On page 30 of the rulebook, there is a definition for framework event . I'm curious how you guys who frequent this forum would answer these questions, only because I'm having a bit of a debate about it right now with someone from a rules forum.

Based on the definition for framework event and the structure of the timing diagram on pages 30 and 31, would resolving strikes be considered a framework event?

What about resolving fate cards?

Lastly, what about rewarding unopposed bonus?

Which qualify as framework events? Some, all, none? If one or more is disqualified, why?

Surge1000 said:

The actual act of resolving a strike is a framework event, because once the resolution has begun no player actions can be taken unless expressly triggered by that event.

Resolving fate cards is also a framework event for the same reason mentioned above - once both players pass and resolution begins, no other actions may be taken unless triggered specifically.

Rewarding Unopposed bonus for the same reason above.

I'm with MasterJediAdam above.

I think they ran out of space for the Engagement Resolution timing chart. Resolving Strikes for each player has its own "box". But the other actions you ask about are the ONLY ones where multiple steps are combined into one "box". I think if they'd had the room, that "Reveal edge stacks", "Resolve fate cards", and "Resolve edge battle" would have each had their own "box", making each one a framework event. Likewise with "Check for surviving units" and "Reward unopposed bonus". So my answer is yes, even though there are multiple actions within a framework event, each one of them counts as a framework event.

This is so subtle as to be almost ludicrous. Why would any of this make a difference, anyway?

ziggy2000 said:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to lead you down the rabbit hole. I'm not focusing on singular versus mutiple effects in one framework event box. My question is really about as plain as it is written, and my curiousity is genuine. After I receive a little bit more feedback, I'll elaborate more as to why the question, or the answer, more precisely, is important in relation to what we are able to glean from RAW.

Thanks for the input so far. Please keep it coming, and I'd be really curious to hear any dissenting opinions. I don't want to offer my opinion or add further to the question/discussion now so as to avoid bias.

Surge1000 said:

Technically resolving fate cards doesn't qualify as its own framework event, simply due to the fact that it is part of the *resolve edge battle* framework event. (yes, I know I'm being nitpicky, but so are a lot of the people on here, and I'm one of the few that will be nice about it).

Other than the technicality, all qualify. Bearing in mind, however, that not *all* strikes are resollved in the same framework event. There are player actions before/after each unit strike.

Surge1000 said:

Based on the diagram, all of what you mention are framework events (the edge battle, resolving strikes and rewarding unopposed) and only cards that are interrupts/reactions may be played during these events (unless they specifically state they may be played during that time.)

Surge1000 said:

Resolving a strike certainly is a framework event. Why that's relevant is that it means you can't skip striking if you have a ready unit in the engagement (framework events cannot be skipped) in addition to not being able to leave the "resolve strikes" step unfocused.

Resolving fate cards is at least part of a framework event. Same with rewarding the unopposed bonus.

Note that the significance of framework events is that they are mandatory/cannot be skipped and cannot have Actions used during them. Given that, I'm having trouble seeing any difference between calling things like resolving fate cards framework events and substeps of framework events. Either way, they're mandatory and can't have actions used.

Surge1000 said:

Hey Surge, I'm sorry if I came off harshly in my comment. I certainly was not calling you ludicrous. As one of the most thoughtful and precise posters on here, you always provide good arguments on both sides of any question. I was just really wondering why such a subtlety would have an impact on the RAW. I guess I will have to be patient and you will reveal all in time.

stormwolf27 said:

I'd like you to expand on your supposition if you would, please. In the diagram on page 31, there is what appears to be a framework event text box that says, "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards and resolve edge battle."

Are none of those framework events because they share the same text box? Is "resolve fate cards" alone not a framework event? Or are you saying that they're all framework events, but resolving any particular fate card during the "resolve fate cards" framework event would not qualify as a framework effect?

If the latter is the case, would resolving any specific icon on a card being focused to strike also not qualify as a framework effect (e.g. dealing unit damage as a result of resolving a strike)?

