pinkymadigan said:

No he's not. Distinguishing between the declaration and the execution doesn't imply a contradiction: with the two rulings together, I think there's a clear and precise definition of what Grey Ker can and cannot do with his ability.

pinkymadigan said:

You come into the middle of a long and involved debate and state that the answer is obvious and fabricate a reason for that with no basis whatsoever in the rules (or at least none that I can find or that you have stated), and when someone points out that your conclusion is unsupported, you fail to give any additional reasons, but state that you won't even consider any other possibility. I give a very detailed explanation for why I think a specific argument is incorrect, citing specific rules, taking great care to avoid any personal attacks on the other poster, and pointing out when I think I've failed to understand some part of the argument I'm responding to.

And you feel that I stomp all over peoples' opinions with a pompous and disgusting superiority complex.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. Are there any concrete changes I could implement to make my arguments more palatable to you, or is this strictly an ineffable objection?

Actually, I didn't really feel personally attacked. My example and reasoning wasn't evidently clear enough, though I still have a nagging feeling that the Titan's ability is meant to remove all orders, including Guard.

I just need to figure out a way to make that work in the context of the rules.

Antistone,

Look, it's not that I don't agree with you that the RAW does imply that your ruling makes sense- clearly, it is based upon a solid foundation, you are in fact excellent at the art of debate.

However, I can't honestly even think that the intent was anything other than to cancel orders prior to them happening, including the insta-guard heroes are so fond of.

And though your argument IS supported, it's not like the game isn't riddled with things that were initially supported, then they realized that the intent of the rule wasn't clear and rewrote. This is a specific event with no precedence that is made to cancel the effects of an ability, yet allowing that ability to happen first clearly breaks the intent of canceling that ability with the event.

And yes, there are many things you could do to make your arguments more palatable. First of all, don't think of things as a competition. Many of the things people talk about here are opinions, like this:

If Grey Ker looks back at his turn and said "I advanced", then clearly he did not battle and should not have received the bonus for battling, however, the FAQ'd ruling is different than an earlier post Kevin made supporting the fact that Ker had to look back and have done one single action- which makes sense, considering it could in fact cause things like extra damage that killed a monster to be revoked, or screwy things of that nature. It's just another instance where KW initially ruled with the intent, but had to change to a more RAW because it broke things in odd ways.

Now, when you pointed this out- you could have simply said "Well, the FAQ disagrees with this...", or something along those lines, but instead you point out that I'm flat-out wrong, and that there is no room for interpretation with these clearly black and white rules that have been written, when in fact not only is that not the case, but it's rude.

Declaring that someone is wrong is insulting to their intelligence, something that is severly wounding to people's ego. You have to tread carefully when pointing out people's intellectual failings- especially when there isn't a case of right and wrong, as is often the case in Descent's rules.

For example, when Xandria and yourself had a different interpretation of the wording on something a few days ago, you pointed out that she "ignored your arguments" and counter-points etc. when she was expressing an opinion. Just remember that words aren't always interpretted the same way by different people, and this game clearly demonstrates that.

As for myself, I go with what myself and my group agree was the intent until we see a FAQ/errata pertaining to items (or in the case of Ker, we apparently overlook some that we feel are apparently answered already).

Don't get me wrong, I generally value your posts, they definitely add a different point of view and usually cite excellent precedence. I just think you come off a bit harsh and like you are itching for a good hard debate on everything, when many people just want to state an opinion.

Remy - sorry for the misinterpretation.

pinkymadigan said:

No problems on my end, it was pretty ambigious. Comes from being a smart-ass most of the time.

Antistone said:

You could start by not posting things like this (emphasis mine):

"First of all, you've taken a rule that says that cards get interrupt priority and applied it to an ability. I have no idea why that makes sense to you . Based on context, I think the most reasonable reading of that rule is that interrupt effects (like cards) get priority over regular effects (like refreshing cards and re-equipping at the start of your turn). That's worded badly for that interpretation, but it's worded badly for any interpretation I can think of (including yours), and bad wording is hardly exceptional in the Descent rulebook.

