- Beta Quadrant
 -  
#560244
BCSWowbagger wrote: Yep. Check Rulebook: Battle: Initiating Battle: Sidebar: Cancelled Battles.
Yep, there it is. Missed that one somehow. Seems like a ruling by fiat rather than following logically from the rest of the battle/action rules, but the text you pointed me to is clear as day.

So here are my attempts at the rest of them... I anxiously await the rest of the conversation to see how much else I got wrong... but I like rules-lawyering and thought it'd be helpful to contribute an amateur's perspective to complement those of the former/current rulesmasters.
18. How does Quite a Coincidence *really* work? Notably, it plays "on" a personnel indicating the personnel play reached the "results" step. On the other hand, most "just played" cards (e.g. Quinn, Amanda Rogers, etc.) occur during responses. "Quite a Coincidence"; isn't it?
Nothing to add to James's response, by the wording of the card it goes on the personnel before it's entered play. Odd but I don't see any other way to interpret it.
19. I attempt to play a card during my opponent's turn but my opponent has 211th Rule of Acquisition on a Ferengi Trading Post. Before I pay the costs to play my card, additional waiters show up on the trading post (say by Miles' Near Warp Transport occurring in response to paying another cost), am I obligated to discard more cards? More generally, are costs for an action ever "locked in"? If so, when?
I would say yes -- by initiating the action, you are obligated to pay the associated costs. In this case, the "lock in" happens during step 1 of subaction of discarding cards to the 211th rule, when you select targets (the cards to discard). In your scenario, the Near-Warp Transport happens before that, so I have to account for the extra waiters. If you waited until I started discarding cards, it would be too late.
20. My opponent plays Wall of Ships to download an Enterprise. I want to reveal Computer Crash. Since the resolution of Wall of Ships consists of several subactions (e.g. downloading a ship then discarding the event), why can't I wait until the resolution of Wall of Ships to reveal Computer Crash? In which case, does Computer Crash still apply retroactively to the initiation of Wall of Ships?
Allen explained this one, if you wait until the discard, revealing Computer Crash is no longer a valid response.

I answered 21 along with #3 above.

One other last word on the Crosis question, about whether you move to the next time window upon initiation of a "just" action, or resolution. We can frame similar questions with other phases of the game. For instance, say I decide to move to the end-of-turn phase by attempting to count down an expiring Black Hole and using its text to instead pull in the Bajoran Wormhole next door. My opponent plays Bajoran Wormhole from hand, nullifying the Black Hole. I initiated an end-of-turn action, but it never resolved. Am I committed to ending my turn, or can I still execute some other orders?

Or: I attempt to move to the "execute orders" phase by discarding Defend Homeworld to download a SECURITY card; you respond by flipping Computer Crash to invalidate the download. Am I still in the "play a card" phase of my turn, since my order failed to resolve, or did the act of initiating the order advance me to "execute orders." Is the hidden-agenda timing relevant here (since I never even got around to initiation), and would the answer be different if, say, my first order is to try to move someone out of The Nexus, and you respond with Lure of the Nexus to prevent that?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Architect
Community Contributor
#560247
FranklinKenter wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:37 pm 19. I attempt to play a card during my opponent's turn but my opponent has 211th Rule of Acquisition on a Ferengi Trading Post. Before I pay the costs to play my card, additional waiters show up on the trading post (say by Miles' Near Warp Transport occurring in response to paying another cost), am I obligated to discard more cards? More generally, are costs for an action ever "locked in"? If so, when?
Based on the exactly zero rules text that establishes this, and the exactly zero precedent I'm familiar with for this situation or an analogous one, I would rule that:

(1) the paying costs step is a sub-action (because every change in game state is an action),

(2) you must present cards for discard as part of the initiation of the action

(3) your opponent can raise the costs as a response, which forces you to select more targets as the costs go up

(4) because the target selection of the parent action (the original card play) has passed and you are in the costs step, you are no longer allowed to "bail out" of the card play. If you can pay the increased cost, you must pay the increased cost. (This is all paid when you hit the resolution step of the paying costs sub-action.)

(5) If costs are raised so high that you are unable to pay them, the initiation of your card play fails for inability to pay costs. Your card returns to hand and you don't have to discard anything.

Without knowing what the others said, I can imagine they said two things completely different from mine and from each other and it could still have as solid a basis as that did. But I kinda like my answer.
20. My opponent plays Wall of Ships to download an Enterprise. I want to reveal Computer Crash. Since the resolution of Wall of Ships consists of several subactions (e.g. downloading a ship then discarding the event), why can't I wait until the resolution of Wall of Ships to reveal Computer Crash? In which case, does Computer Crash still apply retroactively to the initiation of Wall of Ships?
Revealing Wall of Ships has to happen in the response step. You can't interrupt an action in progress with a [HA] flip unless the [HA] is a valid response.

BONUS QUESTION: Since [DL] is suspends play, and suspends play doesn't give a crap about what step it plays in (we really should limit it to the responses step), there is a theoretical world where you could do this: your Away Team gets stopped by a dilemma. Opponent suspends play with U.S.S. Enterprise (Chain of Command) to download Wall of Ships during the "just after" step. You then suspend play with Vic Fontaine to download Quinn (it's still the "just after" step) in the middle of Wall of Ships' resolution step, after the download but before the discard.

If this convoluted scenario somehow came to pass -- and I welcome a more realistic scenario I can sink my teeth into -- then I think that our ruling last year on Empathic Touch would control. (See actions - step 3: results, and this thread more generally.) Quinn can nullify Wall of Ships (read: prevent Wall of Ships from resolving any further effects), but can't prevent any effects from Wall of Ships that are already in the process of resolving.

The download will still succeed, Wall of Ships will still discard, and you'll lose your Quinn for no real reason. (Obviously, playing Quinn at the correct time -- during the response step -- would prevent the whole thing from playing out.)
21. When does effects that "play a card" require a normal card play? For instance, Energy Vortex appears to require the opponent to use appropriate resources (e.g. a normal card play). However, cards like The Office of Dixon Hill and Organ Theft seem to be that the cards played don't use a normal card play. Further, if I play a card with my normal card play and you use Energy Vortex, isn't may normal card play "used" at that point? Maybe this question really is: Is the glossary entry for Energy Vortex accurate?[/list]
I'm confused by the premise of your question. I don't see any obligation (on the card or in the Glossary entry) to use similar resources in my replacement play. (I think we know it's a replacement play, not an additional play, because it says "instead.") If you Vortex my normal card play, I don't see anything that prevents me from playing a different card "for free", then coming back and playing my original card play using my normal card play (having satisfied the conditions of Energy Vortex).

If Energy Vortex was ever good, it certainly lost its goodness in my eyes the moment free plays became a normal thing.

Hooray! I did them all! I win a no-prize! Now let's see what Allen and Rachmaninoff thought.
My signature requires me to say that, yes, the glossary entry for Energy Vortex is accurate for Energy Vortex. Any specific Glossary ruling on a card that appears to violate more general rules (or flagrantly does) is "accurate" for that card.

However, since we like consistent rules, Glossary entries that blatantly contradict more general rules ('sup Conundrum?) tend to get put on the Rules Committee's Rolodex Of Shame and addressed eventually.

