I was playing against the Matriarch in the Enclave of the Endlings. On the Environment turn, Slamara came into play.
At the end of the Environment turn, Slamara revealed a Fowl card and put it into play. Then Slamara proceeded to reveal hero cards. Then it transitioned to the start of the Villain turn.
Should the Matriarch have played the top card of her deck after that Fowl card entered play?
I think this is a case of the difference between putting the top card of a deck into play and playing the top card of the deck. Slamara puts the top card into play and that bypasses that the Matriarch's cause about a Fowl card being played.
The Matriarch reads: "Whenever a Fowl card is played from the Villain Deck..." -- and that didn't happen. It was put into play.
Aha, I completely forgot about the “from the Villain deck” phrase.
Technicality here, but “from the villain deck” is not the relevant clause here. It was put into play from the villain deck. It just wasn’t PLAYED.
Huh. I had been thinking that something in a recent fireside chat made “play” and “put into play” equivalent, but now I can’t find it. And that wouldn’t make sense anyway. So, okay, then!
There was a note in the recent one about "play" and "put into play" meaning the same thing, but it was wrong and subsequently removed.
…I’m…not crazy…?!
We can't prove that part.
I believe that when you play a card, you put the card into play. But when you put a card into play, you haven't played a card.
It is an important distinction for cards like Informant, who do not react to cards entering play, just cards being played.
Same reason things like Timeshift can get around Hostage Situation or Leeky Room
Right, Playing is a subset within the greater category of "put into play," which is equivalent to "enters play."
Or rather, playing a card results in it being put into play. For instance, if an effect triggers on the villain playing a card, and Parse uses Buffer Overflow, the discarded card was still played and would trigger that effect (probably resulting in it triggering twice, since the vilain will then play a second card).
In retrospect, that distinction should have been named differently to avoid confusion. Even to those aware of the difference, it still manages to get things mixed up.