| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you've registered and completed email validation, you'll need to reply to the thread in The Welcome mat before you gain full access to the site. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Providence Vs. X-23 (4); Timing/targeting question | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 20 2009, 03:46 AM (1,014 Views) | |
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 03:46 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was on MWS this evening playing roguer when we came to a ruling question. As opposed to citing anything similar to what was played I'm posting what actually happened and what each side thinks should be the ruling. Turn 4: My initiative My opponents board: There is a face up and ready Providence. There is a face up and ready Cable (3). My board: Face up ready X-23. I declare the attack of X-23 into Cable. The attack is declared legal. As the turn player I chain to the attack an ongoing plot twist to trigger X-23's in combat effect. My opponent chains by powering up his cable. I pass[End]. The combat is concluding and we begin to empty the chain. Resolving backward, Cable becomes a 6/5 [enough to stun back], then X-23 triggered effect is added to the chain [...when she stuns a character, KO that character.] Each character stuns. My opponent then Activates Providence targetting his Cable (3). Here is where we differ. I point out that he cannot resolve this effect since he has no legal target because his Cable KO's from the conclusion of combat. My opponent believes that he can target the character before X-23 resolves to KO Cable, as a character. [Because shifting him would change the target to a non-character card] I believe that if my opponent wishes to use this effect that the only legal timing would be while Cable is still in combat, removing him from the attack and therefore making the attack illegal. I don't believe that there is a point between the time where Cable stuns and when Cable KO's outside of the combat phase. There are several rules regarding the combat phase and triggered effects that we would pointed out to each other but he doesn't believe what I'm telling him and I don't see his reasoning behind thinking his senerio would be the correct one. The question is what happens in this senerio? I'll need some Hero Complex help on this one. |
![]() |
|
| bkwrds | Mar 20 2009, 04:00 AM Post #2 |
![]()
is a Gypsy Doom
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's way too late for me to go digging through the CRD, and I'm not 100% sure... but haven't you ever played Die for Darkseid! or some other effect when an opponent has tried to KO a character of yours? My understanding is that X-23's text puts an effect to be resolved once she is able to stun somebody. Is there a reason why that effect could not be interacted with? If X-23's effect is allowed to resolve, there's no reason for that character to not be KO'd, right? Her text is such that if you recover Cable by some means that it's already way too late, because X-23's effect has said that after a character becomes stunned by her, they need to KO. I think Roguer is correct, though. X-23's effect would try to resolve and find that Cable has already disappeared, so there's no one left to KO. Wouldn't Cable be a whole different entity once he's in RFG, as if he's there he has definitely left play? |
![]() |
|
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 04:12 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't disagee with the fact that he can be targeted by Providence. My concern is the fact that since the attack concluded Cable stunned. Resolving backward to empty the chain, X-23 KO's him. If you then add to the chain the Providence effect, which again I don't think you can, then that would remove the defender from the attack before combat can be resolved therefore making the attack illegal. |
![]() |
|
| TheDerangedBear | Mar 20 2009, 04:13 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because X-23's KO effect is a trigger and not a replacement - ie for example, if X-23 would stun a character KO it instead - there is a moment in between the character being stunned and it being KO'd from which it can be slided out. Similar to how you can Science Spire Ahmed out in response to him getting stunned by Fatality, Flawless Victory. Edited by TheDerangedBear, Mar 20 2009, 04:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bkwrds | Mar 20 2009, 04:39 AM Post #5 |
![]()
is a Gypsy Doom
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
X-23 reads: Whenever you play a plot twist while X-23 is in combat, whenever she stuns a character this attack, KO that character. The chain does resolve backwards. X-23's text puts an effect on the chain after the stun. Providence responds to that effect, even though it was actually placed by the trigger before. It doesn't resolve once you play the plot twist, it waits to see if Cable stuns, then tries to resolve. In this instance by the time it was able to, there was no Cable to KO. There is no reason why Roguer couldn't respond to that effect. If you can respond to Providence with another KO effect, that would resolve first. Effects resolve Last In First Out, and since X-23's effect is triggered, it's first in. Edited by bkwrds, Mar 20 2009, 04:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 04:49 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You misunderstand. I'm not saying he cannot respond. I'm saying that if he responded it would have to be while Cable is in Combat. That's the issue. If Providence resolves in combat, then the attack becomes illegal resetting the attack and emptying the chain. If Providence is activated after the combat is concluded, then there wouldn't be a valid target as Cable would have stunned and KO from the combat being resolved. |
![]() |
|
| bkwrds | Mar 20 2009, 04:54 AM Post #7 |
![]()
is a Gypsy Doom
