Running Interference

[GooeyChewie 372]

If I play Running Interference, can I immediately trigger it to make my opponent unable to play a card on the next turn?

[NetCop 107]

No because it wasn't in play to trigger its ability.

[Abyss 376]

14 hours ago, NetCop said:

No because it wasn't in play to trigger its ability.

I'm not sure that is correct? Running Interference is an after ability, and after abilities trigger after an action fully resolves. In this case the action is playing Running Interference, so it would be in play by the time it comes to triggering it.

[Lusiphur05 32]

While an after ability would happen after the event fully resolves, the trigger itself happens before that time period and the card is not in play when the trigger happens (in this case take an action to play a card)

[NetCop 107]

36 minutes ago, Lusiphur05 said:

While an after ability would happen after the event fully resolves, the trigger itself happens before that time period and the card is not in play when the trigger happens (in this case take an action to play a card)

This! 

You choose action "Play a card from hand". That's the moment when all effects "after (and before) you take an action" triggers. At this moment there is no Running Interference in play to trigger its ability yet.

[GooeyChewie 372]

Good.  This card is powerful enough as it is!

[blackholexan 115]

Nevertheless, I really hope the EaW FAQ covers a few corner cases with this card.

Reading it it looks like the possible actions are 6 (play a card, activate a character or a support, discard for reroll, resolve dice symbols, use an "action" from a card/character into play, pass). Of course there is "claim" also but it generally happens once.

Am I reading that correctly?

[Buhallin 4,563]

Passing is not an action, but otherwise correct.

[Mep 2,291]

At best, it would stop your opponent from playing a support, not a card.

[Buhallin 4,563]

44 minutes ago, Mep said:

At best, it would stop your opponent from playing a support, not a card.

The action is Play a Card from Hand.  The action is the same regardless of the type of card.  That's what Running Interference would prevent.

"Use a Card Action" seems to treat the action on each card as unique, so if I use the action on Veers you could still use the action on Leia or anything else that wasn't Veers.  But that's pretty solidly the only one, all the others (playing cards, resolving dice, etc) are the same action regardless of what you play/resolve/etc.

[Mep 2,291]

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

The action is Play a Card from Hand.  The action is the same regardless of the type of card.  That's what Running Interference would prevent.

"Use a Card Action" seems to treat the action on each card as unique, so if I use the action on Veers you could still use the action on Leia or anything else that wasn't Veers.  But that's pretty solidly the only one, all the others (playing cards, resolving dice, etc) are the same action regardless of what you play/resolve/etc.

Yeah, that is going to be a bit too powerful. It will need to be cleared up in the FAQ.

[Destraa 222]

35 minutes ago, Mep said:

Yeah, that is going to be a bit too powerful. It will need to be cleared up in the FAQ.

There's still a few cards from Spirit of Rebellion that need addressed (that haven't been) to balance things out, so I don't foresee Running Interference getting clarified anytime soon.

[GooeyChewie 372]

Running Interference needs to be changed.  This past weekend I was using it to force players to claim as their first action (or pass, in which case I also passed and put them in the same spot next round).  One of my opponents already announced it, and The Hyperloops has improved upon it to make a total lockout if your opponent doesn't have a card with an Action ability.

Making RI unique would prevent the lockout.

[Chakan99939 48]

I'm not sure why unique would help.

i'm not sure why you can reliably be locked? Could you explain.

I played it once to force a claim by opponent (Or Pass), but it was a unique situation, most of the time, it was possible for opponent to work around.

Chak

[Joelist 148]

Okay I watched the "lockout" video...

First, it is highly circumstantial. It only works if all of the following are in play:

a) One ambush Weapon in discard and another of the same cost in hand

b) Both RI deployed

c) Sabine Wren needs to be the character

Opponent has to not have any counters.

