Ran into a couple of terminology issues when taking on Gloomweaver in the Realm of Discord the other day.
1) A couple of cards in Realm of Discord do things whenever cards are played (Positive/Negative Energy Field). Does that apply to a card hitting the play area for any reason or only those done so via a Play Phase (or "play a card" bonus actions)? On a similar note, does being allowed to put a spell card into play (again, usually from an Environment effect; I believe Accelerated Time was the culprit here) allow Nightmist to trigger Master of Magic?
As a side note, this kind of confusion is what led Magic to eventually renaming "in play" to "the battlefield" and almost eliminating the verb "play" entirely (still used for land-related actions). As a judge, the difference between the verbs "put" and "play" was something I had to constantly reinforce. So, given that, I believe there is a difference -- but as has been stated many times, SotM is not Magic, so I wanted to make sure.
2) "The first time (whatever) would be dealt damage this turn" versus effects that deal multiple types of damage in one packet. One of the Cultists deals damage like Fanatic's Exorcise (and Apostate's start side ability). If, in a 4-hero game, Wraith has tagged that Cultist with a Stun Bolt and has a Stealth shield up, does she take one damage (H-2-1, prevented by Stealth + H-2-1, Stealth has already been exhausted) or zero (Stealth applies to the entire event, preventing both packets of 1 damage)?
Similarly, what happens if Combat Stance (Flame Barrier, Amulet of the Elder Gods... whatever) is in play? Can the hero in question kill the Cultist in response to the "first" damage, or does the entire damage event happen and then the response/redirection?
Re: What counts for triggering 'in play/played' effects? -- Not 100% sure about this one, but I tend to be expansive -- if a card is going into play in any way, than it has been played.
Re: Does Stealth block all of the attacks by a card? -- No. Each of the Cultist's attacks are separate attacks and Stealth only prevents damage from one attack
Re: Can Combast Stance interrupt a series of attacks? -- Yes
Hi. My name's Andy. Feel free to call me Andy, since, ya know, that's my name. (he/him/his)
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If not now, when? If I am for myself alone, what am I? -- Hillel
I've asked Christopher once, and he stated that the action of "putting a card into play" is not the same as "playing a card" and thud does not trigger any "when a card is played" effects. I think this had something to do with a card which allows a card to be put into play from the trash is still allowed even if playing cards are restricted. (Actually, I believe this was an Omnitron question.)
Personally, I do believe that playing a card is the same as putting a card into play (i.e. while I'm told the statement is false, I believe the converse to be true). Thus, anything which triggered on a card being put into play would trigger on both.
Do good, I? No! Evil anon I deliver, I maim nine more hero men in Miami, sanitary sword a-tuck, carol I. Lo! Rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero men in Saginaw. Reviled I, Nona, live on. I do... o, God!
Other things I've wondered about Positive/Negative energy field:
Do they go off when they are played, or only when other cards are played after they are in play?
If one is in play, and the seconds is played (which will destroy the first as it enters play), does one, both, or neither immediately go off?
I have been playing that they do not trigger immediately when played and that if one replaces the other neither go off. Basically I have been treating a card entering play as a substep of playing the card, but maybe I'm overcomplicating things.
We had that exact scenario (Negative was the very first card, and Positive was the very second). Cards almost never "see" themselves, as they logically need to be played before their effects can apply; thus they do not trigger themselves.
The second question was trickier, but we decided along the same logic: the one in play goes first since "is played" should happen before "enters play"; it does its thing and then is destroyed by the effect of the other card.
Gaming Unplugged columnist (and video game reviewer) at Snackbar Games
I've taken a simplistic approach to it. As a former Magic player, I know how complicated Magic can get, and I know >G has wanted to avoid that level of complexity. Here's how I look at it:
1) The card is played, triggering anything that would trigger on a card being played. (It doesn't matter what phase it is - a played card is a played card.)
2) The card is now in plan, and does what it says.
In my version of reality
, cards that are put into play (instead of played) skip step 1.
That's it. The wording on the cards works within this context very cleanly, as far as I've ever dealt with, but I could be missing something.
"See, this is another sign of your tragic space dementia, all paranoid and crotchety. Breaks the heart." - Mal
Unicode U+24BD gets us Ⓗ. (Thanks, Godai!)
If I'm understanding your simplistic approach correctly, that would give Expatriette a huge advantage to The Matriarch with Hair Trigger Reflexes (assuming I remember that card correctly). First, The Matriarch would play a card from her deck. Assuming it is one of her many Fowl cards, it would be played. Step 1 would trigger Hair Trigger Reflexes. Expatriette would deal one point of damage to the Fowl. This would then destroy the Fowl, placing it in the trash. Step 1 is now finished, but the fowl card is no longer in play to be able to move onto Step 2, not allowing it's trigger to play the next card of the villain deck, if I'm understanding correctly.
