Killing the Informant

In another thread, I was reminded that something that triggers off a hero using a power activates after the power occurs.  The example was using Stun Bolts against Spite when he has PL626 Compound XI active.  Wraith would take reduced damage, since the Stun Bolts went off first.  This much is in Spiff's FAQ.

So, would it be the same in regards to playing a card?  The Informant triggers whenever a hero plays a card.  If you play a card that kills her, would playing that card still provoke a villain draw?

I try to puzzle this out every time I play against the Chairman.  Currently,  I play that it does provoke a villain draw.  This should probably be in the FAQ.

Based on the rulings for Positive/Negative Energy Field, I assume it WOULD trigger a play.  I know that powers and cards played are treated differently with regards to reacting to them.

Just tossing in that I have always played it to where it would active a card play. Since the action of slapping the card down is playing, though I activate the effects, if any, on the hero card first considering it was already there.

Order of cards played determines what happens. The card that is in play already was, by definition, played first, so its effect is handled first. In this case, The Informant triggers before the card that's being played can destroy The Informant.

As an aside, there is currently a known, contradictory ruling to this (Hairtrigger Reflexes vs. Fowl). Christopher is currently muling over what he wants to do about that.

Would you walk us through that?  I don't quite understand what the contradiction is.

If Expat has Hairtrigger Reflexes out, she can kill the birds as they come into play.  Since Hairtrigger Reflexes was in play first, the birds would not get their text about playing the top card of the villain deck.  Which is not the way he wants the ruling to go.  Is that the issue?  Or am I confusing things?

See…I would like that ruling.  It would make The Matriarch FAR less tedious.

No, that's the issue.  I think the current thinking is that because Fowl trigger "when they are played from the top of the villain deck" that it happens before they actually come into play, but introduces a nasty precident of cards having text on them activated before they come into play.

Hence the conundrum.

One way to resolve Fowl vs HTR is to remove all the trigger text from the Fowl cards and print them on The Matriarch instead. Possible?

I was thinking that myself.  Looks like Rook City may get an Enhanced Edition sooner rather than later.

Not neccesarily an Enhanced Edition, not quite the overhaul the core set got, probably just a 2nd edition to fix some typos and get some cards caught up to the change in how villain character cards are targeted, among other small fixes. After all, why not fix things when they're going to do another print run anyway. I'd probaly buy it again for some updated cards, would be my 3rd copy, letting a friend use my 1st copy. When EE came out I wanted my collection to get a fresh start.

As arenson9 stated, Christopher is working through the options, and that is definitely on the potential list of solutions.

I think that cards that react to cards being played or entering play should resolve after the card entering play is resolved. For one thing, it's consistent with the way cards that trigger in response to Powers work. Also, I don't see how a card can be considered to have been played if it hasn't been resolved.

So…does this mean that you would resolve a card played before the Informant acts? In which case, does this indeed mean that if you play a card that would kill the Informant, that she is destroyed before her own ability causes the villain deck to play a card?

It's the way I've played it. It's still a pain in the neck, because it means you end up not making useful setup plays because you have to kill the Informant instead.

Nope.

Since the Informant was out first, she triggers and a villain card is played before a played card can kill her.

Does that not conflict with what you do concerning Spite's "take two damage and discard five cards" drug? Because I thought that was supposed to trigger after you've resolved the played card. Okay so you're never gonna be using your played card to destroy the drug since it's indestructible, but if the drug doesn't interrupt your card-playing to make its action, surely the Informant shouldn't either?

Spite's drug does not react to cards being played, it reacts to powers being used.  I agree that it would be nice if playing a oneshot and using a power were as similar as possible, so my personal rule is that one-shot text is resolved before reactions to a card being played, but I think that may be contrary to the official ruling.

I can't actually find an official ruling, but I guess what it comes down to is:

Option 1: Resolving one-shot text is part of playing the one-shot.  (just like resolving power text is part of using the power).  In this case reactions will go off after resolving the text.

