Quite new gamer from Finland says hello to you all!! *hello*

My question goes for "response" in CoC Lcg. Are Responses like Action? In the rulebook its said that "A Response is an action that can only be played if the circumstances described in its text are met". So in that case they should be handled as an action, that you have to do, when you can do actions?

I was doing a demo game to my friend and we had a situation, where I was sending 2 Grim Wraiths to story and GW has this text:

Response: After Grim Wraith commits to a story, choose an icon struggle at that story. Instead of resolving that struggle, resolve an additional (T) struggle in its place.

And my friend had an Agency character in the same story with shotgun. Question came, that when could my friend use his shotgun? And does both GW "Responses" trigger at the same time? Or do I first resolve my first Grim Wraith's response, then my friend could shoot the other with the shotgun?

I hope this could not be too stupid or complicated question. After all, I have enjoyed lot about playing this game, even that it does give me some quite interesting and problematic questions =D

But hope to get some answer to my questions =)

You are correct that Responses are a special kind of Action. As for your example, it depends on who committed characters first.

The active player commits characters, and then Actions occur. The active player takes the first action (if desired) then the other player (if desired) and so on until both players pass.

Next the passive player commits characters, and then Actions occur. Again the active player takes the first action and so on.

Does this help? The diagram on page 13 of the Rule Book is very helpful for figuring these things out.

Thanx Prof! You have been very helpful to me!

It seems to that I have little bit understood the Responses little wrong, but this really has open my eyes. Now I really have to see, that responses are resolved when Actions can occur. And mostly you have to obey the wording when to use them.

So in my situations, if I am active player, I could use both Grim Wraiths Responses right away, before the defensive player could commit anyone to the story, because Actions can be done before that? But if I would be defensive player, I could commit both Grim Wraiths to the story, but active player could shoot with his shotgun atleast other away, before I could use Grim Wraiths Response?

In this case it seems to me, that Grim Wraiths are better to use in the offensive system, than defensive.

Yes, you have it correct!

Note that a Forced Response is different, and must happen first.

I'm second guessing myself here... I should drink my coffee first. If you are second player, and commit Grim Wraith, the Response happens before the Action window opens. Actions aren't allowed until all characters have been committed, but the Response tells you that you can trigger the response as a result of committing.

So did I get the Great Prof confused by this case??? =D

Well, what I think about this case is, that maybe Grim Wraiths "Response" should just be "Action" when there should be nothing to confuse anyone. In this case you really have to little bit think about, when are those resolved. If this "Response" should be resolved right in the moment when you commit Grim Wraith to the story, it would be ok. But when the rulebook gives you a vision that Responses are actions, then you think about that they should be resolved when the Action-window is open (right after when you have committed your characters to the story).

But do you have to see in this case that you resolve all those Grim Wraiths before the Action-window opens, because its said in the Response-text when you can do so?? And in that case, you could resolve both (or all 3 if you would have that case) before someone could shoot them all to other dimension (or where ever hell do they come from...)?

CoC is quite interesting game, because you have lots of cards, that do many kind of things and confuse lots of people in the world... =D

Think of it more like this:

1. Game Event (ie. commiting characters).
2a. Active player may use R esponse s (only to things that happened during step 1.) or pass. Proceed to step 2b.
2b. Passive Player may use Response s or pass. Proceed to step 2a. If both players pass instead proceed to step 3.
3a. Active player may use Action s or pass. If used an action proceed to step 3b. If pass go to step 4.
3b. Response s can be used in repsonse to stuff that happened in step 3a. Once players are done responding, go to step 4.
4a. Passive player may use an Action or pass. etc...

Then you kinda loop between step 2 and 4 until both players pass at which time you move onto the next phase.

Obviously the above is kind of a simplified version (ok, not that simplified, but I've been into steps a lot lately for some reason), but to the point. You (and your opponent beggining with the active player) use Response s as the first thing after someone does an Action or ends a part of the turn where actions can't be used. After both players are done responsding, then you can move to the next Action or phase.

Hopefully you caught all that and it helped lol.

Deadsong said:

Haha! That's not very hard to do! :-)

Responses are interesting to map out, as Magnus illustrated above. The rulebook tells us that " Responses are actions..." (note they did not capitalize "action"). However they differ from Actions in that Responses can occur when Actions are not allowed (like during the Commit step in your example). When a Response can happen because the trigger went off, there is still the back-and-forth between the Active and Passive players. In your example the Active player did not have a trigger for a Response , so it doesn't matter.