Do good, I? No! Evil anon I deliver, I maim nine more hero men in Miami, sanitary sword a-tuck, carol I. Lo! Rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero men in Saginaw. Reviled I, Nona, live on. I do... o, God!
I replied, but then decided I was wrong, but I don't seem to have permission to delete my own posts (?).
Spiff's SotM site: www.spiffworld.com/sotm
No, because the card still enters play, even though it wasn't played, and coming into play triggers the next card from Matriarch's deck AND the HTR.
As an alternate example, I use Impromptu Invention. I search for Razor Ordinance and put it into play, and play Utility belt from my hand.
Both Utility belt and my Ordinance were put into play, but only the Belt was played.
What do you mean the card still enteres play, even though it wasn't played? Nowhere in my description did I mention the Fowl card entering play without being played. In fact, I actually stated that the card was being played. "First, The Matriarch would play a card from her deck..." In any case, yes, the fowl card entering play would trigger both that card as well as Hair Trigger Reflexes. However, it's been stated whenever two cards would act at the same time, the order the cards were initially played resolves the order the actions take place. Thus, in this case, since Hair Trigger Reflexes was in play first, it would react to the card entering play before the Fowl card would react. Hair Trigger Reflexes would have enough damage to destroy the Fowl card. The Fowl card is now destroyed before it has a chance to react to itself being played from the top of the villain deck.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Hair Trigger Reflexes trigger when a villain target enters play (so it would trigger no matter how it came into play, whether it was played, or if it entered play via some other means), and all Fowl cards trigger reflexively when the Fowl card is played from the top of the Villain deck.
That is, unless Rabit would expand his simple approach to three steps.
Step 1, card is played, triggering any cards reacting to cards being played.
Step 2, card enters play, triggering any cards that react to cards entering play.
Step 3, card is now in play, read what is on the card.
That would clean it up, allowing the next card to be played before the fowl is actually destroyed. Except or the fact that the rules that allow the next card to be played are written on the text of the card, which can't be resolved until after the card is played, at which point it's too late to trigger the next card to be played. Now something that is simple common sense, "The card says to play the next card when it is played, simple," now becomes a logical nightmare.
Step 1, card is played, triggering any cards reacting to cards being played, including any reflexive triggers printed on the card being played.
Step 2, card enters play, triggering any cards that react to cards entering play, including any reflextive triggers printed on the card being played.
Step 3, card is now in play, all remaining effects of that card are now resolved.
Or whatever.
Do good, I? No! Evil anon I deliver, I maim nine more hero men in Miami, sanitary sword a-tuck, carol I. Lo! Rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero men in Saginaw. Reviled I, Nona, live on. I do... o, God!
A slightly semantic distinction between a card entering play and being 'played' from hand. I view villain and environment cards as being put into play from the top of the deck, rather than being 'played.'
I thought the wording on the fowl cards specified them entering play, rather than being played.
I believe this was clarified as that both go off, because both trigger as the card enters play and do not conflict with each other.
But this is only true if the card specifically says 'when it is played' rather than 'when enters play' because I believe it is the latter.
Okay, first, you broke up two sentences that shared context, thus altering the assumed context. I understand the semantic difference between playing a card and a card entering play. In two previous posts I brought up this fact.
Also, this difference goes to both the villain and environment "players" as well. (Don't assume that I actually believe a person is supposed to assume the role of a villain player or environment player. I understand the decks "play" themselves. I use this as a more generic term to describe the abstract concept of a villain or environmnet deck that which would be analogious to a hero player for a hero deck.) The rulebook glossary defines "play" such that for heroes, the card is taken from the hand and put into play, and for villains and environemnts, state they are taken from the top of the deck and put into play. Also, the turn order page specifies a play phase for villains and environments, during which a card is played. Also, certain cards specify to play villain and environment cards, as well as preventing villain and environment cards from being played. So, yes, villain and environment cards can be played, as opposed to just being put into play.
As far as Fowl cards, they do specify when they are played (specifically as being played from the top of the villain deck), mainly to prevent the mass chaos that would result from Darken the Skies.
It is stated that if two card would act at the same time, they act in the order they were put into play, reguardless as to whether they would conflict. And, yes, if one card acting first could prevent another card from acting at all, then, yes, they would conflict.
Again, or whatever...
Do good, I? No! Evil anon I deliver, I maim nine more hero men in Miami, sanitary sword a-tuck, carol I. Lo! Rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero men in Saginaw. Reviled I, Nona, live on. I do... o, God!
No need to get hostile, man.
Yes, but there's also the reverse, which I thought was the case with Fowl cards, due to misremembering the exact wording.
I was going from memory, so pardon the slipup if you can find it somewhere deep in your heart to pardon such a serious transgression as misremembering card text.
I still think your argument about Rabit's simplified version giving Expat a huge advantage is wrong, given that being played is the trigger for Fowl, not entering play, and 'when played' automatically triggers before 'enters play' triggers. There is a 'buffer' time before the Fowl is a target in which it has executable text.
