Yellow is attacking Blue.

Yellow scores two hits on Blue.

Blue decides to put both hits on his two Dreadnoughts, because he would prefer not to loose troops.

Yellow plays the card Direct Hit which states "Destroy one damaged Dreadnought or War Sun. Play immediately after the ship has been damaged."

In response (and before anything else happens), Blue plays the card Emergency Repairs which states "Choose a system, immediately repair all of your Dreadnoughts and War Suns in the chosen system. Play at any time."

Yellow argues that since the ship has "already been destroyed" it thus cannot be repaired. Goodbye Dreadnought.

Blue, being someone that plays too much M:tG, says that his card "goes on the stack" and thus repairs both ships.

Who is right, Yellow or Blue?

I guess it depends if the effects of hits are applied simultaneously or not.

I would say they are, and that once the defender chooses which ships take hits it would be immediately destroyed. That's just my take though.

I think if you consider the intended effect of Emergency Repairs, it was not dsigned to counter or render a card useless. Therefore, the ships would be destroyed, as the hits were chosen and the Direct Hit already played.

Check the rule book on page 23:

"How to Play an Action Card
If a player wishes to play an Action Card, he must publicly announce that he wishes to play an Action Card. Then other players, at that time, may announce that they also wish to play an Action Card. After all players have been given the opportunity to announce that they are playing Action Cards, all the Action Cards are revealed and resolved in order of play. If Action Cards are about to played at a time where players do not have Strategy Cards, then resolve them in clockwise order starting with the Speaker."

Thus, the player who wants to play the Direct Hit card must announce that he wants to play an Action Card (without saying which one he wants to play) and the other players can announce to play an Action Card as a reaction on his announcement. After all players have announced whether or not they want to play an Action Card, ones starts to resolve them in order of play (i.e. the player with the lowest initiative number first). Therefore, the player who played Emergency Repairs would have to play the card without knowing that the opponent wants to play Direct hit. Moreover, even if that is the case, he has to have the lower initiative number than the player who plays Direct Hit.

The only card one does not have to announce to play is the Sabotage Card as stated on page 23.

Note: This is "Twilight Imperium 3" and not "Magic: The Gathering". Rules cannot simply be transfered from one game to the other.

If you have the lower Initiative and play Emergency Repairs to fix your ships after assigning damage then the Direct Hit cannot be played as their is no damaged ship. It does depend on the Initiative order as the rules state for Action Card playing.

I concurr with LovingAngel and Tawnos. If both are played "simultaneously" per the rules for playing Action Cards, it would depend on who has the lower initiative order. (Or, in the odd case of identical initiative order (such as someone copying the Naalu ability), the Speaker chooses which one to do first).

Direct hit says to play immediatly after a ship is damaged. It would be before the ship could be repaired. The repair card has no priorty writing ie. immediatly before a ship is destroyed ect. plus the damage card is played as part of the attack.

Emergency Repairs is at any time so their is a priority play that has to be done here as stated before. Direct Hit may have different wording on its to play part but that does not mean it always takes precedence over the other when it comes to Initiative order.

Tawnos is correct. Yes, Direct Hit! has a specific time it can be played. But since Emergency Repairs says "at any time", this "any time" COULD include right after a ship has taken a casualty. Which would mean that the Direct Hit! and Emergency Repairs are being played simultaneously. Just because the former has a specific time to play doesn't give it "priority" - priority in this case is determined by initiative.

Edit: Stupid new forum messed up my quoting boundaries. =P

Yellow scores two hits on Blue.

Blue decides to put both hits on his two Dreadnoughts, because he would prefer not to loose troops.

OK so far

Yellow plays the card Direct Hit which states "Destroy one damaged Dreadnought or War Sun. Play immediately after the ship has been damaged and then Blue plays emergency repairs on the fleet".

This is a tricky one. Since you cannot play cards in TI as response I would say that the cards should be played in time they are declared by the players. If a disagreement occurs refer to Initiative of the cards

A thought just occured to me. If Emergency Repairs says it can be "played at any time," then couldn't that player just say he plays it immediately before the Direct Hit is resolved, thus negating that AC?

