Hi all,

This is a bit of a general question, so I'll motivate it with a specific example: I have a unit questing on Raiding Camps . On my turn I play Wall of Maggots , which will allow the quest to be triggered. My opponent has Called Back in his hand. What he wants to do is remove my unit from the quest so that I can't destroy one of his supports. What should the timing be on his play. Should he:

1. Play Called Back either in response to or after I play Wall of Maggots? Me playing Wall of Maggots is an action, according to the FAQ (playing units, supports, etc, is an action that can be responded to), so he should wait until his turn to take actions and just remove the guy from the quest?

2. Play Called Back in response to the quest action? I take the action, he removes the unit. I'm fairly certain that the rule about "effects existing independent of their source" applies here, so I'll pick up the unit and then I still get to take the quest action of destroying target development.

I guess the confusion I have come from it saying "When..." on the quest. "When" could have the same interpretation as "Just played" in that I have to take that quest action at the next possible action turn that I have. Alternatively, I could reason that "when" is a special case and the quest goes off as soon as Wall of Maggots hits "in play" status. In which case, my opponent would either have to play Called Back in response to Wall of Maggots or he is going to have his support destroyed no matter when he plays Called Back.

So I guess my general question is this: Between triggers going off and triggered actions resolving, is there a chance for my opponent to take meaningful (as in, he will save his support) actions before the triggered action's effect occurs? How does the word "When" work in these situations? There are lots of quests that use "When" and the ruling on this should be easy to figure out, but I can't quite get it.

Thanks in advance.

I play the same way as you, (the same way I also play plague monk for example).

Raiding camp action does not requires that you need to first resolve the action pile in which you have played a non attachement chaos support card. You can directly play rainding camp action in the same action pile.

When you play is when you "pay the cost" not when you resolve the "action".

Thanks for the response. So what you're saying is that my opponent would have to played Called Back sometime BEFORE I even play Wall of Maggots. So, once there is a guy on a quest and I can trigger the quest, there is nothing stopping the effect? So the word "when" is to be interpreted as "simultaneously"?

In this case it's "when a card is played" a card is played when you pay its cost.

Yes your opponent have to bounce/destroy/... your unit even before you play your support card. Because you can not play your support card in response to this bounce/detruction/...

HappyDD said:

That make sense no? The rules only specifiy that you must check "target requirement" when playing and resolving the action. You do not have anything else to check, in this case, you do not have to check that there is still a unit questing during resolution.

Thanks Shindulus,

My confusion was around whether or not there was "space" between me playing the support and triggering the quest where my opponent could get rid of the unit on the quest, causing the effect to "never happen". I guess it says "Action:..." on the quest so I figured I'd have to start a new chain where I take that action, which meant my opponent could respond to playing the support with a bounce/kill action and thus there would be no unit on the quest, so I couldn't take the action. If "when" means that the trigger exists as soon as Wall of Maggots hits the table with a unit on my quest, then the problem seems solved to me.

Otherwise, it seemed to me that putting a guy on a quest had low returns if someone can just snipe him off whenever they were threatened by the quest's action.

Let me just ask one more thing. Suppose this order of events happens:

1. I play Wall of Maggots (and I have a unit on the quest)

2. He plays Called Back in response.

3. In response to Called Back, I trigger the quest, since "When..." has happened since I paid for Wall of Maggots in step 1.

Does that work? The quest goes off, then I pick up my unit? It's not like time moves backwards and I no longer have paid for Wall of Maggots, it's just an order of resolution thing?

Yes, it's just an order of resolution thing .

Shindulus said:

Thanks again. You're the man.

HappyDD said:

You guys have this all figured out, but I wanted to chime in and clarify one thing about the timing.

In this example, you actually "trigger" your quest as soon as you play Wall of Maggots. If your quest was not an Action:, but was instead a Forced effect, you would get to both trigger and resolve it before he could even play Called Back. Since its an action, it gets triggered and then waits for the first opportunity for you to put it on the chain (which is at #3 where you have it). Check out the flowchart in faq v1.5, it should illustrate this.

