Galactic Empires: Time Skip Revisited

Active Topics

Memberlist

Help

Rules Base
Galactic Empires : Rules Base

Topic: Time Skip Revisited

Author

Message

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 15 February 2008 at 3:35pm \| IP Logged

I don't remember which busted thread the Time Skip discussion was from, but when I was reviewing GF#3 on pg. 4.

I found this:

If a card leaves play after an action is declared but before it is resolved (An R/O1 Time Skip may cause this to happen), it will begin to resolve when it returns to play. If the action is inappropriate at the time (such as weapons fire out of phase) it is voided. The action must be inappropriate for it to be voided, a card action could resolve at the end of the turn.

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 12 July 2008 at 3:08am \| IP Logged

Oh brother...

this can of worms again?

I agree with this wording above with one exception; if the skipped card
says "Discard after use".

I argue that playing a card is using it; therefore, if it's played and
then skipped, and says "discard after use", the skipped card is
discarded. Here I also argue that when a card is discarded it is
immediately moved to the discard pile and is no longer in play. At
the end of the player turn the skipped card is no longer in play, so
there's nothing to resolve.

Conversely, if the skipped card does not say "discard after use", it
stays in play and as per the wording of the time skip; "is treated as if it
were not there". At the end of the player turn, the skip has already
been discarded, but the skipped card is still in play so its action is
then resolved.

Let me point out there is no event in the turn sequence for actions of
cards that have been "treated as if they were not there" to be resolved.

In the past I've argued because of this any skipped card, regardless of
wording, should be discarded. Here I additionally argue that any
action based on card text must be done on a card play phase (unless
played in reaction on a phase other than a card play phase, or where the
card text says "as a reaction"), and since at the end of the turn there's
no card play phase, the action cannot be resolved because it's no
longer card play phase and so the action, even though unresolved,
cannot take place.

However, I think it only sensible to add a phase at the end of the turn
("resolution phase"), after discard phase and before draw cards phase,
for unresolved card actions, and only for unresolved card actions. A
ship that was skipped during weapons fire phase would not have its
weapons fire take place as it's no longer weapons fire phase; rather it's
"resolution phase", for unresolved card actions.

This provides a systematic way of dealing with this kind of situation, and
a framework to base clarifications upon for interactions of card actions
that treat things as if they weren't there, or other similar effects.

Damn, I shoulda been a lawyer... :-P

PS: I've edited this damn post about a dozen times now, to try and get
things as specific and clear as possible... I hope I've been successful in
that. It's taken me an hour for this, it's 3:00 a.m. for me, and I'm
putting this, and myself, to bed. :-)

Edited by MogwaiSC on 12 July 2008 at 4:06am

Lobo
IRC

Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533

Posted: 12 July 2008 at 10:47am \| IP Logged

"Oh brother...

this can of worms again?"

-Seeing as how this was posted in February, i'm going to guess: MogwaiSC, in the Library, with the can opener...

And instead of saying why i don't agree with MogwaiSC's caveat, i'll just say whatever way your group decides to deal with it is fine with me. Have a good weekend all.....Lobo, who now feels that he definitely should not have been a lawyer

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 12 July 2008 at 1:34pm \| IP Logged

Sorry I can't take the time to read up on all the posts that are put up each
and every day...

I have a life... a 60 hr/wk job, two kids, a house to take care of, etc.

Lobo
IRC

Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533

Posted: 12 July 2008 at 4:54pm \| IP Logged

-No worries, i was just commenting on the fact that the 'can' was closed in February, and you opened it while simultaneously making a comment that seemed to bemoan the opening...

...nevermind.....Lobo, apparently without job, kids, family, house, hobbies and other things to keep him busy.

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 12 July 2008 at 6:48pm \| IP Logged

I don't generally pay attention to the dates of the posts on here... Like I
said, I've been busy the past few months and was just browsing through
old posts to see what had been discussed.

I wasn't bemoaning that the topic had been brought up for discussion,
only that there so far hasn't been a way to resolve it.

I've taken issue with how the whole "as if it were not there" thing has
been (poorly) handled. While there is a wide agreement here about the
way these things work, none of it has ever been dealt with logically and
within the logical framework of the turn sequence. In other words, there
hasn't ever been a way set up to deal with it.