I'm not syaing I agree with that ruling, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

That's like stepping into a time machine: "I play this card in the past". I wouldn't allow that.

If you know you have the initiative order in your favor then you can say. " I will damage this DN and then This DN and then Play Emergency Repairs." You should not wait for them but declare everything at the same time that way there is no discrepency. Once they have declared their Direct Hit then it should be too late as you now know what the AC they had is and it would not be fair to go back and redo the scene.

The other player can always announce that he is going to play and AC and not say what it is so that the player with lower initiative plays his first. If the ship is then fixed with Emergency reparis the Direct Hit AC has no valid choice and cannot be played and will stay in the playres hand of AC's.

It is a timing issue that can slow the game down but needs to be done correctly if you do not want to get into a card arguments like this with players.

always check Initiative order and play through the scene by the order.

Emergency Repairs is at any time so even if you have to assign 4 damage you could do it all to the same 2 DN and not have them destroyed. I assign 1 damage to each DN then play Emergency repairs and then assign to more. This would be a legal play and if the other player had a Direct Hit then he could play it and destroy a Ship.

we always resolved this issue that an "emergency repair" cancels a "direct hit" and a "direct hit" cancels an "emergency repair", so the ships would be still damaged after these cards.

it may not coincide with the exact wording of the rules, but i think its fair...

I think most everyone here believes that turning the game into a "race" or using out-of-game timing factors is against the spirit and nature of the game - and would lead to great frustration if there was a more contemplative player at the game. So any solution that allows Yellow to jump up and say "haha! Direct Hit! I said it first! Now there's nothing you can do about it!" while Blue was shuffling through his AC quickly looking for good card to play, but wasn't as fast on the draw.

However, mandating that every time you play an AC you have to announce it I feel would slow the game to a crawl. Especially if someone is playing as Gollum, er, I mean the Yssarill (either because he's the one playing with great frequency, or he's the one shuffling through his massive stack trying to figure out what you're doing and how to cancel it). However, the fact that it's in the rules (I didn't notice that, thank you to those you pointed it out) is a compelling arguement to do so.

Are my fears valid? Who has actually tried the "announce before play" mechanic and how has it worked out for you? I'd very much like to hear.

Dayne said:

Except the thing is, if you are playing by the rules, one isn't really being played in response to the other, at least not directly.

When you want to play a card, you don't just say "I'm playing Card A". You say "I want to play a card, does anyone else?" That response/reaction is allowed by the rules, and then all cards played at that time are done in Initiative order.

In practice, most people prefer the shorter version of "I'm playing Card A". However, as you are bypassing the rules to do this, and not allowing people the chance to play their own "simultaneous" cards, you would need to allow them the opportunity at that point.

In this case, if a player is playing a card at that time, it's pretty obvious what it is he wants to play, but still, the sequence is there.

For what it's worth, this issue WAS officially ruled on at one point, probably in the old forum. It probably should be in the FAQ, as it comes up a lot.

sigmazero13 said:

That is what I said to...

sigmazero13 said:

I think that a simple ruling like the one in Cosmic encounter could help to time conflicts.

1. Attacker's card resolution.

2. Defender's card resolution

3. Resolution of other players cards in Iniatiative order

Dayne said:

I suppose that could work, but I don't think it's necessary, as the rules already cover how to handle timing conflicts. I don't think they need to be changed, especially not in a way that the attacker gets an automatic advantage.

#3 would almost never apply, because there are very few, if any, ACs that can be applied in someone elses's space battler.

I think it works fine as is. If you want to play a card, you announce that you are playing a card. Other players can also choose to play cards simultaneously, and then you reveal the cards and resolve them in initiative order.

Or, to simplify things (as that sequence is usually unnecessary), just allow simultaneous reactions that are always resolved in initiative order.