I have some doubts about this, I mean, we need to trigger Quest's Action as soon as possible after we play support, and we have the priority due to faq 1.5 timing structure:

"1. Players take turns putting Triggered Actions that have met
their trigger condition since the last Action Window on a
chain, starting with the first player (the Triggered Actions also
must have met their trigger condition this turn) and continuing until
all players pass
-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 existing chain, or starting a new
one)"

So it would be like that:

1. I play Wall of Maggots (and I have a unit on the quest)

2. I trigger the quest, since "When..." has happened since I paid for Wall of Maggots in step 1

3. Now opponent can response with something, and if he does, fe playing Called Back on unit in my Quest, when the chain resolves I will not destroy a support ( becouse game will check for "if" condition the same way it checks Harpies "if" according to James Hata ruling

"Rule Question:
Hi, today in our league matches we had an issue with Harpies. For me it's clear but few of my friends didn't agree with my opinion. The situation is:
Opponent have a Harpy in his Quest zone, it's now my Quest Phase, I have 5 cards on hand and draw another 2 (so now I have 7). My opponent plays Harpies Action, but I play in response to his Action, one of my Tactic from hand. Now, when Harpies Action is resolving, I have only 6 cards on hand. Question: Does he discard one of my cards anyway?
I think not, because I'm not having 7 cards when Harpy ability is resolving.

Answer:

Hi,

You are correct. You would not discard because you do not have 7 cards when the Harpies resolves.

James"

Hi Rasdsaris,

Interesting point. I think Shindulus said something about the "checking the target requirement." So in your example, Harpies will check the target requirement (that is, that the opponent has 7 or more cards in their hand). In your example, the opponent no longer did, so the effect fizzled, as you predict. In the quest-action example, it seems that to activate the action of "destroy the support card" there needs to be a unit on the quest, which there is when the action is put on the chain. Then "the effect exists independent of the source" (a phrase we seem to see a lot around here) so the quest doesn't really check to see if the conditions are met when the action is taken. Or at least that is the explanation I've received on this forum.

Your point, however, illustrates that "if" is in the card text on the quest: "When you play a Chaos non-Attachment support card from your hand, destroy target support card in a zone with no units if a unit is questing here." So, ya, I'm confused again I gotta say. I totally understand that when I put an action on the chain it exists and checks targets, but quest actions are slightly unique as they say, generally, "...if a unit is questing here". I'm leaning towards the advice I've received so far since the "checking targets" is the important thing in every case, not checking conditions that need to be met for putting the action on the chain, but I'm interested to hear others weigh in on this.

rasdsaris said:

You don't ever have the opportunity to put 2 actions on the chain in a row without your opponent responding. You play Wall of Maggots, it triggers the quest (and checks the conditions for that trigger are met, i.e. there is a unit on it), but you can't put that effect on the chain until after your opponent passes priority back to you (which is the "first opportunity" the flowchart refers to). So:

1. Play Wall of Maggots

2. Trigger quest but don't put it on the stack yet.

3. Opponent passes.

4. Put Quest action on stack or forfeit the ability to ever put it on.

5. Opponent responds with Called Back.

6. Pass.

7. Opponent Pass.

8. Start resolving, beginning with Called Back.

I'm not 100% certain about how the "if a unit is questing here" affects the resolution of the effect. I think effects only check to make sure their targets are still valid, not their trigger conditions. Your quote from James would seem to indicate that it fizzles the effect, but remember that a lot of the old rulings from James or Nate are no longer valid. I'll ask Lukas about it.