 

Also, I am not sure it works. Per the RRG these are the actions:

a) Play a card from hand

b) Activate a character or support

c) Resolve dice

d) Discard a card to reroll dice

e) Use a card action

f) Claim the battlefield 

So 6 actions. Let's assume Claim is not available. 

The video has them using RI on Play a Card from Hand and Activate a Character or Support.

So basically if you have any sort of "use a card action" available you beat it. Incidentally, it also fails to work against Jango Fett since he activates on YOUR turn and then takes his turn

Edited September 19, 2017 by Joelist

[Buhallin 4,563]

41 minutes ago, Joelist said:

Okay I watched the "lockout" video...

First, it is highly circumstantial. It only works if all of the following are in play:

a) One ambush Weapon in discard and another of the same cost in hand

The common approach is to use Thermal Paint with Sabine and Infamous.  No cards from hand required, and it's perfectly repeatable.  It is a fairly intense setup though.

43 minutes ago, Joelist said:

So basically if you have any sort of "use a card action" available you beat it. Incidentally, it also fails to work against Jango Fett since he activates on YOUR turn and then takes his turn

Most of the action abilities in the game rely on having dice in your pool.  If you don't, they'll just be a no-op and count as a pass.  There are 3 upgrades and 3 characters (4 including Jango) that could break this.  There are more supports, but most of them suck in the first place and break this chain solely by virtue of exhausting to do nothing.

Forcing a meta choice on people to add awful cards solely to be able to do nothing with them because of this is bad.

About the only reason this isn't stupidly broken is that it's a fairly hefty setup - you need 4 cards, including both copies of Running Interference.  You're at a 0.75% chance of managing that in the opening hand even with an aggressive mulligan.  Once it's in play there are a good number of cards that will disrupt it, too - Rend being the obvious must-include meta card of the day.  Even then, you can still claim against it so you ONLY lose every other turn rather than being completely locked.  But it's still a stupid combo.

It's yet another sign of just how awful the playtesters for Destiny are - really, nobody thought to try two of these with Ambush?? - and it's certainly an awful experience for anyone who does see it get set up against them, but I don't think it actually breaks the game.

[gokubb 234]

First time I read the card, my immediate thought was, "wow, this is an ignorant card design." It's one of those cards that begs for abuse and doesn't add anything to the basic strategies the game 'should' follow. 

The combo isn't broken, but it also isn't a positive play experience. Anyone running it against me may see me take an Action to flip the table.

[GooeyChewie 372]

This combo is a bit like Hyperloops.  It requires enough set up and is easily enough countered by experienced players that it won't win big tournaments.  But it's abusive enough to make inexperienced and casual players rethink whether they really want to show up to next week's tournament. I am seriously considering including it in my own personal "Wheaton's Law" list.

[Buhallin 4,563]

7 minutes ago, gokubb said:

First time I read the card, my immediate thought was, "wow, this is an ignorant card design." It's one of those cards that begs for abuse and doesn't add anything to the basic strategies the game 'should' follow. 

The combo isn't broken, but it also isn't a positive play experience. Anyone running it against me may see me take an Action to flip the table.

I actually think it's an interesting card - things that push or limit your opponent can make for very interesting strategic plays.  The problem is letting it be used back-to-back for two different actions.  There aren't enough actions in the game to keep that from becoming a really major issue.

It would be fine as a unique.

[NetCop 107]

It's the great opportunity for devs to slow down the game because it's even faster now then before EaW. Just replace "Activate character or support" with 2 actions "Activate character" and "Activate support" and boom most decks play some support with dice.

[Joelist 148]

I don't think just having Sabine in play together with Thermal paint does it. All Sabine covers is "Activate Character or Support". Her ability is not playing a card from hand. This is why you also have to have two Ambush cards both costing the same with one in play and one in hand. Otherwise you cannot cover "Play Card From Hand". 

In fact....doesn't the lock require three actions?

a) Play the holdout (in the video example)

b) Activate Sabine

c) Claim

Which again means you have to have two Ambush weapons costing the same with one in your hand to do this - otherwise you won't have the needed three consecutive actions. 