When you say Initiative order are you taking about playing tactical actions with your strategic initiative? That doesn’t make sense to me. I think that the card that states ‘immediately’ after and the fact that it is within you attack makes it trump the repair card. I really think that is why they used those semantics in the card.

And to drive my point home... the definition of immediately

1 : in direct connection or relation : directly <the parties immediately involved in the case> <the house immediately beyond this one>
2 : without interval of time : straightway <I'll make that call immediately>

#2 states WITHOUT interval of time, how can you 'play at any TIME' in between that.

All in the semantics.

ryolacap said:

No, by initiative order, I'm referring to the rules on how Action cards are played

Per page 23 of the rules:

"If a player wishes to play an Action Card, he must publically announce that he wishes to play an Action Card. Then other players, at that time, may announce that they also wish to play an Action Card. After all players have been given the opportunity to announce that they are playing Action Cards, all the Action Cards are revealed and resolved in order of play."

Thus, if Player A wishes to play Direct Hit!, he says "I want to play a card". The other players (most likely the opponent in the battle) then can decide if they want to play a card. If so, Player B (who wants to use Emergency Repairs) would say "I also want to play a card". At this point, neither card is revealed yet.

After all players have decided if they want to play cards, all cards are revealed, and then you resolve them "in order of play" - ie, initiative order.

Thus, if Player B has a lower initiative number than Player A, Emergency Repairs would trigger first, repairing the ship. Direct Hit! no longer has a legal target, and so cannot be resolved. (I can't remember if the ruling is that it's not played, or if it's played without effect).

This is how cards are played according to the rules. Yes, it is applied "immediately", but the "immediately" isn't resolved until it's that players turn to resolve his card. Thus, Emergency Repairs could end up going first, if Player B goes first in initiative order.

I agree with that... I am answering the actual question, in which he stated the repair card was 'in response to' and not played first. I don't understand where the different initiative is coming from. I think you are saying there isn't one(unless maybe they are playing the action cards wrong), but answering the question in general.

He is stating that 'in response' he is trying to fix his ships that should be destroyed, and doing so because it says 'anytime' of course I am not sure what "goes on the stack" means

So, if he plays direct hit before the repair bye bye ship ,Yellow is correct. (I think the confusion is that the action cards are not being played correctly)

I guess the "problem" (for lack of a better word) I have with the original post is that it's not clear on how the "actual" AC sequence is being played out - ie, it just says Direct Hit was played, but it's not indicating if the player just said "I'm playing Direct Hit!", or if the real sequence outlined above is being used.

I ask, because if using the rules as written, if Yellow was wanting to play DH, he'll say he wants to play a card at the appropriate time. Although it's not revealed, it will most likely be pretty obvious what card it is -> he wants to blow up the ship. Thus, Blue COULD react with the ER card simultaneously by declaring, and then both cards will be revealed an played.

If the sequence is NOT being followed, and Yellow just says "I'm playing DH", thus not giving other players the chance to react according to the rules, then you are in some muddy ground, because Yellow "unfairly" denied Blue the chance to respond in the official manner, and in that case, I would say that he could still play ER, and then resolve them as if the official sequence is done.

However, if the sequence IS being followed, Yellow played the card by announcing "I'm playing a card", nobody responds, and he then reveals it, then I would agree - at that point it is too late. If Blue had a chance to respond in the official sequence, and chose not to, he cannot then choose to respond AFTER the card is resolved. In this case, Blue's card would have to wait until Yellow's is resolved, which would mean his ship blows up and there's nothing left to repair.

So I guess my point is, it all depends on whether Blue was given ample opportunity to play his ER card "simultaneously", which would then depend on initiative order, or if Yellow denied him the chance to do so by skipping the "declaring" part.

Does that make sense?

In either case, there's no "magic"-style stack. Either one card is fully resolved before the next is allowed to be played, or they are played simultaneously and resolution is in "initiative" order.

sigmazero13 said:

I agree. It may not be quite what the rules say, but I think this is the best way to play so that people can be given time to react to things without being anal about the sequence of play.