stormwolf27 said:

RAW = Rules As Written

RAI = Rules As Intended

So your interpretation of the acronyms is spot on. I think.

I was going to bring up the timing charts from AGoT (which are published in the FAQ rather than the core ruleset) because they go into much more detail. It is interesting to note that in the "Framework Action Window" there are "Framework Events" that occur in a specific order. I find it interesting that, if you take the SW charts on pages 30 and 31 at face value, they changed the "framework event" to include more than one step, i.e."Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards and resolve edge battle". The AGoT charts are much more granular, and include exact points where save/cancels, passive abilities, and responses can occur. I stand by my original thought that there was not enough space in the core rulebook to fully expand the charts to explain the framework actions fully (though there was certainly enough room for all the fluff in the first pages…).

I think I see where this is going, but I'm not sure.

There are several things such as this that I'm sure will be in the FAQ, when they finally release it. Without sounding like a broken record, I can't really say any more as far as my interpretation of the flowcharts going from my knowledge of the AGoT ones. Hopefully they will print a more detailed account of the framework windows and action windows then.

I'm not sure the stormwolf and my answers are actually any different… we both agree that resolving a strike is a framework event and resolving fate cards is a substep in a framework event.  Stormwolf, would you agree that resolving a specific combat icon type is also a substep of the "resolve strike" framework event and not in and of itself a framework event?

dbmeboy said:

I would, indeed. I think, if and when they release a flowchart of the timing structure like they did for AGot, where they include the different steps with response/interrupt opportunities, it will become much clearer.

My interpretation, although I don't see any rules "consequence" so far, agrees with stormwolf as well:

There are many frameworks events, which so far are only those indicated as such in the rulebook. Some of them comprise explicitely more than one step (other COULD involve multiple steps, if any submechanic was to be introduced by cards, without a re-writing of the flow-chart). 

Therefore, placing cards in the edge stack is, in my interpretation, a "step" of an un-breakable framework event, just as much as resolving an icon in a strike is a sub-step of the framework event "resolving the strike".

Best

Geki

OK, I see what you're saying now, and I think we basically all agree.  Resolving damage from a blast icon would be a substep of a framework event (resolve a strike).  Resolving a fate card would be a substep of a framework event(resolve fate cards).  Yes, neither instance is a framework event in and of itself.  How is any of this pertinent?  I'm getting there.  The next step in the process is this:

Does RAW (rules as written) support the following?

Blast damage (resolving a blast icon as a result of a strike) is a framework game effect.

Unopposed damage being applied to an objective is a framework game effect.

Resolving Target of Opportunity is NOT a framework game effect.

Surge1000 said:

RAW do not support any of those statements, because they do not define a "framework game effect". I'm not sure if you worded it that way on purpose, but since we are being picky here, and dbmeboy pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a "framework effect".

If that was unintentional wording I can go in a different direction to get to the same conclusion. Either way I do not believe that RAW support the resolving of Twist of Fate being treated differently than resolving the other things you mention.

I am more curious than ever to see where this leads.

So, now that we're post FAQ, can anyone venture to explain why resolving a blast icon is a framework game effect, rewarding unopposed bonus is a framework game effect but resolving a fate card is NOT a framework game effect?  When I look at the chart structure on page 31 (resolve a strike, reward unopposed bonus and resolve fate cards are all in framework event text boxes), and according to the definitions on page 30 and in the FAQ regarding framework events, the reasoning behind the ruling is not any clearer, at least not insofar as it relates to what is considered a framework game effect.

Or should I focus on the part of the FAQ that states: "card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Death Star dial," meaning units are not considered cards, since their effects DO interact with the DS dial when resolving a strike?  Well, that can't be right..units are referred to as cards mutiple times in the rules.  So maybe combat icons are not effects then, except where the text on page 21 says combat icons represent the effects of a striking card on its enemy.