I say all that as preface, but actually I don't think Energy Vortex is wrong (on this specific point). It uses "instead", implying that the second card play replaces the first
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Architect
Community Contributor
#560251
Rachmaninoff wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:37 pm One other last word on the Crosis question, about whether you move to the next time window upon initiation of a "just" action, or resolution. We can frame similar questions with other phases of the game. For instance, say I decide to move to the end-of-turn phase by attempting to count down an expiring Black Hole and using its text to instead pull in the Bajoran Wormhole next door. My opponent plays Bajoran Wormhole from hand, nullifying the Black Hole. I initiated an end-of-turn action, but it never resolved. Am I committed to ending my turn, or can I still execute some other orders?
While I think this is a valiant attempt to draw a useful and illustrative analogy to the Crosis situation, I don't think it quite works, because this isn't actually how the phases of a turn work. I'm pretty sure that what actually is supposed to happen when you advance from orders phase --> end-of-turn phase is you announce, "I advance to my end-of-turn phase." (This is an action, technically: there are no valid responses to it, but opponent might suspend play to get in one more order before your advance resolves.) After advancing, you then initiate end-of-turn actions.

In practice, very few players actually declare the current phase of their turn. They simply do an end-of-turn action, and treat the advancement step as implicit. That works fine as a shortcut. But what's really happening "under the hood" is there is first an action (which resolves) to advance the turn phase, and then there is an action (which gets nullified or whatever) to do something in the new turn phase. Nullifying the second action does not roll back the first, even if a player is implicitly doing both at once.

At least, that's always been my understanding.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#560258
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 9:02 pm
Rachmaninoff wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:37 pm One other last word on the Crosis question, about whether you move to the next time window upon initiation of a "just" action, or resolution. We can frame similar questions with other phases of the game. For instance, say I decide to move to the end-of-turn phase by attempting to count down an expiring Black Hole and using its text to instead pull in the Bajoran Wormhole next door. My opponent plays Bajoran Wormhole from hand, nullifying the Black Hole. I initiated an end-of-turn action, but it never resolved. Am I committed to ending my turn, or can I still execute some other orders?
While I think this is a valiant attempt to draw a useful and illustrative analogy to the Crosis situation, I don't think it quite works, because this isn't actually how the phases of a turn work. I'm pretty sure that what actually is supposed to happen when you advance from orders phase --> end-of-turn phase is you announce, "I advance to my end-of-turn phase." (This is an action, technically: there are no valid responses to it, but opponent might suspend play to get in one more order before your advance resolves.) After advancing, you then initiate end-of-turn actions.

In practice, very few players actually declare the current phase of their turn. They simply do an end-of-turn action, and treat the advancement step as implicit. That works fine as a shortcut. But what's really happening "under the hood" is there is first an action (which resolves) to advance the turn phase, and then there is an action (which gets nullified or whatever) to do something in the new turn phase. Nullifying the second action does not roll back the first, even if a player is implicitly doing both at once.

At least, that's always been my understanding.
I have the same conception of the turn structure - there is a discrete, irrevocable move from one phase to another, marked by a change of game state/action (even if it's unannounced 99% of the time), and you can only initiate an action if the current phase allows it. (And I framed those scenarios expecting this as the answer.)

But this was the template for my Crosis answer, about advancing from the "just" window to the "other valid responses" window. There is a difference in game state in these two windows (some responses are allowed in one but not the other), so is there not an action marking the transition? You can only initiate Assimilate This! if you have already passed into the "other valid responses" window... in which case it's too late to play a "just" response like Mandy (even if Assimilate This! is nullified). Technically a player should announce that they are moving to the next window (perhaps by asking the opponent if they have any more "just" responses), but in practice it's done implicitly.

If the situations are not analogous, then my understanding of "just" actions is most likely wrong. Is the difference that there are not separate "just"/non-"just" phases, but instead only a restriction that "just" actions have to take place before any non-"just" action resolves? Do the transitions between the phases of an action (initiation/responses/resolution, and "just"/other/"just before" subphases of responses) happen differently than the transitions between the phases of a turn (play/order/draw)?

[Apologies for throwing a bunch of questions back and adding even more to the thread -- but I imagine this kind of discussion was probably Franklin's intent]
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
1E World Champion 2021
Architect
Community Contributor
#560424
Rachmaninoff wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 9:29 pm I have the same conception of the turn structure - there is a discrete, irrevocable move from one phase to another, marked by a change of game state/action (even if it's unannounced 99% of the time), and you can only initiate an action if the current phase allows it. (And I framed those scenarios expecting this as the answer.)

But this was the template for my Crosis answer, about advancing from the "just" window to the "other valid responses" window. There is a difference in game state in these two windows (some responses are allowed in one but not the other), so is there not an action marking the transition? You can only initiate Assimilate This! if you have already passed into the "other valid responses" window... in which case it's too late to play a "just" response like Mandy (even if Assimilate This! is nullified). Technically a player should announce that they are moving to the next window (perhaps by asking the opponent if they have any more "just" responses), but in practice it's done implicitly.

If the situations are not analogous, then my understanding of "just" actions is most likely wrong. Is the difference that there are not separate "just"/non-"just" phases, but instead only a restriction that "just" actions have to take place before any non-"just" action resolves? Do the transitions between the phases of an action (initiation/responses/resolution, and "just"/other/"just before" subphases of responses) happen differently than the transitions between the phases of a turn (play/order/draw)?

[Apologies for throwing a bunch of questions back and adding even more to the thread -- but I imagine this kind of discussion was probably Franklin's intent]
Ah, okay, I understand your point now. That makes sense! Thank you for re-explaining; I was not taking your point earlier, even though it was stated clearly enough.

You've exposed a controversial part of my thinking that I was trying to disguise in my Question 1 avoid here (because there's no need to base an answer on a controversial opinion if you can avoid it):

I believe that all valid responses are "just" responses within the meaning of the "actions - 'just'" entry. There's no advancement from "just" to "non-just" responses in your example (in my opinion), because both Amanda and Assimilate This! are "just" responses to opponent's completed initiation of a Crosis.

The way Franklin is teasing us about his upcoming replies is making me frankly very nervous, partially because Charlie always refers to him as "Franklin Kenter, one of the smartest people I have ever met". But I'm also excited, because I heard somewhere that the best idea in 2E Bridge Crew format (making players choose between a play phase or an orders phase each turn) was Franklin's.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#561006
I'll answer my own questions first.
FranklinKenter wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:37 pm
  1. "That was cool" so I score 5 points, giving me enough points to win the game. But the opponent wishes to play Khan! to nullify those points. Do I win the game before they can play Khan!?
The intention of this question was just to set the tone and pace of the remaining questions. A "freebie" if you will. I don't disagree with the answer: You win the game before the opponent is able to respond. But I find it very puzzling: Why was the card templated this way?
[*]I attempt to play a card from my hand. Thanks to Manheim's Dimensional Door and other shenanigans, my opponent plays Masaka Transformations on me before costs are paid for playing the card. What happens to the card I was to play? Where is it? What if this occurs after costs are paid?
When I asked this question, I truly did not know the answer. But the Professor makes a good point, so I am going to steal it in part:

