Static modifiers on targets that trigger Hairtrigger Reflexes

Since the other thread (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/a-few-clarifications-needed-3776) is heavily discussing Wrest the Mind, I decided to split this as a separate topic.

2a. Hairtrigger Reflexes on Explosive Wagon entering play. I replied just 1 damage since the text on Explosive Wagon isn't active yet.

2b. Hairtrigger Reflexes with Explosive Wagon in play on Granite Oni entering play. I replied 2, since +1 from Explosive Wagon, but no -1 from Granite Oni since its text isn't active yet.

since the text on Explosive Wagon isn't active yet.

When did we decide that a card and the words on the card enter play separately?  I don't remember that.

I would say that the card enters play, and then Hairtrigger reflexes off. Cards can not be valid targets until they are already in play.

I was reading the Positive/Negative Energy Field thread and the Killing the Informant thread (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/killing-the-informant-2829).

I can't find any official ruling regarding whether the text on cards exist or not when the card being played triggers a card already in play.

I suppose the question can also be applied to Informant versus Take Down. If Take Down stops Informant, then static damage modifiers will affect Hairtrigger Reflexes.

If a card with 1 hp, which had text saying it was immune to damage entered play, I don't think we'd say that you could use Hair Trigger Reflexes to shoot it before its text made it immune.  Once it's in play enough that you can shoot it, it's immune.  Yeah?

I think it's a mistake to apply the Fowl ruling here, because that was a triggered ability rather than a static one.  The Fowl-Hairtrigger thing is because you have two triggers firing "at the same time," and Hairtrigger goes first because it was in play first... and if it destroys the card just played, then the second trigger never gets a chance to fire.

In this case, it's Hairtrigger Reflexes triggering by itself, so any static effects would still apply (since they're in play, after all, or Hairtrigger Reflexes wouldn't have triggered).

When we play, if a card is in play which has an effect triggered by another card being played/entering play (eg Positive/Negative Energy Field, the Informant), I'll pick up the card about to be played but won't do anything with it (if it's a villain or environment card, I won't even look at it) until the resulting trigger has been dealt with. If it's Hairtrigger Reflexes, that's different - that requires a target to have entered play, whereas the other cards only need a card to have entered play. It's a card until it's actually in play, at which point it "activates" and becomes a target/ongoing/equipment or whatever type(s) of card it is. Then Expatriette can shoot it :). If Hairtrigger Reflexes and, say, Positive Energy Field were in play, when another card is playe I'd enact the Field first, then the card finishes entering play and suddenly has hitpoints (if it's a target), and the Hairtrigger goes off.

I second everything Ameena has said. Infact she typed it so well that I can't even think of anything else I want to add to the case.

Seconded

Edit:  yes, I just seconded your second to Ameena.  =D

Just to build concensus here, I also fully agree with Ameena. That is how I would resolve that situation as well.

I wouldn't do it this way. I'd enact HtR and PEF in the order they were played.

But they act on different things - the Fields activate whenever a card is played (regardless of what it is), and Hairtrigger goes off when a target enters play...so you get a card (from your hand, or from the top of the villain/environment deck) which means one is being played, so the Field goes off...then you actually put the card into play and activate it, therefore the text becomes active, which would include the hitpoints if it's a target and so activate Hairtrigger.

Yeah, I'm with Ameena on this one.  Play order only really matters for "simultaneous" actions, and the Energy Field and Hairtrigger Reflexes have separate trigger conditions and therefore (shouldn't?) be simultaneous.

I don't see a card entering play or being played vs. a target entering play or being played as different things.

Hmmm … that may not be clear enough. I don't see a card being played and a card entering play as different things. For sure, a card can enter play for other reasons than being played, but even so, if a card enters play because it has been played, to me that is all one 'thing' or 'action'.

As I understand it, stuff that activates on a card being played does so before that card's text is active - it doesn't matter what the card is, just that it's entering play, and anything that activates on such a trigger (eg Energy Fields, the Informant, etc) will do so regardless of what the card is. Then its text becomes active, which to me includes the hp if it's a target, and that's when anything that reacts to targets entering play would do so.

This brings us back to the Informant vs Take Down. Does Take Down stop Informant?

