interrupting actions from example of play

[particle_man]

I was looking through the example of play, and something confused me.

The Watcher interrupted Cyclops's action with some rogue shield agents so Cyclops didn't get to go yet, but then the Watcher had the "other" black widow go right after that, but shouldn't Cyclops have gone after the rogue shield agents? Why did the rogue Black Widow get to go instead?

[chaosnet]

Because the Watcher paid the Doom Pool 'price' to jump in before Cyclops. Once the Watcher character was finished they would get to determine who went next, in this case the Faux Black Widow.

Cyclops has to wait until someone assigns him as next.

[Newtsy]

Actually, the next hero chosen to go (declared by Emma Frost) was Shadowcat. That's when The Watcher chose to employ the interruption. Cyclops did get to take a Reaction in response to Black Widow attacking him, but then normal turn order resumed with Shadowcat picking up where it was interrupted.

[Atombomb]

In some online play sessions here in these forums, I have seen where some played out multiple actions for the Watcher's villains.

Is this part of the rules, or was it a mistake on their part?

So in the example I am referring to the Watcher interrupted the session, attacked. And then payed another die to give that villain an another attack prior to the hero getting their turn.

Is that a legal move?

[adam]

Interrupting the action order means that the Watcher choose who's next, ignoring what the player said.

Then, everything works like if the player himself said that the villain chosen by the watcher would have gone next.

This means that at the end of that villain's turn, the Watcher choose who's next like if it was a normal turn, and he can obviously chose another villain to go.

In the example of play, it was shadowcat's turn, but the watcher interrupted it and chose that instead it was the shield agents' turn. When their turn ended, the watcher, being the one who controls them, had to chose who had to go next, and he chose black widow.

[adam]

Is that a legal move?

and no, if it was the same villain acting twice, I think it's illegal by the rules.

[EldritchFire]

In some online play sessions here in these forums, I have seen where some played out multiple actions for the Watcher's villains.

Is this part of the rules, or was it a mistake on their part?

So in the example I am referring to the Watcher interrupted the session, attacked. And then payed another die to give that villain an another attack prior to the hero getting their turn.

Is that a legal move?

Depends. If that villain was last in the action order, he can indeed choose himself to be first in the next order.

-EF

[N01H3r3]

Is that a legal move?

and no, if it was the same villain acting twice, I think it's illegal by the rules.

Not always. You can act twice in a row if you have the last action in a turn and declare that you're having the first action of the next turn. It doesn't seem to occur to many people, but it's allowed.

[particle_man]

In the example of play, it was shadowcat's turn, but the watcher interrupted it and chose that instead it was the shield agents' turn. When their turn ended, the watcher, being the one who controls them, had to chose who had to go next, and he chose black widow.

But that seems illegal to me. I mean that after the Watcher paid a doom die from the doom pool to interrupt the turn of Shadowcat, and shield agents went, the turn should have reverted to Shadowcat, or else the Watcher should have paid *another* doom die from the doom pool to interrupt Shadowcat *yet again*.

That is, the turn interruption is not meant to be "The Watcher get to interrupt and choose who goes next" but "The Watcher interrupts and then the turn order reverts to the person that was going to go before the interruption, in this case, Shadowcat". And so the example of play seems to be violating the rules.

[EldritchFire]

In the example of play, it was shadowcat's turn, but the watcher interrupted it and chose that instead it was the shield agents' turn. When their turn ended, the watcher, being the one who controls them, had to chose who had to go next, and he chose black widow.

But that seems illegal to me. I mean that after the Watcher paid a doom die from the doom pool to interrupt the turn of Shadowcat, and shield agents went, the turn should have reverted to Shadowcat, or else the Watcher should have paid *another* doom die from the doom pool to interrupt Shadowcat *yet again*.

That is, the turn interruption is not meant to be "The Watcher get to interrupt and choose who goes next" but "The Watcher interrupts and then the turn order reverts to the person that was going to go before the interruption, in this case, Shadowcat". And so the example of play seems to be violating the rules.

I disagree. The rules clearly, to me, state that whoever just went gets to choose who goes next. If the Watcher interrupts, their character just went, so they get to choose who goes next. The example of play just confirmed the way I read the rules.

The action order is interrupted, so it's no longer what it was. It's an oft overlooked aspect of action order interruption, just like whoever goes last can choose themself to go first if they want.

-EF