The entry on Manheim's Dimensional Door indicates that a card that has been played is set aside- exactly to prevent said shenanigans. I am going to extrapolate this and say this occurs as soon as the card is initiated before any said shenanigans can occur. This answers all of the questions.
[*]My opponent plays Energy Vortex on my ship I am using to report with crew. If I play another copy of the same ship, can I still report with crew? What about a different ship?
The intention of this question was to understand what "instead" really means. For instance, one model is that the card you play "instead" carries the same appointed properties as the one you were going to play (e.g., the ship you play with Energy Vortex could subsume being "the ship" for the purposes of the report with crew)

[*]I am attempting a special download, but through some string events (including say Martok Founder into Treacherous Advice), I am not able to place a card on Containment Field. Is that special download "used"? Most generally, if it comes time to pay costs for an action, and you thought you could but can't, are you obligated to pay as many as possible?
The intention of this question was to understand how costs really work. The consensus appears to be that if bec
[*]I am playing Hidden Fighter during the opponent's turn, I am supposed to discard cards toward the opponent's 211th Rule of Acquisition. While discarding cards to 211th Rule of Acquisition, the opponent gives some Treacherous Advice (again with Martok Founder). Do cards discarded this way satisfy 211th Rule of Acquisition? More generally, if something happens while paying costs for an action, do those somethings count toward the cost even if they did not necessarily occur explicitly to pay the cost?
Yeah, this one was a "no duh" question even if it's not fully supported by the rules.
[*]I suspend play with Q the Referee to download a [Ref] card. Why can't I use that same Q the Referee to download another [Ref] card before it is discarded (and repeat ad nauseam)?
I think it is clear this should not work. More on this later.

[*]My opponent plays an event, and I play Kevin Uxbridge to nullify it, is that event still considered "just played"? If so, may I play another Kevin Uxbridge to nullify the event "again" (in much the same way you can play multiple non-cumulative effects on the game target; they just don't do anything)?
I was actually very surprised by these answers. "Nullify" by definition is to discard the card (with no effect). If it has already been discarded

[*]I play Countermanda in response to an opponent's Palor Toff - Alien Trader. Furious, they nullify their own Palor Toff - Alien Trader before my Countermanda resolves (say with Gint downloading 47th Rule of Acquisition). Does my Countermanda still take effect? More generally, if an action responds to a pending effect and that effect is nullified, is the currently pending responding action cancelled?
[*]I play We Are the Borg (or Bajoran Civil War, etc.) for its download function, but the opponent reveals Computer Crash. Am I obligated to play We Are the Borg for its table function?
When a Hidden Agenda card is activated in the response step, its effect is considered retroactive to the start of the initiation of the action. So when I flip Computer Crash in response to your We Are The Borg, we don't modify the action like a normal response would; we reset the entire action, implicitly "time-traveling" back to the moment you said, "I play We Are The Borg for its download function" and redoing the entire initiation from there.
No, again citing actions - step 2: responses - Responses modifying targets or conditions: "If a hidden agenda is activated as a response to an action, all of its effects are retroactive to the start of the initiation of the action, as if the hidden agenda had already been revealed before the action was initiated. Thus, if the hidden agenda invalidates a condition for an action, the action becomes illegal. If the action was a card play, the card returns to your hand."
However, the glossary says "If a hidden agenda is activated as a response to an action, all of its effects are retroactive to the start of the initiation of the action," so that's before you choose the mode of the action. Strictly speaking, the action is not illegal, just that its modes or targets are no longer valid. The glossary does not indicate that the action is undone just just because you want to. In fact, this is how Mirror Image works; if someone reveals Mirror Image, that does not make the action illegal, it just rewinds the game to allow the opponent to choose the additional target.

Interestingly, this question is explicitly answered in the Computer Crash entry. (The answer is you are not obligated to play the card with a different mode)
[*]If I draw cards during a report with crew, am I allowed to report the cards I draw with the report with crew, if applicable? In another scenario, I start drawing cards with Sherlock Holmes, but the opponent plays Subspace Schism, reducing the total number of cards in their hand; do I still draw up to the original number? More generally, if there is a group action where an action is "unlimited" (Red Alert, report with crew, Sherlock Holmes, etc.), is the number of times the subaction is to be performed determined or chosen a priori or do you just keep doing it until you are blue in the cards?
I feel very confident that the answer to the first question is in the past is "Yes" you can, but strictly speaking, that does not feel very consistent. For example, when you download with Recruit Mercenaries, you have to specify your targets when you play the card; during the download you can't say "oh, but I want this guy too..." even if that falls under the limit. The only difference is that one has a limit and the other does not, but it seems arbitrary that in one case you have to prespecify which cards you will be reporting and the other case you do not.
[*]I score a hit during battle with my I.K.S. Pagh and intend to use Officer Exchange Program to score 5 points. But my opponent has Polarized Hull Plating to nullify the damage marker. Who wins out here? There are several considerations here. Who acts first? Does it matter who initiated battle? If I act first, can the opponent nullify my points with Polarized Hull Plating?

[*]My ship is about to be destroyed during a Borg Ship battle. I play The Needs of the Many... to nullify Borg Ship. Is my ship still destroyed? More pointedly, why would removing a "ship" from battle after the battle results been determined affect the results? Or more generally, does removing all ships (or for Q's sake, "ships") from one side of the battle automatically end the battle... even as the results are being played out?
In any other case, nullifying the source of an action after it occurs does not prevent the thing from happening. In battle, if my personnel is selected as a casualty (i.e., the dude randomly selected to die), why should it matter if your personnel magically mover away? The target has already been slated to die. For a more concrete example, consider the example in action - step 3: results, once a personnel is slated to die, changing the status of those personnel does not change the outcome. The same should apply here, once a ship is slated to receive damage, nullifying the damage doesn't change anything. Here, the dilemma (i.e., the self-controlled ship) is nullified does not change the fact that your ship is already slated to be destroyed. It is still destroyed.

[*]Back to The Needs of the Many.... This interrupt can't be played until a ship is about to be destroyed. So if I encounter a dilemma and fail a condition that results in my ship being destroyed but play The Needs of the Many... is my crew or away team stopped? If that dilemma is "God" does that change the situation? More generally, what does it mean to nullify a card after its results are "set in motion"?
I asked this question, because the wording is inconsistent.

"About to" is fairly well defined, it is most often used in the context of "about to die... [ to prevent a death]." It is clear you can't use those abilities, until, well, the personnel is about to die. Perhaps more formally, you have to wait until the subaction of death occurs, then you can use that ability. Here, the condition of The Needs of the Many... is that a ship is about to be destroyed by a dilemma. It's not a valid nullifier to the dilemma itself because the dilemma isn't destroying your ship yet- even though that is clearly how it is supposed to work.
[*]My opponent starts a download, but I reveal Computer Crash, they try to use a special download in response, but I tell them the glossary says they can't because Computer Crash is special. So instead, they play Quinn to nullify Computer Crash, but I play my Quinn to nullify their Quinn. In response, they try to use the special download again. Can they?
More directly, does the anteroactive nature of Computer Crash (because, again, it's special) apply to all derivative responses of Computer Crash?
The rules are ambiguous here. The point of the response action is to "get in before the action." The fact that Computer Crash can supersede that is strange. Hypothetically, if there was a special download for Quark's Isolinear Rods, you would not be able to download in response to Computer Crash.

