Played a quick game tonight and weren't sure how to rule this.
Chokepoint played a card that destroyed one of Captain's constructs. According to Chokepoint's character card, that card should go facedown in her play area. According to Captain Cosmic's ongoing card, that destroyed construct could be put back into play (if he discarded a card). Which takes precedence?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I believe you choose which takes precedence. In the digital game when such conflicts come up, the game asks "Which card should take effect first?" This often matters.
Correct! Simultaneous effects are always player choice.
Wouldn't it end up in Chokepoint's play area regardless of which effect you resolve first? If you resolve Sustained Influence first, Chokepoint then moves it face down to her play area. If you resolve Chokepoint's text first, it is now face down in her play area and cannot be affected by Sustained Influence.
If Sustained influence takes effect, the card is no longer destroyed and is back in play.
That is to say I think a card needs to actually be destroyed to be placed facedown in Chokepoint's area. If it's not destroyed, it's not going to be facedown anywhere.
OTOH, wouldn't Sustained Influence be put in her area instead? Or am I misremembering how Chokepoint and/or Sustained Influence works?
It wouldn't, I think, because cards Chokepoint destroys are placed in Chokepoint's area, and Captain Cosmic destroyed Sustained Influence.
Sustained Influence doesn't prevent the card's destruction. It puts it back in play after it was destroyed.
Well if that's the case then I'm clearly wrong.
I thought that the "upon destruction" effects were simultaneous - you have to put it in Chokepoint's area but you can also destroy Sustained Influence to put the construct back into play, and as is usually the case the players choose which happens first.
Subtle distinctions:
If there are multiple cards that happen "when [condition X]" happens, the players choose the order they happen in.
If there are any conditions that happen 'when [condition X] WOULD happen, INSTEAD [do Y]", then X doesn't ever actually happen in the first place, so nothing with a "when X happens" triggers.
If there are multiple WOULD/INSTEAD conditions based on the same X trigger, then, again, the players choose the order.
Neither Chokepoint's villain card nor Sustained Influence say instead both are set to trigger when destroyed so it should be player choice as to which occurs first.
Doesn't Chokepoint's character card say that cards facedown in her area "cannot be affected in any way"? (Or is that Wager Master?)
If so, it shouldn't matter what order you choose because if Chokepoint activates first then Sustained Influence cannot grab the Construct back since the card can no longer be affected, and even if Sustained Influence activates first putting it back into play doesn't negate the fact that she destroyed it in the first place.
If Sustained Influence did say "instead of destroying that target treat it as if it had just been played," or some other similar language that implies preventing destruction, then the case would be different, but I think Sustained Influence is clear that the card is destroyed and then put back into play, and if the card is destroyed, regardless of what else may happen upon destruction, it goes under Chokepoint.
It does matter because you decide which on-destruction effect occurs first - if Sustained Influence, the card never ends up in Chokepoint's area because it goes back into play. If Chokepoint, then the card ends up in Chokepoint's area and can't be removed until the proper conditions are met (Chokepoint flips, etc).
While I acknowledged I could be wrong, I don't think I am. You have two conflicting outcomes and whenever you have two conflicting outcomes in Sentinels, players choose which outcome occurs, or specifically the order in which conflicting outcomes are applied. This can mean that an outcome is no longer possible or that a card that was causing things to happen ceases to cause things to happen.
Take Apocalypse or End of Days - both say they destroy all cards other than those cards, character cards, or relics, but if something destroys the card before all cards are destroyed any remaining cards are not destroyed. Say you have either card take out villain and environment cards, then bee bot - bee bot destroys the card and Apocalypse or End of Days stops right there and no further cards are destroyed despite both cards saying that all cards but themselves, relics, and character cards are destroyed.
Similarly, if you have conflicting upon destruction effects - such as Chokepoint and Sustained Influence - you pick one upon destruction and the other effect becomes irrelevant. Chokepoint's card does not say that it supercedes all other upon destruction effects so there's no reason to assume that it does.
Based on this from the Fireside chats it would seem that the card ultimately ends up face down in front of Chokepoint. You can attempt destroying Sustained Influence still but the construct will not go back in play that way.
>
If there are multiple cards interested in a card’s destruction, they all happen (in player decided order) even if the card gets put under another card. For example, if Haka destroys Pterodactyl Thief with Savage Mana in play, Pterodactyl Thief can go under Savage Mana and then the thief’s cards return to the owners’ hands
Ah, fair then.
Then, unless Chokepoint does say those cards can’t be affected, wouldn’t you get the construct back in play if you choose for Chokepoint’s effect to go off first? It would be placed face down in her play area, then go back into play from Sustained Influence.
The card ends up in front of Chokepoint regardless. You can destroy Sustianed Imfluence but you would be doing it for nothing.
Can you explain why, if Sustained Influence’s effect still goes off after Chokepoint’s?
Not trying to argue, just to understand.
Chokepoint destroyed the card so even if comes back into play it would go face down in her play area. Bringing it back into play from Sustained Influence doesn't change the fact that Chokepoint destroyed it. If you chose the other way there is no longer a construct card since it now face down with no text. If the construct itself had on destroy effects those would still go off.
Okay, I thought that might be the case. Thanks.
And Chokepoint DOES indeed say that face down cards in her play area can’t be affected by anything.
Not trying to keep picking at this, but I just saw this on the Clarifications and Decisons thread and I thought it would apply here:
"When there are multiple "when X would be destroyed, do Y instead" effects in play, the players decide which effect occurs. Only one effect can occur. This means that when Unforgiving Wasteland applies to a hero character card, or a villain that would flip instead of being destroyed, the players can choose whether the card flips or is removed from the game."
Now, I don't have the tabletop version and neither Chokepoint nor Captain Cosmic is in the video game yet, so I can't check the exact wording, but do they have the wording specified above? If so, then you could choose to use Sustained Influence and Chokepoint's effect wouldn't occur.
Neither say that. Both have a "when X is destroyed" with the would, so both effects will (should) occur.
Ah, thank you. 
Carry on!