Note that this is only true for an in-play card - you could not play an Event card that has a Response on it during the Commit step, because playing the Event card would be an Action . That would have to happen after the Commit step and in the Action step that immediately follows it, which allows the Active player to take an Action first.

It needs to be noted, that although Responses USUALLY can occur when the trigger goes off, Responses CANNOT trigger during Story Resolution unless they are Forced Responses .

Thanx Magnus & Prof ! You both really have done good job in this forum, what I have been watching! =D

Its just that wanted to have some kind of catch about this situation, and it has been what I have been thinking about the Responses. So Magnus, you did good case there, that could help alot for new players to catch that kind of situations. I have been thinking that Responses are little bit over the Action -window to occur. And you do them before the Actions could be done. And sometimes you dont have those "Response" -"actions" in the character (like Chess Prodigy:

When Chess Prodigy commits to a story on your turn, name a struggle type. Resolve that struggle type at that story by counting (I) icons instead of that struggle type's normal icons at that story this phase. The normal struggle effects still apply)

But this thing is now enough to me, Im going for my next topic (unless I dont find the answer from the forum before that...)

Deadsong said:

You're more than welcome and glad we could help.

And thank you for the ''good job."

I know none that second guess themselves more than myself which leads me to answering from various angles in large over-complicated posts. I often worry that I'm not explaining things simply enough so not only the person asking the question understands, but people lurking that have the same or similiar question also understand.

So, I take the good job comment as validation that I'm not doing it wrong lol. Its good to know that (even if its only from one person).

lol, good times.

Magnus Arcanis said:

I'm not sure if I've always played this correctly. No, strike that: I'm sure I've not always played that correctly!

Also, the rules book should have a large, non-trivial gameplay example on how to resolve the complete story phase. No other area of the game is so complicated and so often played wrong!

TheProfessor said:

No, a Response is a Response , even if it is an event, as long as you are in the triggering window. Event cards are allowed by the rules of the game to trigger at any point where their effect could be used if it were a card in play, so event Disrupt acts just like character or support Disrupt that is currently in play. An event Response acts just like character or support R esponse that is currently in play.

Unless I've completely missed something in the FAQ or Rulebook.

Penfold said:

Hmm... you may be right, I am probably misinterpreting something. Here's where my thinking derives: Rule book, page 12:

Each player may take actions (by playing event cards or using character abilities) during each step of every phase except for certain intervals of play (see the turn sequence for details).

A Response is an action that can only be played if the circumstances described in its text are met.

and on page 13 (turn sequence), the commit step is a green box: Sequences in green boxes cannot be interrupted by by actions or responses ( Disrupts may still take place and Forced Responses must resolve immediately).

So i'm thinking that the commit step is a green box, so no actions or responses during this step. So actually it appears that I was wrong about taking a Response in the commit step - the active player would get the first action in the action step immediately following the commit step.

But maybe I'm reading something incorrectly, or there is something in the FAQ that overrides this?

Action and action are not the same. I think that may be where there is a problem?

If you could trigger a Response on a card in play you could play an event card (or really any card whose effect could be triggered out of play) that was also a Response. The first thing that happens after a framework action is your ability to trigger Response effects. After all Response effects are triggered then players can trigger Actions .

So everyone can take actions before the active player can commit characters. Committing characters resolves (any Disrupts or Forced Responses are taken care during this step). Then any responses to committing characters would be triggered. Those would be resolved (along with any other Disrupts or Forced Responses that result because of these responses) and then players could trigger Action effects. Disrupts and Forced Responses resolve on anyone of those actions, and any respones to any of those actions. Then the non-active player would commit characters. That whole section is then repeated.

The important thing that I was trying to illustrate was responses on cards in play do not gain any precedence over those out of play. The game does not recognize them as being different as long as their trigger condition has been met.

Penfold said:

Why is that? I don't see "Action" ever capitaiized or in bold in the rule book. Here's what I read from the rule book that talks about actions (note no caps or bold):

Actions are taken one at a time. After a player has taken and resolved an action, he must allow his opponent the opportunity to take and resolve an action before he can take another, etc.

An action is resolved completely before another action may be taken (exception: disrupt, see below).

A Response is an action that can only be played if the circumstances described in its text are met.

and so on

The more I ponder the rule book, the more I get confused. I have played as you describe, but when I read the rules I'm not sure why I ever did that??