[*]Why is Computer Crash special (other than because the glossary says so)? For a more concrete question, does Containment Field apply anteroactively as well? For instance, if I respond to Containment Field being revealed with a special download, am I obligated to place a card on Containment Field?
It sounds like if Computer Crash is special, then Containment Field is special too. So the answer to the last question is yes. But quite frankly, they have both outworn their welcome.
[*]I attack my opponent at a homeworld. They use Q the Referee to download Strategema in an attempt to cancel the battle. I claim that it is too late for Strategema to prevent the battle; am I correct?
I added this question because the glossary says: "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." So it appears as though responding with Strategema would be too late. As James points out, this is clearly not the intention of the card or similar cards, and it probably doesn't help that one "initates" battle and "initiates" actions though those are not on the same level of doing things.

My main takeaway from this question is that actions should be "proposed" as opposed to "initiated". That is, when you want to state a battle, you propose to initiate the battle, (Strategema enters here) then initiate the battle (D'k Tag enters here)

[*]I play Crosis. In response, my opponent plays Assimilate This!, I nullify it with Amanda Rogers. Moving to their next best response, they want to play Amanda Rogers. However, since Amanda Rogers is a "just" action whereas Assimilate This! is not, it is too late to play Amanda Rogers?
The intention of this question was to determine the true nature of the "just" rules. It is clear that the "just" rules need some ad"just"ing. However, the rules make it very confusing as there is an overemphasis on the word "just" when that is not the point. In actuality, there is a "before" response and an "after" response. Since both Amanda Rogers and Assimilate This! affect Crosis before it would take its effects, they should be allowed during the same timing window.

[*]How does Quite a Coincidence *really* work? Notably, it plays "on" a personnel indicating the personnel play reached the "results" step. On the other hand, most "just played" cards (e.g. Quinn, Amanda Rogers, etc.) occur during responses. "Quite a Coincidence"; isn't it?
Sounds like there is an agreement that this card should be reworded. I agree, so I'll just leave it at that.

[*]I attempt to play a card during my opponent's turn but my opponent has 211th Rule of Acquisition on a Ferengi Trading Post. Before I pay the costs to play my card, additional waiters show up on the trading post (say by Miles' Near Warp Transport occurring in response to paying another cost), am I obligated to discard more cards? More generally, are costs for an action ever "locked in"? If so, when?

[*]My opponent plays Wall of Ships to download an Enterprise. I want to reveal Computer Crash. Since the resolution of Wall of Ships consists of several subactions (e.g. downloading a ship then discarding the event), why can't I wait until the resolution of Wall of Ships to reveal Computer Crash? In which case, does Computer Crash still apply retroactively to the initiation of Wall of Ships?
The intention of this question was to understand how far the retroactive nature of Computer Crash really is and also the nature of group actions. I am not so sure that got through, and the wording of the question made it clear I was trying to angle something, so that did not help.

In a futile attempt to make a more concrete scenario. Suppose my opponent plays Hidden Fighter to download a ship and Establish Landing Protocols. Now, for the sake of this example, pretend these are technically two separate downloads (one can debate that question for another day, but please use your imagination... these are two separate downloads, one after another). To be as mean as possible, I am okay with them downloading the ship as long as I can keep it on the planet. So I permit them to download the ship, but then in response to the second download, I reveal Computer Crash. Technically, we are in the results step of Hidden Fighter, so as the glossary is written, Computer Crash would not be retroäctive to Hidden Fighter.

Ok, so now let us supposed that it is retroäctive, so Hidden Fighter is undone. Then, one can concoct examples where it is unclear how far back you go. Take for (another futile) attempt, The Office of Dixon Hill. I request the item with Assign Mission Specialists and download two mission specialists but then as I announce my card draw into a download (say with the Office itself), my opponent reveals Computer Crash. Does that Computer Crash affect my Assign Mission Specialists too since the draw into a download was subaction of requesting the item?

In the end, it appears as though the philosophy Allen mentioned similar to "intuitively a hidden agenda is always in play... you just choose to reveal it" should run true. You shouldn't be able to run things both ways even in mystery. In which case, the hidden agenda should be revealed as early as practical.
[*]When does effects that "play a card" require a normal card play? For instance, Energy Vortex appears to require the opponent to use appropriate resources (e.g. a normal card play). However, cards like The Office of Dixon Hill and Organ Theft seem to be that the cards played don't use a normal card play. Further, if I play a card with my normal card play and you use Energy Vortex, isn't may normal card play "used" at that point? Maybe this question really is: Is the glossary entry for Energy Vortex accurate?[/list]
The entry on Energy Vortex reads: "But if you have already used your normal card play this turn and play a Doorway card which your opponent interrupts with Energy Vortex, you may not play an Event card instead." So it appears as though Energy Vortex does not "enable" a card play in the usual sense. To put things in comparison, Devidian Door does not let me report a card "for free" but it is understood that such a card play does not use up my normal card play; but yet, Energy Vortex instructs me "[play] a different [ card ]" It just seems inconsistent with no clear delineation. I believe for consistency, the entry for Energy Vortex is wrong.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#561009
Based on the answers, here is an attempt at a more comprehensive rewrite of the "action" entries (action- required excluded). There will probably be a lot of discussion based on the examples provided.


Functional proposed changes:

Seemingly large, but not as impactful changes:

Computer Crash et al. have their own "timing window" that occurs during action sequence when conditions are checked. The "causality loop" nature of the current hidden agenda rules can cause some funny issues. Further, it is currently unclear if activating a hidden agenda (and the "undo-ing" it causes) applies just to the action being proposed or to all actions taken since its proposal. If the goal is to no longer have hidden agendas apply retroactively, but rather, at a definitive time, then some order of events have to be chosen. Here, the proposed window is that hidden agendas that modify costs/conditions are revealed just before all targets/conditions/costs are "locked in," and doing so only reassesses the conditions and costs of the actions. The main necessary change here is that it is not practical for Mirror Image to allow both players to choose a target for Kivas Fajo - Collector (rather, it would just be that both players draw cards).

There is also a specific window for "just actions." I believe it is clear that the intention of the current "just action" rule is to provide a window to respond to something after it happens as opposed to when it is being proposed to happen. In many cases, this is indeed "just after/as" it occurs. However, there are some cases where a card uses the word "just" inappropriately (e.g., Amanda Rogers versus Quite a Coincidence), and other cases "just" is not used at all (e.g. Bleed Resources, It's Only a Game, etc.). The "just" rule makes it seem as though the word "just" carries some special meaning when it really does not; in actuality, the rule is trying to say that some actions necessarily must come after the responded action resolves. The proposal here is to have a "post resolution" window for these actions. There is no hard and fast rule as to which actions apply in the post resolution step, but by and large, it should be clear: if the response necessitates or suggests the action actually having taken place, then it occurs "post".

"suspends play" is a valid response for revealing a hidden agenda (e.g., Q the Referee, because why not!?)

A more formal "do as much as you can" (but you can't intentionally propose something you can't do) rule is introduced. This does not change as much as you would think, but it makes it clear that if for some reason you reach a point where you can't do something, you simply skip it and move on.

Smaller changes, if they are changes at all:

When you play a card to pay a cost, immunity text still applies. As written that is not the case. For instance, currently, playing Plexing to cure Barclay's Transporter Phobia loses its immunity text.