For whatever you believe is the most correct answer, what RAW-based reasons support it?

dbmeboy said:

I'm actually quite glad you said that. It is relevant to where I'm going. I promise, I'm not trying to be cryptic just for the sake of it. This is going somewhere; I just want to establish a base understanding of the concept of framework events to see if there is any perceived ambiguity in relation to the concept first.

Nonetheless, I'm curious how anyone could determine that resolving a strike is a framework event but resolving a fate card is not based upon RAW alone. If such an argument can be logically deduced from the only info we have at this time, it may be something I missed. If it is, I really want to understand where my thought process is flawed.

Surge1000 said:

You could call "Resolve one strike" a framework event while "Resolve one fate card" is not a framework event by a very strict reading of pg 30 combined with the layout of the chart. Arguably, the relevant framework event for fate cards is the entire phrase: "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards, and resolve edge battle." Of course, the resolving the edge battle framework event has several steps which include resolving fate cards… just like resolving a strike has several steps per pg 20:

"To resolve a strike, a player follows these steps in order.
1. He chooses one of his participating ready units.
2. He focuses the unit to strike (i.e. places a focus
token on the card).
3. He resolves the striking unit’s combat icons by type."

And then step 3 of that itself has another full page of instructions.

dbmeboy said:

Interesting.

So, resolve fate cards is a framework event, and resolve one strike is a framework event, right?

Resolving ONE strike, dealing one unit damage and one blast damage from a Nightsister unit IS a framework event.

Resolving a Twist of Fate is NOT a framework event.

Is that what you would deduce from RAW?

Surge1000 said:

Can't quite find that in RAW.

Resolving one strike is a framework event that involves multiple substeps, one of which also has substeps which (in the case of Nightsister) would include a (now) subsubstep of resolving one unit damage and a subsubstep of resolving one blast damage.

Likewise, "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards, and resolve edge battle," is a framework event which has multiple substeps, one of which is "Resolve fate cards." Resolving fate cards itself could potentially have multiple substeps if there are multiple fate cards to resolve.

By strictest reading of the rules at least, though nothing in the rules gives framework events any significance beyond can't skip and can't initiate actions so by strictest reading of the rules the distinction doesn't matter…

dbmeboy said:

You've just accurately described my opinion on the matter as well. Without fundamentally restructuring certain phases or without adding new definitions to the rules, I don't think one can logically discern otherwise.

Nonetheless, I was hoping someone with a dissenting opinion could convince me otherwise. I'm hoping Stormwolf27 will share his reasoning.

Surge1000 said:

There's that acronym again… I'm not familiar with RAW or RAI or anything similar when trying to interpret rules. I'm assuming, though, that it has something to do with wording vs. intention, or something along those lines…

Moving forward, I'm not sure what else you would like me to contribute to this conversation… Framework events are occurences in a game that cannot be avoided (can be skipped through certain card effects in other LCGs, but nothing I'm aware of in this one yet), and cannot be interrupted except by appropriate interrupts, to use SW:LCG terminology. Most reactions occur after framework events, not during, and between framework events (usually, but with a few exceptions where there is no window between), you can perform player actions.

the "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards and resolve edge battle" framework event is just that… ONE framework event with 3 parts (and multiple subparts as dbmeboy pointed out, if you have several fate cards in the stack).

resolving fate cards is not it's own framework event because it is a step inside the "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards and resolve edge battle" framework event.

In any game that uses the unique structure of FFG's LCGs, framework events are broken down into steps. I think what's tripping you up (and probably would me, if I weren't familiar with FFG's structures through hours and hours of rules debates in my local meta about AGoT) is that the engagement resolution window is full of it's own framework events and action windows. Just treat it as an optional "phase" for the purposes of interpreting the rules as far as those framework/windows are concerned.

stormwolf27 said:

RAW = Rules As Written

RAI = Rules As Intended

So your interpretation of the acronyms is spot on. I think.