But even if we make the enormous leap required to say that this rule applies to the Titan's ability, there are already specific official examples that allow Guard orders to pre-empt overlord cards, including cards that could cause the Guard order to be lost, as in the case of Dark Charm (FAQ p. 5). The rule you quoted is older and less specific than the FAQ ruling, so the FAQ ruling trumps it. So if anything, making an analogy to an overlord card suggests that the Guard order can go first, not the reverse."

You are belittling Big Remy in this post. Even if he didn't take offense, I certainly would. I suggest you choose your words more carefully in the future, instead of belitting people for coming to a different conclusion that you. Because like it or not, that's exactly what you did.

pinkymadigan said:

Just a quick note of support for Antistone here.

While I absolutely agree he can be a bit brusque (and probably I can too) I don't think it is fair to put all the onus of one side of a discussion to look after the tender feelings of the other side.
If people are wrong, they are wrong, feelings/ego or no. If they can't get over that then they shouldn't be offering opinions in a debate . (However, it does pay to be careful in Descent as things are not always clear even when they seem to be...)
OTOH, it is equally as rude, in fact more rude*, and even more common it seems, for people to come in on a detailed debate and throw their 'opinion' into the mix regardless of what has been said. IMO it is extremely rude to ignore detailed arguments already constructed contrary to ones own opinion and just throw an opinion out there without stating any reason for your opinion or counter other's reasons why that opinion might not be valid.

Frankly, sometimes (not always) the brusqueness is deserved. That doesn't mean it should be given, just that it has been earned.

*More rude? Yes. If I say you are wrong and give reasons, then I am saying (albeit harshly or bluntly) that I think you have made a mistake in your assumptions or reasonings and then explained why. Anyone can make a mistake, so its no big deal.
If I ignore your detailed argument construction and just state an opinion with no reasoning then I not only say that I think you have made an incorrect assumption or reasonings, I also imply that your (aready given) reasoning is worthless (not even worth responding to) and your opinion is of so little value that mine outweighs yours without even needing to say why. Thats pretty insulting! Thats at least an order of magnitude more rude yet almost always goes by without comment.

Corbon said:

That's all well and good, but in my opinion that is NOT what happened in this thread in regards to Big Remy. There was not a detailed debate going on: Antistone offered his interpretation, then a small discussion ensued about game balance/guantlets/TK, and then Big Remy posted his interpretation. Nothing was settled and there was no detailed argument. In fact, his was the most detailed argument yet. Given all this, I don't understand Antistone's response.

In addition, it's not obvious or apparent that Big Remy's interpetation of the rules is wrong.

SkittlesAreYum said:

Not saying it was what happened in this thread. But it happens in others and historical behaviour was brought up. I felt it pertinent to remind that historical behaviour goes both ways and breaches are more often made against Antistone than by him, though they generally go unremarked upon.

So he has a prickly electronic manner. Its an imperfect medium.

Back to topic - here´s my take on the timing problem in general:

FAQ ruling:

Q: What is the proper timing of events that occur “at the
beginning of a player’s turn”?
A: When multiple events may occur “at the beginning
of a player’s turn,” such as a hero affected by multiple
different status effects like Burn and Bleed, that player
may decide in which order to resolve them . The player
must resolve all “start of turn” effects before proceeding
with the rest of his turn.

Now, the Titan´s ability is occurring at the start of the OL player´s turn.

When is the earliest point during the OL´s turn, at which a Guard order can be used?

I would say "at the start of the OL player´s turn", not earlier.

Since both abilities/effects/actions occur at the same point, the FAQ ruling kicks in, and the OL decides the order in which they happen, since it is clearly his turn.

I always played it the way that I (as OL) draw the cards, receive threat and play any appropriate Event/Power/whatever card at the start of my turn before I allow my players to use a Guard order (or appropriate Feat cards which cause similar timing issues) - in my opinion perfectly following the ruling.