It is currently unclear where a card is while you propose playing it. It is simply "set aside" before any responses even have a change. In general, this does not matter, but it is possible (through Mannheim's nonsense) that if the card were in your hand until "results," it wouldn't be where it is supposed to be. By setting it aside, it becomes clear.

Did you know that, currently, there is nothing preventing you from using Q the Referee to download a [Ref] card, then using the *same* Q the Referee to suspend play to download another [Ref] card... and go full inception? (This "works" because Q the Referee discards as an effect, but not a cost.) Of course, you aren't allowed to do this. A similar "trick" could apply with special downloads, which of course, isn't supposed to work. A blanket rule is added to prevent these types of shenanegans. This rule probably applies to more actions that you would think.

There are some nuances with group actions that are unclear. For example, when Red Alert! says "any number" does that mean you have to pick the number when you execute the action or you can just repeat it until you are red in the face (if for instance, you somehow draw more reportable cards)? Also, what happens when part of group action does not work as intended (e.g., Energy Vortex during a report with crew)?

It is currently unclear what happens when you try to pay a cost for a *card* but can't. Of course, there are cases where you can think you could pay for an *action*, but fall short (e.g., getting your Wormhole interrupt nullified for a built-in wormhole.) In that case, it is clear, you don't do your action- generally that's no big deal and not so complicated. But for cards, it is unusual as checking to see if you can pay the cost is an a priori condition of playing the card. Even so, it is possible to think you can pay for a cost, for something to happen, then fall on your face. In which case, do you get the card back; are you forced to pay as many costs as possible; what happens?! In short, the proposal is that if it is discovered that you can't (NOT don't want to anymore but can't) pay a cost, the action fails- all paid costs remain paid, pay no more costs, and you get the card back.

"taking turns" seems to be unclear and holds exceptions for "simultaneous actions." The proposed change here is to simply make the "first responser" the opponent of the most recently proposed pending action. You played a card, so I get the first response. You initiated the battle, so for any derivative subactions (e.g., when personnel are paired, etc.), I get the first response. This does not change anything drastically, just makes this more consistent.

"instead", replacement effects, and responses: Long story short, it is clear that in most cases if something were to happen "instead" of another, the original thing does not happen and can't be responded to anymore. For example, if I prevent my personnel from dying, you can't use Taken Prisoner anymore (or vice versa). However, there are some cases where this is not as clear and arguably could still be responded to. There is a simple "replaced effects can't be responded anymore".
(For instance, this is probably a mild functional change with respect to Energy Vortex)

Non changes:
The initiation of an action is renamed "proposal".

****

actions - overview

An action is one operation that you perform in the game. Examples of actions include playing, drawing, or discarding one card; moving a ship; using a special skill; etc. However, continuous effects and automatic modifiers (e.g., "your personnel are STRENGTH +2 where present") are not actions; they are always "on."

In most cases, you will simply perform an action then take another, and the game progresses. However, you may wish to specifically respond to an action an opponent takes; in which case, the game "slows down" to allow for your response before continuing.

The exact rules for dealing with how such responses work are detailed in the following sections. These details can be overwhelming and are included for completeness. In general, you do not need to know the exact details of how actions work, but there are general tenants to keep in mind:

*You can only respond to a card play or action with a "valid response" (something that either "suspends play" or something explicitly nullifies/prohibits/modifies that specific action). Merely, affecting the action does not qualify it to be a valid response.

*Using hidden agendas as responses are special. If you wish to use a hidden agenda that modifies the cost or prohibits an action (i.e. Computer Crash, Containment Field), you should reveal that hidden agenda as soon as practical. If that action is then illegal, the action is undone (such as returning the card to your hand) and nothing is lost (even a normal card play).

*You are not allowed to intentionally take an action for "partial results". Being able to fulfill an action is a condition of taking that action. This includes being able to download specified cards (unless they are optional). None the less, rare cases arise where you fully intended to fulfill an action, but cannot; in which case, as a general concept, perform as much as you can and ignore the rest.

*Some responses take place before the action occurs and others take place after an action's results occur. For instance, "about to die" versus "is killed". In effect, each action has two response windows, one "before" the action takes place and one "after." For the most part, if a response modifies or nullifies an action, the response is made "before"; and otherwise, it is made "after" the action.

actions - steps

Every action has four steps that must occur in order:

Proposal (declaring the use of a multifunction card, choosing targets, meeting conditions, and paying costs).
Responses (attempts to cancel or modify the action).
Results (performing the action).
Post-Resolution (responding to the effect just carried out)

actions - step 1: proposal
To propose an action, perform the following in this order:

*declare the use of a multi-function card (if applicable) and choosing targets (if applicable)
*set the card aside (if applicable)/lock-in costs and conditions.
*meet conditions of rules and game text
*pay costs (if applicable)

If at any time during the proposal step the action fails, the action does not proceed and no (more) costs are paid. If you propose playing a card, and the action fails prior to the final step of the proposal (e.g., not all costs have been paid), the card will return to where it came from (in the rare case it cannot, it is placed in its owner's discard pile.) If the action was a subaction of a larger group action, proceed to the next applicable subaction.

-Choosing Modes and Targets.
Choose all targets and modes specified by the card. (e.g., selecting a player to draw cards with Kivas Fajo - Collector, a facility at which to report a personnel; choosing a ship to attack, or a drone to download from your draw deck with the Borg Queen's skill) or any of its imminent subactions (e.g., which and where to report the cards with Red Alert!). This is not an action and cannot be responded to. Some cards have wording that applies when a card is "targeted"; these cards apply in the response step of the action for which the card is targeted not literally when they are targeted.

For example, if you are playing a ship to report with crew, you must a priori declare which ship you are reporting and which personnel are reporting aboard.

-Lock-in conditions and costs; set the card aside
Before preceding, determine all costs and conditions that are to be met. At this point, the costs are conditions are "locked-in." Also, if the action is a card play (not just a action that contains a card play as a subaction), set the card aside (it is not yet in play nor it is in your hand or wherever you are playing it from).

-Meeting conditions
Meeting conditions of rules and game text consists of verifying the action is appropriate. (e.g., battle affiliation restrictions; an open Alternate Universe Door to play an [1E-AU] card; game text such as "plays at start of battle") and that all costs could be paid (but they are not paid yet).

By default, an action must be able to carried out in full to be successfully proposed; a player cannot intend to play a card or take an action "without results" or "partial results". This includes downloading cards that result from the proposed action; if an action requires a download, the player proposing the action must demonstrate that said download will be valid. See verification.

For example, playing Q's Tent requires an open Q's Tent side deck. If your Q's Ten side deck is closed, you cannot a Q's Tent doorway for "no results" simply to remove it from your hand and to draw no cards that turn.

For example, you cannot play Bajoran Wormhole to the spaceline if you cannot download the other Bajoran Wormhole.

Exception: When an action nominally affects multiple cards in a uniform manner (other than to report or download, or as a requirement or condition), but there are not enough cards to be affected, if that action could be carried out affecting all applicable cards, then the action is still permitted as long as the reduced quantity isn't 0.

For example, you may play Mutation to shuffle the single card in your discard pile into your draw deck. However, you can't play Mutation with an empty discard pile for no effect.

For example, you may play Kevin Uxbridge: Convergence at a spaceline location where one of the events can't be nullified. The remaining events at that location are still nullified. While you may play Kevin Uxbridge: Convergence at a spaceline location with no applicable events; you may not play Kevin Uxbridge: Convergence at a spaceline location where all events can't be nullified.