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm saying he can respond to it when it's finally on the chain, IE after he stuns, like in the game you played. There is no effect to speak of until after the stun. The effect doesn't exist, really, until the stun has happened. The effect is triggered in combat when you play a plot twist but does not take hold until the stun has occured, once all combat has resolved. Step by step: 1. You attack, play a plot twist to trigger X-23's effect, mutual stun. Both players pass. 2. Combat resolves. All endurance loss, breakthrough is calculated at this time. 3. Once the attack is complete, the game finally sees X-23's effect and puts it on the chain. 4. Your opponent activates Providence. Both players pass. 5. Providence resolves and shifts Cable to RFG with 3 Shift counters. 6. X-23's effect tries to KO Cable. Your description has X-23's effect taking hold at step #2. I can't think of a card that works that way. Edited by bkwrds, Mar 20 2009, 04:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Mar 20 2009, 05:36 AM Post #8 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
X-23's effect is a triggered effect. Triggered effects can be identified by the words: At the start of, when, and whenever. Triggered effects are added to the chain just like PT effect, activations and payment powers. It works out as it follows. You declare an attack with X-23 to Cable and it is deemed legal. You proceed to exhaust X-23 and add a PT to the chain triggering her first effect, and you pass priority to your opponent to se if he wishes to respond. He adds a power up and passes priority back to you, and you don't do anything. Effect resolve first his power up and then your PT. After that if the chain is empty 2 times in a row from you and your opponent then you go to resolve the attack. Once the attack resolves Cable becomes stunned and so does X-23. X-23's power triggers because Cable was stunned. Her trigger is added to the chain but hasn't yet resolved. You pass priority to your opponent to see if he wants to respond to the effect. He responds by activating Providence and passes priority back to you. If you don't add anything to the chain then the effects will resolve as follows. Cable will be removed from play by Providence, and then X-23's trigger will try to resolve. I say try because Cable is no longer in play. --------------------------- The scenario you present of using Cable during the combat is a whole different story that can make the attack illegal. It can also be done difference is the play above is the smarter play for your opponent to do. If you wanted to foil his attempt at saving Cable then you could of added a Finishing Move after his Providence activation to KO Cable before he could be removed from play. ---------------------- Perhaps you are confused because during attack resolution no player has priority but:
I'm sorry to say you are wrong here and that your opponent is 100% correct in the way the situation should of have resolved. |
![]() |
|
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 05:38 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, very specifically with rules citation this is what I mean: The attack is declared legal. This begins an attack sub step. 407.3 An attack substep starts for every proposed attack 602.1 As the attack substep starts, the current legality of the attack is checked again. Then, depending on the outcome of that legality check, the proposed attackers and defenders may or may not gain the attacker or defender characteristic. In either case, the attack substep will proceed to conclusion. After the legality check, powers that trigger at the beginning of the attack substep trigger and have their effects added to the chain. Then, the primary player gets priority. The triggered effect is added to the chain while both characters are in combat. "Whenever you play a plot twist while X-23 is in combat, whenever she stuns a character this attack, KO that character." This is not a targeting effect. 502.4 Triggered powers that trigger off an object becoming stunned, leaving play, or causing breakthrough look back to the game state at the moment right before the object became stunned, left play, or caused breakthrough. This information is used to determine whether they could have triggered off that event and whether they did. Both players pass through the substep. The attack is concluded. 407.4 After an attack has concluded, its attack substep ends. Then, any powers or modifiers that triggered during the attack conclusion have their effects added to the chain. Then, the primary player gets priority and his or her attack step continues. If the triggered effect resolves the character KO's. 508.2l As the last part of the resolution of an effect, the effect creates its modifier or modifiers and then is removed from the chain, because it is done resolving. There is no step in between the attack substep and the resolution. 601.1f If all players pass on an empty chain in succession, and there is no currently proposed attack, the current attack step ends, and the game progresses to the next phase or step. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the Providence if applied during the combat [attack substep], the attack would be illegal. 602.1a If one or more of the proposed attackers are no longer legally able to attack the proposed defender, the proposed attackers are no longer proposed attackers, and the proposed defender is no longer a proposed defender. Edited by Morpheus1981, Mar 20 2009, 01:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Mar 20 2009, 05:43 AM Post #10 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Right and wrong. As you can see there are two triggers on X-23's text. The first trigger is made when you play a PT while she is in combat. Playing the Plot Twists makes her second trigger a possibility. The second trigger will go off when she stuns the character. If she doesn't stun the character the trigger will not go off. |
