Splitting Conflicts (Clarification)

[Larry L.]

In Fred's, James', and Alexander's recent IRC game, the following rules dispute came up:

# [48] <Fracture> Okay, I'm going to stake a point of debt on the 2, splitting it into two 1s, and taking one of those 1s onto my side.
# [48] <Trinity> Nope
# [48] <Fracture> oh yeah
# [48] <Trinity> You need to stake TWO debt to split.
# [48] <Fracture> no
# [48] <Fracture> only one, if you're taking it onto a new side.
# [48] <Fracture> two if you're keeping them both on the same side
# [48] <Trinity> Yes, but there has to be debt ther in the first palce.
# [48] <Fracture> nope. the side left behind can be debt-free
# [48] <Trinity> If there's no debt, you can't split off a side.
# [49] <Trinity> I think you're wrong. I'll look it up.
# [49] <Fracture> yes, but only the side being split gets the debt. I researched this one
# [49] <Trinity> Page 37
# [49] <Fracture> see the example on the right on page 37
# [49] <Trinity> Middle of the page
# [49] <Trinity> "Playeres may not split dice on a side with no debt"
# [49] <Fracture> zero g stakes one debt to split a 5 into a 3 and a 2, and takes the 2
# [49] <Fracture> see?
# [50] <Fracture> see the "But by staking one point of Debt, they can create a new side."
# [50] <Trinity> Alright
# [50] <Trinity> We'll play it that way, see what happens.

In the game it ended up not being used this way anyway, but I think it's a good question. I had thought it's like Fred (Trinity) claims, that a side already needs debt on it before you can split it into a new side.

Clarification?

[TonyLB]

Alexander is right.  "By staking one point of Debt, they can create a new side."  Straight from the rule-book.

There is a "free" die at a 5.  You Stake one point of Debt, and split from that die (which you must be allied with).  You take the three (or two, if you prefer) on your debt (and on the new third side).  The two remains on the previous side, which still has a free die.

The thing that Fred has quite correct is that you cannot split until the Reactions are over.  Reactions are part of the Action.  Between the declaration of the Action and the last Reaction, the Action is still under way.  Alexander could, however, have split after Reactions, before Fred's next Action.  So this:

[51] <Trinity> During a reaction the ONLY thing you can do is reroll the die in play.
[51] <Trinity> So you can either roll that die up, or not.
[51] <Trinity> Then it's my turn.

Wrong.  Alexander could have waited until all reactions were done, and then split off his side if he wanted to.  Also this, later:

[53] -RPGServ- <Roll *[1d6]: 4>
[53] <Trinity> Wohoo!
[53] <Fracture> BAH!
[54] <Fracture> hopefully, warhawk can roll that down
[54] <Trinity> I'll stake two debt to make that 2,2
[54] <Trinity> Go ahead! Roll down.
....
[56] <Warhawk> (done?)
[57] <Trinity> Yes.
[57] <Trinity> Reaction time.
[57] <Warhawk> (both sides are at 2, right?)
[57] <Trinity> No
[57] <Fracture> no. it's 2/2,2

Grievously and abusively wrong.  It's violating the precise rule that Fred correctly quoted earlier, that you cannot split in the middle of reactions.  This is a damn shame, because James ended up rolling a 1 on reaction for Warhawk:  That would have put the conflict back down to 2 vs. 1, if the rules had been applied correctly, which would have given James the final word on whether his hologram stunt worked.  So, coincidentally, proper application of the rules could have avoided a whole mess of player unpleasantness.  Ah well....

[Vaxalon]

So there has to be a round of reactions BEFORE any splitting can go on?

Makes sense now that I hear it, it makes things clearer... but I had had the impression that reactions were in response to the entire action (roll, splitting, splitting off, inspirations) rather than JUST the die roll...

Of course, I could have reacted to the roll-down to roll-up again and still split...

[TonyLB]

The use of the ability consists of "Roll the die the first time" + "Reactions".

The Action turn consists of "Stake, Split, Inspire, etc." + "Use an ability" + "Stake, Split, Inspire, etc."

I'm reviewing the text to see whether and where to apply errata to make this more clear.

[Jonas Ferry]

My group discussed this as well, if you were allowed to roll and split before reactions, and were a bit confused. Unfortunately, as I don't have my book with me, I can't give you a page reference as to where in the rules we were confused, but I think it's a good idea to make it clear in the text. Tony, what you just wrote above ("The Action turn concists..." and "The use of an ability...") is very clear and I think it should go on the Actions page.