For example, the opponent may not play Outgunned on your ship with your Secret Agent Julian Bashir aboard, as they would capture no personnel when ordinarily would capture the crew. However, they can play Outgunned on your empty ship.

For example, you may play Thine Own Self on a two personnel away team containing Six of Thirteen. In which case, the other personnel is still placed beneath the mission. However, you may not play Thine Own Self on an away team consisting of solely one or two copies of Six of Thirteen.

For example, the opponent has one personnel aboard their ship affected by Ankari "Spirits." Even though Ankari Spirits kills "two" personnel at the start of each turn, that single personnel will still die.

For example, the opponent kills three of your waiters at Quark's Bar during battle. If they have five cards in hand, they will end up discarding all five cards.

For example, you played Temporal Shifting on the opponent and they only have two cards in hand. They may choose to "discard three cards" even though the can't strictly discard three cards; in which case, they will end up discarding two cards. They can't choose to discard an [AU] card if they don't have an [AU] card because the reduced quantity would be 0.

For example, during ship battle, you score a hit for [flip][flip], but you only have one tactic remaining in your Battle Bridge Side Deck. You still will [flip].

For example, you cannot play Arbiter of Succession with only one Klingon leader because the resulting battle requires two personnel.

For example, you cannot play All Threes if there are less than 6 cards in your deck because the cards are not treated uniformly.

For example, three personnel cannot pass Chula: The Drink because four personnel is an explicit requirement of the dilemma.

Exception: A "card draw" is still permitted even if you have no cards left in your draw deck. See card draw.

For example, you may play Kivas Fajo - Collector to draw cards even if you have no cards left in your draw deck. Each of those "card draws" can be replaced using "In place of a card draw" effects.

For the purposes of verifying whether an action can be carried out, additionally consider any known effect from your own proposed actions that have yet to occur. Likewise, account for any pending costs that have not yet been formally paid and consider any required actions resulting from the proposed action. However, do not consider any optional effects that may occur.

For example, upon reporting multiple personnel to a single facility as a group action (e.g., with Red Alert!, etc.), all of those personnel must be compatible with each other, with your other currently personnel on the facility, and with the facility itself. Notably you can't play a personnel that downloads a treaty (e.g., Kai Winn) to make the subsequent personnel compatible. All personnel played as a group action must be compatible a priori.

For example, while you are suspending play with Q the Referee to download a [Ref] card you can't use the same Q the Referee to suspend play to download another [Ref] card.

For example, you are suspending play to perform a special download. You can't use the special download "again" even if you have yet to formally "use up" its once per game ability.

For example, you have Finally Ready to Swim in play. You cannot play a non-[22] personnel if you do not have any other cards in your hand. This applies even if playing them may result in you drawing a card to discard (e.g. Continuing Mission).

For example, your opponent uses Founder Agitator with Assassination Plot. In response, you do the same. The opponent cannot play Flight of the Intruder to return their Founder Agitator to their own hand, as their own effect already slated Founder Agitator to return to their hand. Their Founder Agitator is eligible to die from your Assassination Plot; if he does, they will not return to their hand.

For example, you use Guest Quarters replace a card draw with two card draws (though one will be placed beneath the draw deck). You cannot replace both of those card draws again as that would preclude you from placing one of the card draws beneath your deck.

Meeting conditions is not an action and cannot be responded to except players may reveal a hidden agenda (or suspend play to download such a hidden agenda) explicitly prohibiting the proposed action (or one of its subactions) or augmenting its cost, provided that no earlier opportunity arose to reveal the hidden agenda to affect that action. This exception only applies to hidden agendas. These special response actions may be responded to normally. If the hidden agenda remains in play (e.g., it was not nullified, etc.), the conditions and cost of the original action are reassessed but only from those hidden agendas revealed explicitly for that action. If the conditions can still be met, the action proceeds; a player cannot abort the action if it remains legal even if the costs are different from what was intended. If the conditions or costs can no longer be met, the action fails, no costs are paid, and if it was a card being played, it returns to where it came (usually to the owner's hand).

For example, you play Activate Subcommands using your normal card play. Since the effect of Active Subcommands includes a download, the opponent can reveal Computer Crash. If they do, your play will fail; no costs are played, Activate Subcommands will return to your hand, you may still make a normal card play, and you may still draw cards that turn.

For example, you use a special download and the opponent reveals Containment Field; if you have no cards in hand, the conditions are no longer met, the action fails, and you are not considered to have "used up" the once per game download. However, if you have one or more cards in hand, the action proceeds, you will place one of them beneath Containment Field even though you did not intend to upon proposing the action.

For example, you propose playing a card during the opponent turn. The opponent cannot use a special download for the 211th Rule of Acquisition at this time even though that would affect the cost of playing a card, as 211th Rule of Acquisition is not a hidden agenda. Even if they find a way to download the 211th Rule of Acquisition at this time (say as response to a permitted special response action), it will not affect the number of cards you discard because the cost is already "locked in".

For example, you use a special download; as a special response, the opponent intends to use a special download to download and reveal Containment Field. As a second-layered special response, do the same. You will download and reveal Containment Field before your opponent. Since you did not (download then) reveal Containment Field specifically to affect your original download, the cost of your original special download will not be affected by your Containment Field. (The opponent's action of downloading Containment Field will become illegal as Containment Field is Not Duplicable, their special download will not be considered used.)

-Paying costs
Paying costs required by rules or game text includes using your normal card play; using a special download icon, discarding a card, and so on. Within game text, the cost of an action generally precedes the word "to", though players should take care as some effects (such as discarding a card from play) occur as a cost for some actions but as a result for other actions.

Verifying that costs could be paid occurs when conditions are checked earlier; a player cannot propose an action with the intention of paying some of its costs but not others. Though, it is possible that a player proposed an action verifying the ability to pay the cost but is unable to do so when the time comes. If at any time, it is determined that the cost cannot be paid in full, no further costs are paid at all and the action fails; however, all previously paid costs remain paid.

Costs may be attempted in any order. If a player attempts to pay a cost and fails, they must either reattempt to pay that same cost or choose to have the action fail.
When paying costs, a cost is only considered paid if done so explicitly to pay the cost.

Some actions require a specific card to be played as a cost. In which case, use only the game text of the card; ignore the game text of the card being played as a cost except for phrases like "Immune to..." or "May not be nullified" or similar. Cards which are played as a cost may be responded to normally; if you play a card as a cost and it is nullified or substituted, the cost is not considered paid. In which case, you may attempt to pay the same cost again by playing another applicable card (or the same card if for some reason it is still in your hand). However, you are not required to even if you are able. If you do not, the action fails but may be repurposed later from the beginning and repaying all associated costs.

For example, you propose moving a ship between two Mission II locations with built-in wormholes, but upon proposing the action, you decide to play a Wormhole interrupt to pay the cost. That cost is "locked-in." If that Wormhole interrupt is nullified, you cannot decide to continue with the action by choosing a different mode (e.g., the mode not requiring a Wormhole interrupt). You must either may play another Wormhole interrupt or choose to have the action fail; in the later case, the mission does not flip over because flipping the mission is not a cost.

actions - step 2: responses

Once an action has been successfully proposed, players will take turns making responses to the pending action. For each action, the opponent of the proposer (or if it's a subaction, the proposer of the larger group action) has the first opportunity to respond.