I've read elsewhere on the forum that anything which activates on a card being played does so before that card's text activates. So if the Informant is out and Legacy plays Take Down, it doesn't matter what card it is - he's played a card so the Informant gets to let the Chairman play a card. Once that's dealt with, then Take Down activates so no more villain cards can be played until it's gone. I'm only going by what's been said on the site previously. And stuff that reacts to powers being used (eg Spite with his toxic damage/discard drug, whatever it's called) does so after the power's effect has finished.

You've convinced me. I will backpedal and agree that a card being played is properly different and comes before a card entering play.

This is what allows PEF to activate after another distortion is played but before it enters play and is what allows the Informant to cause The Chairman to play another card after Take Down is played but before Take Down enters play.

Given that, I don't think this argument needs to hinge on whether or not a card is considered a target while it is being played or only gains that status when it enters play, as HtR states 'Whever a non-hero target enters play', not 'is played'.

Hmmm ... sorry to be so wishy-washy, but I'm no longer convinced that I agree and might re-pedal, if you will.

Hopefully, my brain is just working poorly and someone can point out the error of my ways.

In regards The Informant causing a villain card to be played before any card played is resolved, I can think of two different reasons this might be the case: 1) A card being played is seperable and comes before a card entering play and cards being played don't have text until the card enters play, and 2) The Informant was in play before whatever card is played/enters play, so it gets to trigger a villain card before whatever the entering card does anything.

So far, I don't think it matters what the reasoning is.

Consider, however, Take Down, which stops villain cards from being played. It is not a triggered action, per se, but a static 'rule', if you will. If we use the second reasoning above (The Informant was in play before whatever card is entering play), then the reason that The Informant gets triggered before whatever is being played might destroy The Informant is that, since no two actions are ever truly simultaneous, card order means that The Informant gets to trigger before, say, Back Fist Strike can do damage that would destroy the The Informant.

Take Down, however, does not do an action. It changes the rules. So there's no order of actions that needs to resolve. The card is played, causing it to enter play and change the rules. The Informant than triggers and is not allowed to play a villain card.

Does this cause any problems with the PEF ruling? I don't think so. PEF is in play before another distortion is played, so when it comes down to determining which goes first of PEF doing something versus the new distortion causing PEF to go away, since PEF was in play first, it goes first.

From the EE rulebook:

Limited: A keyword appearing on hero cards. Limited cards are unique, in that only once card of that name can be in play at one time. If a limited card with the same name as a limited card alread in play would come into play, the second card is put into the trash instead.

Unless I am reading too much into this, it seems that the card does have text before it comes into play, otherwise how do you know if it is the same limited card. You can of course argue that it gains text after being played and before coming into play. Also, if being played comes before come into play, that would mean the second limited card triggers all of those effects. This could be true, just looking for a confirmation. Or of course there could be specific rules about limited cards that make it not apply to this situation.

I think you read that wrong. It's saying, if you put that 2nd limited into play, then it would get burned. From my understanding, the card was not considered limited before it entered play (which allows you to play it in the first place), then after its in play its now considered a duplicate limited and discarded

I don't think the Take Down thing matters - the card is entering play. It doesn't have text yet. The Informant triggers and the villain deck plays a card. That done, and assuming nothing else acts on the same trigger, you then look at the played card because its text now becomes active. Oh, look, it's Take Down - okay, the bad guys can't play any more cards now, and Legacy has to take some damage.

I am wondering if this is the consensus. I have misinterpreted the rulebook wrong before, and can be wrong about this, but to me it seems like it never enters play. It says "would come into play," meaning it hasn't already. It also says to "put it in the trash instead." "Instead" seems to mean instead of in play. Otherwise it would mean you "put it in the trash" "instead" of staying in play. To me at least, the former is the much simplier explanation.

