got a few questions.

1. can and event or interrupt card be played in the middle of edge battle? (while a players have already play cards)

2. after twist of fate is reveled can you play events and interrupts or must you start next edge battle right away?

3 force choke is played can the LS player play cover fire (or similiar card) before vaders text can be used?

4 leia is in battle with others all Ls side players strike…. can the LS player play cover fire (or similiar leia removing card) on Leia?

If yes can the LS now strike again?

5 cover fire can target any LS unit even those not in battle right?

Rogue 3 said:

got a few questions.

1. can and event or interrupt card be played in the middle of edge battle? (while a players have already play cards)

2. after twist of fate is reveled can you play events and interrupts or must you start next edge battle right away?

3 force choke is played can the LS player play cover fire (or similiar card) before vaders text can be used?

4 leia is in battle with others all Ls side players strike…. can the LS player play cover fire (or similiar leia removing card) on Leia?

If yes can the LS now strike again?

5 cover fire can target any LS unit even those not in battle right?

1. No, there is no action window during the edge battle, check page 31 in the rulebook.

2. I don't think so. Twist of fate says " Discard both edge stacks and start a new edge battle". There is no mention of an action window. The new edge battle just happens immediately. I may be wrong here though, should be clarified I think.

3. Vader's ability is a Reaction and thus happens as a response to the Force choke card being played. You cannot play an action (which Cover fire is) between an action and a triggered reaction. Interrupts should work though, you could play It Could Be Worse as an interrupt to avoid taking damage. Check page 24-25 for the rules on how Actions, Reactions and Interrupts work.

4. Yes. It's an awesome combination. And Yes, not even can but must, since he has "ready participating units".

5. Yes. The unit sacrificed can be any unit, the card doesn't specify participating unit.

gruntl said:

I think Twist causes the initial edge battle to not resolve, so no action window opens before the new one starts.

I think the others have been pretty much covered. Don't forget, though, unless you're cancelling the Force Choke being played, then Vader still gets his response. Most LS interrupts only cancel damage or the "effects" of an event. If you're only cancelling the effects, then a Sith event has still been played, and the response triggers.

Twist of Fate makes the edge battle reset, there is no action window until after the edge battle.

In response to the twist of fate question.

You would never be able to play an event… but theoretically, you could play an interrupt. I say theoretically because there isn't a card that can currently do this, but there could be an interrupt or reaction effect that responds to fate cards resolving, the end of an edge battle, or the beginning of an edge battle. You don't need an action window for reactions and interrupts, you just need to meet the requirement for the interrupt itself.

Rogue 3 said:

I disagree with everyone else's answer on #1. You would be able to play an event card that is a reaction or interrupt during an edge battle as long as its condition is met. For example, if Heat of Battle is being resolved as part of an edge battle, the LS player could use Lightsaber Deflection to redirect that damage to another unit. An action window is not necessary for event cards, only for Actions , and some event cards are Actions , but others are Reactions or Interrupts . The same would be true for Reaction or Interrupt effects on cards in play during an edge battle.

stormwolf27 said:

You're right about Vader's reaction still triggering even if an interrupt cancels the effects of his ability. However, Vader's reaction ability triggers upon a Sith event card being played, and there are no card effects currently that prevent any card from being played after it has already been played. Such a card would actually have to say something like, "Cancel an event and treat it as though it were never played." Anything is possible, I suppose, but I can't see a card like that ever being created.

Surge1000 said:

This is of course correct. I must somehow have missed the part of the question where the OP mentioned interrupts.

You might want to recheck the rulebook. I'm pretty sure in the terms section it specifically states a cards effects must be resolved for it to be considered played, so if you cancel the effects of force choke vadars ability will not trigger. I will provide a page reference later if you can't find it.

chaosvt said:

. In Advanced Concepts, it doesn't contain what you are describing. Nor in Card Abilities. The defenition for Play also says nothing like this.

"Play describes an action where a player pays the resource
cost of a card in hand and transfers it into play (for a unit
card or an enhancement card) or resolves its effects and
then discards it (for an event card)."

Except that is the paragraph i was talking about.

Play describes an action where a player pays the resource cost of a card in hand and transfers it into play or resolves its effects and then discards it.

So if you try to play force choke, and i interupt and cancel its effects, it never gets played, so Vadar does not trigger.