Above is my attempt to put into place a structure within the existing
turn sequence of the game that will be a way to resolve these kinds of
issues. I personally think that the Time Skip is a card that has been the
cause of too many problems... I'm just trying to put something into
place here to deal with it in an effective, and most importantly,
consistent fashion.

Edited by MogwaiSC on 12 July 2008 at 6:50pm

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 14 July 2008 at 9:09am \| IP Logged

MogwaiSC wrote:

I personally think that the Time Skip is a card that has been the
cause of too many problems...

Well, that I will agree with wholeheartedly.

It should have never been created.

That being said, the problem is the interpretation of the term, "Discarded After Use."

Especially on cards that have durations. H6 Crab Pulsar does two damage to the unit/terrain card it is played against for three turns. And, is then discarded after use. Not discarded after you play it.

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 14 July 2008 at 4:29pm \| IP Logged

Yeah, that's a problem. In that case though, the H6 specifically states it
has a duration, so I can see that it should remain in play until the
conditions of the card text are satisfied. This could be either the card
does its thing, or the conditions of negation specified in the card text
are met, such as applying research, etc.

I don't think this changes what I've argued for above though, that
playing a card is using it; it still applies both in the case of the H6 which
has a specified duration, or the time skip, which has an instantaneous
effect.

The only difference is the H6 does not go to the discard pile because it's
actions are not yet completed; in other words, all possible actions it can
take have not yet been used. This is not true for cards that do
not specify a duration, such as a time skip, or any other card that says
"discard after use" AND does not also have a duration specified in the
card text.

One notable exception I can see to this is an O10 Planetary Destruction.
It specifically does NOT say "discard after use" even though it also does
not specify any duration. As a result, even if it were skipped, because it
doesn't say "discard(ed) after use" it would remain in play when skipped
instead of being discarded, even though it doesn't have a duration. (it is
a 10 after all...)

And I still think the addition of a "resolution" phase between discard and
draw cards phase would be a useful addition to the turn sequence and
specifically provide a mechanism for resolving unresolved card actions
that had been postponed for whatever reason, time skip or otherwise.

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 15 July 2008 at 10:00am \| IP Logged

MogwaiSC wrote:

I argue that playing a card is using it;

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I play a ship card, doesn't mean that I use it.

Like cards with durations, you have to active it (Crab Pulsar), each turn, to use it.

In the "Discard After Use" cards, it is assumed that you activate it immediately upon playing the card, but there is a step in there in which your opponent can react to your card play, before the card is activated.

And, that is why, when the card comes back into play after being skipped, it then activates.

If it hasn't been used, how can you say that it should be discarded? Discard AFTER use.

MogwaiSC wrote:

since at the end of the turn there's no card play phase, the action cannot be resolved because it's no
longer card play phase and so the action, even though unresolved, cannot take place.

Which is why we placed the errata in GF (Which is an extension of the rulebook), explaining what should happen.

Galaktische
IRC
IRC

Joined: 27 June 2007
Posts: 354

Posted: 15 July 2008 at 1:27pm \| IP Logged

I still say we should re-write/errata most of these cards.

The term 'official rules' lost most of its meaning when the company went under and the game lost its 'official support'.

I think key-wording the abilities and refining the more ambigous terms/interactions would be a healthy exercise.

As an example, defining equipment as passive / non-passive seems to be a good idea to me. Are mines passive or non? Lobo and I looked at the wording of both the primary and universe edition of Anti-Matter mine and neither answers that question. Can a disengaged ship activate an anti-matter mine against an enemy ship? The rules don't say it can't (as far as I know) and the mne doesn't require any activation energy...?

We said it could.

J--

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 15 July 2008 at 1:43pm \| IP Logged

the two mines from Invaders, the 1 mine from Persona, and the 3 from Universe (not including teh Anti-Matter Mine evidently), are NP, so I would think that all mines are NP.

It wasn't until the later sets that we got serious about labeling the cards. All but 2 Persona Equipment cards are labelled. All but 3 Invader Eqipment cards are labelled. All of the Piracy, AF and CC Equipment cards are labelled.

AT is missing a bunch.

Universe a few.

Edited by Gekonauak on 15 July 2008 at 2:34pm

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 15 July 2008 at 10:28pm \| IP Logged

Gekonauak wrote:

MogwaiSC wrote:

I argue that playing a card is using it;

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I play a ship card, doesn't mean that
I use it.