I believe I’d said before (with no authority mind you) that playing a card is the same as entering play, but entering play is not the same as playing, along the lines that a tree is the same thing as a plant, but a plant is not the same as a tree. In other words, playing a card will also trigger anything that says it enters play, but a card which enters play will not trigger anything which reacts to playing. Of course, it could actually be said that entering play is an effect of playing, which would cause one to always trigger before the other based on internal interpretation.
However, this is not the case Ameena is trying to make. She is separating the idea of a card playing/entering play and a target playing/entering play. Her interpretation is that a card cannot be a target until its card is in play and has text. Thus, card play occurs before target play, and the card being played has no way to react to anything happening on the board (as it has no text yet) while a target being played can (as it has text now). If a card is being played which is a target and has reactions (Stealth Bot seems a perfect example), while the card is being played, it would not yet have text and can’t react (it would be unable to redirect Negative Energy Field), but it could react to anything which happens when a target enters play (I’m unsure of a non-hero card which deals multiple or targeted damage when a target enters play, but if it does/will, then Stealth Bot can redirect that when she/it is played).
This would assume that a card is not a target if it is not in play, which would side along with how I say that Sonic Mine is no longer a target when it is dealing damage. Some people have went against this idea, but I don’t know if any of the same are supporting Ameena.
In any case, I do not take either side, but find it interesting nonetheless.

Regarding the Limited cards, I believe I remember a conversation (which may have been verbal and thus not searchable) in which Christopher said that a player never even has the option to play a limited card in the first place. If a player is to play a card, any Limited card in hand with a same name in play is considered to not even be in the hand to begin with, not allowing the play. Only cards which would force a play can ever have a second limited card to come into play, which then would trigger the rules which says to instead place it in the trash, unless the card says what to do with the card (such as Atlantian Font of Power). If a card allows ‘random’ cards to be revealed, and playing/putting into play the cards is one of the options allowed (such as Timeshift power), then the play/put into play option is no longer a valid option for a duplicate Limited card.
Now, this is based ob information a year (possible a year and a half) old, and thus could be irrelevant now.

I have a little trouble when interpreting Fowl cards using Ameena's Method.

Fowl: "When this card is played from the villain deck, play the top card of the villain deck."

If "play a card" is indeed separate from "enters play" and the former occurs before the latter, then the text on a Fowl card can only exist after it has entered play which neccessarily means that the "to play" phase has already passed, hence the trigger on the Fowl card will not be activated.

I wasn't really getting into the semantics of the different meanings behind "playing" and "entering play" - I don't like when stuff gets complicated (like that Wrest-the-Mind thread) so I just try to keep it as simple as possible :). But if you want to get into detail on Fowl cards...okay, I'll say that it's entered play because it was played from the villain deck, therefore when its text activates you look at it and go "okay, which deck was this played from? The villain deck? Okay then...". I believe there was a discussion somewhere before as to whether Hairtrigger Reflexes can take out a Fowl card before it triggers a new card being played...but off the top of my head I can't remember what the verdict ended up being, nor whether it made it onto Spiff's rule list (because I can't remember whether one of the devs posted to confirm what actually happens).

Another card is played before Hair Trigger Reflexes triggers (I guess Expat just isn't that fast). However, this is inconsistent with the Negative Energy Field ruling.

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/25353#comment-25353

Actually, Targeting Entering play and Card Entering play would trigger at different points. As when a card enters play the card isn't doing anything the moment it enters play, it would essentially be a blank card, infact put it upside down while everything that triggers on a "card entering play" has been established. Where when a target enteres play it has to be rightside up, allowing the effects on the card to be triggered.

That's basically how I play it - if it's a villain or environment card entering play, I'll pick up the top card of the deck but not turn it over yet. Once everything that's needed to act has done so (eg Positive/Negativ Energy Field), then I'll turn the card over and do what it says.

That order seems strange to me.  I would fully resolve an action, like playing a card, before resolving the reactions to it.  Just like I would not resolve Combat Stance before fully resolving damage to Wraith, including side effects like maybe incapacitating her.

But your order it is more like playing the card is just selecting the card and then there is an implicit second instruction to reveal the card and put it into play.  I can see how it would work, it's just not how I would play it.

Well, I just go by what I read on the forum a while back - if something reacts to a card being played, it does so before said card's text activates. Therefore it doesn't matter what that card is, so I don't bother looking at it...unless it's a hero card, of course, in which case it's unavoidable and I just go "I'm playing this card, so I get interrupted by..." and do the triggered reaction (Informant, for example).