Unfortunately, I'm almost seeing where this is coming from. It could be said that a "framework game effect" is an outcome that results from the game itself - i.e. the "rules of the game". Placing blast damage and rewarding unopposed happen because they are part of the "framework" of the game. Something like Target of Opportunity, on the other hand, could be seen as more of a "card effect", something that happens because a particular card says it can. I know it's a weak argument, because, hey, that Blast Damage icon is part of the card! But it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

I think it could have been handled better. The wording is clumsy, the term is not defined, and placing it at the very end like they did feels like they tossed it out there and ducked out of the room. As dbmeboy said, a definition of the term and a little more detailed info about how it fits into the advanced timing rules would have been very helpful.

ziggy2000 said:

OK, I kinda see what you're saying, with the same sort of flimsy grasp of blast icons as a framework effect only because they're clearly defined. And basically, trying to use the term they did refine, "framework event" to help define "framework game effect" is a misapplication altogether. So they didn't attempt to define the term at all, really, they just said, "this and this are framework game effects, nothing else that could damage an objective is, now, guess the definition," assuming your definition is in line with designer's intent.

ziggy2000 said:

I think this is probably in line with their intent. I can't find much RAW to support - but, i'll give it a try - If we look at resolving strikes - Blast damage Icons are the only part of the strike that we have no control over - they are "forced". We can't say - oh, I don't apply my damage (not that there's a reason to do that yet). We choose from legal targets for both the Tactics and unit damage icons. Blast Damage Icons however have no player interaction (other than enabling or disabling them via being an attacker or defender and the winning the edge for edge enabled versions.)

If the framework event is to resolve strikes - we can see the resolution for the event on page 20, we're even given an order in which to resolve the combat icons. In this manner, we can imagine the combat icons as framework game effects (the definition of which does not appear anywhere, and the term only appears in the FAQ) and not card effects - instead the card merely tells the framework how many times to resolve each icon.

Meanwhile the Framework Event containing fate cards, uses the substeps on page 19, and in 3. on page 20 we can see that the effects of the fate cards are clearly fate card effects*. "Each player resolves the effects of fate cards placed in his edge stack." This should be sufficient to show that they are at the least not "framework game effects" because they are "effects of fate cards." - and thus cannot deal damage to the dial. (Of course this won't work if they define fate card effects to be framework game effects…)

*(As they are not built into the framework of the game - nor do they use the interrupt or reaction… In fact we actually have an interesting problem with fate cards - take a look at the rules page 24. It says ; "All card abilities fall into one of the following types: Constant Effects, Actions, Traits, Interrupts, Reactions, and Keywords." - There's actually no explicit definition for what a fate card ability is. )

So - to me, this means they need to define what "framework game effects" are - and what a "fate card effect" is. Assuming the above is RAI - it doesn't require much addition to give us an RAW that matches.

Ravncat said:

This is the part of your argument that makes the most sense to me, and why I called placing blast damage part of the "framework" of the game.

Bomb posted in the Trench Run thread something very similar to what I was trying to say, but articulated it much better. This post does so as well.

I also think a definition of a "framework game effect" would be in order, and agree that fate card effects need to be defined in relation to the list of card abilities that you made.

I did just get this from Nate French:

Yes, I agree, having these terms formally defined in the definitions and terms would be a worthy addition to help people understand the rulings. I'll have them added to the 1.1 update, which we should be able to post with the tourney rules.

…could you explicitly define "card effect" and "framework game effect" as neither of those terms are used anywhere else?

Ravncat said:

"Framework events are mandatory occurrences dictated by the structure of the game. (Rulebook, page 30.)

Framework effects are the consequences of these occurrences."

was in my mailbox from Nate French this morning.

Odd since he declined to define the terms for me at 1309 EST this afternoon…

Be happy to fwd it to you, just pm me your email.

Fyi, I submitted

---

also worth noting, I am in Japan, so my morning is evening in the states

Ravncat said:

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe you, I just thought it was odd that he would answer differently. The time difference explains things a bit (which is why I included time zone in my post, I thought it might be something like that). I still suspect that the full definition will be more involved to cover why resolving combat icons from a card are a framework game effect while resolving fate cards' effects are not since both are framework events.

dbmeboy said:

This is what I think -

Everything in this game is inside Framework Events/Windows. Player Actions are a framework of the game but it's a window that is provided to allow you to trigger specific types of card effects to the state of the game. Reactions and Interrupts happen inside framework events all over the place. Resolving combat icons and resolving fate cards are framework events. The difference is combat icons have a specific framework function for existing on a card(framework event tells you to count their existence and then do something using that count) while fate cards have a function off of the fate card itself(not all fate cards do the same thing and only do what their text says to do).

Basically, resolving card effects is part of the framework of the game, however framework effects would be a function of the game rules inside that framework(if a game rule tells you to do something specific to the state of the game). Card effects are when the card itself is telling you to do something specific to the state of the game.

Haha - I don't know why I keep posting when we both agreed that they need to release clarity of this in the next FAQ update! I promise you I'm not that bored at work.

Yeah, their real trick is defining it such that combat icons are a game effect and not a card effect.