Like cards with durations, you have to active it (Crab Pulsar), each turn,
to use it.

In the "Discard After Use" cards, it is assumed that you activate it
immediately upon playing the card, but there is a step in there in which
your opponent can react to your card play, before the card is activated.

And, that is why, when the card comes back into play after being
skipped, it then activates.

If it hasn't been used, how can you say that it should be discarded?
Discard AFTER use.

MogwaiSC wrote:

since at the end of the turn there's no card play phase, the action
cannot be resolved because it's no
longer card play phase and so the action, even though unresolved,
cannot take place.

Which is why we placed the errata in GF (Which is an extension of the
rulebook), explaining what should happen.

Ugh. This is maddening... this distinction between active/passive,
used/not used is really starting to get on my nerves... I'm getting tired
of this being a hair that's split in every discussion that comes up about
interpreting card text.

I can see how you wouldn't necessarily "use" a card when you play it,
but there has to be some kind of distinction here over cards that have
an instantaneous effect, and ones that don't. Even if playing a card is
not using it, it still doesn't change things with respect to a time skip...
so you play it in reaction and... wait to "activate" it, to "use" it's ability?
Or you play a Time Spindle and you wait to "activate" it? Please.

What there needs to be is a way to determine the difference between
cards that have an instantaneous action, and those that don't. Cards
that have an instantaneous action are therefore used when played. So
even if that distinction doesn't apply to all cards, it does apply to some.
In the case of what we're talking about with the time skip, etc. it doesn't
make any difference in terms of how it cashes out, the practical effect is
still the same.

Frankly, I think there needs to be a complete restructuring of the turn
sequence and what constitutes "using" a card. There are already too
many hairs split in all of this, and frankly it's getting out of hand. The
rules need to be either simplified, or properly rewritten to put these
kinds of issues into a clear framework that allows for resolution of these
kinds of actions. As for what's in GF, it doesn't change the fact that a
resolutions phase should be added to the turn sequence. It would
provide, as I've already said, a consistent and sequential framework for
dealing with the issue, and I don't see how that idea is not in accord
with what is in GF and not specifically formulated into a logical structure
that's integrated into the turn sequence, because what's in GF doesn't do
that.

Edited by MogwaiSC on 15 July 2008 at 10:30pm

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 16 July 2008 at 10:00am \| IP Logged

MogwaiSC wrote:

What there needs to be is a way to determine the difference between cards that have an instantaneous action, and those that don't. Cards that have an instantaneous action are therefore used when played.

There are no cards that have an instantaneous action. All cards can be reacted to the action of playing the card. In which case, the reaction card takes place first.

Because of the Time Skip the card being skipped resolves its original action.

mogwaisc wrote:

Frankly, I think there needs to be a complete restructuring of the turn sequence and what constitutes "using" a card.

Or, we could just do away with the Time Skip, that seems easier.

mogwaisc wrote:

The rules need to be either simplified, or properly rewritten to put these kinds of issues into a clear framework that allows for resolution of these
kinds of actions.

That's what we did in GF.

mogwaisc wrote:

As for what's in GF, it doesn't change the fact that a
resolutions phase should be added to the turn sequence.

I never said that that was a bad idea, matter of fact, I would support such a thing.

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 16 July 2008 at 5:34pm \| IP Logged

"There are no cards that have an instantaneous action."

That's ridiculous. If that's true, then I can play a time skip at the
beginning of my opponents turn, and wait for him to do something that
I don't like, and then use the time skip.

If it's true, I can play an O10 planetary destruction and just let it sit
there for, oh, nine turns? And then when someone plays a planet I
don't like use on that planet.

Clearly this is ludicrous, but, if what you're saying is true, then it is a
logical consequence of that fact. If it's not true, then the action of the
card, logically, has to be instantaneous. You can't have it both ways.

Lobo
IRC

Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533

Posted: 16 July 2008 at 7:17pm \| IP Logged

-In this case, and specifically for this part of the discussion, substitute 'uninterruptible' or "an action that cannot be reacted to" instead of 'instantaneous' perhaps? it's not that difficult to grasp what he meant. I rip apart people's words for a living, over-scrutinizing down to the last unclear syllable, and i knew what he meant...

