Iron Legacy's Vigilance

Hi, folks. Spent a while with the game now and sort of lurking here, learning all sorts of interesting things. Great place!

I'm after another sort of clarification or general idea of how people play certain circumstances. I really would like to contribute to the Statistics Project (awesome work!), but not if I'm getting critical rulings wrong, obviously.

I recently got my hands on the Shattered Timelines and Rook City expansions (not easy in the UK!) so I'm still getting to grips with some of the heroes and villains. In this case, Iron Legacy, who is a…serious piece of work, to put it lightly.

Now, with his Vigilance card (The first time a player plays a hero card each turn, Iron Legacy deals that player's hero 2 projectile damage) I was wondering how it works/you rule it with regards to certain card's effects. I tried looking at Spiff's helpful guide and searching around the forum, but still wasn't quite sure.

For example, do you deal Iron Legacy's damage instantly, regardless of the effect the hero's card may have or are there special instances?

I ask because I had a game that included Mr. Fixer and Tempest, the former with Grease Gun and the latter with Ball Lightning.

In the case of Grease Gun, it prevents non-hero targets dealing damage…but does it do it instantly or does Iron Legacy slip on it while just about managing to whack Mr. Fixer in the process?

With Ball Lightning, I can see the case that the damage is done first, then you may destroy ongoing cards compared to something like Into The Stratosphere, where you can do the effect and then the damage. Doesn't really help Tempest but then IL is pretty eeeevil.

I'm sure there are other things that never came up, but it would help me to get a sense of how to rule these and other instances. Thanks in advance!

The damage is dealt before the card's effect is resolved. So yes, even damage prevention cards do not save you from Vigilance's damage.

Damn, that is evil.

Thanks!

Yeah, if something reacts in response to a card being played, it does so before that card's effect - for example, the Informant from the Chairman's deck causes the villain to play a card whenever a hero plays a card. This will happen even if the hero card played is a nuke that will be enough to destroy the Informant.

If something acts in response to a hero using a power (for example, that toxic drug of Spite's), the power's effect gets to finish before the reaction kicks off.

Hmm, that's useful to know. Thanks!

I know IL has an Ongoing that heals him whenever a hero uses a power, which I assume something like Visionary's Mental Divergence would overcome.

Yep, Visionary can nuke the ongoing card and it won't get a chance to do anything because it'll be gone by the time comes for it to trigger :).

Is that confirmed anywhere? 

Not to start another massive debate here, but It could be worth the clarification.

Why does "when a card is played" trigger before the cards effect resolves. But for "when you use a power" trigger only resolves after the power resolves?  Does that not seem inconsistant?

The rule of thumb has been that for consecutive/overlapping triggers, the newest trigger is always resolved first. We have a few rulings to support that. So I would question if that is indeed true. I think IL would get the healing before Mental Divergence would blow up his Ongoing.

Anyone have thoughts on this or can show me what I am missing?

The Bio-Eng and Toxic Seaweed ruling. First, fully resolve Bio-Eng, then see if Toxic Seaweed is still around.

It would be nice to have a clarification/general consensus. Obviously, I'd be deferring to far more advanced players like you guys. I can see other related examples and things discussed elsewhere, so I will have a nose around when I have a bit more free time otherwise.

I think I read a ruling similar that if Omnitron X uses the power to destroy Toxic Seaweed, Omnitron won't take damage for using a power. I can't find the offical ruling, but heres a link referencing it.

I do agree with you Foote, why do you not play the card first, apply the text, then resolve in play triggers. 

The ruling is question #6 here for anyone that missed it:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/33171

There are two competing rulings on whether or not the original card takes affect before or after a trigger.

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

[quote="dpt"]

The ruling is question #6 here for anyone that missed it:https://greaterthangames.com/comment/33171

[/quote]

#7 on this implies to me that you can blow up the ongoing with a card before it hits you back. The card hits the table before the effect goes off. I think the Reflexes ruling was sort of a "Oh whoops, we don't want ExPat to turn off her whole deck" thing rather than a ruling that sets the rule.

So I would go with not getting hit back.

Thanks for pointing those out. I totally missed the Bio-Eng / Seaweed ruling! I was so focused on the Solar Flare issue when Ronway made that post.

Pydro you are correct. We have a few rulings on this subject that are totally at odds with eachother between Seaweed, Pos/Neg Energy, and the Expat/fowls.

I do not have the EE edition. Anyone mind posting the current text for Seaweed for me? 

I skimmed this topic and didn't notice anyone putting a reason why you can use a power and not trigger power effects, but playing cards trigger.

The reason being, is a Hero has not used a power until the effects of the power has actually activated. Just saying "I'm going to use Squall" doesn't mean you have used the power, however once you heat all the non-hero targets for 1 projectile, you have used a power.

As for playing cards, the moment you put the card into a play area, the card has been played. Thus causing the interruption before the effects of the card just played can take effect.

Edit: Toxic Seaweed:

Whenever a hero uses a power, deal that hero (H) minus 1 toxic damage.

At the end of the environment turn, 1 player may discard their hand to destroy this card.

Interesting, I was kinda confused by this, so a card enters play before you play the card (apply text) right?

EDIT: Actually, I'm probably wrong as I always thought a card hasn't been played till the text has been applied. My mistake.