I think "Action" is defined in the rule book as a set that contains four things: actions that don't have special triggers, Responses , Forced Responses, and Disrupts .

I understand what you are saying - because there are cards that say Action on them. But I don't see why they are not actions as defined in the rule book?

Ok... I have to come back to check this topic, 'cause it seems to me that I have done something that gave a very good conversation (or confusion?) to this forum... xD Im sorry, if this has done some confusion to anyone who is trying to do his best to understand this. Even myself...

But here is my thoughts about this situation and how I see it working:

I think that after an action there is time for Response or Forced Response, before you can take next action. So if you put into play a character that does X when it comes to play (as a Response or Forced Response), you need to fix that before next action can be done. The rulebook is in that case little bit confusing (as you can see about myself, 'cause I did start this conversation), but if you think about the time-action-windows in the game, you could really fine understand how part of the cards work in their "Responses" or "Forced Responses". There are those "Action" (with bold) and then there are those "Responses" that can be seen as a part-action (without bold), that you have to do if you like or if you have to (Forced).

And Disrupts (which I do not see so often and think that they are quite rare cases, as long as you could see in my card pool...) are then something that can block these Action/action-cases.

For Prof: I think that card desingers are just have to done those cards that do say "Action" on it, just to clarify where you can use that card. I know that there are some event-cards that does not really point, where and when to use it, just use it when you can use events. And then there are some event-cards that say Action on it, when you see, that you have to play it as "Action"-windows only. I think this is how I have started to see all those Response-Action-action cases in this game. More you play, more you could start to understand the system.

But you all have to understand also, that this game is for Call of Cthulhu, so even if something are not so clear, how its going work in the game, you could always blame Hastur for it, what he has done for the game ;D

Actions are actions also. Its kinda like a Square and a Rectangle are both rectangles.

So really it works the way we think it does. Clearly defined? I'd argue no becuase they use action to define 'a thing you do' so they can describe the turn order in which you can do things. Then they decided to use Action as a game mechanic as a way to do something without it being reaction to something.

Using the same word seems like a mistake to me, but been using it all this time so... its really not that bad.

As for the green steps in the turn order. Think of those like one big effect. Disrupts can interrupt an effect. Actions other actions have to wait until an action-able window pops up.

Ulimtately it works they way we think it does. Maybe we're just in a process of over-thinking things. I know i"m at this point as some of the latest rulings have thrown me for a loop.

Really lookin foreward to the next FAQ so I don't have think about these things anymore.

An action is anything undertaken by a player.

Action is a specific trigger for an effect that can be played anytime an action can be taken. I think in AGoT it is easier to understand the difference because AGoT uses Any Phase . The bold word is the timing trigger designation for when and how a card can be played. Whether it is on a card in play or a card in your hand (or any other out of play area assuming the text of the card says otherwise an does not contradict the rules) is immaterial.

I'm hoping that there is a timing chart in the next FAQ. I think that would resolve most of these types of questions.

I found the solution. It lies in the FAQ. I keep forgetting the FAQ is not just answers to questions, but can re-write the rules.

In the Timing section of the FAQ (1.5), it says:

Responses are played after the resolution of the action or framework game event that meets their play requirement, but before the next player action is taken, or before the next game event resolves. Any number of responses can be played in response to any occurrence that allows them to trigger, with response opportunities passing back and forth between players, starting with the active player. Once both players pass a response opportunity, play proceeds to the next action or game effect.

So I guess the conclusion is that the green boxes really only apply to Actions that are not Responses, Forced Responses, or Disrupts?

Hey guys , coming in for my daily questions xD.
I got some trouble with a couple of Hastur Cards:
Perfomance Artist : Disrupt : Sacrifice Performance Artist to cancel the effects of a character or support card ability.

When exactly can you sacrifice this card? Can it disrupt a ability like Y'Golonacs ability ? If so , what happens with Y'Golonac's if his ability was "canceled" ?
Does Y'Golonac get sent to the discard pile , or does his ability simple not activate at that time?

Same for Power Drain , lets say I paid 3 to use Y'Golonac To use his ability , and my opponent uses Power Drain. Will this destroy my Y'Golonac? Also can Power Drain "cancel" a player from playing a character ? If so , what happens if I played a character and it was then disrupted with Power Drain .

Thats pretty much all for now .

~Thanks.

Any time your opponent uses an ability from a Character or Support card, you can sacrifice Performance Artist to cancel it.