Hi, I you are wrong about triggered Actions Entropy. Because this situation is like:

1. playing wall of maggots, it goes on stack, that is trigger condition

2. We check A1 and A@ from the Timing Structure from faq 1.5, if nothing we can do to B

3. B1 says, that before we put any "simply Action" (fe Called Back) which can be done in point B2, we check if any other Action can be triggered by trigger condition (in this case - playing chaos support) And here, first we put to a egsisting chain, or into a new one, Raiding Camps Action, becouse triggered Actions have a priority comparing to simple Actions in response.

Entropy, you said, that we need to wait to first opportunity to play triggered Actions, thats right, but only, if the Trigger condition is met DURING Action CHAIN RESOLVING.

faq 1.5 quote:

"Each Triggered Action
can be triggered once per copy of
the Triggered Action and only once
per trigger condition. If this trigger
condition is met during the resolution
of other effects (or outside of an
Action Window) then the Triggered
Action must be played during the first
available opportunity once an Action
Window opens, or it cannot be played
at all."

But this trigger condition (playing a support" is not met during resolving, but right afer a cost is paid, so the first opportunity will be "in response" to playing that support. The same situation we have with Mining Tunnels or Sorceror of Tzeenth, we get the card or dealing damage, before those developments from hands hit the table, because, those Triggered Actions are played to in response to thei Trigger Condition.

About this "if" checkin in resolve step, I know that is the old ruling, but in my opinion is correct, we must check, if the whole Action is legal, most of the Quest Actions has this "if" part, but some doesn't (Extending the Wasted fe). For me it is clear, thar for Action to be resolved it must met all it's requirements. The Question is (unanswered question by now ; ):

- do I need unit on Quest to DESTROY this support (do I need it to resolve destroying) or

- do I need unit on Quest to TRY to destroy this support (which means do I need it only to trigger destroying))

I don't think that is a correct reading of the flowchart. By what you are saying, playing Wall of Maggots takes you into B-1, where you (as the active player) put Raiding Camps on the stack (in response to your own action, giving your opponent no time to respond). Then, your opponent has no triggered actions to add, so you go to B2. B2 starts with the active player (which is you) so you again have an opportunity to play ANY action. If this was how it worked, you would have the opportunity to put 2 regular actions and 1 triggered action on the chain before your opponent had a chance to do anything.

Here is how I think it actually works.

• You enter an action window (B1). No one has any leftover triggered actions, so you proceed to B2.
• As the active player you can now play any optional action you want. You play Wall of Maggots.
• This triggers Raiding Camps, which waits to be put on the chain at the first opportunity (as B1 says "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").
• Your opponent has an opportunity to respond to your Wall of Maggots. He passes.
• You now can put the Raiding Camps effect on the chain, choosing targets and paying costs, and must do so or lose the ability to put it on. This is your first opportunity. Nothing in the flowchart says that you get to violate the basic rule of always alternating priority.
• Your opponent now can respond with an action. He plays Called Back.
• You resolve the chain (B3) starting with Called Back. The questing unit gets returned.
• Raiding Camps effect resolves and destroys the targeted support card. According to the flowchart, it only checks targets at resolution, so the effect would not be cancelled.
• Wall of Maggots enters play. Go to B4.

Inside an action window, triggered actions act very much like normal actions, except that you have to use them as soon as you possibly can. The flowchart was mostly created to tell players how to deal with actions/forced/constants that trigger outside an action window.

I wrote most of the flowchart, so what I'm telling you here is how I expected it all fits together. If its still not clear for players, then the flowchart may need to be updated. Its also possible that Lukas and I never talked about it at this level of detail in this situation, and in his mind it does not work as I've said. I've never seen a case, though, where he said it was ok for one player to put 2 consecutive effects on the chain without his opponent being able to respond.

For anyone else with the fortitude to read this whole thread, I'd be interested in your take on it as well. If the flowchart could more clear in some way, I'd like to try to improve it.