For example, you initiate a personnel battle. For each step of the personnel battle (e.g., start of battle, personnel pairings, etc.), the opponent has the first opportunity to respond; however, you have the first opportunity to respond to their responses; and so on.

While there is a pending action, players may only take actions that are "valid responses" to the most recent pending action. A valid response is an action that explicitly addresses (e.g., "just before", "about to", "just played", "when you play", etc.), nullifies, modifies/prevents the pending action OR explicitly "suspends play" (according to a card text or rule); this includes revealing a hidden agenda with such a valid response. An action is not a valid response just because its effects would modify the outcome of the pending action. Exception: revealing (or downloading and revealing) a hidden agenda that could have been revealed as a special response action earlier in the action sequence, even for a previous subaction, is not a valid response even if it otherwise would be.
Additionally, responses that require the action to have actually taken place (e.g., "just killed", "when you draw") occur during the post-resolution step (see actions - post-resolution).

For example, neither playing Temporal Rift on the ship nor returning the ship to hand by discarding a Space-Time Portal are valid responses to encountering a Borg Ship (or any other dilemma). Similarly, neither Loss of Orbital Stability nor What Does God Need With A Starship? are valid responses to a ship beginning movement.

Nullifying a card already in play is not a valid response to using an action from that card.

For example, you use a download on the 1st Rule of Acquisition that is already in play. The opponent cannot nullify it at that time with Kevin Uxbridge in attempt to prevent your download.

Some actions substitute one actions for another (e.g. "in place of a card draw" or "... instead"). These actions are valid responses to the specified action and replace it. When replaced, the new action can still be responded to and replaced normally. Responses to the replaced action can no longer occur unless its condition has already occurred (e.g., "when played", "just played") and its effect is still applicable. Formally, nullifying or preventing an action discards the card (in the case of nullifying) and replaces the effect with "do nothing." Once a card or action is nullified or prevented it cannot be nullified or prevented "again."

For example, the opponent's personnel is about to die from a dilemma during a mission attempt. As you did not start the mission attempt, you get the first chance to respond. You use Taken Prisoner to capture them instead. Since that personnel is no longer pending to die, the opponent can't use Beating Heart to prevent that death in attempt to prevent the capture.

For example, the opponent plays Palor Toff- Alien Trader. You play Amanda Rogers to nullify it. You can still subsequently play Countermanda even though Palor Toff- Alien Trader is nullified.

For example, the opponent plays Destroy Radioactive Garbage Scow. You reveal Containment Field which nullifies Destroy Radioactive Garbage Scow and will cause them to lose points. The opponent can no longer play Amanda Rogers on their own Destroy Radioactive Garbage Scow.

For example, you play Holodeck Deck with Earn Your Rank! in play. The opponent substitutes your Holodeck Door play with Energy Vortex. You will still draw a card if though the opponent's response came first.

actions - step 3: results

When an action begins to have its results, this typically causes one or more other actions to occur. For example, the result of playing Kivas Fajo - Collector is that the target player must draw three cards. Each of the three card draws is an action with its own three steps, and each may be responded to (e.g., with Subspace Schism).

If for some reason an effect refers to a card's quality or location but that card is no longer in play, apply its last known qualities and/or location, if possible.

For example, Emergency Transporter Unit prevents the death of a personnel present even though, formally, it is not present when the substitution effect has its results.

For example, you encounter The Clown: Guillotine. The dilemma kills your personnel. For the second part of the dilemma, you will consider any attribute enhancements your personnel had when they were killed even though they are no longer in play.

In rare cases, it is possible some of the actions are no longer applicable when it comes time to carry out its results; this often occurs when the target (or destination) of the action becomes invalid. In which case, skip that action. In the case of group actions, perform the actions, in order, skipping any that no longer apply. If the action is a card play and its target destination is no longer valid, discard the card unless instructed otherwise.[/i]

For example, you opponent attempts to report a personnel to their outpost using their normal card play but you respond by suspending play with Bashir Founder to download Supernova, destroying their outpost. That personnel is discarded and never enters play, and the opponents normal card play is used.

For example, you play Kevin Uxbridge on the opponent's Telepathic Alien Kipnappers. The opponent uses a special download to download and reveal Containment Field, nullifying and discarding Telepathic Alien Kidnappers. Even though Kevin Uxbridge no longer has a target, it will still be placed in your point area.

For example, if the opponent tries beams onto your ship using Invasive Beam-In and you suspend play to download Quantum Slipstream Drive to move the ship to a different location, the personnel will not end up on your ship.

For example, you acquire the opponent's Magic Carpet Ride OCD. The opponent chooses a planet. In response, before moving with Magic Carpet Ride OCD, you suspend play with Bashir Founder at the chosen planet to download Supernova, destroying the planet. Since the location is no longer a planet, the move does not occur; the opponent does not choose another planet. The artifact is discarded.

However, formally, if a group action affects multiple cards with certain criteria, after that group action enters into the results step, the resulting subactions no longer require said criteria.

For example, your away team fails Barclay's Protomorphesis Disease and is subject to die. You play Empathic Touch to save one personnel, stopping one of your Empathy personnel. Since you cannot prevent the death before the entire away team to subject to the death, removing a personnel from the away team (by stopping them) at that time will no longer save them.

actions- step 4: post-resolution

After an action is carried out, players may respond to that effect "just" carried out. This occurs before continuing the game (or the most recent pending action, if there is one). In general, actions whose requirements use the phrasing "just [action]" or "after [action]" or "when [action]" are used at this time; however, this is not always the case. For instance, responses for a "just played" card or "just targeted" actions are valid responses to those actions in the response step as opposed to the post-response step; actions responding to a battle "just initiated" occur at the same time as "at the start of battle."

For example, you initiate a planet mission attempt and solve the mission. You play Particle Fountain (as a post-resolution action) before the opponent would have the next opportunity to take a general action.

actions - group

Many actions involve multiple subactions (e.g. reporting with crew includes reporting multiple cards, drawing multiple cards, an entire crew or away team being killed, etc.), each of these subactions occur one at a time and follow the same steps as each action. In particular, each subaction can be responded to individually at its own time.

If you propose a group action that includes subactions, you must a priori specify the quantity, modes, targets for each applicable subaction, where possible. This choice must be legal at the proposal of the group action.

For example, use Space-Time Portal to report with crew. You must announce the ship, its destination and personnel/equipment to be reported. The opponent may use that information to decide whether or not respond to the report with crew action (i.e., whether to flip It's Only A Game and/or to use Temporal Micro-wormhole, etc.).

For example, you use Red Alert! to report any number of personnel, ship, and/or equipment cards from your hand. You must choose which personnel, ship, and/or equipment cards you will play and to where. If any personnel, ship, and/or equipment cards are added to your hand (if, for instance, reporting a personnel results in you drawing cards), you can not immediately report them as part of that Red Alert! action.

Within a group action, each subaction follows after the previous one has fully resolved, after its post-resolution. Whenever two or more subactions occur simultaneously, the proposer of the group action may choose the order in which they apply. If a subaction is no longer applicable, proceed to the next applicable subaction; do not reassess the validity of any subaction until it arises.