If you do this, their ability does not happen, but the cost for it is still paid. (Otherwise they'd probably just trigger it again now that Performance Artist is out of the way). Note then that it really does no good to sac Performance Artist to cancel abilities with no cost

In the case of Y'Golonac, his ability does not activate. There's no reason for him to go to the discard pile, as nothing on the Performance Artist card says for this to happen.

Power Drain is similar. If Y'Golonac tries to use his Ability, the opponent can play Power Drain to cause the ability to be cancelled. The cost for it has been paid, but it just doesn't happen. Y'Golonac is not destroyed, because again nothing on the card says for this to happen. Think of it this way, he was about to cast a spell, and Power Drain messed it up it so it didn't cast successfully, that's all.

You cannot use Power Drain to cancel playing a character. It says on the card it can only be used to cancel an Action or Response. Playing a character in the normal fashion from your hand is neither of these. Now, if a character was about to be put into play through an Action, then it WOULD be able to stop that action. For instance, say you had Shub: Dark Mistress of the Woods in play. She has an action where she can pay 2 to return Dark Young characters to play from the discard pile. You could Power Drain to prevent this, and they would not return to play. However, if he used a domain to play a Dark Young in the normal fashion in his operations phase, you couldn't block that because it's neither an Action nor a Response.

Somebody still likes to get into this topic, so I try to give you some answers (hopevully before The Prof and others...)

In the rulebook (page 12) is quite nice Timing Example, where you could see how some Actions and Distrupts work. But mainly, you can use Disrupt after the other player has done his Action (paid it and told the target of it and so on). Then before you get to resolve it, you can Disrupt it.

In your case, if you use Performance Artist to Disrupt Y'Golonacs ability, it is just canceled. It is paid of course, and you need to sacrifice PA for that, but it does not happen. But Y'Golonacs player could use the ability again, if he/she does have a domain left to drain. It could be used as many times, because it does not exhaust Y'Golonac to use its ability.

For Power Drain, it just cancels it. It does not destroy Y'Golonac, cause it does not say so. Y'Golonacs ability is paid and then it is canceled if you use Power Drain. But right now Im not so sure how it was done with charachter. Mainly playing character is Action, so you could use it for so, but I think I saw some conversation about this maybe in the Faq or somewhere in this forum...

Good points for you dboeren... You were faster than me...

And nice to clear that Power Drain for the Character-case to me too! Its good to know that now for sure, because I were not so sure, how it was used.

Disrupts, with regards to Actions, confused me a little at the beginning too. For example, Performance Artist's disrupt can be used against an ability that reads "Action", "Response" or "Forced Response" in a character's text box. However, it can't be used against passive abilities that don't have these bolded key words. This is critical when using cards that require a "triggered effect" in order to be played, or in the case of certain Attachments, utilized/powered up.

Case in point, the Chess Prodigy. Since Chess Prodigy's ability is a passive effect, Performance Artist can't be sacrificed to disrupt it. At least, I think that's correct. Err, is it?

TheProfessor said:

Not quite.

green box = framework game event.

So a Response isn't technicially played until after the green box has resolved. Responses to whatever happened in the green box are played before anyone can use an Action but are still apart of the 'action' windows.

Disrupts can be used in a green box. Forced Responses must be used in a green box. Provided the condition is met to trigger the Disrupts and Forced Responses of course. Action and Responses can only ever be used in an 'action box.'

As for Chess Prodigy vs Performance Artist. Ya... I'm probably gonna be wrong on this. In fact I'm quite certain i'm gonna be wrong. The professor would probably be a better source to ask on this one as my familiarity with any miskatonic card is far lower than those of any other faction.

However, that said. I think you can sacrifice the Artist in an ATTEMPT to disrupt CP. I say attempt because Chess Prodigy has a triggered effect so you can attempt to negate it. However, because it is also passive (and not bound by the it can only trigger once per condition) it immediately triggers again (or... passively triggers which is slightly different than actually triggering again) so the negation won't really work.

So, unless you have a really good reason to just sac the artist... not really worth attempting to negate the CP.

However, as I've said above... I'm probably wrong. End result may be similiar... maybe. My grip on the rules has been shaken a bit recently so please excuse my lack of confidence. Still, I believe the end result is that the PA can't negate the CP regardless of how we get there. And if your looking for easy sacing of the PA... theres a million better and easier ways to do it.