I've been following. I would say that it has become clear, almost painfully so, that Entropy's explanation is correct. Ras had what I thought was an interesting counter-argument, but the simple "not responding to your own actions" seems to solve that, so I'm not confused any longer. It's also more clear once we consider that "putting an action on the chain" might be a bit imprecise if it is truly the first action "on the chain", no? Playing Wall of Maggots sort of gives the chain a reason to exist, and I will simply be taking the quest action as it is triggered if my opponent does nothing. At that point it doesn't make sense (to me, at least) to think about putting things on chains. So to me (and keep in mind, I don't design flowcharts for the benefit of rules interpretation) it would look like this:

• I play Wall of Maggots
• Opponent passes
• (ACTION COMPLETE!!)
• I take the quest action that says "When..." on the quest. This is the next opportunity that I had, as I cannot respond to myself. If someone wants to respond to this then we can start talking about chains. Note that in my thinking, at this point, Wall of Maggots is in play. If my opponent passes, Wall of Maggots (to me) should be in play already, though it doesn't really make a difference in this case.
• Opponent responds with Called Back.
• I pass
• My unit returns to my hand
• The quest effect resolves, destroying the support
• (ACTION COMPLETE!!)

Last night we had a (thankfully brief) discussion about the term "each opponent". Someone thought that if Player A plays a card targetting each opponent, then Player A himself must also be targetted since "he is someone else's opponent". That was really weird to me as "each opponent" must mean that each opponent of Player A, but just goes to show how every nuance of language cannot possibly be explained through general things, like flowcharts. When people want to get super detailed, they will. If we follow the general rules about effect resolution and chains and effects existing independent of their source then I think this problem is solved. If we want to get crazy about it, then technically we can get crazy about almost every card in the game. My two cents.

I will now announce "ACTION COMPLETE!!" every time an action is completed in Warhammer Invasion. This will make every game 100 times more fun for everyone.

This is my concern:

You enter an action window (B1). No one has any leftover triggered actions, so you proceed to B2.

How I enter this? without a Trigger? that flowchart says: "After a trigger condition" Actually playing Wall of Maggots create an Action Window right? So now, after playing and putting on stack our Wall of Maggots, we proceed to B1, and since beggining of this Action window, we have a trigger condition - player played a chaos support, so he has right to Activate Raiding Camps Action in second part of B1 step.

"-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 existing chain, or starting a new one"

Thats how I see it, in B1 you have two opportunities to take a triggered Action, those older, and as quoted text is saying, those triggered since the beggining of actual Action Window, and playing Wall starts this actual Action Window.

The point is that you are already inside the flowchart when the quest action is triggered. You have to be inside an action window already, or you can't play Wall of Maggots. Playing Wall of Maggots doesn't create the window, it starts the chain. The window exists because of something in the game structure. i.e.

Phase 3. Capital Phase
Actions may be taken by either player at any time.

This creates the Action window. When you get to a part of the turn sequence that says this, you enter section B of the flowchart.

Also, the order of A, B, C, etc in the flowchart doesn't matter. You could re-label them anything, since you don't proceed from A to B or B to C.

Once you are inside B2, there is no text that tells you what to do with a triggered action, only triggered forced/constants, because a triggered action inside an action window is just a normal action that must be added to the chain at the first opportunity.

Thanks for claryfing this. Now I must agree. Sorry for this misunderstanding.

Still, what do you think about "if" condition on Actions? On Harpies it prevents from discarding a card if opponent get rid of some cards from his hand. In logical way of reading, that should be checked also when Action resolves, right?

I think if you go by the ruling on Harpies, then it should also apply to quests. But if you go by the flowchart, all you check is that targets are still valid. I'm really not sure which way is correct now. I hope to talk to Lukas about it, and if I had to guess, I think the flowchart will be updated to be in line with the old ruling on Harpies. Harpies are sort of a weird case though, as they don't even require a target.

Quest. Action: When an opponent draws cards for his quest phase, corrupt this unit to discard 1 card at random from that player's hand if he has 7 or more cards in hand.

