However, that line is just a clarification of the phrase "and they must do so at the first opportunity". The "next chain" phrase is there to tell you what to do when you have an action that triggers outside an action window.

And that was, in fact, the line that confused me, since i thought that the Ungor's triggered action, being neither a constant nor a forced, couldn't stack with the previous actions and had to start a new chain... well, thank You for the really clarifying explanation :)

Let's stack an official word to the (excellent) explanation chain started by Entropy gui%C3%B1o.gif ... here's what Lukas says about the text of the FAQ.

Lukas said:

"Entropy from the boards pointed out a rather confusing line in the latest FAQ to me that pertains to this situation, and I would like to clear it up.

Page 14:
-After this, players may only trigger a Triggered Action
if it has met its trigger condition since the beginning of
the Action Window, and they must do so at the first
opportunity (adding it to the next chain, or starting a new
one)

The text in italics is meant to clarify what "the first opportunity" means, but it does a poor job. If the action, like the Raiders, is triggered by paying the costs of a card, then it must be added to the existing chain. If the action meets its trigger condition during the resolution of the action chain, then the action must be added to the next chain (and can also be used to start the next chain). Since the Raiders met their trigger condition while actions were still being added to the stack, then you must trigger them during this stack if you trigger them at all. Which means it creates a rather nasty situation for the player who played Judgement of Verena."

Well, as a player i feel relieved that the designers are clarifying more things day by day, this means that the "engine" of WH:I is going to be as solid as that of the others LCGs very soon... and as a devoted Chaos player, i'm more than happy to be wrong this time gran_risa.gif

Indeed good news. While we're at this, what's the consensus about Desecrated Temple (Action: when a chaos unit you control leaves play, destroy a target development) in the described situation? In light of what Entropy said, I'd guess it'd work exactly like ungor raiders action, no?

GrumpyStranger said:

Indeed good news. While we're at this, what's the consensus about Desecrated Temple (Action: when a chaos unit you control leaves play, destroy a target development) in the described situation? In light of what Entropy said, I'd guess it'd work exactly like ungor raiders action, no?

I would imagine so. No reason to think otherwise.