For example, you use Red Alert! to report any number of personnel, ship, and/or equipment cards from your hand. You may choose the order to report them. While you must fully intend to play all of the personnel, if during the course reporting cards, one of the cards slated to be reported somehow leaves your hand or otherwise is unable to be reported (e.g., they are no longer compatible), the remaining personnel are still reported.

If an action prescribes a subaction "until" a condition is met, that condition is checked and rechecked after the full resolution of each subaction.

For example, you have 6 cards in hand and the opponent has 13 cards in hand and you start drawing cards with Sherlock Holmes. On the first card draw, they play Subspace Schism, reducing their hand to 12 cards. In the end, you will draw until you have 12 cards even though you were slated to draw 7 cards.

If an subaction of an action is cancelled, nullified or substituted with some other effect, that subaction is not performed again; rather, the next subsequent applicable subaction will still occur, skipping any that no longer apply.

For example, you play Kivas Fajo - Collector to draw three cards. Each card draw action is executed separately. Even if one card draw is replaced (e.g., a download), then next draws will still occur.

If a subaction is linked to subsequent subaction(s) but is substituted, the substituted action will not the linked to those subsequent subactions.

For example, you play a ship to report with crew. However, the opponent plays Energy Vortex on the ship you attempt to report; and you play another ship instead. You do not get to attempt to play the ship again; the remaining plays of the personnel are skipped as they no longer apply; those personnel remain in your hand.

For example, you use Guest Quarters to replace a card draw to draw two cads, placing one of the beneath your draw deck. You replace one of the resulting draws by downloading a card to hand. You cannot place the downloaded card beneath your draw deck.

If a group action containing multiple subactions is prevented or nullified, it is as though none of its subactions were proposed at all.

For example, if your report with crew of Space-Time Portal is nullified with Temporal Micro-wormhole, all of the ship and personnel remain in your hand.
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E World Semi-Finalist 2021
Grand Nagus
1E North American Continental Champion 2021
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2021
#561010
Image

OMG, it just. kept. going.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#561013
First Edition has no "Do As Much As You Can" rule. You must do all that is required or you can do none. If it comes time to pay the costs for an action and you can't, the action is illegal and is undone from the start -- including the Treacherous Advice and the [DL] of it.
Au contraire.

First, if an action requires playing a card as a cost and you can't fulfill it (e.g., the card is nullified), then it should be clear that you don't undo that attempted action. You tried to pay the cost and you didn't. There is nothing fundamentally different in this example: the opponent prevented you from paying the cost. It should not matter is that was found by nullifying a card play or otherwise. The Treacherous Advice should not be undone.

Also, there are several explicit examples where the game expressly uses a "Do As Much As You Can." The actions entry says that "If a target of an action becomes invalid after the action is initiated, then the action is "played out" without results." You do not "undo" the action simply because you can't do it.
For dilemmas, it is made explicit that the number of effected targets can be reduced, for instance, "if a card like Armus: Roulette specifies that four target personnel are to be selected, but only two personnel are present, it selects those two." More narrowly, the entry for Kevin Uxbridge: Convergence says "This interrupt nullifies all unprotected events..." suggesting that you can, in some cases, initiate an action even if you know full well that it is not possible. (in this case, you can play Kevin Uxbridge: Convergence even if you can't nullify literally "all" events at that location.). Even the entry for card draw makes it explicit that you can still perform a "card draw" even if your draw deck is exhausted; in fact, the entry for Sherlock Holmes says you still draw cards until your draw deck is exhausted even if completing the full action would be impossible.

For other examples where players would intuitively "do as much as you can" even if they are not explicitly covered by the rules (some of which I included in my rewrite):
* If you are tasked with discarding multiple cards (e.g., Quark's Bar), but only have one card in your hand, you would discard that card.
*If a player would [Flip] [Flip] [Flip] but they don't have enough tactics left in their draw deck, you would still [Flip] until you can't.
 
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#561016
BCSWowbagger wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:54 am Without answering the rest of that complicated question, I know for a fact that [Energy Vortex] (both the Glossary entry and probably the card) are due for a rewrite,
Here is an attempted rewrite

****


Energy Vortex

This card returns the card just played to its owners hand, effectively cancelling it; though it can still be used on cards that otherwise can't be cancelled or nullified. All costs used to play that card remain paid (including a normal card play or "once each turn"). However, the opponent gets to play a different card as a consolation. This card play is enabled by Energy Vortex and does not require a normal card play nor does it have to meet any conditions met from the original card play. They may not play another copy of the same card. See different.

For example, you attempt to play Admiral Rider for free to the Office of the President using its "once each turn" text. The opponent plays Energy Vortex. Admiral Rider returns to your hand, and you may now play any card from hand, except Admiral Riker, in any way you wish (it does not need to be a personnel and it need not report to the Office of the President). You may not use the text of The Office of the President again this turn.

The card play enabled by Energy Vortex is independent of any other action. In particular, if the original card was a part of a group action, the "replacement" card will not be considered as part of the group action.

For example, if you play a ship using a report with crew, but the opponent plays Energy Vortex on the ship. You will be able to play a "consolation" card, but even if you play a ship, there will not be a ship played as part of the report with crew, and so, you cannot report any additional personnel. Any costs paid to perform the report with crew (e.g. Space-Time Portal or your normal card play) are considered used.

Upon choosing a "replacement card" to play, if they have any card in their hand that they may legally play, they must play it. If they have no legal card to play, you may ask your opponent to verify it by looking through their hand. See verification.

For example, you play Energy Vortex, if the opponent's only other card in hand is Kevin Uxbridge, they must play it if there is any legal target event in play.

****


(This clarifies exactly how Energy Vortex works; it effectively cancels the card, but gives the opponent any free play. Any costs used are paid, and the replacement card has no "link" to the subsequent card. This may not be how it has been ruled, but it is the cleanest and easiest interpretation of the card, and probably does not deviate too far from how the card was intended.)
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
2E World Semi-Finalist 2021
Grand Nagus
1E North American Continental Champion 2021
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2021
#561022
FranklinKenter wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:54 pm
jadziadax8 wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:38 pm Image

OMG, it just. kept. going.
You're invited to try to make it more compact.
For all reading this thread, I would like to make a clarification that my previous statement was meant to convey awe and respect at Franklin’s post. Apparently this has failed miserably.
User avatar
 
By Keiimaster (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#561025
jadziadax8 wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:15 pm
FranklinKenter wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:54 pm
jadziadax8 wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:38 pm Image

OMG, it just. kept. going.
You're invited to try to make it more compact.
For all reading this thread, I would like to make a clarification that my previous statement was meant to convey awe and respect at Franklin’s post. Apparently this has failed miserably.
Attachments:
not-in-front-of-the-kids.jpg
not-in-front-of-the-kids.jpg (334.21 KiB) Viewed 1928 times
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#561120
jadziadax8 wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:15 pm For all reading this thread, I would like to make a clarification that my previous statement was meant to convey awe and respect at Franklin’s post. Apparently this has failed miserably.
I'm on vacation this week, so I'm just making a copy and will read the 6000 words(!) when I have more time. ;)

Christopher Jansa, Psionic Hobo VS Daniel Giddings[…]

I received both a PM request and now a forum post […]

Ops was a little different,, as it wasn't a comple[…]

My Collection

Hey folks, Resurrecting this thread from the gr[…]