This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557438
To answer specifically the question in the title, I will +1 the QtRef example. I don't get why I can flip an HA to take a valid response action but can't flip an HA to take a suspends play action.

To answer more broadly as far as what I think actions/responses need (And I say this without having time to reread the relevant glossary sections): A consistent model for what happens when actions fail. That is, what happens when the conditions necessary for initiating an action are no longer present when the action starts resolving. Is the action now prevented by another card? Are one or more targets no longer in play? Did the target have to be "your" card, but is now your opponent's card?

Basically, one of two things can happen here: either the action is completely undone without any costs being paid (this is how HAs work, I think), or all of the costs remain paid and the action just doesn't happen. This of course begs the question of "what is a cost?" especially in light of gametext such as "Discard Incident after any use."

Even more complicated are when an action has multiple subactions. Say action A has subactions x and y. If x fails, does y still happen? If y fails, would that ever retroactively undo x?

As a side note, I wonder how much of the weirdness in this area exists because of Computer Crash.
User avatar
 
By Ausgang (Gerald Sieber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#557439
I've just read over the actions entry in the glossary. These are the things I find confusing or problematic (just the tip of the iceberg):
  • Steps of an action (like creating a combat pile) also being considered as actions. Meaning, the term "action" refers to parts of the game turn structure AND things players actively do (as an action). Intuitively, I mostly consider stuff I do as an action, not what the game itself does.
  • The whole definition about what is considered a valid response ultimately sounds arbitrary.
  • Defining targets for an action that are basically the result of the action during its initiation. Especially referring to downloading here: Basically I download the card as part of the initiation but it's not downloaded yet :shifty:
  • I "like" how many cards that see zero play are used as a reference for examples. :)
  • Sometimes-like-this-sometimes-like-that-rulings; example (emphasis mine):
    If a condition for an action becomes invalid before the action resolves, for any reason other than the activation of a hidden agenda (e.g., through the play of another card in a Manheim effect "hiccup"), it has no effect on the initiation.
  • The way timing of actions work is nebulous. Players alternate initiating actions (let's call them regular actions), but it is unclear whether a regular action is consumed by a just action.
Overall, there are too many different things in the game that are referred to by the same terminology (basically everything that happens is an action). There probably needs to be a default template how actions are operated by the players. Many rules manuals use a visual chart.

How timing works, when responses can be made, is a big problem in my opinion. Stack play might be a solution, but then the three steps of an action need to be crystal clear (especially about costs). Lack of consistency is a problem too.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#557440
PantsOfTheTalShiar wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:13 am As a side note, I wonder how much of the weirdness in this area exists because of Computer Crash.
A lot, although some research a couple months ago indicated that it's not just Computer Crash (which is honestly what I thought).

Thanks for these thoughts, everyone! This is very helpful. Please keep them coming!

P.S. (And Pants, no need to dig up your post about dilemma resolution and the action rules from a couple months ago for this thread-- I already dug it up and posted it to the R.C.)
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557488
My memory from years and years ago was basically that all this action/valid response stuff grew out of "what can i do with all these [Int] while attempting a mission???"

Emergency Transporter Armbands being a huge culprit in all that. As well as Near-warp Transport. Decipher finally clamping down on "doing all kinds of crazy stuff to avoid dilemmas" is where I recall a lot of this "you can only do stuff if it is a valid response" came from, and I don't think "suspend play" was even a thing yet in the game.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#557490
Takket wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:07 pm My memory from years and years ago was basically that all this action/valid response stuff grew out of "what can i do with all these [Int] while attempting a mission???"
Largely, yes. The initial rule appears to have been that any interrupt could play whenever -- essentially at suspends-play speed -- leading to the Emergency Transporter Armbands issue, where players played ETA/Near-Warp Transport while facing a dilemma to escape before failing.

This led to Decipher, in some of its earliest rules documents (c.f. the December 1996 FAQ), developing the valid response rule: you can only interrupt a dilemma encounter in progress with something that directly modifies the dilemma encounter.

But you were still allowed to play interrupts between dilemmas, and many did just that. This was changed without prior notice or obvious advertisement in (of all things) the Current Rulings Document of October 25th, 1999.

Group actions already existed by then, though (see Glossary 1.6, released the month before), and the rule change to prevent interrupts from playing between sub-actions was arguably motivated by making interrupts consistent with all other actions. I mean, sure you were once able to play interrupts during mission attempts... but you've never been able to pause a mission attempt mid-attempt, start and complete a separate mission attempt with a different crew elsewhere, beam people up and down, move ships around, and finally "unpause" the original mission attempt (now with new people in the team). Some of the ideas that have been floated in this thread could allow that, which would be quite a shift.

