Short lived Goals?

[Sindyr]

Question: A goal gets resolved when someone has claimed a side and ends the page in control, right?

That is, if one side is higher than another, and that side has at least one player claiming it, at the end of the Page it resolved, right?

So if a Goal has two players claiming it, one on each side, and if the dice are not equal, ie one side is higher, won't that Goal always be resolved by the end of that Page?

Doesn't that mean that almost all Goals are one Page affairs?  As far as I can see the only way to have a Goal *not* be resolved by Page's end is for the dice on both sides to be exactly equal or to have the higher side unclaimed.

Am I missing something here?  I thought Goal could last through many pages, even if both sides were claimed?

I gotta be missing something - what is it?

[dunlaing]

In practice, you'll often see Goals lasting more than one page just because not every side of every goal is claimed on every page (imagine you have three players and four Goals on the table).

But for the most part you have it right. A Goal will be Resolved if the higher side is claimed...

...unless Resolving in that fashion would violate the Comics Code, which is another way things stay around longer than they might otherwise.

[drnuncheon]

Technically, most goals will last more than one page, because they are introduced by Actions, which happen after the claim phase.  There are a couple of situations where you can add goals during the claim phase - a free conflict (from a hero/exemplar pairing or a non-person character) or by spending a story token - but I think they're the exception and not the rule.

J

[Tuxboy]

I gotta be missing something - what is it?

I think it just the fact that a conflict can only be claimed at the beginning of a Page is what you missed, the simple act of rolling dice on a conflict doesn't claim it.

[Sindyr]

On page 30, it says "After Actions, once again in turn order, players look at the conflicts they claimed. If the side they claimed Controls the Conflict, then they resolve it"

Now it doesn't specifically say if this is the first thing of a new Page or the last thing of the old Page, but as I understand it, it happens immediately after all Actions are done, before any other activity.  Since on page 22 is says that the first step of a new Page is players Claiming side of the Conflicts on the table,, this seems to demonstrate that Resolving Conflicts must occur as the last step of a Page, not the first.

Also, since players re-Claim at the beginning of the new Page, does that imply (or is ot stated somewhere) that at the end of the Page, any Conflicts that are not resolved are set back to being unclaimed by any player, so that players must re-Claim the conflicts they are interested in?  Or do all their claims remain on the table from Page to Page?

If, as I suspect, that player's have to re-claim, can they only claim the side that they claimed last time?  Or are they free to claim either side of the conflict?

Speaking of that, if Sam, Mr. Evil's player throws down the Goal: Mr. Evil is not defeated, and Fred claims one side and Bill claims the other - does one side have to result in Mr. Evil being not defeated?  The reason I ask is because perhaps Fred and Bill are both playing Heroes, and they are fighting over the right to resolve this Goal - the both want to resolve it such that Mr. Evil *is* defeated, but they each want to narrate *their* own Hero doing the job.

Is this allowable?  Is a Goal conflict over who gets to narrate the resolution, or by claiming a side are you locked into a particular resolution, ie, one side MUST narrate Mr. Evil being defeated, the other side MUST narrate Mr. Evil being not defeated?

Two more questions:

If Claims get swept of the board on unresolved Conflicts at the end of the page and the new page begins, Fred is first to act.  He wants to Claim a side of the Mr Evil is not defeated - the side I wold have claimed if I had been first to act.  Can I spend a story token to interrupt him and claim it for myself?  Would that be a bad idea if I could?  Is their any way to fight to claim a particular side of a conflict when one is not first to act?

Finally, the original topic - if all Conflicts on a page have all controlling sides claimed at the end of the page, then that will clear all Conflicts, not only ending the Page but the Scene, right?  So if on the first Page only one or two Conflicts are introduced, it is like that the first page will be the last page and the scene will probably be only one page.

Therefor it seems necessary that for interesting Scenes of many Pages, one has to keep a little more than half the numbers of players as Conflicts on the table or the next page could be the last page....

Does that sound right?

[Tuxboy]

this seems to demonstrate that Resolving Conflicts must occur as the last step of a Page, not the first.