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Mar 20 2009, 05:53 AM Post #11 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just to add a bit more clarity to the situation:
I suggest you rad the following rules 602.6–602.10 while keeping in mind
|
![]() |
|
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 01:09 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Abosolutely right. In our example Cable was stunned. "Whenever..." already happened. |
![]() |
|
| Morpheus1981 | Mar 20 2009, 01:11 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I did check those rules and according to those as I posted before: If Providence is adding to the attack substep chain, then the defender is removed from the attack, making the attacker no longer an attacker and therefore illegal. In this example, Providence was activated after the combat was concluded. |
![]() |
|
| kariggi | Mar 20 2009, 01:39 PM Post #14 |
|
Hero For Hire
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
See what they are getting at is this. The chain empties and combat resolves. Cable gets stunned. When Cable becomes stunned that "triggers" X-23's power. X-23's power places an effect on the chain. That effects says KO the character you stunned. Now with X-23's power on the chain first you as the priority player, and then your opponent are given the oppertunity to place additional effects upon the chain before X-23's triggered effect which is currently on the chain resolves. You don't place any additional effects and you pass. If your opponent doesn't place anything on the chain X-23's effect resolves and KO's Cable. But your opponent does place an effect on the chain -Providence Your opponent passes and you can place effects on the chain or pass. You pass. The last effect on the chain resolves -Providence (removing cable from the game) then the next effect on the chain resolves -X-23's which tries to KO cable but he isn't there anymore. If he simply tried to recover cable and cable was still in play when X-23's ability resolves off the chain then he would still be KO'd but he isn't so he doesn't. The Crux is that X-23 places and effect "on the chain" when she stuns a character. But that before any effects can resolve off the chain both players have an oppertunity to place additional effects on the chain and the last effect placed on the chain always resolves first and the first effect placed on the chain always resolves last. I hope that helps. Edited by kariggi, Mar 20 2009, 01:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| HeroComplex | Mar 20 2009, 02:53 PM Post #15 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, a bunch of things---some of them in response to people's responses here, so I hope everyone taking part will give a look. 1. Morpheus, your opponent's play was entirely correct. X-23's KOing triggered effect is placed on the chain in the very last part of attack conclusion---the attack is over. Her effect can't resolve until both players pass while it is the last effect on the chain, and the opponent is using Providence rather than passing right away. That's perfectly legit, and actually it's an example of a fairly staple strategy, as triggered effects always work this way. You seem to be arguing that her triggered effect is placed on the chain, and then is supposed to resolve, all before the game can finish concluding the attack---that's not right. The effect can't resolve until both players pass on it, and even if triggered effects were immediately placed on the chain, it would be impossible for players to pass or play effects during attack conclusion or effect resolution. (Alternatively, you may be arguing that she KOs without placing an effect on the chain, but that's also wrong, as triggered powers always work by placing effects on the chain.) You yourself quoted The rule specifically says that effects triggered during attack conclusion, like X-23's, are placed on the chain after the attack (substep) is over. The rule even explains that the primary player (in this case, the player whose attack step we're in) gets priority, which means there is an opportunity to act or pass. And since it is impossible for an effect to resolve without both players having passed on it, your suggestion that there's no chance to act between the attack substep and the effect's resolution doesn't hold up. 2. There's no such thing as resolving the chain. When both players pass, the most recent effect resolves, and then there's another chance to act; you need another two passes to resolve the next effect, and so on. 3. This rule is not about attack conclusion, and so isn't a part of this question---it is describing how a player's attack step ends, not a particular attack (substep). That's why it's in the section on proposing attacks, rather than the section on attack conclusion. Btw, if you take your reading of this rule to its logical conclusion, you're arguing that each player can only make one attack each turn. Because the two passes that ended your first attack would also forcibly end your entire attack step. Taking this rule out of context---reading it as about attack conclusion rather than attack proposal---causes many problems. 4. If a proposed attack is no longer legal, it never begins. But once an attack is in progress, it never "becomes illegal." That's the kind of language that misleads new players into thinking that you can disrupt an already-started attack by moving the defender hidden or removing flight. Or convinces players of all levels that removing the defender immediately ends the attack. If the defender is removed, and there's no new defender, then any attacker(s) will ready during attack conclusion...but you still need to go through passing and resolutions like normal before you can get there. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Rules · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:53 AM Jul 11