Well, Guard's not strictly defined as a "start of turn" event. For example, OL cards can be played at the start of the OL's turn, but Guard can still trump them according to the FAQ (Dark Charm being the textbook example). I, too, believe that the Titan is supposed to negate Guard tokens, but I don't think the RAW support that position.

Thundercles said:

That's part of the problem, is that when Guard can activate is both clearly defined, but yet (IMO) very poorly conceived. INTENT GAME: I've always seen the Guard order as the Hero reacting to an action taken by the OL. Granted this is a fully thematic argument so it really has no bearing on reality for the game but thematic arguments are not always bad things.

By the rules, the a Guard can activate before the OL draws cards and collects threat since that's listed as the first step in his turn.

It really does come down to timing, as a lot of things do in Descent, and who gets precedence. Unfortunately, it Guard is this overly godlike ability to go do something before the OL even has a chance to think.

And sadly, the FAQ ruling concerning resolution of multiple "at the start of a player's turn" I don't think actually does much because Guard orders don't actually have that trigger. They can be anytime. I suppose you could argue that because the hero uses the Guard at that time it could fall under that heading.

All that being said, I've read that example for Dark Charm and Guard several times now and there is something that bothers me. The Guard order in that example never actually prevents the OL from playing or resolving Dark Charm except in a very specific case..

Q: How does the timing of Guard interact with Dark Charm? Can I use my Guard order to attack when the overlord plays Dark Charm on me so I don’t lose it? Can I use a Guard order to attack the hero the overlord is using Dark Charm on? In either case, can I do so before or after the die is rolled to see if the card takes effect?

A: Guard orders can interrupt the overlord at any time. However, each action should be resolved in its entirety once it’s been begun. (For example, although you can interrupt the overlord if he declares an attack, if you choose not to the attack is resolved in its entirety before you have another chance to use your Guard order. You can’t wait to see if the attack missed or not before deciding to Guard.) So, for Dark Charm, once the overlord has played the card you must immediately decide whether to interrupt it with a Guard order. If you choose not to, the overlord proceeds to roll dice and you must wait for the card (and its attack, if any) to be completely resolved. If you interrupt the Dark Charm and kill the target hero, then the card is canceled without further effect.

Now there are a couple of interesting statements here and some potential thoughts concerning why the Dark Charm example isn't really the same as the Titan's ability:

1) Guard orders can interrupt the overlord at any time. However, each action should be resolved in its entirety once it’s been begun .

2) And the other is the order of things:

A) Dark Charm is played at the start of the turn

B) The Guard order happens

C) IF you KILL the target hero, then (and only then) the card is cancelled .

That is actually very specific about what must happen. Even if you do the Guard attack, if the the person doing the Guard doesn't kill the Dark Charm target, then Dark Charm is still played on the target and resolved in its entirety. So that makes it completely possible for the OL to play DC, the hero attack the target with a Guard order, NOT kill the target, and have DC takes affect and make an attack against itself or another Hero. No where in that example does it say that the use of the Guard order blocks the playing of DC or that the OL rewinds the action. The DC was played and it has to be resolved. Furthermore, if the OL Dark Charm's the Hero with Guard, you can't really activate the Guard can you since you can't attack yourself right (except for DC)? It is possible to discard the Guard order and not attack anything, but in the case of this example it wouldn't do anything would it?

So even if you use the Guard, according to the flow of the DC/Guard example, the TItan's ability still activates and would remove all the other placed orders. Does anyone see a flaw in this?

Now we are proceeding out the realm of the RAW and into personal reasoning based on my understanding of the rules: The other reason it doesn't work, IMO and I said this before, is that Dark Charm is a trap card . Regardless of potentially making "enormous leaps", is there anyone who think the Titan's ability could be classified as something other than an ability built into the Keep rules? If so, I would really like to know why.