So, sorry but this is not an issue. It is WAY too circumstantial to be a problem. 

[GooeyChewie 372]

36 minutes ago, Joelist said:

I don't think just having Sabine in play together with Thermal paint does it. All Sabine covers is "Activate Character or Support". Her ability is not playing a card from hand. This is why you also have to have two Ambush cards both costing the same with one in play and one in hand. Otherwise you cannot cover "Play Card From Hand". 

In fact....doesn't the lock require three actions?

a) Play the holdout (in the video example)

b) Activate Sabine

c) Claim

Which again means you have to have two Ambush weapons costing the same with one in your hand to do this - otherwise you won't have the needed three consecutive actions. 

So, sorry but this is not an issue. It is WAY too circumstantial to be a problem. 

It depends on how much of the lockout you want to hit.

With RI x2, Infamous and a Thermal Paint in the discard pile, you can activate Sabine, trigger RI on "activate a character or support," play TP from the discard pile giving it Ambush, do its damage and sacrifice it for a bonus damage, then play anything from your hand to trigger the other RI on "play a card from your hand."  Then your opponent either claims and lets you have free reign over the rest of the round, or passes and hopes you don't have anything to play next round.

I pulled that off in two of my four games last Saturday.  Only Rend stopped me from getting together the combo in one game, and in the other game Sabine got burned down too quickly.  And that was with a deck which was not built specifically for the combo.

The full lockout, where you also claim and retrieve an upgrade with Starship Graveyard, requires quite a bit more set-up.  But Ambush weapons and RI are good anyway, so you don't really have to build a "hit the combo or lose" deck.

[Buhallin 4,563]

57 minutes ago, Joelist said:

I don't think just having Sabine in play together with Thermal paint does it. All Sabine covers is "Activate Character or Support". Her ability is not playing a card from hand. This is why you also have to have two Ambush cards both costing the same with one in play and one in hand. Otherwise you cannot cover "Play Card From Hand". 

Note the "and Infamous".

1.  Activate Sabine.  Play Thermal Paint, use Infamous to give it Ambush.  Trigger RI to lock activation.
2.  Play anything else you want.  Trigger RI to lock play a card.

Yes, you have to play a card each turn, but it doesn't have to have Ambush.  Any of a host of 0- or 1-cost cards can do this just fine.

1 hour ago, Joelist said:

In fact....doesn't the lock require three actions?

a) Play the holdout (in the video example)

b) Activate Sabine

c) Claim 

I'm not sure what you're watching, but this isn't it at all.  Following the above two steps, unless you have a usable Action ability you have two choices: Claim or Pass.  If you claim, I get my entire turn uninterrupted.  If you pass, I pass too and we start the whole thing over again.

59 minutes ago, Joelist said:

So, sorry but this is not an issue. It is WAY too circumstantial to be a problem. 

It would be nice if people would actually understand the play before dismissing it.  I'm not sure it's a problem either, because it's still a 4-card combo, but seriously, try and at least have a basic idea of how it works first.

[Joelist 148]

Actually I do understand it. Granted I had to watch the video a couple of times to get the flow mapped because it was too conversational but I get it. And unless you have exactly what I noted it is not repeatable every turn so it is not a full lock like they claim. Unless you can Claim in this sequence your opponent simply Claims and then you cannot lock the next turn. 

I still don't see any real issue here - even the lesser form you propose (in a pretty condescending manner) is a lot of set up and easily defeated before it can be executed. The "full lock" on the Hyperloop video is remote odds. So, just another case of blowing something out of proportion.

[Krazed 12]

It'll get errata'd, just like Outer Rim Smuggler.

 

It's obvious that the function of the card as written far exceeds the intention of it.  FFG really needs to pay attention to how they write cards in the future.  The text on some of these is just garbage.