# Resolving interrupts

5 replies to this topic

### #1 Starsplice

Starsplice

Member

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:31 AM

I'm used to the "stack" from Magic. And after reading how interrupts resolve it sounds like there is no stack. One card triggers, and a player can interrupt. That whole mess resolves and there you go. So I need clarification in regards to how multiple interrupt cards would resolve.

Is it the "first in, last out" resolution? Or is it really like the rules say, "active player can interrupt and then resolve…."

Any help is greatly appreciated.

### #2 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

Member

• Members
• 2,430 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:38 AM

No stack, the only way to "stack" on interrupt on another is if the 2nd interrupt is triggered by the first interrupt.

### #3 Starsplice

Starsplice

Member

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:46 AM

Ok. So here is another question then. How does that work? The rules say the active player resolves his/her interrupt first. So if I play a interrupt in response to my own card, then you play an interrupt in response to my interrupt. the ,ain rules would make me think my interrupt resolves, then yours, then the original card that started all this mess.

### #4 LMKComaBlack

LMKComaBlack

Member

• Members
• 48 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 10:28 AM

I think the rule you are talking about is assuming both players interrupt the same trigger:  If action X prompts Interrupts A and B (both triggered by X), the active player gets the first go.

However, if a trigger (X) has me play Interupt A and you choose to interput A with B, then B interupts A (B's target).  If A is still viable, A interrupts X (A's target)

Now I want to build up the rules using only logic statements.

### #5 Starsplice

Starsplice

Member

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 07:59 AM

Ok, this is what I had hoped. The rules are really bad at explaining how a "stack" would resolve. I believe your example is the best way to explain it. Even though I honestly think it's dumb. Generally player A plays a card, player B responds and then player A has the chance to respond to player B's action.

This way the rules are written player A not only responds, but his card resolves first. So it sucks out the opponent's cards and strategy while they have to wait to be the last to resolve their card.  This is why I do not understand how interrupts work based on the rules stating the active player resolves his interrupt first in the case both players play interrupt cards.

### #6 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

Member

• Members
• 2,430 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:38 AM

Starsplice said:

Ok, this is what I had hoped. The rules are really bad at explaining how a "stack" would resolve. I believe your example is the best way to explain it. Even though I honestly think it's dumb. Generally player A plays a card, player B responds and then player A has the chance to respond to player B's action.

This way the rules are written player A not only responds, but his card resolves first. So it sucks out the opponent's cards and strategy while they have to wait to be the last to resolve their card.  This is why I do not understand how interrupts work based on the rules stating the active player resolves his interrupt first in the case both players play interrupt cards.

I don't think that there's any problem with the rules. An event starts to happen, player A interrupts that event, player A's interrupt resolves, then player B could choose to interrupt the original event. Alternatively, the event starts to happen, player A interrupts it, player B interrupts player A's interrupt, player B's interrupt resolves first because interrupts resolve before whatever they're interrupting.

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.