Option 2: One-shot text is a reaction to playing the one-shot.  (basically there is an assumed "When this card is played" on the top of each one-shot).  You would resolve any reactions in the order cards were played, so the one-shot would be resolved last.

EDIT: Ok, here is the positive/negative energy ruling: http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/comment/8983#comment-8983, though it's one of those rulings based on the idea that there is no stack or chain.  That always bothers me because if effects are resolving in sequence according to some rules, that is by definition some kind of stack.  It's just hard to pin down how that stack works because it officially doesn't exist.

It says I'm not authorised to view that page - I'm guessing it's in the playtesting forum? The issue with Positive Energy Field actually came up this evening, and we ended up completing the card text and then enacting the healing from the Field - it mattered because the card being played was one that destroyed one of the things that would have been healed by the Field. Had it been healed first, it would have had enough hp to survive the One-Shot.

Sorry, I guess that's why I didn't see it until I did a search for positive energy field.

The statement (regarding positive/negative energy field) was:

Since there is no "stack" or "chain" or anything like that in SotM, the damage/HP regaining happens upon the act of the card being played.

But like I said, I don't consider it a particularly useful ruling since effects in SotM do not resolve simultaneously and there are rules about the order they are resolved in, so there is some kind of "stack".

In principle it could be a queue...

Well, yes, when I say some sort of stack, I really mean some sort of ordered collection.  Whether it is more like a stack, queue, or some hybrid, they are all on some level the same basic idea.

When multiple cards react to one event, they go in play order like a queue.  But when you have a chain reaction, (i.e. the reaction to one event is itself a trigger for another reaction), the reactions to the latest event are resolved before resuming the queue of reactions for the older event, like a stack.

I actually created a topic in order to create a consistant ordering of events, weither an action occurs before (as seen in reacting to cards played) or after (as seen in powers used).  Really, in all cases other than dealing damage (as it's two actions, of which one causes the other), I see three potential reaction points to an action.  Two before the action occurs, and one after.  I would say (unless it doesn't fit well with how some of the cards are worded), that, any reaction to if an action would occur is first, and may cancel the action (and any other reactions to that action), any reaction to an action occuring (using either present or present progressive) resolves prior to the action resolving, and any reaction to an action that occured (using either past, present perfect, or past perfect) resolves after the action resolves.

Also, as an exceptional case, any card which reacts to itself being played or entering play would have said reaction resolve prior to any other card which reacts to  cards being played or entering play (but not before any cards which react to cards that would enter play or would be played).

(While "is played" is technically present perfect, I would still consider it to be present, as said action is always stated as "to be played," thus making the present perfect version being "has been played.")

I am trying to follow the reasonings in this thread, can what follows help in clarifying the issue ?

The ruling for powers seems grounded on the idea that "using a power" and "resolving a power" are not two different "steps" in time : a power takes effect as soon as used, so reactions can only happen after it is resolved.

With cards, we are not sure if "card is played", "card enters play", "card is resolved" are simultaneous, or discrete steps.

• if "resolution" and "played" are simultaneous, reactions to "play" always occur after the card's resolution
• if resolution happens after the card is played/enter play, then reactions ot entering play are resolved before the card text is resolved

I am used to playing with the "different time" interpretation, but the more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable to think that the text on a card exists and is applied as soon as the card enters play/is played.

This may be the "solution"... The Informant already exists - when you play a card that destroys it, the card is resolved as soon as played, and he can't react to it because the card destroys it first. But a Fowl card entering play has its text in effect as soon as it enters play, and so plays the top card even if it is immediately destroyed...

"text on a card exists and is resolved as soon as a card enters play" seems to resolve the issue "as intended".

Edit : "text on a card is applicable as soon as the card is played" seems a better way to say it.

What do you think ?

*note : if resolution is seen as immediate as soon as the card is played, then "card order" is bypassed in this case, and the card is resolved first, even if played "last".

Could think of it this way. The Informant reacts to a card being played, Hairtrigger reflexes reacts to a target entering play. For the card to become a target, it has to have it's text active, otherwise it has no HP. So The Informant activates as a result of the action of playing a card, but Hairtrigger Reflexes needs a target to enter play to activate.

