Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cult player uses a strat, druk player uses vect. Can you use 'a plan generations in the making' on their vect so that your original strat goes off?

Thanks

ravenerioli wrote:
Cult player uses a strat, druk player uses vect. Can you use 'a plan generations in the making' on their vect so that your original strat goes off?

Thanks

A good question that I suspect has no answer due to the vague nature of GW's rules writing. My first instinct would be that whoever's turn it is decides the ordering due to the Sequencing rule, since both APGITM and Agents of Vect happen "just after your opponent has spent CPs to use a Stratagem, but before the effects of that Stratagem are resolved."

My money is on GW flipping a coin and picking a random option to resolve it, naturally only included in the GSC codex FAQ because you obviously need that particular FAQ to play Dark Eldar amirite?

Assuming it's written the same as Agents, I would think that you could.

You use Strat A, Drukhari player uses Agents - this interrupts the process of applying the effects of that stratagem. You then use Plan, which interrupts the process of applying the effects of Agents. There's no reason why you can't have these sorts of "nested interruptions".

 Cheexsta wrote:
Assuming it's written the same as Agents, I would think that you could.

You use Strat A, Drukhari player uses Agents - this interrupts the process of applying the effects of that stratagem. You then use Plan, which interrupts the process of applying the effects of Agents. There's no reason why you can't have these sorts of "nested interruptions".

This is correct.

Sequencing isn't relevant here, as they don't have the same triggering event. They are reacting to CP being spent on two different Stratagems.

Where is the rule stating you get to resolve one before the other?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Where is the rule stating you get to resolve one before the other?

Agents of Vect is a stratagem. If you use A Plan on it, you clearly resolve A Plan before Agents of Vect. Because A Plan says that you cancel the target stratagem.

Seems like there's not really an FAQ required here. If a DE players uses Vect then has APGITM used in return the sequence is clear: APGITM gets to be resolved in response to Vect because that's what its rules say it does. The opposite would also be true if it was the DE player using Vect on APGITM.

Seems just like playing a NOPE card to counter a NOPE card in Exploding Kittens! Agree with posters just above me on how to resolve.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Seems just like playing a NOPE card to counter a NOPE card in Exploding Kittens! Agree with posters just above me on how to resolve.

UNO reversal, thank god they stopped us from using a stratagem more then once per turn.

Slipspace wrote:
Seems like there's not really an FAQ required here. If a DE players uses Vect then has APGITM used in return the sequence is clear: APGITM gets to be resolved in response to Vect because that's what its rules say it does. The opposite would also be true if it was the DE player using Vect on APGITM.

Agreed.

Not to mention, if A Plan can't interrupt Vect then Vect can't interrupt anything! A Plan would use the same mechanism to stop Vect from resolving as Vect uses to stop it's target from resolving.

Otherwise you can say "sure, you can use Agents of Vect in response to my Rotate Ion Shields, but I get to resolve Rotate Ion Shields before you resolve Vect". Which makes no sense.

Agreed. It’s simply logical.

It's basically whoever plays their "you can't do this" counter trap card (yugioh) first loses in GSC vs Dark Eldar match up.

An interrupt on an interrupt has been a thing in tabletop gaming for... longer than I've been an adult.

They both explicitly resolve before their parent. Therefore, the child definitely resolves first.

Bharring wrote:
An interrupt on an interrupt has been a thing in tabletop gaming for... longer than I've been an adult.

They both explicitly resolve before their parent. Therefore, the child definitely resolves first.

[Citation Needed] There is no indication, explicit or otherwise, about what happens in 40k when this happens. We're given a nebulous "after CP is paid but before the stratagem resolves" timing.

I agree that the last one to be played SHOULD be the first one resolved but it is in no way clear.

`A Plan` has a rule that states you resolve `A Plan` before you resolve the stratagem it is played upon.

`Vect` has a rule that states you resolve `Vect` before you resolve the stratagem it is played upon.

`Vect` targets stratagem `somestrat`.
`A Plan` targets stratagem `Vect`.

Per `Vect`, do not resolve `somestrat` yet - `Vect` is not done - citation, AoV
Per `A Plan`, do not resolve `Vect` yet - `A Plan` is not done - citation, `A Plan`
Execute `A Plan` per its rules - citation - `A Plan`
Then, "execute" `Vect`, as modified by `A Plan` - citation `A Plan`
Then, "execute" `somestrat`, as modified by the modified `Vect` - citation, `Vect`.

It's a lot simpler to just say each layered FIFO element goes into a stack, and you pop them each. Because the above is a very wordy way to break it all down and provide citations.

Exactly. Read and apply the Stratagems. No citations other than that needed. The second interrupt interrupts the first interrupt.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An interrupt on an interrupt has been a thing in tabletop gaming for... longer than I've been an adult.

They both explicitly resolve before their parent. Therefore, the child definitely resolves first.

[Citation Needed] There is no indication, explicit or otherwise, about what happens in 40k when this happens. We're given a nebulous "after CP is paid but before the stratagem resolves" timing.

I agree that the last one to be played SHOULD be the first one resolved but it is in no way clear.

That is how it works according to how the rules are written and it's clear. There's nothing particularly special about Vect in this scenario. It's just the same as any other stratagem. You play A Plan on it and it potentially stops Vect working. The fact Vect is basically identical to A Plan isn't relevant at all - it doesn't resolve until you've determined the results of A Plan, just like using a re-roll stratagem wouldn't resolve until you determine the effects of A Plan.

I also believe that you can stop Vect with A Plan (and viceversa)...

However, even if more common, it's not necessarily true, or what GW wants.
There are A LOT of games in which any interrupting action/card/moves cannot be interrupted again by something else before it is resolved.

True, this introduces a small distinction between stratagems and counter-stratagems, so probably GW agree with us.

But, still, it would make sense that a 4 CP stratagems (pricier than ANYTHING else after FAQ, and not by mistake) will always work. Also, If their plan are to introduce more and more gameplay based on stratagems (I continue to feel a growing and hideous MTG vibe) have possibly endless indentation of effects that stack ti be resolved in reverse order... really they want that?

Honestly I dunno. Both options have pros and cons. I won't be so sure of what will happen with the FAQ (but I expect a 4 CP attached cost)

You’d need a rule stating it couldn’t be interrupted, so in absence of one it can.