A card enters played and played at the same time, triggering off any effect that triggers from a card being played and entering play. But they are triggered before the card text becomes active. However after the ruling where the Negative Energy Field can deal damage to the target that was just played, I am beginning to wonder if increases and reduction to damage on a card just played will still apply, as it is static. Mainly because of the case for targets that have DR, it doesn't make much sense for them to get hit. Sadly I didn't start thinking about that until after Kantcon was over, so I won't see Christopher to ask this until next years Kantcon.

Ah Ronway you beat me to it. I was going to ask if that was a possibility to explain the ruling. Cool, that makes sense to me. 

I personally don't consider a card to have been played before the text resolves, because the rulings do conflict, I think it's better of Hairtrigger Reflexes doesn't immediately shut down The Matriarch, and it makes more sense to me that powers and card plays should work the same way than that they shouldn't.

I think I recall Christopher saying when Rook City needs a reprint, that he will figure out a way to make it that Fowls will still play a card, even with Hair Triggers Reflex in play. Meaning it should still be played that way, even if the card interactions don't work like that right now. Speaking of which, I hear Rook City is going to be reprinted soon, so we should be hearing about that and a few other changes soon.

Edit: I am curious, is there a reason as to why you think two different things should function the same?

This is how I personally have always thought as well. More like a card hasn't be played until text is resolved. After text has been resolved, the card has completely "entered play". I think this works with both hair trigger reflexes and the environment card discussion. Again my personal opinion, I thought thats how it was meant to be played lol

To avoid needless asymmetry. It makes no sense to me to say that a power hasn't been used until it's been resolved, while a card has been played even though it hasn't resolved.

If the Trigger was "After a card is played" instead of "when a card is played" I would agree with you. 

But it makes perfect sense that, at least in terms of Triggers, that "using a power" nessesarily entails the resolution of the power. 

Hairtrigger has a Trigger that says "when blah blah target enters play". This to me reads different than Pos/Neg field that say "when a card is played". Is there, or should there be a difference here in timing? To me right now, I'd argue pos/neg fields only trigger after the effects of the card played are resolved, just like using a power. Hairtrigger seems dependent on just a target entering play (how does that shut matriarch down? Auto shredding fowls isn't exactly the best strat without meta gaming)

Vigilance is worded the same as the fields are. So I guess I am calling into question whether Vigilance for Iron Legacy indeed deals damage before a card like Grease Gun would resolve. 

Edit: Ronway, saw you said that a card enters play and is played basically are interchangeable phrases as far as mechanics go. Was this confirmed somewhere? Or just your general game sense?

One-Shot "A keyword appearing on hero and villain cards. The effects of a one-shots happen immediately upon being played."

That roughly translates to "when this card is played, do x". This brings us to the triggers of "when a card is played, do x" so order of play now takes effect. Considering any card that has this trigger that is already in play would have to of been in play prior to this new card entering play, as cards can't enter play at the same time.

That answers my edit question above. I buy that. 

But they are triggered before the card text becomes active.

I've never seen anything official confirming that a card and its text enter play at different times (which strikes me as loony).  That's why there's nothing about it in the FAQ yet.

I'd assume that a card entering play is the first step of a card play. And it would shut The Matriarch down by killing the Fowl, thus preventing the Fowl's "play another card" text from activating before it even happens. Effectively it would act as a permanent semi-Take Down.

With the Matriarch and fowl cards, they should move the "when a fowl card enters play play the top card of the villain deck" to The Matriarch's character card, that way it would trigger before Hairtrigger reflexes.  I play it this way, and just pretend that it is the Matriarch's card causing the effect, and not the fowl card.

The problem comparing card play to powers is the card being played is what triggers its effect (the text), while a power is triggered by the hero choosing to use it, for the two to have the same timing it would have to say something like "when a card effect occurs" instead of "when a card is played."

A card entering play is what causes a card's effect to take place.  Therefore any other effect that also triggers on a card entering play would happen simultaneously with the effect of the card, and since that would be resolved in the order the cards came into play, the new card is at the back of the line.

A power being used is not a trigger that causes the power to be used, it is the power.  Like Bunker's ammo drop, it triggers to the actual destruction of the card, not the start of the process of destruction, so cards that delay their own destruction delay Ammo Drop's effect from triggering.

A card entering play is what causes a card's effect to take place.  Therefore any other effect that also triggers on a card entering play would happen simultaneously with the effect of the card, and since that would be resolved in the order the cards came into play, the new card is at the back of the line.

That makes sense to me.  I still haven't seen anything official on the subject, but if this were the official ruling, I'd be able to understand it better than cards and their text entering play at different points in time.

My initial intuition is that it seems strange that when a card is played, previously played cards can be triggered before the just-played card's effects are triggered, but that when a power is used, the power is resolved before previously played cards that trigger on a power use are taken into effect.

Considering, however, that using a power (except for base powers) requires two actions -- first play the card, then use the power -- I can explain away the difference using the perspective that since you have to expend twice as many resources (kind of), it's reasonable to win ties rather than lose them.

On a related note, I think the point (brought up by Ronway just now?) that static reductions/increases/other changes on a just-played card might actually be in effect before a previously-played card triggers makes sense.

Sigh. I think I see another pending rules question coming ...

What have I dooooone?

I can understand this, I always thought a card being played is what causes the text effect to go off regardless of when it's counted as "entered play". I guess I never really thought about what the phrase "entering play" actually meant, like entering the playfield or entering card order que, somewhere along those lines.

good point phantaskippy

Sigh. Another question i'll have to bug Christopher with at Kantcon next year.

I'll ask at PAX. They're going to be at PAX, right?

Yep!