I seem to have misunderstood where much of the rest of your argument was going, so I'll drop that, but even his 1.Play 2. Is in Play doesn't benefit Expat.
It definately seems that Fowl cards have an ability that is in effect before they are in play or Hair Trigger severely weakens the Matriarch. This was discussed in an old thread here: http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/forum/topic/hairtrigger-reflexes-and-darken-sky but not really solved.
Of course other cards do this as well, like Ambuscades traps and all the cards with restrictions on how or when they are played.
I would say the common sense rule is that if a card effect specifically refers to itself being in an out of play state, then it is an exception to the usual rule that a card must be in play for its effects to be active.
I asked Christopher several questions regarding a similar situation with Spite and some of his cards. He has some bystanders that say something like "the heroes may elect to play the top card of the villain deck, if they do, put this card under the safehouse." Christopher said that the card played from the villain deck is fully resolved (posisbly killing the bystander) before the effect to put them in the safehouse is resolved. Based on this example, I assume that the card comes into play, does whatever it does, and is THEN reacted to by "when a card is played" effects.
It's just my interpretation of a similar official ruling, but it's what I've been going by.
"I'm not prone to hyperbole, but she is the Antichrist." - chwineka
broccoli, that's a different situation. The Spite's card has a chronology laid out on it: 1. play the card -> 2. save the civvie. It also doesn't use the "when a card is played" language that's in question here. Spite's card is not reacting to the Villain card being played, it's instructing you to play a card and then do something else. So, while it's a useful ruling I wouldn't lean on it too hard in this case.
This is a Greater than Games forum signature virus. Copy this text, add one to the generation, and replace your signature with this one so that this may take over the multiverse of forum signatures.
Generation: 1
Really, it depends on how events are to be triggered for playing a card. Anything that reacts to a card being put into play reacts to both cards being played and cards being put into play via other mechanisms, whereas anything that reacts to cards being played react only to cards put into play by the action of playing the cards. The unknown part is what order the events trigger.
First, I'll say that cards do not have to be in play in order for their text to have an effect. I say this becase, in addition to Fowl cards, I know of a few cards that have rules that must be followed even when the card is not yet in play (mechanical golems come to mind). So I'll retract that last nitpick (ever so slightly) by saying cards can react before they are played.
The remaining questions are if reacting to playing and reacting to entering play are considered different events, or if one is just a filtered form of the other. In the latter case, when a card is played, all cards reacting to either cards playing or cards entering play are all triggered in play order, and when a card enters play without being played, only the cards reacting to cards entering play are triggered, in play order.
However, if they are considered to be different events, then a card entering play without being played has the same effect. However, a card being played would trigger one event followed by the other. In this case, the question is whether the card being played is triggered first, or if the card entering play triggers first. In either case, the two events would trigger in that order, each card reacting in play order.
The next independant issue is when these events trigger in relation to resolution of the card being played. Do the events trigger as soon as the card comes out but before the card resolves itself? Or does it trigger after the card has been fully resolved. Rabit's initial approach has him stating it triggers before resolution.
To reduce this wall of text into summarized scenarios:
All Scenarios:
When a card enters play without being played, only card entered play events triggers.
Scenario 1:
When card is played, it triggers all card played events and card entered play events together.
Scenario 2a:
When a card is played, it triggers all card played events, then triggers all card entered play events.
Scenario 2b:
When a card is played, it triggeres all card entered play events, then triggers all card played events.
Scenario A:
When a card enters play by any means, it triggers all appropriate card playing events, then resolves all interactive text on the card.
Scenario B:
When a card enters play by any means, it resolves all interactive text on the card, then triggers all appropriate card playing events.
There are also two other possible (but seems rather unlikely to me) scenarios involving Scenario 2 where interactive text is resolved between the two card playing events. Of these scenarios, I believe 1 and A to be most likely.
(Side note: I use the term 'interactive' as to oppose the term 'reactive,' as to describe text on the card that is simply imperative and does not react to any events.)
Do good, I? No! Evil anon I deliver, I maim nine more hero men in Miami, sanitary sword a-tuck, carol I. Lo! Rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero men in Saginaw. Reviled I, Nona, live on. I do... o, God!
I guess then I would rule for Scenario 1B, just because that would make oneshots more like powers. (I believe it has been ruled that a power resolves each step of the power before resolving a reaction to using a power). It is also how I would naturally play out the Matriarch's Mask. (When a oneshot is played I would resolve that oneshot's text before the Mask reacts and plays another card).
On the other hand, if the oneshot text resolves last, then the Oneshot keyword is really just a shorthand for wrapping the text in "When this card enters play ... then discard this card". I like the simplicity of defining it that way, but Scenario 1B just seems like the more intuitive way to play for me.
So if we apply Scenario 1 to my original question, it would mean Negative/Positive energy field do go off when they are played and if one replaces the other: the old one goes off, then the new one destroys it, then the new one goes off. (Since these aren't oneshots the distinction between A and B doesn't matter here).