Yes...resolving conflicts is the last step...CLAIMING conflicts is the first.

Also, since players re-Claim at the beginning of the new Page, does that imply (or is ot stated somewhere) that at the end of the Page, any Conflicts that are not resolved are set back to being unclaimed by any player, so that players must re-Claim the conflicts they are interested in?  Or do all their claims remain on the table from Page to Page?

Not sure where you got the concept of re-claiming from. If a conflict cannot be resolved then I have always had it continue with the same claims, but this is rare in my experience.

Speaking of that, if Sam, Mr. Evil's player throws down the Goal: Mr. Evil is not defeated, and Fred claims one side and Bill claims the other - does one side have to result in Mr. Evil being not defeated?  The reason I ask is because perhaps Fred and Bill are both playing Heroes, and they are fighting over the right to resolve this Goal - the both want to resolve it such that Mr. Evil *is* defeated, but they each want to narrate *their* own Hero doing the job.

Is this allowable?  Is a Goal conflict over who gets to narrate the resolution, or by claiming a side are you locked into a particular resolution, ie, one side MUST narrate Mr. Evil being defeated, the other side MUST narrate Mr. Evil being not defeated?

From my understanding not only allowable but encourageable.

If Claims get swept of the board on unresolved Conflicts at the end of the page and the new page begins, Fred is first to act.  He wants to Claim a side of the Mr Evil is not defeated - the side I wold have claimed if I had been first to act.  Can I spend a story token to interrupt him and claim it for myself?  Would that be a bad idea if I could?  Is their any way to fight to claim a particular side of a conflict when one is not first to act?

Claims go in order, they is no mechanic to skip your turn and claim earlier. But you could always invest some debt and split off a third side of the conflict that you can claim.

Finally, the original topic - if all Conflicts on a page have all controlling sides claimed at the end of the page, then that will clear all Conflicts, not only ending the Page but the Scene, right?  So if on the first Page only one or two Conflicts are introduced, it is like that the first page will be the last page and the scene will probably be only one page.

Correct on the first part, but not the second...no-one can claim conflicts on the first Page as there are no conflicts available at the start of the Page...claiming is always a retrograde step involving previously lain conflicts (with the exceptions that drnuncheon mentioned).

Resolving conflicts quickly doesn't give you much chance to build resources, so it is actually in the players interests to keep the conflicts ongoing for as long as they can milk them for resources, so in practice the conflicts don't normally resolve that quickly...at least not in games I have played.

[TonyLB]

Not sure where you got the concept of re-claiming from. If a conflict cannot be resolved then I have always had it continue with the same claims, but this is rare in my experience.

Nope.  All claims clear at the end of the page.  You reclaim all new again.

[Tuxboy]

Really? Cool...will have to remember  that at the Con too...

Have I got anything else wrong?

[TonyLB]

The rest looks pretty much right.

Oh, a tiny quibble:  You can have one-page scenes if people use story tokens to create conflicts before the claiming phase.

What?  I said it was tiny!

[Tuxboy]

Oh good...was beginning to wonder *L*

Oh, a tiny quibble:  You can have one-page scenes if people use story tokens to create conflicts before the claiming phase.

What?  I said it was tiny!

but wouldn't that depend on no-one raising a conflict during the normal course of play?

[TonyLB]

Yes.  Any page in which someone uses an action to create a conflict is not the last page of the scene.

[Hans]

Am I missing something here?  I thought Goal could last through many pages, even if both sides were claimed?

One other point you might have missed.  Sometimes, people will purposely NOT claim a conflict, expressly to keep the scene going.  Perhaps they have more conflicts they want to get on the table.  Perhaps they think if they keep the thing around, they will get more resources from it.  Perhaps people are just having fun with a particular conflict, and don't want to see it go away just yet.

I have purposely forgone my one free claim at the beginning of a page because I knew I had to roll on a conflict THIS page, but still wanted to introduce another conflict NEXT page, and I had no story tokens to take an extra action.  By not claiming, I ensured one conflict was unclaimed on both sides, and hence ensured that the scene would continue to another page regardless of what was rolled.