Well, lets face it;  if its a choice between informant dies a little easier or matriarch utterly neutered against 1 card from Expatriette, the informant dies a little easier option is much more palateable.   So on that level I like your interpretation.    The only thing that gives me pause is that I don't feel it's very intuitive.     It seems to me like Informant gets to play her card, even if she dies.    I mean it seems a simple case of logic here.

1.  Informant plays top card of villain deck when a hero card is played.

2.  I play Elbow Smash to kill the informant

3. Did I play a hero card?  Yes 

4.  therefore informant plays card.

By what the cards say, that seems pretty clear in my eyes.  Here's something else that made me lolz though,  maybe at my own logic gaps more than anything else.    Suppose you don't kill the informant with your card play,  suppose you play Takedown instead.    Going through #1-4 on the list again… 1?  check.   2.   Play Takedown to stop deck from playing cards 3. yes. 4:  ???    No idea.   I'm inclined to say no.   I'm inclined to say;  no playing cards means no playing cards.   However in principle, this is EXACTLY the same as situation 1 with Elbow smash.  I know I shouldn't treat it any differently, and for some reason, I really want to say these are two different situations… but I can't come up with any good reason for that claim.

I think Takedown definately stops the Informant, unless someone is arguing that there is a gap between Takedown being played and Takedown being in play when the villain card gets played.  While Takedown is in play no villain cards are played for any reason.

The only reason that there is confusion about one-shots that kill the Informant (or for that matter Mistbound which blocks villain cards) is because they aren't providing an effect while in play, they are doing something at the time that they are played.  (or I should say near the time that they are played, as that is the whole issue).

Let's imagine for the moment that the Informant causes Villain cards to be played first. I'm playing Expatriette, and I play an RPG Launcher from hand because I want to destroy, say, some annoying Paparazzi. The Chairman plays Rook City is Mine, and that brings a Hostage Situation into play? Can I destroy the Hostage Situation instead?

What a fun question.  I have no idea what I would do there.  

Edit: I mean, the Informant must cause Villain cards to be played first.  Otherwise, it would be dead and would not be able to affect the game.  Do you have to choose targets before playing a card?  

I would say yes you can. You paly the card, nothing on the card exists yet. This triggers the Inforamnt who brigns out Rook City is Mine. this brings out Hostage situation. You now resolve the text on the card which menas you now pick your target.

I tend to play the other way round with text on the card resolving before text off the cards. But I'm not sure I'm 100% following that rule.

I see the appeal of playing a oneshot being resolved similarly to playing a power: Consistency is easier to understand. Unfortunately, doing so leads to an inconsistency about resolving cards generally – non-oneshots are resolved in card order, but oneshots are resolved immediately.

So, let me offer a way to think about one-shots that helps me, at least, to see it as consistent that one-shots and powers are handled differently.

A power comes from a card that is already in play. It thus takes two expenditures of resources to use a power: First the card is put into play, then the power is invoked.

A one-shot only requires one expenditure of resources: The card is put into play and then its text is immediately invoked. 

So, while it may seem 'slow' or 'disjoint' for the play of a one-shot to be broken into two steps (first putting the card into play and then resolving the text of the card), it's actually fast compared to ongoing and equipment (one resource expenditure versus two), and it would be unfair for one-shots to also pre-empt all of the cards that are already in play by being resolved before them.

Just so this doesn't fall into Oblivion, will Christopher post an official clarification, say in the Official Rulings sub-forum, when a decision is made?

Would you mind clarifying what you are looking for a decision on? It's a longish thread and I can think of a couple different things you might mean.

If the Informant is in play, whenever a hero card is played, the top card of the villain deck is played before the hero card is resolved. My apologies for not having a reference at hand, but I'm sure of it.

The ruling on the interaction between Hairtrigger Reflexes and Fowl cards is a contradiction of this and Christopher hasn't shared yet what he wants to do about that. When he does, I expect we'll all see it.

Oh, I was refering to this.