If we break this down into <trigger>, <cost>, <effect> <targeting condition>. Then it breaks up as <When an opponent draws cards for his quest phase>, <corrupt this unit> to <discard 1 card at random from that player's hand> if <he has 7 or more cards in hand.> So the effect is that last part, which makes it seems like "if he has 7 or more cards in hand" is part of the effect. However, this card could also be written as

When an opponent draws card for this quest phase, if he has 7 or more cards in hand, corrupt this unit to discard 1 card at random from that player's hand.

Those are both equivalent grammatically, I just think that the 2nd version makes it more clear that the "he has 7 or more cards in hand" is a targeting condition, rather than part of the effect. As far as I know, there is not supposed to be rules difference between these 2 wordings. In the last set, in fact, I argued for the text of the quests to be set up more like my 2nd example, so that the targeting conditions are easy to determine.

Hi again, I'm refreshing this thread, to ask, have you spoke with Lukas about this "if" condition Entropy? This is still concernig me. As well, as other thing. Another case with two Actions, without giving the opportunity to respond. Let's say, I have two copies of Abandoned Mines. I can trigger their Action at the begginning of the turn, and they must be the very first Actions in this turn. Any other Action, we can play after "at the beggining window". So in theory, I'm triggering two of those Adandoned Mines in a row, and if my opponetn does not have any Action with "at the beggining" condition, he must wait, until I trigger all my "at the beginning" Action, right? The same thing we can ask for two Blood dragon Knights (can opponent respond with Iron Discipline between those action, or must wait to both of them being triggered?), or two sorceror of Tzeenth....and so on.

No, I posed the Harpies/Raiding Camps question to him back in early December, but have not heard from him since. I'll ping him again.

Ok, so it turns out I was completely wrong on my understanding of Raiding Camps. The "if" conditional is more powerful than I previously thought.

From Lukas (emphasis mine):

As for the 'If..." conditional, the effect on Raiding Camps will fizzle if there is no longer any unit on the quest. The effect will still attempt to resolve once triggered (even if the quest itself had left play) but since the effect only allows you to destroy the support card if you have a unit questing, and you no longer have a unit questing, then nothing will happen. Conditionals are active from targeting through resolution. "Then" conditionals require the previous clause to have occurred, and are separate from the previous ability; "If" conditionals modify the ability itself.

This means that the ruling on Harpies is still correct.

Ok, so, with regards to my original question from a million years ago, that means that if I take the action on Raiding Camps and my opponent responds with Called Back then the effect fizzles? That's how I originally was playing it, since it made sense to me, but then I kept thinking about the "arrows in the air" interpretation of actions, which I think it kind of a sh*tty analogy now.

So Quest cards suck even more than I originally thought if a well timed snip of any kind (return to hand/kill/change zones) will negate the quest action. To overcome this, I guess the future Quest cards have to be very powerful to make the two card jenky investment worth it. However, we all saw what happens to powerful Quest cards.

What would the wording have to be for our original interpretation to stand? Something like "Action: While a unit is questing here...""? "Action: If a unit is on this quest, you can ..."? Nothing about a unit being on the quest?

Yes, the "arrows in the air" analogy needs to be extended to "arrows in the air with bombs attached to them, and if the right conditions are met, the bomb won't go off and the arrow will arrive" ... or maybe we should just scrap that analogy

And yes, Lukas' answer means that I talked you out of your original interpretation, which was correct.

As for a wording that would make my interpretation correct, "Action: When you play a development, destroy target support card. This action can only be triggered if a unit is on this quest."

If it used the wording "Action: While a unit is questing here..." then I'm not sure how it would work. To me, that would be treated the same as "if" since "while" is a conditional, and Lukas said that conditionals must remain true from triggering through resolution. Thankfully, there are no cards in W:I that use this wording. "While" is never used like that within an action. The closest thing to that is Wake the Dragons.

I got the same answer from Lukas, and I'm happy, that I was playing like that from the beginning. Good ruling.