Even if it isn't, what are you interrupting? Its not a card, it's a built in element of the Keep which, IMO, is an event that takes precedence over the Hero taking a Guard action . This statement was made earlier and I quoted the events take precedence over actions rule, but it was said that the DC/Guard trumps that. Based on the breakdown of the DC/Guard example, I don't think it does. DC still gets played, and only if the targeted hero is killed does the DC trap get canceled so I'm not sure how that actually applies to the Titan's Stomp. Guards are used to make interrupt attack. Even if you attack the Titan with the Guard, the ability is still going to happen unless you kill him it seems.

If I'm wrong by the RAW (and sadly, it looks like I probably am), I'm wrong that's fine but I really don't think the designers (INTENT GAME) meant for this to remove Aim, Dodge and Rest but leave the most powerful order alone. One would hope this gets FAQ'd at some point in time to fix it.

BTW: I probably edited this like 6 times.

Several good points there, Big Remy. I certainly agree that using a Guard order to interrupt the stomp won't prevent the stomp from occurring afterwards (except if you kill the Titan with the attack, I suppose), and that the Dark Charm precedent does not directly apply to the stomp because the stomp is not a card. I apologize if I gave any impression to the contrary; I was just arguing that treating the stomp as a card would not support the conclusion that it can't be interrupted.

I want to point out that I think the note about the Dark Charm being canceled if the targeted hero is killed should just be read as an "if" and not an "if and only if." The gathered list of answered questions indicates that the overlord can "rewind" the action that was interrupted, and choose to do something else if he wants. That implies that after you use your Guard order, the overlord could choose to Dark Charm a different hero, or not to play Dark Charm at all, even if you don't kill the targeted hero.

"The OL may change his mind after being interrupted. (…) the OL can change his mind after being interrupted, (…) treat it as though you did a little 'rewind' to right before he declared an attack. The OL, after being interrupted after declaring an attack, may choose to continue with the attack, change its target, or even not to make the attack at all."

---===---

Regarding the throwing in of "opinions," if someone enters a thread and says something like "I don't have any additional arguments to add, but my intuition is that it should work like X, for whatever that's worth," I don't have a problem with that and I won't jump down their throat.

However, if you instead say "the answer is X," then what Corbon said applies. You're telling everyone who said otherwise that they're wrong, and acting as if your own position was so far beyond reproach that you don't even have to explain or defend it, let alone uncover the flaws in someone else's reasoning. I consider that rude, arrogant, and counter-productive in the extreme. Hence my reaction in the prior situation pinkymadigan mentioned, though unless I'm mistaken that involved Osaka, not Xandria.

Regarding something like this:

pinkymadigan said:

Unless I'm confused about which particular post you're complaining about, my exact words were "Sorry, but I don't think that ruling applies here. The extra guard order from Unmovable is not part of the battle action, it's a bonus that he gets when he declares a battle action. From page 4 of the FAQ..."

That consists of a sympathetic statement tentatively asserting that you are mistaken, and then an explanation of why. I'm afraid I can't see any material difference between that and what you suggest I should have done.

I will make an effort to phrase my arguments more gently, but as Corbon said, if you make statements about contested issues--or even issues that might become contested--being told that you are wrong is going to happen. A lot. You've been doing it quite a lot yourself in this very thread. That's how discussions work, and it's the only way they can work. Get over it or keep out.

I'm not too happy with that ruling on Guard/Dark Charm myself. Prior to that we had a fairly simple (if not well known) rule: OL cards get precedence. Now guard trumps that in at least one case, and probably others by extrapolation (none come to mind right now). That this particular use of guard can even cause an OL effect to fizzle rather than be rewound makes it even messier in my opinion.

Antistone said:

Very true. I can think of times though when the OL might not want to rewind and let the DC just go. For example, target a heavy tank with the DC. Say the ranged or magic user had a Guard, they would be inclined to use it. Chances of them actually killing the tank are low to fair. Say they don't kill the tank but just damage him severly, and the tank fails the save against the trap. Use the tank to kill himself, there's your CT.

So ti can go either way really.

The whole precedence thing is another issue really, that is just fairly muddy IMO.

.

Zargon said:

Sorry, maybe who was playing devil's advocate with respect to what? I think I've responded to at least 3 people about at least 3 topics since your previous post.