I was going to bring up the timing charts from AGoT (which are published in the FAQ rather than the core ruleset) because they go into much more detail. It is interesting to note that in the "Framework Action Window" there are "Framework Events" that occur in a specific order. I find it interesting that, if you take the SW charts on pages 30 and 31 at face value, they changed the "framework event" to include more than one step, i.e."Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards and resolve edge battle". The AGoT charts are much more granular, and include exact points where save/cancels, passive abilities, and responses can occur. I stand by my original thought that there was not enough space in the core rulebook to fully expand the charts to explain the framework actions fully (though there was certainly enough room for all the fluff in the first pages…).

I think I see where this is going, but I'm not sure.

There are several things such as this that I'm sure will be in the FAQ, when they finally release it. Without sounding like a broken record, I can't really say any more as far as my interpretation of the flowcharts going from my knowledge of the AGoT ones. Hopefully they will print a more detailed account of the framework windows and action windows then.

I'm not sure the stormwolf and my answers are actually any different… we both agree that resolving a strike is a framework event and resolving fate cards is a substep in a framework event. Stormwolf, would you agree that resolving a specific combat icon type is also a substep of the "resolve strike" framework event and not in and of itself a framework event?

dbmeboy said:

I would, indeed. I think, if and when they release a flowchart of the timing structure like they did for AGot, where they include the different steps with response/interrupt opportunities, it will become much clearer.

My interpretation, although I don't see any rules "consequence" so far, agrees with stormwolf as well:

There are many frameworks events, which so far are only those indicated as such in the rulebook. Some of them comprise explicitely more than one step (other COULD involve multiple steps, if any submechanic was to be introduced by cards, without a re-writing of the flow-chart).

Therefore, placing cards in the edge stack is, in my interpretation, a "step" of an un-breakable framework event, just as much as resolving an icon in a strike is a sub-step of the framework event "resolving the strike".

Best

Geki

OK, I see what you're saying now, and I think we basically all agree. Resolving damage from a blast icon would be a substep of a framework event (resolve a strike). Resolving a fate card would be a substep of a framework event(resolve fate cards). Yes, neither instance is a framework event in and of itself. How is any of this pertinent? I'm getting there. The next step in the process is this:

Does RAW (rules as written) support the following?

Blast damage (resolving a blast icon as a result of a strike) is a framework game effect.

Unopposed damage being applied to an objective is a framework game effect.

Resolving Target of Opportunity is NOT a framework game effect.

Surge1000 said:

RAW do not support any of those statements, because they do not define a "framework game effect". I'm not sure if you worded it that way on purpose, but since we are being picky here, and dbmeboy pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a "framework effect".

If that was unintentional wording I can go in a different direction to get to the same conclusion. Either way I do not believe that RAW support the resolving of Twist of Fate being treated differently than resolving the other things you mention.

I am more curious than ever to see where this leads.

So, now that we're post FAQ, can anyone venture to explain why resolving a blast icon is a framework game effect, rewarding unopposed bonus is a framework game effect but resolving a fate card is NOT a framework game effect? When I look at the chart structure on page 31 (resolve a strike, reward unopposed bonus and resolve fate cards are all in framework event text boxes), and according to the definitions on page 30 and in the FAQ regarding framework events, the reasoning behind the ruling is not any clearer, at least not insofar as it relates to what is considered a framework game effect.

Or should I focus on the part of the FAQ that states: "card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Death Star dial," meaning units are not considered cards, since their effects DO interact with the DS dial when resolving a strike? Well, that can't be right..units are referred to as cards mutiple times in the rules. So maybe combat icons are not effects then, except where the text on page 21 says combat icons represent the effects of a striking card on its enemy.

Or should I just quit trying to rationalize the ruling and accept it at face value, blast icons and unopposed damage affect the DS dial, nothing else? I prefer to comprehend rulings rather than just memorize them. I'm not sure in this case that's truly possible.

If only they had spent some time in the section of the FAQ where they talked about the difference between Framework Events and Actions to define Framework Game Effect. That answer is the only reference to the term anywhere in the FAQ or rule book. I already sent in a rules question asking for a clarification on the meaning of the term.