Or should I just quit trying to rationalize the ruling and accept it at face value, blast icons and unopposed damage affect the DS dial, nothing else?  I prefer to comprehend rulings rather than just memorize them.  I'm not sure in this case that's truly possible.

If only they had spent some time in the section of the FAQ where they talked about the difference between Framework Events and Actions to define Framework Game Effect.  That answer is the only reference to the term anywhere in the FAQ or rule book.  I already sent in a rules question asking for a clarification on the meaning of the term.

Unfortunately, I'm almost seeing where this is coming from. It could be said that a "framework game effect" is an outcome that results from the game itself - i.e. the "rules of the game". Placing blast damage and rewarding unopposed happen because they are part of  the "framework" of the game. Something like Target of Opportunity, on the other hand, could be seen as more of a "card effect", something that happens because a particular card says it can. I know it's a weak argument, because, hey, that Blast Damage icon is part of the card! But it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

I think it could have been handled better. The wording is clumsy, the term is not defined, and placing it at the very end like they did feels like they tossed it out there and ducked out of the room. As dbmeboy said, a definition of the term and a little more detailed info about how it fits into the advanced timing rules would have been very helpful.

ziggy2000 said:

OK, I kinda see what you're saying, with the same sort of flimsy grasp of blast icons as a framework effect only because they're clearly defined.  And basically, trying to use the term they did refine, "framework event" to help define "framework game effect" is a misapplication altogether.  So they didn't attempt to define the term at all, really, they just said, "this and this are framework game effects, nothing else that could damage an objective is, now, guess the definition," assuming your definition is in line with designer's intent.

ziggy2000 said:

I think this is probably in line with their intent. I can't find much RAW to support - but, i'll give it a try - If we look at resolving strikes - Blast damage Icons are the only part of the strike that we have no control over - they are "forced".  We can't say - oh, I don't apply my damage (not that there's a reason to do that yet). We choose from legal targets for both the Tactics and unit damage icons. Blast Damage Icons however have no player interaction (other than enabling or disabling them via being an attacker or defender and the winning the edge for edge enabled versions.)

If the framework event is to resolve strikes - we can see the resolution for the event on page 20, we're even given an order in which to resolve the combat icons. In this manner, we can imagine the combat icons as framework game effects (the definition of which does not appear anywhere, and the term only appears in the FAQ) and not card effects - instead the card merely tells the framework how many times to resolve each icon.

Meanwhile the Framework Event containing fate cards, uses the substeps on page 19, and in 3. on page 20 we can see that the effects of the fate cards are clearly fate card effects*. "Each player resolves the effects of fate cards placed in his edge stack." This should be sufficient to show that they are at the least not "framework game effects" because they are "effects of fate cards." - and thus cannot deal damage to the dial. (Of course this won't work if they define fate card effects to be framework game effects…)

*(As they are not built into the framework of the game - nor do they use the interrupt or reaction… In fact we actually have an interesting problem with fate cards - take a look at the rules page 24. It says ; "All card abilities fall into one of the following types: Constant Effects, Actions, Traits, Interrupts, Reactions, and Keywords."   - There's actually no explicit definition for what a fate card ability is. )

So - to me, this means they need to define what "framework game effects" are - and what a "fate card effect" is. Assuming the above is RAI - it doesn't require much addition to give us an RAW that matches.

Ravncat said:

This is the part of your argument that makes the most sense to me, and why I called placing blast damage part of the "framework" of the game.

Bomb posted in the Trench Run thread something very similar to what I was trying to say, but articulated it much better. This post does so as well.

I also think a definition of a "framework game effect" would be in order, and agree that fate card effects need to be defined in relation to the list of card abilities that you made.

I did just get this from Nate French:

Yes, I agree, having these terms formally defined in the definitions and terms would be a worthy addition to help people understand the rulings. I'll have them added to the 1.1 update, which we should be able to post with the tourney rules.  

…could you explicitly define "card effect" and "framework game effect" as neither of those terms are used anywhere else?