If you play force choke, and i redirect the damage say with lightsaber deflection, then that is different, and vadar does trigger.

chaosvt said:

Wow. I can understand exactly what you're saying based on the way the sentence you quoted is structured. It makes it sound as though "play" has three qualifiers: 1) pay the resource cost, 2) transfer it into play/resolve its effect and 3) discard it if it is an event. What an unfortunate wording on behalf of the rules team. I am quite certain they didn't mean that to be the case. In fact, they contradict that in the example they give at the bottom of page 27.

"Example: The DS player PLAYS an event card with a resource cost of 2. The LS player plays an interrupt that cancels the effects of that event card…"

Notice how in your example you had to specify "try to play" in order to prove your point? The rulebook doesn't use that terminology. In fact, none of the interrupt cards in the game use that terminology (although I suppose one could argue that by using the term " when ," C-3PO and Counter-stroke cancel the effect of the event card before it is even played since interrupts resolve first).

Nonetheless, I'm gonna run this by one of the playtesters to see if there was an official ruling made during playtesting. This wouldn't be the first case where poor wording in the rulebook was overlooked. Stay tuned…

I've submitted the question, but I have one thing to add that I came up with as I mulled this question over further.

Page 27

Cancel:

"An effect that is cancelled is simply not executed and has no result."

Notice the specific language used. I think it's highly possible that the writer purposefully did not use the word resolve .

Why is that important?

My interpretation: An event whose effect is cancelled is still resolved. It just doesn't do anything.

Surge1000 said:

I dunno. They may treat wording in a way that "cancel the effects…" let's the response trigger, but maybe something along the lines of "cancel target event" treats it as though it weren't played. Meh. I know that makes little to no sense, but you know how finicky the wording in these games can get.

I got a response from a playtester:

"I believe you ruled correctly Sergio. An effect that's cancelled is still considered to be resolved (ie that's how it was resolved, by nothing happening) and the card is considered played even if the effect is cancelled. Many a discussion was had along those lines."

So, some things to glean from the discussion:

1) Yes, in order for a card to be considered played , it must specifically meet all of the 3 criteria set forth -

a) the resource cost must be paid (and additional costs such as discarding if necessitated by the card).

b) it must be transfered into play OR it's EFFECT MUST RESOLVE

c) it must be discarded if it is an event card

ALL of these criteria must be met for the card to have been considered played . I only emphasize that so much because that definition of played is remarkably different from any other CCGs/TCGs I've played.

AND

2) An effect that is cancelled still resolves . You resolve the effect by doing nothing; it has no result. Therefore, an event card whose effect has been cancelled does meet all three criteria of having been played .

So, I owe a bit of an apology to whomever wrote the rules. There is no "unfortunate wording" of the criteria set forth for what qualifies as played . Rather, the most intricately crafted mechanic and set of terms I have ever encountered in any game of this sort when dealing with the concept of playing and "countering" cards/effects has been written.

I mean, consider how it actually works:

A player initiates the sequence of playing an event (that's how you have to phrase it, because technically it's not played until its effect resolves).

The opponent initiates the sequece of playing another card that is an interrupt.

The interrupt resolves first, cancelling an effect…of a card that technically has not even been played yet.

The interrupt is then considered to have been played.

The initial event resolves. It's effect is nothing.

The initial event is then considered to have been played.

I've really never seen any timing or definitions of those aspects of the game like that.

Surge1000 said:

I need to reword that. It isn't exactly what I meant, and as Rogue 3 pointed out, the wording in these games can be finicky.

Here is the truth:

2) An event card whose effects have been cancelled still resolves . You resolve the card by doing nothing; it has no result. Therefore, an event card whose effect has been cancelled does meet all three criteria of having been played .

Also, I should add that these aren't official rulings. We'll have to wait until the FAQ for that, but I trust the judgement of the playtester I ran this by, for what it's worth.

Could we consider the possibility that the passage in the rule book describing what "play" means is giving the instructions for how to "play" something, not a list of qualificaitons for something having been played? We would still need a formal definition of what counts as "playing" something for cards that trigger from it, but when that comes it might avoid the twisting we're having to do to make the answer fit criteria we're reading into the paragraph. Just a thought.

dbmeboy said:

That was pretty much my first argument too. I felt like my second argument was shoehorning in the answer I wanted to be correct by carefully parsing the words in the rulebook.

When I discussed that with the playtester in messages on another forum, he said they had many discussions about those issues during playtesting and validated that indeed those seemed to be the qualifications for "played." Honestly, I don't think there will be any potential conflict with that definition in the future so long as FFG keeps wording interrupts with cancel effects the way they did in the core set. They always cancel the ability and not the card itself, so the cards still resolve.

Seems clunky at first glance, like unnecessary steps are added, but it does actually work.