So, yeah, developments in action rules have often, maybe always, been tied to specific balance/consistency concerns around mission attempts.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#557518
Also worth noting that while MTG doesn't call them "valid responses", they *do* have an equivalent in their stack rules - they just word it as "you can only play a sorcery if the stack is empty". :)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557596
AllenGould wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:36 pm Also worth noting that while MTG doesn't call them "valid responses", they *do* have an equivalent in their stack rules - they just word it as "you can only play a sorcery if the stack is empty". :)
Which is what the Order keyword in 2e does, basically, right?
 
By Davey1983
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557621
I had to read the linked article to get the '6th edition' reference.

Put me down for that option. I have read through that glossary entry more times than I can count, and I still don't have a good grasp on the timing/actions/valid response/Hidden Agenda issue.

Simplify it so that it can fit easily in a rulebook, and then ban/errata any cards that are causing problems.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557628
BCSWowbagger wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:34 pm This led to Decipher, in some of its earliest rules documents (c.f. the December 1996 FAQ), developing the valid response rule: you can only interrupt a dilemma encounter in progress with something that directly modifies the dilemma encounter.

But you were still allowed to play interrupts between dilemmas, and many did just that. This was changed without prior notice or obvious advertisement in (of all things) the Current Rulings Document of October 25th, 1999.
Trivia time: do any of the old veterans remember why the rules were changed to prevent interrupts between dilemmas? Bonus points for knowing the specific events leading up to it...

The short answer was to kill Thought Fire/Brain Drain lockout decks. Those decks had been around since '97 or so, so what changed?

That's the longer answer. It may have been part of Decipher's pre-Worlds prep (they also gave all '99 Worlds finalists a suite of [Ref] cards and other bullets from Rules of Acquisition, even though that expansion hadn't released yet).

But I also have a sneaking suspicion that Decipher realized the old rules were untenable. At the Bolarus IX regional that year (held in Vancouver), it was ruled that the player attempting the mission could choose their "between-dilemma" action as "I face the next dilemma". This was upheld at the Seattle Open a few weeks later, which was on October 16 that year -- a tournament which attracted 50 or so players, and had Decipher staff among the judges. (I remember the date since it was right before my birthday, and winning that tournament was about as good a gift as I've ever gotten!)

As I understood the timing rules, this effectively prevented an opponent from playing *any* interrupts between dilemmas: you could always choose to face the next dilemma, and your opponent couldn't get anything in first (since both "between-dilemma" actions would happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is got to choose). So it really became "only you can play interrupts between dilemmas," which isn't really defensible.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#557630
^ You're a treasure chest of information about the reasons for puzzling Decipher decisions and I look forward to all your posts for that reason.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557730
What problems do you see in the action/response rules?

What confuses you about them? What frustrates you about them? What are some situations where you've had to read actions - step 1: initiation (or whatever) and come away more confused than ever?

On the other hand, there's no need to be entirely negative. What do you think works well in the current action rules? Are you your local playgroup's expert on "cards played as a cost" and "valid response"?

Alright, that's both esoteric and vague, so it's a perfect 1EFQ from the Rules Manager, and I'll leave it there. We look forward to reading your responses!
The short answer is that it isn't like the MTG action/response rules which, to me, make the most sense.

I am continuously confused and probably am playing wrong the ideas of when I can act, what I can do, and honestly what is a "VALID RESPONSE". I get that alot of that was written to fit some of the cards, particularly in premier, and maybe also to differentiate itself from MTG. But, at this point, it's so frickin confusing that it really has been a barrier to new people i've tried to bring in.

My honest conter-question is what would be wrong with doing it just like magic? Spell speed and stacking are the way to go here.

1. Any action can be interrupted with an interrupt card or activated ability.
2. Actions stack.
3. Top of the stack resolves first.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#557732
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:07 pm My honest conter-question is what would be wrong with doing it just like magic? Spell speed and stacking are the way to go here.

1. Any action can be interrupted with an interrupt card or activated ability.
2. Actions stack.
3. Top of the stack resolves first.
Bear in mind that while that sounds nice and simple, Magic spends *thirty pages* writing out exactly how those three steps work in practice. And that's literally just "spells, abilities, and effects". Turn order is another 13 pages.

But I think the issue isn't "can't we change the rules" (because yup, we could!), but "how much power does that change add to the game". Opening up that response window means a *lot* of things become possible, and at least some of them are gonna be a *lot* better than what you can do today.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#557735
AllenGould wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:33 pm
stressedoutatumc wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:07 pm My honest conter-question is what would be wrong with doing it just like magic? Spell speed and stacking are the way to go here.

