TheZombieGame.com Forums

I, playing the zombies played an event card that the priest wanted to cancel, but he already had 2 wounds. Another player tried to play "Recovery" to heal the priest so that he could cancel without suiciding.

I argued that my event card must be resolved before another event card can be played. Thoughts?........

Thanks, Dave

http://flyingfrogwiki.com/ffpwiki/index...._of_Spirit

Here's the FAQ from the Frog's mouth about his Strength of Spirit ability. In this case, the Priest is good -- as long as Recovered is played before he announces his attempt to cancel the card. There isn't a limitation against playing multiple cards while others are out -- otherwise you could never cancel!

Remind your players that they can talk strategy at the table. While they shouldn't explicitly share cards, the Father Joe's player could ask, "Anyone have any healing?" and before he tries to cancel. Remember, the game isn't Slap Jack. Keep things clear enough when they're happening and at what pace so everyone has their chance to speak up.

And, welcome to the boards!

Hi, I say the good father isn't dead yet. From the way Im reading it. Unfortunately another Hero could have played Recovery on the good father. Then he could have attempted to remove the card.

I also think the Zombie event card would have taken effect. In order to cancel a Zombie card immediately, like the Hero's wanted. They would have had to play a cancel Immediately. Instead they played Recovery. There fore the Zombie event took effect. After they played recovery, the good father could have used his strength of spirit to remove the zombie event card, and received a wound for the one that was just healed.


Thats the way i see it

---

(08-24-2011 02:33 PM)PJON Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, I say the good father isn't dead yet. From the way Im reading it. Unfortunately another Hero could have played Recovery on the good father. Then he could have attempted to remove the card.

I also think the Zombie event card would have taken effect. In order to cancel a Zombie card immediately, like the Hero's wanted. They would have had to play a cancel Immediately. Instead they played Recovery. There fore the Zombie event took effect. After they played recovery, the good father could have used his strength of spirit to remove the zombie event card, and received a wound for the one that was just healed.



Thats the way i see it

Since I dont now what Zombie event card you were playing here are examples the way I see it.

Lets just say Sam was fighting 4 Zombies. First fight Sam kills a Zombie, Zombie player plays Bitten. Hero's play Recovery, and the good father removes it. Continue fighting. As a Zombie player, keep in mind, the fight starts as soon as Fight dice are rolled. enough said there

Lets say you played Taken Over. Heros play Recovery, Zombie Take over the building. The good father removes the card, but the Zombies stay on the board.

I'm inclined to agree with PJON. If it's a play immediately then I think you would have to cancel immediately before the effects go in the table.

Thanks for the replies so far. FYI, although I don't remember the exact Zombie card that I was trying to play, I do remember that it was not a "Play immediately" card.

"There isn't a limitation against playing multiple cards while others are out -- otherwise you could never cancel!"

Like in most games, I think that a "cancel" card or ability is in a special category, by it's very definition, it is designed to nullify the effect of the preceding card.

Furthermore, if some sequence of order is not established, it seems that this opens up the game to a lot more arguments.

The timing of this sequence of events seems off to me:

1. Zombie plays an event card.
2. Player plays an event card in response to zombie card and resolves his card before Zombies resolve their card (played first).

Thanks for any further help. Dave.

It seems like we are talking about "Remains in play" cards usually. Father Joe's SOS can cancel any zombie card. So how would this go for something like "Shamble?" I think Father Joe should have to make the choice of canceling that card or allowing it to play before any other card effects can be considered. It doesn't make thematic sense to me to let him heal, then cancel a card like this. That is why I try not to let Father Joe get down to 1 wound remaining. I would tend to aggree with the OP in this case. For remains in play, since the effect is constantly in effect, heal first then cancel is fine.

Does this sound right to y'all?

To my knowledge, things work kind of like the "Stack" in Magic: The Gathering. Events resolve in reverse order to the manner in which they were played, except in a case where an event has a cost, like Father Joseph's cancel ability.

Essentially, this would mean:
Order played:
1. Zombie player loses fight and plays bitten
2. Father Joseph, with 2 wounds, decides to cancel to deny the zombie player a zombie hero
3. Another player uses recovery to remove a wound from Father Joseph
Result: Father Joseph dies canceling bitten, recovery is wasted

Order played:
1. Zombie player loses fight and plays bitten
3. Another player uses recovery to remove a wound from Father Joseph
2. Father Joseph, with 2 wounds, decides to cancel to deny the zombie player a zombie hero
Result: Father Joseph heals a wound before taking a wound, therefore he survives the cancel attempt, because the "instant" cards resolve in reverse order.

It doesn't say to in the rules, but our group treats playing LNOE cards the same way you play Magic: The Gathering. When a card is played or an ability is activated, it is put on the stack. Once no more cards/effects are played, everything on the stack resolves in last in, first out order.

Applied to your example:

1. Event is played, goes on the stack.
2. Father Joseph want to use his ability. He can, but he must pay the cost to activate it and put it on the stack. Unfortunately, in order to do this, he will take his last wound and die.
3. Playing Recovery to put it on the stack will not help, because Joseph is already dead. Recovery heals a wound, but does not PREVENT a wound.

It would work if you played Just a Scratch instead, because it would prevent Joseph taking the wound. However, I would argue it would defeat the purpose, because to my mind, if you don't pay the activation cost, you can't play the ability, so if you don't take the wound, you don't activate the ability (just like in Magic).

Personally I would like to see the official rules beefed up to officially have a more rigid system like this for resolving cards and abilities. Right now you have to dig through a lot of errata and FAQs to read all the special cases, and even then a lot of situations are subject to interpretation.

---

(08-26-2011 04:16 PM)thanatos Wrote: [ -> ]Order played:
1. Zombie player loses fight and plays bitten
3. Another player uses recovery to remove a wound from Father Joseph
2. Father Joseph, with 2 wounds, decides to cancel to deny the zombie player a zombie hero
Result: Father Joseph heals a wound before taking a wound, therefore he survives the cancel attempt, because the "instant" cards resolve in reverse order.

This only works because Bitten is a Remains In Play. Thus, you can let it resolve and sit out in play, then at any later time you wish, try to cancel it using Joseph's ability. This means that you can instead heal him first, let that resolve, and THEN trigger his ability. If the event didn't remain in play though, or if you wanted it to be canceled before it ever took effect whatsoever, this would not work.