[Sindyr]

OK - so if I introduce a new conflict in a Page, no one can claim either side of it till next page, and since no one has claimed any sides, no one can roll on it or effect it.

Basically, any conflict newly created cannot be in any way affected until the Page after it was created, right?

And I want to recheck and make sure I have this crystal clear:
If a Goal: Captain Good saves the day is in play and one player takes one side and another player takes the other side, *either* play could, should they win the conflict narrate either Captain Good accomplishing that Goal or failing that Goal freely, however they wish, with no restriction based on whether it was the blue die or the red die they claimed?  Do they even have to tell the other players of their future intentions?

For example, say I am playing a Villain, Mr. Evil.  Fred, playing Captain Good throws down the Goal: Captain good saves the day!  He claims one side and I claim the other.  Eventually I win.  However, perhaps their is some reason I still want to narrate Captain Good succeeding - maybe I just wanted to have the last word on the last Goal of the scene to set up the next scene narratively.  So I narrate Fred's character defeating mine, and further narrate my character's incarceration at a particular facility that I want to explore next scene.

Can another player, who is also playing a villain supposedly allied with mine, cry foul play when I resolve the Goal in so unexpected a way?

One more point of clarification:
if I have claimed the red side of a Conflict and Fred claims the blue side. and the Conflict does not resolve this page, next Page after all the claims are wiped away can I claim the blue side?

Also, if two other players have claimed both sides of a conflict and I want to split off a third side, one debt token is sufficient?  Does that token go under the (my) new die?  If I later want to split that die, one more debt token is all that's required?

FYI, went t a gaming store last night to try to collect payers, but wasn't many people there and everyone was already in a game they were there to play. :(

[TonyLB]

since no one has claimed any sides, no one can roll on it or effect it.

Nope.  The claims at the beginning of a page only have meaning at the end of the page.  They have no impact on actions.  You can roll on whatever you want, at any time.

If a Goal: Captain Good saves the day is in play and one player takes one side and another player takes the other side, *either* play could, should they win the conflict narrate either Captain Good accomplishing that Goal or failing that Goal freely, however they wish, with no restriction based on whether it was the blue die or the red die they claimed?  Do they even have to tell the other players of their future intentions?

Yes they could, and no they don't have to.  But it's generally good strategy to tell people what insidious perversions of nature you will cause if they don't stop you.  Gets the blood pumping, and all that.

One more point of clarification:
if I have claimed the red side of a Conflict and Fred claims the blue side. and the Conflict does not resolve this page, next Page after all the claims are wiped away can I claim the blue side?

Yeah ... unless you, like, rolled to increase the red side or anything.  That would make you Allied to the red side, so you couldn't claim the blue.

Also, if two other players have claimed both sides of a conflict and I want to split off a third side, one debt token is sufficient?  Does that token go under the (my) new die?  If I later want to split that die, one more debt token is all that's required?

That looks correct on all counts.

[Hans]

Just to clarify for you, Sindyr, there are two different relationships you can have with a conflict, Allied and Claimed.  You can be Allied with a side; this means you have rolled in order to increase this side's chance of success (either by rolling it up, or rolling the other side down).  You can change your Allied status by simply rolling in favour of the other side at any time.  You can also Claim a side; this means that you intend that conflict to resolve that page.  If you are Allied to a side on a conflict, you can only Claim that side, but if you are not Allied to either side of a conflict, you can claim either side.  Claiming and Alliance are two different but related concepts.  Only Claiming leads to the conflict resolving at the end of a page; Alliance does not.  In our games we represent this by coloured tokens.  If the token is near the side of the conflict, but not on the 3x5 card, you are Allied.  If the token is on the 3x5 card, you have Claimed.

I assume that if you Claim a side, you are considered Allied with that side (although I'm not sure this is clear from the rules).  That is, if you Claim a side, but never roll on it, you are still considered Allied with that side for the purpose of Claims next page. 

Its not clear to me that you can Claim a side, and then intentionally become Allied to the other side by rolling AGAINST yourself.  I can think of a couple of reasons why you might want to do this, but I'm not sure if it is possible.