Clarify something for me...

[TonyLB]

Okay.  So here's how I see it.

Player D is outnumbered two to one.  Nonetheless, if he's willing to invest Debt, he's got a pretty decent chance at creating his own side and making it stick.

Players A and C are likely, if D cares about this, to reap Story Tokens for having put him in this situation.  That elevates this from a "lark", as you put it, to high strategy.  They're working the system masterfully to their own benefit.

Do you see it differently?

[Vaxalon]

Hm, I did until you expressed it that way...

[Paul Hebble]

D stakes two Love Debt on the Red side, splits the dice 2, 2, 1 and takes the 2s for his own, purple side.  The sides are now:  B: 5, R: 1, P: 2+2

D then rolls up one of the twos.  If he gets a three or higher, the Conflict doesn't resolve that Page.  If he fails it resolves for Blue.

Wow.  If I had sat down to play Capes before reading this, I would have had Purple resolve that conflict at the end of that page, if D rolled above three.  And (I now realize) my scenes would always have had only one page, except in the case of non-deadlocked ties, because everything else would have resolved at the end of page 1.

I think that in this case I would have been helped immensely by one more sentence on page 37, explicitly reminding the reader that unless a player has claimed a side on that conflict, he's really just playing to prevent it from resolving this page, not to resolve it himself.  Perhaps an illustration of a conflict that includes the mysterious "marker" from the Claiming section on page 22, for those of us who learn visually.  That should trigger confusion and some re-reading for anyone who's misread things the way I did up to that point.

If it doesn't resolve that Page then the only people who can lay claim to it next Page are B and D.

This part I haven't figured out yet.  Don't A and C still have characters allied with sides of this conflict?  As far as I can tell, page 22 therefore says that they can claim.  It feels like there's some sort of mini- or pseudo-resolution process at work here between pages for unresolved conflicts that I somehow missed.  Can you only claim a given conflict once per scene?  Does "losing" a conflict preclude claiming it again?  What's the mechanic?

[Vaxalon]

If a given conflict can only be claimed once by any given character, I can see situations arising where a conflict can never be resolved because everyone in the scene has claimed it, and failed (either by ties or end-of-page winners by unclaimed characters) to win the claim.

[Paul Hebble]

Oh, duh.  The claims from the previous page still count.  Right?  That's why I couldn't find the part that describes when claim markers evaporate -- they last till resolution.

So, Tony, you meant "lay claim" to mean "establish a claim," whereas I interpreted it to mean "have a claim."  This makes much more sense now.

Vax: I think that's covered by the Deadlocked conflict rule at the bottom of page 30.  A question about Deadlocks, though: it says "if [...] nobody can spend more debt."  What if people can, but would prefer not to?  Can players opt for a deadlock if they don't want to expend more resources?  As written it looks like No, but I don't know how you'd decide who has to spend if no one wants to.

[TonyLB]

Uh... no.  Claims last until the end of that page.  Then everything evaporates, and you get a chance (if you want) to claim it again the next turn.  I agree this isn't well clarified in the rules (mea culpa), but I think the examples make it reasonably clear.

At the bottom of page 49, for instance, Chris's claim on "Get Out Early" fails to resolve.  On page 50, he claims it again.

Make sense?

[Jonas Ferry]

At the bottom of page 49, for instance, Chris's claim on "Get Out Early" fails to resolve.  On page 50, he claims it again.

Let's hope I don't cross-post this with someone..

I read the example differently. In the beginning of page 48 you have the following claims:

Alex: Black "Get out early"
Beth: Nothing
Chris: White "Assert Authority"

Neither Alex or Chris resolve, since black controls "Assert" and white "Get out".

On page 50:

Beth: Opposing side (white) of "Assert"
Chris: White "Get out"
Alex: Black "Assert"

I thought that Beth and Chris ganged up on Alex by both claiming against him on the same conflict, but didn't they would resolve it. Now I see they don't have that problem.

[TonyLB]

Ah... yeah, okay, I misread my own example.

This is one of those blind-spots where I've been doing it one way for so long that I totally neglected the possibility of a totally different interpretation.  It's in the errata, and happily I can squeeze it in for the second edition.

Thanks, everyone, for working the kinks out in this!  I'm getting a bit embarrassed about how many rules ambiguities there turn out to be in what I thought was a tight, clear set of instructions.  Oy.  Not that Thomas didn't warn me.  "More playtesting," he said, "Release it at GenCon," he said.

[Vaxalon]

In spite of all the errata, Tony, I'm perfectly happy having it now.

[Doug Ruff]

Not that Thomas didn't warn me.  "More playtesting," he said, "Release it at GenCon," he said.

I believe I also wrote to you and pleaded with you not to rush the game. For the record, I am so glad that you didn't listen to me! Right now, a lot of people are playing this game, having fun with it and exploring the possibilities. Playtesting can't completely replicate that.

[Vaxalon]

Tony, you ARE going to put any corrections that go into the second printing in the errata file on the site, right?

[TonyLB]

I think they're already up (including this one), actually.  But yes, generally, things go into the errata first, then get corrected in the text second.