Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gokubb

Coercion Questions

35 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Buhallin said:

Not really.  It Binds All Things is a before trigger, and specifically reduces the cost of the upgrade which is played to trigger it.  If there were some generic thing that said "Exhaust to decrease the cost of the next upgrade you play by 1" then it would be right.  But there's no such effect.

There is also no rule that delayed effects expire at the end of the round.  There's nothing in either the rules or the card that says it should expire.  But that's FFG for you.  I have never seen a game company that is less willing to follow their own rules.

True, my bad,  i recalled the card incorrect.  Well then i can see the logic behind this ruling, but right for now there is nothing to support it, i guess new RR will bring something like "All effects end by the end of the round".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vitalis said:

True, my bad,  i recalled the card incorrect.  Well then i can see the logic behind this ruling, but right for now there is nothing to support it, i guess new RR will bring something like "All effects end by the end of the round".

Such a rule would be a very dangerous way to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.  It's what they did with the Holocron, and it already managed to break something else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buhallin said:

Such a rule would be a very dangerous way to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.  It's what they did with the Holocron, and it already managed to break something else.

 

My feeling is they (just gut feel, don't take it for granted) that they wanted this rule from the december...they just felt its so obvious that they forgotten to include it :P

And pls remind me what they changed about holo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vitalis said:

My feeling is they (just gut feel, don't take it for granted) that they wanted this rule from the december...they just felt its so obvious that they forgotten to include it :P

And pls remind me what they changed about holo? 

They didn't want people to steal holocrons via Cunning, so rather than just errata'ing one or the other (Cunning is still a stupidly confusing card) made the rule that you couldn't have an opponent's card in your hand or deck.  Which makes sense, but it wasn't originally there, and you can tell it's not something that comes up often enough for the testers to think about.  Hint: Grievous LOVES Ancient Lightsabers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buhallin said:

They didn't want people to steal holocrons via Cunning, so rather than just errata'ing one or the other (Cunning is still a stupidly confusing card) made the rule that you couldn't have an opponent's card in your hand or deck.  Which makes sense, but it wasn't originally there, and you can tell it's not something that comes up often enough for the testers to think about.  Hint: Grievous LOVES Ancient Lightsabers...

Ah right right this one true. Well yea but i think this is rather common ruling in most CCG - in MtG they always design cards that there is no way to include opponents cards in your hand or deck. But its true - its is card design vs hard ruling, and thats the difference. Holo could be worded like "return this to its owners hand to play an ability for free on the same character. " Bah no "no unowned cards in hand"  ruling needed. Coertion is even easier to word "next action this turn need to be..." again. Im 100% with you thats pretty sloppy card design, but i still gonna blame it to immaturity of the game. They still got at least 1 expansion of "sloppyness credit" with me - if then by the time of 4th expansion they will not learn....we will see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vitalis said:

Ah right right this one true. Well yea but i think this is rather common ruling in most CCG - in MtG they always design cards that there is no way to include opponents cards in your hand or deck. But its true - its is card design vs hard ruling, and thats the difference. Holo could be worded like "return this to its owners hand to play an ability for free on the same character. " Bah no "no unowned cards in hand"  ruling needed. Coertion is even easier to word "next action this turn need to be..." again. Im 100% with you thats pretty sloppy card design, but i still gonna blame it to immaturity of the game. They still got at least 1 expansion of "sloppyness credit" with me - if then by the time of 4th expansion they will not learn....we will see.

As you point out, there is similar ruling in any number of games.  Destiny may still be young, but nothing about this is unique to Destiny.  FFG has 9 LCGs prior to Destiny, two of which ran as CCGs.  Lukas was the lead designer for Android Netrunner, although I can't find anything concrete for the span of his time there.  Rules wise we should even include X-wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault, because their rules are very CCG-like.

They have a HUGE amount of experience at this, but they keep making the same mistakes over and over.  They aren't going to learn.  They don't care to learn, because they are very good at high concept and fun design, and deep analysis, system evaluation, and number crunching just isn't their thing.  They manage to do pretty well, obviously, why put more effort in when all of us suckers will keep paying them for sloppy design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played this in a Thrawnkar deck against my son.  I said he had to play Fair Trade - i think he had 1 character ready and 0 dice showing resource in his pool and I had something like 7 resources.  He argued that he couldn't play Fair Trade as he didn't have a resource die.  We spent so much time arguing, that I forgot what the rest of the cards in his hand were, and I had a Thrawn ready to activate.  

This card is almost not worth the hassle of playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wakefieldbw said:

I played this in a Thrawnkar deck against my son.  I said he had to play Fair Trade - i think he had 1 character ready and 0 dice showing resource in his pool and I had something like 7 resources.  He argued that he couldn't play Fair Trade as he didn't have a resource die.  We spent so much time arguing, that I forgot what the rest of the cards in his hand were, and I had a Thrawn ready to activate.  

This card is almost not worth the hassle of playing.

This should not have been an argument.  The rules on playing a card are pretty clear.  Only if you don't have the resources to pay the cost or you can't meet the play restrictions can you not play a card.  Otherwise you do as much of the ability as you can, even if that means you do nothing but pay for the card and discard it.  "Fair Trade" would need to say "Play only if you have a dice showing a resource in play".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair Trade is a "Then" Card. As such you would play Fair Trade, be unable to resolve the part that requires you to resolve a dice with a resource face and discard the card.

“THEN” EFFECTS (p19):

In order to resolve an effect that is preceded by the word “then,” the previous effects on the card must have fully resolved  i.e., the game state changes to reflect the intent of the effect in its entirety). If the part of an ability that precedes  he word “then” does not successfully resolve in full, the part of the ability that follows the word “then” does not  attempt to resolve.

Example: Scavenge says “Discard the top 3 cards of your deck. Then you may add an upgrade or a support from  our discard pile to your hand.” If less than 3 cards remain in your deck, you cannot add a card to your hand because the previous effect did not fully resolve.

 

 

Kieransi likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my 2 cent interpretation based on what's printed in the RRG under Section 5: Game Structure (pg. 14), Sub-heading: Playing a card, Sub-sub heading: Playing an event. Quote, "The player follows the card’s instructions and then discards it. The card is in limbo while resolving."

My interpretation is that when hit with "Coercion" and barring any play restrictions (i.e. read, "ONLY") or cost restrictions, I am forced to pay for and play the card. However, if the card text is unable to resolve because I cannot follow the instructions on the card at the current state of the game (i.e. no dice in the pool, or not showing the correct symbol, etc.) , then it remains in limbo - NOT DISCARDED - until it can resolve or until the end of the round per FFG's facebook group post (card expires at the end of the round). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0