In the following situation assuming Forest Sister is the only character I control.
If a forced response would wound Forest Sister, her Disrupt (prevent a wound) won't save her because the forced response has to resolve no matter what?
However if I have a Disrupt to make my Forest Sister invulnerable, in this case the forced response will not resolve due to there is no legal target in play. is this correct?
a) No. "Forced" means that you don't have a choice, a Forced Response has to be resolved if its condition is met (in contrast to regular responses, which are optionally triggerable). But the timing is important here. It can sometimes get complex, but usually the FAQ is pretty good in solving such problems :-)
When resolving a Forced Response, you follow this scheme:
You see that Disrupts come before Forced Responses - which means that the wound can be cancelled.
b) That's quite correct, the Forest Sister won't get a wound then. (But it isn't because she's not a valid target - targets are chosen before Disrupts are resolved. It is because invulnerable characters cannot get a wound.)
Another FAQ stupidity IMO if thats what you read. FAQ mentions that sacrifice cannot be prevented by Brass disrupt, this isonly about sacrifice there is no general rule that forced responce effects cannot be prevented.
.Zephyr. said:
Another FAQ stupidity IMO if thats what you read. FAQ mentions that sacrifice cannot be prevented by Brass disrupt, this isonly about sacrifice there is no general rule that forced responce effects cannot be prevented.
I've read this a couple of times and still don't understand what you're talking about. Can you explain?
An action, any action is initiated.
You decide whether or not you have a disrupt that you would like to play before the action is executed.
If that disrupt cancels the action's effect or otherwise makes the target of the action an illegal target there is no execution of the effect, it just fizzles.
If that disrupt does not cancel the action's effect nor make the target an illegal choice, then the action finishes its resolution.
It makes no difference whether that action is a framework (i.e. Draw) or other action action caused by the game (i.e. a Forced Response) or if it is a player action (Action, Disrupt, Response etc.).
dboeren said:
I've read this a couple of times and still don't understand what you're talking about. Can you explain?
Yeah me too… what I do grok from it is thathe is under the mistaken impression that someone getting the wrong idea from reading the FAQ is automatically the failing of the FAQ.
Given the sheer number of posts Zephyr had about what insanity does and changes and his insistence that it should also say what it doesn't change, it is abundantly obvious that sometimes people just have their own issues when it comes to interpreting parts of the FAQ that have nothing at all to do with what is written.
The FAQ is not perfect, no document of this type could be, it does a pretty good job of providing a resource to find the answers to the crunchy questions.
Im talking about fragment i will quote below.
I want FAQ to explein rules to players who do not understand them. After reading FAQ i want to be able to play the game with intended rules. If I re read FAQ several times and get more confused each time i think FAQ has failed. If you play in community for years, mail the designer, etc FAQ is quite ok, but there still is no document for new players to learn the rules. There is a big difference between writing true statements and writing satements that educate in a convinient way.
Referring to forced responce sacrifice as "cost" and stating that Brass disrupt is not enough to ignore "must sacrifice" effect, and not explictly stating that it referrs only to sacrifice type of effects is a really bad way of explianing the rules, that can lead to confusion about how "Forced response" work in general. How hard would it be to write "this referrs only to sacrifice, and not to any other forced rssponce effect", yes it does follow from context, but it is really easy to mess up.
This game has hard enough rules already, making such vague explanations makes it even more difficult to grasp.
FAQ fragment: ------------------------------
When any player has a sacrifice effect,
that cost must be paid, if able. If said
sacrifice does not happen, then the cost
has not been paid and the effect does
not resolve.
Similarly, if the effect is a Forced
Response, that sacrifice must take
place, if able.
For example: Darrin has Cthulhu,
The Great Old One (Core Set F41) in
play. During his draw phase, Darrin
chooses Jack “Brass” Brady (Core Set
F61) to be sacrificed. He then triggers
the disrupt ability of Jack “Brass”
Brady, which reads, “Disrupt: Before
a triggered ability resolves, return Jack
“Brass” Brady to his owner’s hand.”
Jack “Brass” Brady is returned to its
owner’s hand, preventing the sacrifice.
Thus, the cost has not been paid.
However, since Cthulhu’s ability is a
forced response, the cost must be paid,
if able.
Thus, Darrin must choose another
character to be sacrificed. If Cthulhu,
The Great Old One was the only legal
target, then he must sacrifice Cthulhu,
The Great Old One.
What in the world is vague about that? If you ask me that section goes into more explanation than is strictly needed. If the sacrafice is a cost, it must be paid for the effect to resolve. If it is a Forced Response causing the sacrifice then you must sacrifice. It goes into more depth to give you (or at least someone else) a better idea of the hows and whys but it absolutely says what you need to know.
Not to be "nationalistic or xeno-centric, but I honestly think the biggest problem is your grasp of the English language. I'm not trying to insult you, my French and Spanish are atrocious, but that FAQ quote is pretty unambiguous.
I really think its not about language but the way you think about game and rules.
For me fragment:
"Thus, the cost has not been paid. However, since Cthulhu’s ability is a forced response, the cost must be paid, if able."
Is a confusing monster. Not only is forced response sacrifice effect referred to as cost - it makes no sense to me with cost having a defined meaning in this game, but also saying that its because its forced response… and it doesnt matter in the slightest in this example, response and disrupt would be the same…
General rules are ok [except referring to non-cost sacrifice as cost… that doesnt make much sense], but example explanation is confusing instead of explaining… if you see it as minor flow in example then its not a problem. When you dont know rules and your trying to learn from this example you get more confused.
Ah, now I see what you are saying.