Yes, you can play a Time skip at the beginning of your opponent's turn so long as you are reacting to some action. Then, you must declare what you are playing it to. Then, your opponent has a chance to react. If no reaction to your play, it takes effect and you place the card on the table at the appropriate location for the affect. If you fail to declare what you are playing it to and simply want to play Indian poker in this fashion, do not be surprised if your opponent licks the back of your Time Skip and smacks you in the forehead with it, perhaps sealing the deal with a chair shot for good measure.

Same with the O10, except this style of play doesn't benefit you as much here. I just work around it. And since the O10 is not a reacitonary card, you don't have the ability to use it whenever you like, it would have to be during yoru card play phases. I can work around that easily enough, thanks to you showing me part of your hand...

Clearly this is ludicrous, but...

Resolve card stacks top down, time skip takes effect, so everything underneath it is skipped, delayed for one turn. Horrible subspace anomaly gone wrong, the play resumes on the stack next turn like nothign happened. I fail to see the problem in understanding this concept. Should it work that way? I have no idea, but if you are no fan houserule that sucker and be done with it. There are no official channels to change the official rules, unfortunately. I guess we could argue some more...

So what does this all mean? Why am i still typing? Is dinner burning on the stove? Nothing, because my wife isn't home yet, and yes. Decide how your group wants to play it, heck even post here so we know and perhaps can politely contribute to discussion on what works and why. But your tone is one of argument and frustration and i have no idea why. Houserule it the way you want and be done with it. You don't agree with some of these points i agree with some others, and together we're one big happy family. Kind of like the Brady Bunch. Except without that cousin Oliver character. That bastard was annoying.....Lobo

Gekonauak
IRC
IRC

Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595

Posted: 17 July 2008 at 8:55am \| IP Logged

MogwaiSC wrote:

What I meant by it is, that once you play a card and before the card's action takes place, your opponent has a chance to play a reaction card, and that reaction card's action happens before your card's action. Your opponent also has an opportunity to play a react card after your card's action.

I take instantaneous to mean, that you play a card and resolve its action immediately, without anybody being able to do anything about it. Which is not the case.

Edited by Gekonauak on 17 July 2008 at 8:57am

MogwaiSC
IRC
IRC

Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903

Posted: 17 July 2008 at 5:04pm \| IP Logged

Gekonauak wrote:

I take instantaneous to mean, that you play a card
and resolve its action immediately, without anybody being able to do
anything about it. Which is not the case.

Clearly you're interpreting this differently. I've never said that
"instantaneous" means you can't react to it. I have said numerous times in
this thread and others that it means the action is done or takes effect
when the card is played.

I don't see how the fact you can play a reaction card changes what I said.

Galaktische
IRC
IRC

Joined: 27 June 2007
Posts: 354

Posted: 19 July 2008 at 10:34am \| IP Logged

Without regard to whether this is correct or not here is how Lobo and I handle reaction stacks of any kind.

I play a card to an existing stack.
I pause for a second to allow Lobo to react.
Lobo plays a reaction cards - not a time skip.
Lobo pauses for me to react.
If I react then I must allow Lobo a chance to react
If I don't react then Lobo gets another chance to play a reaction card.
This then allows me to react until I run out of available card plays.
This process continues until both Lobo and I both no longer have a card to play.
Once this process is over we resolve the stack from top to bottom.
No card takes affect until all of the cards above it in the stack have taken affect.
If at any time during the stack's resolution we encounter an R/O1 Time Skip we stop resolving the stack and set it aside for one complete turn. At the end of that turn we begin to resolve the stack again with the topmost card/ability and work our way through the stack until we resolve the stack. This may include finding another R/O1 Time Skip and delaying the stack's resolution again.
If during a card/ability's resolution we find that its play is no longer valid because it has lost a target or the game state it targeted is no longer valid then we discard it and continue the stack's resolution.

I think the key 'philosophy' here is that no card can impact the game until ALL of the cards above it in a stack have resolved their effects. Essentially, we agree that no cards abilities allow it to occur before the card above it in a stack.

Cards that are 'discarded after use' must wait for the opponent to react prior to their resolution. If the opponent does react then the 'discarded after use' card must wait until ALL of the cards above it are resolved before it can take its action.

It works pretty well for us.

J--

Edited by Galaktische on 19 July 2008 at 10:36am

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum