More questions coming from actual play...

[Sindyr]

1) In what order are conflicts resolved?  Say there are 4 conflicts on the table, and at the end of the page, 3 can be resolved.  How do you determine which get resolved first?  This can matter.

2) If someone plays a goal "Tom's villain kills a hero".  Two players claim either side, Tom (who is playing the villain) and John (who is playing a hero).  Tom is in control at the end of the page, narrates shooting John's hero, and Gloats (since the comics codes forbids a hero getting killed in this case) get a story token, and turns down his six to a 1.

Next page Tom and John again have claimed both sides, but this time John has control at the end.  John has an idea, and says "*I* am gloating", and he narrates Tom's villain shooting and missing, turning *his* die back to 1.

Tom and John go back and forth over the next 27 pages pumping tokens out of the Goal.

Is this legal?  My understanding of a conflict is that one claims a side without any required promises or indication of *how* you intend to resolve it.  And by winning the conflict, you then can resolve it in any way you like, including ways that would be gloatable - whether the character you are playing is a hero or villain, right?

I mean, what's to prevent a player playing a hero from playing "Goal: My Hero tries to do X without dying" and simply choose to Gloat everytime his claims and controls, narrating continual narrow escapes?

Finally,
3) A player (call him Nigel) had invested a lot of debt and use of resources into wining a conflict.  At the beginning of the page, this conflict had 3 sides:
Side 1: 3,4
Side 2: 5,5
Side 3: 2,2,2 (Nigel)

Side one and two got claimed, but Nigel did not claim his side. At the end of the page, it wound up as:
Side 1: 3,4
Side 2: 5,5
Side 3: 2,3,3,5 (Nigel)

At the start of the following page, since I was first to act and since I was not aligned with any of the 3 sides, I claimed Side 3.  Nigel could not then claim Side 1 or 2, since he was aligned with 3 still, the other 2 players could not defeat me, and I won Side 3 of that conflict even though I never spend one action on it - is this legal?

4) One side of a conflict has a six. I know I could spend one debt and off my own side from the 6, splitting it into 2 3's and claimingone of them. Can I spend 2 debt and split the dice into 3 2's and claim 2 of them?, leaving a single 2 on the pre-existing side?

[TonyLB]

1)  Yes, it can matter.  Use your best discretion.

2)  Third player claims a side, says "Screw both of y'all," and resolves it.

3)  Yes, though Nigel can (at will) split all three of his dice away to side 4 and leave you holding thin air, so you basically resolve that on his sufferance.

4) Are you allied with the side that rolled the six?  If so then yes you may, as per p. 125, Spiteful Schism.

[Sindyr]

1)  Yes, it can matter.  Use your best discretion.

Official answer is that there is no official answer for resolution order?

2)  Third player claims a side, says "Screw both of y'all," and resolves it.

That is dodging the question.  What if ALL players are milking it for story tokens? Is this legal?

3)  Yes, though Nigel can (at will) split all three of his dice away to side 4 and leave you holding thin air, so you basically resolve that on his sufferance.

Can you stake or split when it's not your turn? I thought not. If so, when can you stake or split, and when can you not?

Or when you say "at will", you mean any page after I claim but before the page ends, on his turn?

4) Are you allied with the side that rolled the six?  If so then yes you may, as per p. 125, Spiteful Schism.

What if I am NOT allied with the side that rolled the six?  I can't find the rule(s) in the book that says where you can stake debt is limited by where of if you have aligned.  As far as I can see, there are only two places where what side you are allied with matters:
1) You cannot claim any side of a conflict except the one you are currently allied with. (If you are allied with no side, then you can claim any)
2) After any narration concerning a conflict where the narrator is not currently controlling the conflict, anyone allied with the other side can add an "And then..."

I cannot find any other rules or ways in which being Allied with a side either hinders or helps a player.

So here are four actions.  As far as I can see in the rule book, they are all legal.
Situation I am allied with the red die, and have claimed it, which is a six.  My opponent Fred is allied with the blue die and has claimed it, which is also a six.

A) I stake 2 debt and split the red 6 into 2 3's, and then try to roll one up.
B) I stake 1 debt on the blue die, splitting his 6 into 3 and 3, and create a third side (a 3) which I am now allied with. I am no longer Allied with the side I Claimed at the beginning of the page, but my claim remains as no rule in Capes revokes a Claim.
C) A third player, Mary, allied with the red die stakes 1 debt on the blue die, splitting it into 3 and 3, and makes her own side.
D) Mary, not allied with either side, stakes 1 debt and splits off her own new side (from red or blue), leaving 3 on the old side.

Also, on page 30 it says (at the top): Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to the losing characters.

However, story tokens do not go to characters, they go to players.

Should it read: "Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to one or more players allied with the losing side(s) as they see fit."?

If a player was allied with the losing side but is so no longer, can the winner give them tokens?
If a player was allied to the losing, became allied to the winning side, and then once again became allied to the losing side can the winner give them tokens?

Further note: Is this play OK?
Conflict has two die, one on each side, both showing a one.
This is a conflict that for some reason I want to win.

Another player, Fred, claims a side (the red die).
Later in the page on his turn he rolls the 1 up to a 5. I try to react that down, and fail.
On my turn instead of rolling up the unclaimed blue die, I stake two debt and split his 5 into a 2, another 2, and a 1.  I keep both 2's for my own new side and leave him with one 1.

Isn't this a much better maneuver than picking up the unclaimed and unrolled blue die?  By Staking an Splitting his die I can lower him and raise me.  After all, I am not bound to pay any attention to the unclaimed and unrolled (and unallied) blue die am I?

Please let me know in detail with references to the appropriate page of the Capes book if any of the stuff above is against the rules.

Please also let me know if I have come up with any tactics that are legal but that even experienced Capes players have not seen before.  That would be quite an ego boost.  ;)

[TonyLB]

Official answer is that there is no official answer for resolution order?

Yep.

That is dodging the question.  What if ALL players are milking it for story tokens? Is this legal?

Uh ... sure.  Have a ball.

Or when you say "at will", you mean any page after I claim but before the page ends, on his turn?

Right.  On his action.

What if I am NOT allied with the side that rolled the six?  I can't find the rule(s) in the book that says where you can stake debt is limited by where of if you have aligned.

It isn't, but splitting a new side is.  Page 37, where splitting is defined, specifies that it's "the side you've been supporting so far."  I could have cleaned that up and said specifically that you have to be allied ... but hey, now you know.

Also, on page 30 it says (at the top): Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to the losing characters.

However, story tokens do not go to characters, they go to players.

Yes, but players don't lose, characters do.  It's tricky, yes?

Should it read: "Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to one or more players allied with the losing side(s) as they see fit."?

It should probably read something like "Story tokens may go to any player other than the one dispensing them, so long as that player has, at some point, had a character allied to one of the losing sides of the conflict in question."

If a player was allied with the losing side but is so no longer, can the winner give them tokens?
If a player was allied to the losing, became allied to the winning side, and then once again became allied to the losing side can the winner give them tokens?

Yes and yes.  So long as they provided opposition somewhere along the way.

[Sindyr]

Official answer is that there is no official answer for resolution order?

Yep.

My group wants an answer on this - I thought I would tell them that at the end of the page, the page starter resolves any that they can, followed by the next person, and so on. Does this sound good?

By the way, I assume that if you claims a side, and you have control of the conflict at the end of the page, you MUST resolved that conflict, you cannot pass and let the conflict continue?

That is dodging the question.  What if ALL players are milking it for story tokens? Is this legal?

Uh ... sure.  Have a ball.

Hmm - this also wont work for my group.  They want to have some way to break the cycle of *everyone* Gloating on the conflict without asking players to act in such a way as to disadvantage themselves.

This is a thorny one.  When I have some time I will start a thread specifically on this potentially broken piece of Capes.

What if I am NOT allied with the side that rolled the six?  I can't find the rule(s) in the book that says where you can stake debt is limited by where of if you have aligned.

It isn't, but splitting a new side is.  Page 37, where splitting is defined, specifies that it's "the side you've been supporting so far."  I could have cleaned that up and said specifically that you have to be allied ... but hey, now you know.

So if Fred and John are fighting over a conflict, Fred has claimed the red die and John the blue, and John has a 1 and Fred has a 6.  Assuming that I am not allied to either side, I am allowed to stake debt on the 6, but I am not allowed to split off into a new side the six into 3 and 3 because I have never (and could never) roll down the blue one or up the red 6?

So what you are saying is that in a situation where one side has a 1 and the other has a six, assuming that I haven't ever rolled on anything on the conflict, I can roll up the blue 1 and then split it into a new side?

I am assuming that to count as "trying to roll up or down a die" the action must be possible, ie, In order to ally myself with the opposing side I cannot try to roll down a 1 because it is not possible.

Better yet, would this be legal:
Blue die is showing X (a low number, 1,2, or 3), red die is showing Y (a high number, 4, 5, or 6).  I am not allied with either side.
-On my turn, if X is not a 1, try to roll it down.  Whether I succeed or not, I am now allied with red.  Stake 2 debt and split
Y into 3 dice, and take the top 2 to form my own new side, now in control.
[if y was 4, I now have a 2 and a 1, and red has a 1; if y was 5, I now have two 2's and red has a 1, if y was a 6, I now have 2 2's and red has a 2 also]

-On the other hand, if X=1, then I act on my turn to roll it up.  If I succeed (and I probably will) if the number is not a six I then react to roll it down, making me allied with red.  Now I can stake and split off on the red side I believe.

In any case, to make sure I understand this, one cannot split a side that they are not allied to, even if they are also not allied to the other side.

Just thought of another potential problem.

As far as I can see, the rule that says "if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split of and form your own side" only seems to limit splitting that forms a new side.

If I have never allied with either side, I can still split the red 6 into two red 3's, but I cannot take any of them into a new side. 

So what if the blue die is 1 and the red die is 5.  John has claimed the red die and I don't want him to win this conflict.

I *can* split the 5 using 2 debt into 2 and 3 (as long as I am not yet making a new side).  I can then roll up the 3, and say I get a 5. Now I am allied with the red side, which consists of 2 dice, a 2 and a 5, each with one of my debt tokens underneath it.

At this point can I split off my own side, because I am now alied and its still my turn.  How?  Do I split the 2 in a 1 with a token and a 1 without a token, and give the red side the 1 without a token, and take the tokened 5 and 1 for my new 3 dice side?

Thanks

[TonyLB]

My group wants an answer on this - I thought I would tell them that at the end of the page, the page starter resolves any that they can, followed by the next person, and so on. Does this sound good?

'kay.

By the way, I assume that if you claims a side, and you have control of the conflict at the end of the page, you MUST resolved that conflict, you cannot pass and let the conflict continue?

That's correct.

Hmm - this also wont work for my group.  They want to have some way to break the cycle of *everyone* Gloating on the conflict without asking players to act in such a way as to disadvantage themselves.

Resolving that is wholly to their advantage, so that should be no problem.  Don't get addicted to Story Tokens.  Inspirations rock too.

Better yet, would this be legal:

Yeah, but it'd be a hell of a lot more efficient just to claim the Red side, wouldn't it?

[Sindyr]

OK, thanks for plugging away at these questions, I have been apparently nominated for my groups Capes answer man (IE, the mensch whose job it is to ask the questions on this forum and bring back the answers), so I appreciate the help.

Yeah, but it'd be a hell of a lot more efficient just to claim the Red side, wouldn't it?

Sorry, what I should have said was: (the edited part in italics)

Better yet, would this be legal:
In this example the red side is claimed and the player claiming it is about to resolve it at the end of this page - so the goal is blocking that player from winning it this page while at the same time setting ourself up to claim and win the conflict next page
Blue die is showing X (a low number, 1,2, or 3), red die is showing Y (a high number, 4, 5, or 6).  I am not allied with either side.
-On my turn, if X is not a 1, try to roll it down.  Whether I succeed or not, I am now allied with red.  Stake 2 debt and split
Y into 3 dice, and take the top 2 to form my own new side, now in control.
[if y was 4, I now have a 2 and a 1, and red has a 1; if y was 5, I now have two 2's and red has a 1, if y was a 6, I now have 2 2's and red has a 2 also]

-On the other hand, if X=1, then I act on my turn to roll it up.  If I succeed (and I probably will) if the number is not a six I then react to roll it down, making me allied with red.  Now I can stake and split off on the red side I believe.

Still copacetic?

And I still am not sure about the following example - did you say I got it 100% right?

As far as I can see, the rule that says "if you disagree with the side you've been supporting so far, you can split off and form your own side" only seems to limit splitting that forms a new side.

If I have never allied with either side, I can still stake and split dice, but I cannot take any of them into a new side.

So what if the blue die is 1 and the red die is 5.  John has claimed the red die and I don't want him to win this conflict.

I *can* split the 5 using 2 debt into 2 and 3 (as long as I am not yet making a new side).  I can then roll up the 3, and say I get a 5. Now I am allied with the red side, which consists of 2 dice, a 2 and a 5, each with one of my debt tokens underneath it.

At this point can I split off my own side, because I am now alied and its still my turn.  How?  Do I split the 2 into a 1 with a token and a 1 without a token, and give the red side the 1 without a token, and take the tokened 5 and 1 for my new 2 dice side?

If I got the above right, then basically it comes down to this: If I use the above maneuver I get two dice for my 2 debt, and I get to hurt my opponent, possibly blocking him from resolving it this turn.

If my opponent does not have a high number on his side and/or he has not yet claimed that side, then I would probably forego the above manuever, and simply roll up the blue side, stake and split, and so on, getting 3 dice for my 2 debt.

But if the red side is significantly higher than the blue, and/or the red side has been claimed and has a good chance of resolving at the end of this page, then the above manuever may make a lot of sense.

Don't you think?  Unless it's not legal.

Is it legal?

[TonyLB]

Is it legal?

Sindyr ... again I refer you to page 125, where this strategy (and others) are laid out explicitly.  They're legal.  Go to it.  Enjoy.

[Sindyr]

OK, great.  Thanks for helping to double check this stuff for the group.

[Hans]

My group wants an answer on this - I thought I would tell them that at the end of the page, the page starter resolves any that they can, followed by the next person, and so on. Does this sound good?

This is the way we do it, just to avoid confusion.  However, I would leave it open somewhat to consensus, in that there are times when it is obviously RIGHT that one conflict should resolve before another.  If everyone can agree to a particular order other than the official one, I would say go for it.

[Hans]

That is dodging the question.  What if ALL players are milking it for story tokens? Is this legal?

Uh ... sure.  Have a ball.

Hmm - this also wont work for my group.  They want to have some way to break the cycle of *everyone* Gloating on the conflict without asking players to act in such a way as to disadvantage themselves.

This is a thorny one.  When I have some time I will start a thread specifically on this potentially broken piece of Capes.

Tony mentioned the mechanic around this, which is that player 3, who is tired of player 1 and 2 milking a conflict for story tokens, busts off a third side and resolves the darn thing in disgust.  But even if player 3 starts milking for story tokens as well, this is a design feature, not a broken rule.  If all 3 players in a three player game want to sit there and keep gloating over the poor hero being shot at, more power to them; its obviously the game they want to be playing and the story they want to tell. 

The next scene is going to be crazy wild, with four characters each and extra actions out the wazoo.  Expect it to last about 8 hours.

This is your brain...*crack, sizzle* this is your brain on story tokens...

[Sindyr]

That is dodging the question.  What if ALL players are milking it for story tokens? Is this legal?

Uh ... sure.  Have a ball.

Hmm - this also wont work for my group.  They want to have some way to break the cycle of *everyone* Gloating on the conflict without asking players to act in such a way as to disadvantage themselves.

This is a thorny one.  When I have some time I will start a thread specifically on this potentially broken piece of Capes.

I get you, but I was left with no uncertainty that my group wants a way to deal with this that doesn't require a player to choose to not get story tokens to make the goal go away.  And so do I.  But its a complex question with many ramifications - so I will probably post a new thread to explore it sometime soon.

Tony mentioned the mechanic around this, which is that player 3, who is tired of player 1 and 2 milking a conflict for story tokens, busts off a third side and resolves the darn thing in disgust.  But even if player 3 starts milking for story tokens as well, this is a design feature, not a broken rule.  If all 3 players in a three player game want to sit there and keep gloating over the poor hero being shot at, more power to them; its obviously the game they want to be playing and the story they want to tell. 

The next scene is going to be crazy wild, with four characters each and extra actions out the wazoo.  Expect it to last about 8 hours.

This is your brain...*crack, sizzle* this is your brain on story tokens...

[Sindyr]

The above post got screwed up some how, what I wanted to post was:

I get you, but I was left with no uncertainty that my group wants a way to deal with this that doesn't require a player to choose to not get story tokens to make the goal go away.  And so do I.  But its a complex question with many ramifications - so I will probably post a new thread to explore it sometime soon.