1. Any action can be interrupted with an interrupt card or activated ability.
2. Actions stack.
3. Top of the stack resolves first.
Bear in mind that while that sounds nice and simple, Magic spends *thirty pages* writing out exactly how those three steps work in practice. And that's literally just "spells, abilities, and effects". Turn order is another 13 pages.

But I think the issue isn't "can't we change the rules" (because yup, we could!), but "how much power does that change add to the game". Opening up that response window means a *lot* of things become possible, and at least some of them are gonna be a *lot* better than what you can do today.
Fair enough, but it's also fair to say that MTG is far more complicated and diverse in terms of card abilities to consider and interpret how they interact with one another. Every new ability adds to the complexity of the stacking mechanic and STCCG just really doesn't have that, tbh. The sticking point for STCCG in my opinion has always been valid responses and the vagary of when you can and cannot interrupt things.

I think a more "magic-like" system is also more naturalistic. Its very weird not to be able to play a card when I want to play it because it doesn't fall into the games convoluted action order and valid response descriptions. Sometimes it makes it feel less of an actual game against someone and more like a game with myself sitting next to someone. Can I play this card? Yes, but not now because it's not a valid response to my action and it's not time for your action yet. Okay, but the card I want to play is in response to you playing yours, and it seems like that makes it valid. Yes, I see your point so you are both correct but in the game sense incorrect. So you can play it but later when it no longer carries relevance.

Yes, there will be griefing, but the advantage that STCCG has is the CC, which can respond immediately as they pop up. I think the ultimate goal is to make the game more accessible for new players and more interesting for veterans. This question strikes a chord because it's the hardest and least logical part of it. I played way back in the day, then picked it back up like a year or so ago. I found out that my group had this part all wrong, but even getting explanations by all the fine folks here (someone even made me a chart to explain it) it still was insanely difficult to wrap my head around and explain well. And not to toot horns, but I'm a teacher, I'm good at my job which is to wrap my head around concepts and explain them in a way that makes sense.

So I guess all I'm really saying is two things.

1. It's weird that this part of the game is so weird.
2. Changing/updating it probably would only be good even if there was a bad period where some people exposed the problems inherent.
User avatar
 
By PantsOfTheTalShiar (Jason Tang)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#557740
So one of the things that is confusing is what exactly is an action. You can define it at either a high level or a low level: either an "action" is 1) something a player chooses to do (play a card, move, attempt a mission) or something the game chooses to do (triggered abilities); or an "action" is 2) literally any change in game state.

I think our current system is 2), but there have been things you have said, James, that suggest that you don't think that every change in game state is an "action." Nonetheless, 1E is designed to support responses to actual changes in game state and not just high-level actions. Off the top of my head, Escape Pod responds to a ship being destroyed, and Valuable Prisoner responds to a personnel being killed.

Magic on the other hand, since 6th Edition, takes approach 1). You don't have a window to respond to specific changes in game state, you have a window to respond to each card played (spell played) and each activated or triggered ability, and those spells and abilities can each cause multiple changes to game state. That's usually fine, since by the time you can respond to a spell or ability, you usually know its targets and what its effects will be, so it's usually no problem to respond at a high level.

In Magic, it's still possible to modify specific changes in game state by using replacement effects, but that doesn't give you an additional response window. The replacement effect just needs to be in place before the effect you want to modify resolves. So THEORETICALLY it's possible to incorporate low-level responses in a system of high-level responses if you implement the low-level responses as replacement effects, but this can be pretty unintuitive.

This is exactly what happened with MTG's Regeneration ability. Pre-Sixth Edition, regeneration was not a replacement effect, but was simply a response you could make when your creature dying ("on the way to the graveyard"). Activating a creature's regeneration ability at that time would prevent it from dying. This was a response to a low-level change in game state, so it didn't fit with 6th Ed's system of high-level responses and it had to become a replacement effect. Instead of regenerating your creature when it died, you had to anticipate it dying and set up a single-use "regeneration shield" that would be consumed when the creature would actually die. That turned out to be confusing, and didn't actually feel like regeneration anymore, so WotC ultimately stopped making cards with regeneration.

(For more info on Regeneration read this reddit thread or search for "mark rosewater regeneration" or similar.)

So anyway, if STCCG tried to switch from low-level to high-level, Escape Pod would have to be rewritten as "Plays on a ship. When ship is destroyed, Escape pod saves entire crew..." and presumably there would be some window for responses during battle (perhaps each damage marker goes on the stack?). Then presumably you could also play Escape Pod in response to a dilemma encounter, but then you probably need to keep the part of dilemma resolution where you choose targets and check requirements during initiation, which currently makes "multi-part dilemmas" confusing.

tl;dr: "Just make it like Magic" is not straightforward and requires a major shift in mindset.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation