Rules Answers from Christopher At PAX

1. The order for how Micro-targetting Computer and Imbued Flame does not effect the end result. The conditional damage bonuses (like +1 to projectile or fire) cease once the damage type has changed.

2. You can redirect infinitely if you want, but it doesn't do anything. Once it is redirected, the target is taking the original amount of damage again. So Smoke Bombs can tag it once (since it has redirected the damage) and say, stealth bot can redirect it to himself and net a total of 2 damage reduction, but looping it doesn't get you anywhere. Having Legacy bring it back to himself only benefits from the smoke bombs, not Stealth Bots reduction. He says you're welcome to if you want to, though.

3. Tempest: Sacrifice can eat his cards that Capitain has taken under herself. It still sees them as Tempest Cards in play. 

If you have any new ones you want me to throw at him, I'll try to check back in and remember them for tomorrow or Monday.

I know this has been answered, but a clarification would be nice. If a card has an effect when it is destroyed (e.g. Sonic Mine), what is the proper order:

1) Card is destoryed.

2) On destruction effects on cards in play before the card.

3) Destruction effect on the card.

4) Card finally leaves play.

5) On destruction effects on cards in play after the card.

Or do you read it as "when this card would be destroyed do X, then destroy this card. So it would always be:

1) Destroy effect on the card.

2) Card is destroyed and leaves play.

3) On destruction effects in card played order.

On a related note, when Explosive Wagon is destroyed, does it get its bonus?

Not a rules question, but can you ask Christopher why Team Leader Tachy has shorter hair then regular Tachy?

I talked to Adam this morning. She cut it because, uh, she cut it. She changed her hair styles preferences (like many of us do ). Nothing exciting.

Are you kidding me?!  Tell those writers that Tachyon needs a "coming into her own, hair-cutting episode"  in which the cutting of her hair is symbolic of her  banishing her personal demons and assuming a leadership role of the new Freedom 6.    

Sheesh,  nobody changes their appearance for no reason =p.

Just want to be sure I'm reading this right:

Smoke Bombs (like Legs and SBot) can redirect the same damage multiple times, but it only reduces the damage the first time, but the damage reduction sticks once the damage has been redirected?

So you can have stealth bot take 5 damge for someone, triggering Smoke Bombs and redirecting to Tachyon who redirects to IL, who has redirection out, but now it is four damage and he can't redirect it because Smoke Bombs reduced it by one.

Because if that is the case you can give Christopher a hug for me and tell him he rocks, cause that's a great way to deal with it.

It also means that when Smoke Bombs is out the lowest HP hero target cannot take damage.

Unless al heroes are on the same HP/Wraith is the only hero left, in which case it creates a non-optiona infinite cycle of redirection...

Sure they can, one of the other heroes could hit them for being smug, or more likely the environment could.

Unless al heroes are on the same HP/Wraith is the only hero left, in which case it creates a non-optiona infinite cycle of redirection...

Only if you chose to do so, if they are tied you choose the order, so only one hero at a time is the lowest health.

Sure they can, one of the other heroes could hit them for being smug, or more likely the environment could.

Good Point.  Don't go bragging about being the lowest health to the Environment Deck or your friends.  Good advice.

So the connection at the con was too crappy for me to pull the full question up, but he did clarify that Explosives Wagon is still out when it's "is destroyed" trigger is going off, so the damage is increased. 

Thank you. I think there was an assumption on here that it doesn't get the bonus, but I didn't quite understand why. This clears things up.

There is a takeaway here as far as definitions go. A card does not have to be in the trash to be considered Destroyed. It is moved to the trash as a result of the Destruction resolving, not because it must be in the trash to be considered destroyed. This is how I always assumed it works. Glad we have confirmation.

Maybe. If this is going back to the other discussion, I don't think it completely clarifies it, which is why I asked the longer version. Now, I do think the ruling might be as you mentioned before, I just don't think it is the best approach based on the issues I brought over there.

EDIT: To clarify, I don;t have any issue with saying it is destroyed and still in play (although it would make more sense to say "if it would be destroyed), the issue is that nothing should interupt a cards leaving play after being destroyed. So, if there is a ruling saying that the cards "is destroyed" abilities always happen first, there would be a lot less problems.

What is still grey for you Pydro? I'm not sure how this does not clear up the issue

The simple solution is to not view it as an interrupted action. Don't assume that the card needs to be in the trash to be considered destroyed. Moving to the trash is the end result of a card being tagged for destruction. 

We can go back and reference the rule for resolving triggers, that with consecutive triggers, the newest one is always resolved first. Being tagged for destruction is the first effect, which then triggers the destruction effect (so now resolve that first), then carry out the rest of destruction (move to trash). 

Everythibg here is very consistent with all current ruling on triggered effects. Sounds resolved to me.

Edit: I guess it is kinda interrupted, but that doesn't change how you resolve interrupted actions. Also Pydro, I agree that the wording of "when this card would be destroyed" could make it clearer, but it wouldn't trigger simultaneously with other "when a card is destroyed" triggers. Whether or not that is important is questionable, but relevant. 

If I understand correctly cards with "when this card is destroyed" text delay their destruction to activate those effects, remaining on the field to do so.  Cards that are triggered on another cards destruction trigger when a card is destroyed and leaves play.

So Bunker wouldn't draw a card until Sonic Mine had completed its damage and left play.

An interesting question reappears. . .

Did we ever get an official ruling as to what happens if a card with a destruction effect (aka Wagon) is destroyed, and mid damage is destroyed a second time.

Last I know we had reached a concensus that it couldn't be triggered twice, but that was based on a concensus that redirection could only happen once in the samge damage instance.

Our concensus on redirection is overruled, the question of how destruction effects interact seems to have returned.

If the wagon is destroyed by health, and goes off, hitting Beebot and Unity selects to destroy the wagon, what happens?

I looked, I can't find an official ruling.  It would be wierd seeing a wording like "The first time this card is destroyed each turn."

It seems to me that either destruction effects can only be used once per time the card is played, which would seem to allow Beebot to interrupt Wagon's damage, or like Smokebombs, lead from the front, and Stealth Bot it can trigger multiple times (although only one time would complete the cycle).

As of right now, I would argue that the Wagons explosion damage can be interrupted by a second destroy effect. There is not anything saying a card can't be tagged as destroyed multiple times I guess. The second destruction effect would actually resolve before the first one if you follow the rules of trigger resulolution. 

Actually, I brought up the Bee Bot Thing and he said this:

The Wagon is already being destroyed. If for example, you have Fixed Point out and something is at 0, it's going to be destroyed once Point goes away. Destroying it again is like doing 20 more damage to the 0 health character. Yes, you can do it, but it has no effect real effect on the end result. 

At a guess, the ruling is probably that Destroyed cards can't be targetted in general.  So Beebot couldn't select the Wagon.

If it can be double-Destroyed, what happens when Haka destroys the Wagon, he has Savage Mana in play, and the Wagon's death destroys Beebot which selects the Wagon?  Does the Wagon go under Savage Mana (because Haka destroyed it) or into the trash (because Beebot destroyed it)?

Ok. So "on destruction" effects can not be interrupted by a second destroy effect. Good to have that clarified. 

That is cool, The card/target in process of its own destruction ignores all other attempts to destroy it.

It is not an issue with understanding, it is an issue with its application. I am 100% convinced that the game was not meant to have these 3 steps: 1) Card is called destroyed but still in play. 2) Triggers on card destruction. 3) Card finally leaves play.

Consider the ramifications of one of the easiest villains in the game. Gloomy has out Pouch of Bones. If so, it would be nearly impossible to kill a cultist, if we applied this logic.

1) Cultist is called "destoryed" but still in play.

2) Gloomy's text triggers and brings out a zombie.

3) Pouch of Bones triggers and all targets heal H.

4) Cultist would leave play, but now has hp.

In a 5p game, unless you brought the cultist down to -5 hp, it wouldn;t die unless there were no zombies in the trash or all were in play. If the cultist was at 1 hp, that would mean you need 1 instance of 6 damage. Very few characters can do that easily. This cannot in any way be the official ruling.

In the other thread, you posted the idea that once something is "destroyed" it can't gain hp. While it fixes the problem, it is a forced explanation with absolutely no basis or precedence. It could be right, but how or where were we supposed to figure it out. Nothing has ever been said anywhere about something like this. It might be possbile to base something on the new "can't be destroyed twice" rule, but this is the only thing we have ever heard about it, and there are some arguments against it.

Furthermore, if it wasn't for Sonic Mines and Explosive Wagons, everyone would get the rule wrong. There is no basis anywhere that these are different steps, and we have never heard of anything outside of these cards that it works this way. What makes more sense: 1) Everyone got the rules wrong all the time, even in the base set when these cards didn't exist. 2) It is only these cards that have the exception, and all other cards go to the trash first before triggereing other cards.

So, if it is only these cards, how exactly do they play. Should things trigger before their destruction effect or not?

The card only stays in play if it needs to resolve it's own destruction text. If only other cards are triggering off it being destroyed, it can be moved to the trash then trigger everything. 

I would agree and say it has to be that way, but it doesn’t answer what gets triggered first, its own destruction effect or something played first. The consensus before was that it is card play order, but if this is a very special case, does it still stay that way, or does it make more sense to trigger itself first and get it into the trash asap.
EDIT: The question is do we follow card order like every other situation, or do we not interrupt destruction and leaving like every other situation?

The destruction of a card with text that activates on destruction just delays its own destruction until that text is completed.

Any other effect that triggers on a card that isn't itself being destroyed waits till the card leaves play.

From how the answer was worded you can interrupt the self-destruction text with any appropriate trigger, but that any attempt to destroy a card in process of destruction does nothing.  This will only effect cards with text that activates on its own destruction (or Kismet with her combo) because they are the only ones that have a destruct trigger while still in play.

Maybe we have just played gloomy wrong and he is much harder than we thought? Ill have to get my cards out and look over it. 

Edit: I do don't think so Pydro. I think sonic mines and the like are exceptions because they nessesarily must be in play to resolve its final effect. So no extra effect would send the card immediately to the trash. I think the application is fine. Nothing really changes except that we know cards must be in play to have effects. Which just kinda makes a lot of sense. 

I think the reason the cultist leaves play as we all expect it to is that it is destroyed.  Destroyed targets leave play after you have resolved their destruction.  Even if the effects of their destruction cause them to regain HP, that doesn't undestroy it.

One card this affects is AkashBhuta's Mountainous Carapace.  If Explosive Wagons increases its own damage, then presumably Mountainous Carapace reduces the damage it makes AkashBhuta deal herself.  That was one of the first questions I came to this forum with, so it is nice to have it answered.

I am very happy with the following idea: destoryed = leaves play. The only excpetion to this is when a card needs to stay in play to resolve its own effect. However, all other triggers are still based on when it leaves play, not its destruction. So the order will be:

1) Card is called "destroyed."

2) Card resolves its own destroyed effect, and is still in play for all static modifiers.

3) Card leaves play and finishes being destroyed.

4) On destruction effects trigger in card order.

The only problem is when this question came up, everyone said it is based on card order. So it would be:

1) Card is called "destroyed."

2) Resolve any on destruction effect on a card in play before the original card, and all modifiers on the original card are still active.

3) Resolve the original card's on destruction effect with its modifiers.

Here's the tricky part. What are the last few steps. Is it:

4a) Original card leaves play and takes it modifiers.

5a). Resolve any on destruction effects on a card in play after the original card.

Or is it:

4b) Resolve any on destruction effects on a card in play after the original card, and all modifiers on the original card are still active.

5b) The original card finally leaves play.

Just for simoplicity's sake, I like the first explanation, where the original card's effect is always first. If the explanation is the second one, I am leaning towards "A," but if it really is that precise and involved, it deserves an official clarification. (Hence, my longer question above.)

And if cards always stay in play, an official clarigfication would be nice since it has drastic consequences on anything with static modifiers, triggers, etc.

PS it is really frustating when people change their minds between threads. :) In the other thread, nobody said that these cards were an exception, and completely rejected the idea that all cards always stay out. Oh well, different days can lead to different perceptions. :) Anyways, the whole idea is to find out the truth, not to stick to old ideas.

Well we also have an officialish ruling. So yeah. Opinions will change to fit the new understanding. 

I think you might be over complicating a simple issue Pydro. No need for all those steps. That's what gets people in trouble I feel. 

If a card has an additional effect upon its destruction, it would need to stay in play for its effects. So yes, card order would matter with multiple simultaneous "on destruction" effects. If ammo drop was in play before mountainous carapace, bunker would get a card before AB dealt herself damage (yes her DR would apply). 

If not, destroyed card leaves play then do other destruction effects. 

No messy steps needed. And you might like it, but destroyed =\= leaves play. Those are two separate things, at least that's how you have to view it now. A card leaves play as a result of a destruction effect. They are not interchangeable terms at all. 

It's like dealing damage and HP loss. You lose HP due to the resolution of damage being dealt. They are tied together, but still two different actions. 

Destruction and leaving play is similar in that sense. One effect (leaving play) is the result of another effect (destruction) resolving. 

Pydro, I would word it:

1.  Destruction is activated

2.  Resolve any on destruct effects on the card being destroyed

3.  Card leaves play and is destroyed.

4.  on destruction effects of other cards are activated.

This is why I like the terminology that destruction is delayed, it isn't stopped, it hasn't happened, it is happening, there's just some other stuff that has to occur first.

Foote is smart in saying beware of steps like the one I just wrote out, they do get you in trouble.  For example Kismet can delay interrupt effects with a chance to undo it, and it isn't her own card text.

Also a Card that would be destroyed by HP=0 that regains health before destruction occurs does not get destroyed.

This is why negative hitpoints exist for things in the process of being destroyed or are indistructible.  Kismet can drop to 0HP or less, Lady Luck forces a card to be revealed to see if Kismet would be destroyed, if her destruction is prevented, the check begins anew (since she is still at 0hp, if it is Fortune's Smile and she is at -3hp or higher she goes into positive hp and lives.

The best rule is still "When a target reaches 0hp unless something says otherwise destroy that target."  That kind of applies to destruction effects as well, sometimes things say otherwise.

I have to disagree as this just does not jive with other rules of resolution that we have. Why does the destroyed card resolve first, and then other on destruction effects? If the card is stay in play, which we all know to be the case, and there are simultanious triggers, which now there are, then they resolve in order played just like everything else.

You are making a rather large exception here without any reason for doing so. There is no rule saying that a card must leave play to be considered destroyed. That is a fallacy. And if there was, why does the destroyed card need to stay in play to resolve its own "on destruction" effect. Those ideas clash.

Here is something that doesn't clash with any current existing rules:

1. Card A is destroyed

1a. If Card A has an effect upon its own destruction, keep it in play to resolve effect. If not, move Card A to trash

2. Trigger any on destruction effects and resolve as normal

2.5 steps. Simple.

Except, this is inconsistent with other rulings.

Consider the following "normal" situation:

1) Card is destroyed.

2) Card leaves play.

3) On destruction triggers.

First off, I think we can agree that in a normal situation the triggers won't happen between steps #2 and #3. If they do, I want a ruling saying this.

Now, there are 2 ways to interpret this situation.

A) destroyed = leaves play. This means, that when a card says "when X is destroyed" it can be read as "when X is destoryed and leaves play."

B) destroyed =/= leaves play. If so, then when a card says "when this card is destroyed" it doesn't really mean "is destoryed" what is really means is "when this card leaves play." Otherwise, it would inherently trigger between steps #1 and #2.

Now let's consider a card that has a self-destruct effect. We know that this is a special exemption, where a card is destroyed but has to stay in play until its text is resolved. So let's look at each of the above and see what would happen.

A) Since destroyed = leaves play, all other triggers won;t happen until the card left play, but we know this special ruling that the self-destruct effect has to happen before it leaves play. Therefore, the self-destruct always happens first.

B) Since destroyed =/= leaves play, it has to mean "leaves play" otherwise the normal conditions don't work. If so, it would only trigger in this case after it leaves play, once again triggering the self-destruct first.

We've had this argument before.

If the card is destroyed at step 1, then all reactions to its destruction occur, which would be resolved in card play order, meaning you would trigger Bunker's Ammo Drop before Sonic Mine's damage, and what of Haka's Savage Mana, if it is out first wouldn't you activate it and place the card under Savage mana before activating Sonic Mine's text?

If we look at the language ascribed to Christopher above:

The Wagon is already being destroyed. 

That sounds like a card in the process of destruction while it is dealing damage, not a card already destroyed.

If that is an accurate quote then I'd say there is a destruction process that self destruction activated effects are a part of, and that would lead to the conclusion that destruction still ongoing will not trigger a card that triggers when a card is destroyed, just like a power being activated won't trigger effects that trigger on a power being used until it finishes.

Here's where I think this disagreement is. We know that Explosive Wagon is an exception to the normal rule. So, what excatly is the exception.

Me: The excpetion given in the ruling only applies to its own text, saying that the card is staying in play just so its text can resolve.

Foote: The exception given in the ruling is about when the entire on-destruction effect sequence begins.

What makes people so sure that Explosive Wagon is an exception to the rule?  Do we have some official ruling that other cards leave play before anything reacts to them being destroyed?  It is the way we all assumed destruction worked, but with an official ruling that one card stays in play while its destruction is reacted to, I'm inclined to change that assumption instead of making an exception for that one card.

Also, I maintain that once a card is destroyed it can't be undestroyed and thus stay in play.  People have brought up Kismet as the counter-example, but Lady Luck reacts when a card WOULD BE destroyed.  So she is explicitly interupting the destruction before it happens and can thus prevent it (either explicitly or by restoring her HP).  If something is triggered when a card IS destroyed, then nothing that trigger does (like AkashBhuta restoring environment targets to full HP) can go back and make it not destroyed.  Similarly something like BeeBot can't destroy it again because it is already destroyed.

Destruction, like any other in game effect, must resolve. If a card being destroyed has an effect on it that triggers upon its destruction, it has to stay in play. Cards cant resolve effects from the trash, thats why End of Days and things like it are interupted.

The card must stay in play until the complete resolution of its effect, since we also now know that Explosive Wagon and Sonic Mines can not be "double destroyed" to interupt the effect in the same way you can End of Days. 

Those two things are now facts.

My 2 step proccess is clear and concise, follows all current resolution rules and does not rely on interpreting "exceptions". The simplest solution is usually the correct one here.

Cards leave play like normal when they are destroyed, unless they need to stay in play to resolve an effect. What is difficult about this.

Edit: I agree with Dypaca above me 100%.

There are still some triggers which apply when a card is out of play.  Ambuscade's traps have text which triggers when they are face up on top of the villain deck.  Spite's drugs have text which triggers when they would be put in the trash.  Though not really a trigger, Unity's bots have text restricting them from being played in her play phase.

So I don't have a problem with resolving out of play text if that is clearly when that text applies.  Before this ruling, a card reacting to its own destruction was in that list, now I'm just treating destruction and leaving play as two separate steps.

I would say that Ambuscades trap effect (the whole putting back into the deck face up) triggered when it was first played. It is a unique effect, so there are clear instructions on how to resolve the effect. But I would make the distinction that the effect has already triggered when you refind it face-up.

Unity is a restriction on the card. I would not call that a triggered effect.

Spites Drugs are an interesting exception though. Thats a good point. If one was discarded from the top of the deck, it would not be in play before it would start its effect. Spites Drugs are more the exception to the rule than anything else I would say, and the exception is only made because it is required to make Spite function properly, so the exception is limited to his deck only.

I do agree with you generally though.

I'm liking the card being destroyed remaining "in play" until it resolves its own destruction trigger, and all destruction triggers happening in card order.  That seems the cleanest and simplest.  I think that's the most intuitive order for most newer players who have actually got enough experience with the game to understand card order and trigger interruptions.

As long as being healed to positive hp doesn't cancel Destruction, Gloomweaver doesn't break.  And dypaca covered Kismet's Lady Luck.

The Wagon is already being destroyed. If for example, you have Fixed Point out and something is at 0, it's going to be destroyed once Point goes away. Destroying it again is like doing 20 more damage to the 0 health character. Yes, you can do it, but it has no effect real effect on the end result. 

Christopher did not say, "The wagon IS already destroyed."  It is being destroyed.  I'm saying is there is a process to destruction, and Wagon's text is part of that process, it doesn't take place after destruction, it takes place during destruction.  Like the responding to the power rule, responses to cards being destroyed would wait until the process is done.

This is the only official thing we have, and I don't think I'm twisting his words.

It takes place during destruction. Your words. I agree. So destruction has already started. So why specifically does the wagon trigger go off before other simultaneous destruction triggers? Destruction is already happening and all those triggers are worded the exact same way. Again, that is not consistent with current rules. Wagon and mines are not exceptions to the resolution rule of simultaneous triggers. In that sense yes you are twisting his words. 

Here's a concrete question that may tease apart some of these cases.  In Episode 8 of the PBF ( https://greaterthangames.com/comment/38024#comment-38024 ), Anubis was in play, Expatriette had a Glass Jaw, and she destroyed that Glass Jaw. Should Anubis' damage in response to the card destruction have been boosted by the Glass Jaw or not?

(Expat had the second-highest HP.)

Again. Once more. A card does not have to be moved to the trash before its considered destroyed. So it is not like power usage in that sense. Idk why that concept  is so hard to let go. There is nothing supporting that idea whatsoever. 

Does glass jaw have an effect to resolve upon its destruction? If no, then it would move to the trash then you resolve Anubis. You only delay a destroyed card moving to the trash if it specifically has an effect that it must stay in play for, otherwise there is no reason to delay the action. 

I don't see it that way at all.

The rule book says that when a card is destroyed it is removed from play.

It does not say when a card is destroyed remove it from play.

I don't see the removal from play as a seperate event that gets its own timing.

The reason I think Christopher's answer supports this is he states that the wagon is being destroyed, which is far different from is destroyed.

If AZ is using a power, that power hasn't been used.  That is the correlation I am drawing.  If something is being destroyed it would not have already triggered effects that trigger on its destruction.

That would be like AZ activating a power, then waiting for any responses to that power before the powers effect could occur.  You don't respond to something while it is happening, you respond to it when the triggering action is complete.

A card does not have to hit the trash to be destroyed, but it leaves play as a part of destruction, not a response, not a seperate occurance.

But this is just a different exception for Explosive Wagon and the like.  I feel like if the damage modifier of Explosive Wagon is still in play while reactions to its destruction are resolved, then that should be true of all cards.  So based on this ruling I would say that Glass Jaw is still in play when Anubis reacts to its destruction.

Now I'll say that I am somewhat dubious of this new practice of getting off the cuff rulings out of Christopher while he runs a booth at a con.  I would still be fine with reversing the whole thing and saying that Explosive Wagon (and its damage modifier) do leave play and then its destruction trigger still resolves from out of play.  What I don't like is saying that cards leave play at different times based on whether part of their text reacts to them being destroyed.

I disagree with this. If cards normally trigger when a card leaves play, and in this situation a card triggers when it is being destroy, it is not following the current set of rules.

By definition, this has to be an exception. If the normal rules say that an "on destruction" cards triggers after leaving play, and this ruling is saying that it happens after "being destroy." then it is an exception. One that is allowed, but an exception to the established rules.

[quote=“Foote”]

The simplest solution is usually the correct one here.

{/quote]

I agree completely with this statement. I don't agree that your solution is the simplest. When you are given an exception, you can only derive out the bare minimum from that statement. That is the simplest solution. The bare minimum, not extrapolating the idea.

We know that the card has to stay in play, otherwise it would never trigger its effect. Therefore, this card needs to activate between the "destroy" step and the "leaving play" step. There are 2 ways to view this:

1. This exception only applies to the card itself.

2. This exception applies to every other trigger that is currently in the game.

The simplest solution is the one with the minimum affect on gameplay, and that would mean it only applies to the card itself. All other cards will trigger like they normally do. Could this be wrong? Sure. But when you have a ruling, you can only take out the minimum amount, as that is the simplest solution.

I agree, but to confrom with the already established rulings, it needs to happen first.

Actually you don't, He is saying cards always stay in play, even in normal situations.

My only point is that this is in no way obvious and needs an official ruling.

Somebody recap this for me because I think I've forgotten about the forest because of the trees when reading this thread.     Essentially,  what exactly is the problem here?   I want to make sure my next most actually adresses the issue at hand, not just the arguements others have made.

Ruling from Christopher: Explosive Wagon: 1) The card is destroyed, but still in play and therefore the +1 is still in effect.. 2) It's "on destruction" trigger goes off with the modifiers. 3) The card finally leaves play.

So there are 3 potential ways to view this ruling:

1) In all situations, a card being destroyed and leaving play are different steps, and "on destruction" effects will go off after the card is destroyed but before it leaves play. Example: Bunker has Ammo drop out and destroys Tome of the Unknowabale. 1) Tome is destroyed. 2) bunker draws. 3) Since Tome is still out, Apostate plays a card. 4) Tome finally leaves play.

2) Explsoive Wagon stays in play, and all "on destruction" effect trigger while it is still in play. 1) Explosive Wagon destroyed, but still in play. 2) All "on destruction" effect in play before Explosive Wagon trigger with the modifier. 3) Explosive Wagon triggers with the modifier. 4) Explosive Wagon leaves play. 5) All other "on destruction" effects trigger.

3) Explosive Wagon's trigger always goes first. 1) Explosive Wagon is destroyed. 2) Explosive Wagon triggers. 3) Explosive Wagon leaves play. 4) All other triggers in card lpay order after EW leaves play. They trigger up[on the card leaving play like they would in a normal situation.

I would have enjoyed the original one more.

I think the only real issue left is whether or not this belongs in the pending rules questions. Considering there is a 3 way argument, and MTC + IF made it, I think this is worth putting there. As always, until we get a ruling, play how you want.

[quote="Pydro"]

I disagree with this. If cards normally trigger when a card leaves play, and in this situation a card triggers when it is being destroy, it is not following the current set of rules.

By definition, this has to be an exception. If the normal rules say that an "on destruction" cards triggers after leaving play, and this ruling is saying that it happens after "being destroy." then it is an exception. One that is allowed, but an exception to the established rules.

[/quote]

Destruction effects are not triggered by the card leaving play. Where are you seeing that rule? I have asked this a few times in various forms, but no answer as to where that idea is coming from. I think you have you're confusing the cause/effect relationship here.  Destruction effects do not trigger because the card left play, they trigger because the card was tagged as destroyed. If a destroyed card has something to do because it was destroyed, it would stick around to resolve that action and immediatly move to the trash after the completion of its effect.

This is just like One-Shots moving to the trash after they have been played. It is a mechanic baked into the effect. It doesnt have to be moved to the trash to be considered "played", so it doesnt have to be moved to the trash to be considered "destroyed" either.  

A rehash of an argument about the timing of Wagon, or Beebot or Sonic Mine, anything that has text that keeps it on the field when destruction is occurring.

Two sides:

1.  The card is not considered destroyed until the text is resolved, at which point it resolves its destruction.

2.  The card is labelled destroyed before the text activates, thus the card's own text and all other on destruction triggers occur simultaneously and therefore in order of card play.

The argument has returned because of the following statement from Christopher on wagon being destroyed by an effect triggered in response to wagon's damage:

The Wagon is already being destroyed. If for example, you have Fixed Point out and something is at 0, it's going to be destroyed once Point goes away. Destroying it again is like doing 20 more damage to the 0 health character. Yes, you can do it, but it has no effect real effect on the end result. 

I take the wording "Already being destroyed" as supporting the idea that wagon, at the time it is dealing damage is not already destroyed, but in a process that once finished results in the title destroyed and triggers all other on destruction triggers.

If I can try to sum up the other argument I believe that it is that since Wagon reacts to its own destruction, it has to be destroyed when it starts dealing damage.

Important ramifications include whether or not Sonic Mine can be stopped by savage Mana. (if Mana was out first it would trigger first sending Mine under it vs. Sonic resolves then Mana)

And I have answered this numerous times. Let me explain again according to your interpretation. Detruction and leaving play are 2 separate steps, just like dealing damage. So:  1) Card is destroyed.  2) Card leaves play.

Every card in the game says "when a card is destroyed." According to you, those effects have tot rigger in between steps 1 and 2 if they are separate steps. Just like a "would be dealt damage" is triggered after the intial damage selection and before losing hp.

Now, there are 2 things you can do with this:

1. All triggers happen before the card leaves play. I think you disagree with this. Regardless, I think I have proven that this cannot be.

2. When a card says "when a card is destroyed" it has to mean when it leaves play.

There is no other explanation. You cannot in any way say these are separate steps, and still say that it normally leaves play before triggering on destruction effects. No where else in the game do we every see that after a trigger is triggered but before the action is resolved you do something else. You cannot say these are spearate steps but still happen before the trigger. It does not line up with anything else in the game. 

If, as you say, it is triggered on the destruction, then the triggers have to happen right then just like every other trigger. Hoenstly, i don't know where you are coming up with the idae that it should leave play first. This is the definition of separate steps that you are insisting is here, and if they are here, you have to follow the way it always works.

EDIT: Just to clarify my position. If you say that things are being triggered when destroyed and before leaving play, this has to apply everywhere. If you say that normally things trigger after it leaves play, then this will define the precise moment it triggers. Either way would be fine, we just need to clarify which it is.

thanks for the clarifications everyone.

[q]2.  The card is labelled destroyed before the text activates, thus the card's own text and all other on destruction triggers occur simultaneously and therefore in order of card play.[/q]

Maybe. Maybe not. Here is the real question: Does this ruling only apply to cards that have a "when this card is destroyed" effect. or is this ruling describing how everything works.

EDIT: Well, I am out until next week. By that time there will be so much to read on here, that, for my part, I am out of this discussion. I think this ruling needs to be clarified and will wait for an official response. Whatever the answer is, I will follow it.

Well, I apologize for not being able to pull up the full original question to ask Chris since that would have saved us a lot of time and confusion.

Also, please do note I did not transcribe exactly what he said into the post. I was just trying to get across the idea of what he said. 

I was only talking about the case of cards reacting to their own destruction.  I'm just saying that the explosive wagon's damage boost being in play is different from my original assumption, but that it makes it pretty clear Explosive Wagon is still in play while resolving its damage regardless of the exact words Christopher used to describe it.

While I hope there aren't special rules for when specific cards leave play, I realize there could be special timing for cards which trigger on their own destruction, or possibly even just for Sonic Mines and Explosive Wagon which deal damage on their own destruction.

And to brytehfryguy, there is no need to apologize.  If I didn't enjoy the time discussing this stuff, then I wouldn't do it.

That was always my assumption in the past. I assumed they were perhaps not in the trash yet, but at least out of play when that part of their text resolved. However if it is really correct that the damage increase on the Wagon is still in effect when its destruction effect triggers, it seems that assumption was incorrect. I wouldn't put too much weight on the precise wording of a ruling from the middle of a con relayed second hand, but the damage increase being in effect or not seems like a clear indicator of whether the card is in play.

As for whether Savage Mana can stop cards from reacting to their own destruction if that text needs to be in play to be resolved:  One possible resolution is that since Savage Mana says to place them under this card instead of the trash, that could mean they don't actually move there until the point where they normally leave play and go to the trash. EDIT: sorry, was misremembering the card wording.

Me, too.

Yes, this is why I generally don't ask him rulings questions during a con. I feel like there is too much going on and we're all constantly in a hurry. I don't think it's fair - for him or anyone else.

Asking any of us anything at a Con carries with it a risk that we are exhausted and not thinking straight when you do so, so taking anything we say in such a context with a grain of salt is a good policy :)

I definitely understand the impulse to ask rules questions when you're there in person, even if it is not the optimal context. Official rulings on various questions have been quite slow in coming. We will eventually be considering and answering them all, but we have decided that if on the one hand we could delay things like official rulings and story challenges, and on the other we could delay things like Vengeance and GSF, that we (and I suspect all of you) would prefer to delay the former, which is what we've done/are doing. However, in spite of the fact that we are super busy, our workflow is getting more and more efficient all the time, and we have high hopes that we'll be able to address a bunch of "backlog" items over the next several months.

I'll be in the minority here, but I'd prefer you to prioritise the rulings over new stuff. The fact that this forum is full of discussions about how to interpret various cards and what happens in various situations (which can go on forever with increasingly convoluted arguments) I'd imagine is somewhat off-putting to new people. It gives the impression this game is fiddly and not as tight as it could be - woolly, for want of a better word - and we know that isn't really the case. Sure, it's great that new games are coming, but none of us are by any means completely sure how to play this game and that's far from ideal.

Could you guys not answer like one rules question a day or something? That wouldn't take up much time...

I think this boils down to easier said than done. There may be some low hanging fruit, but many of these pending rules questions are quite arcane. I, for instance, find the task of reading through THIS thread in order to understand what I will put into the Pending Rules list quite daunting.

And, though Paul didn't mention it explicitly, I have the sense that the decision to focus more on GSF/Vengeance rather than rules clarifications isn't just about what people would find more satisfying. There are also promises to be kept and a sustainable business to build.

Ok. Whew. This is complex stuff. Let me see if I have a handle on it ... 

I) For all cards, when a card is destroyed do 'on destruction' triggers occur before the card goes to the trash? For example, if Bunker has Ammo drop out and Tome of the Unknowable is destroyed, causing Bunker to draw a card, is Tome of the Unknowable still in play, causing Apostate to play a card?

IIa) If the answer to 'I' is no ... then given that it has been ruled that the increased damage on Explosives Wagon is still in effect when the on destruction effect of Explosives Wagon is resolved, then the assumption is that cards which have an effect based on their own destruction are considered special cases. Is that correct?

IIb) What is the order in which other on destruction effects are applied? Is it one of the following two choices?

IIbi) The Explosives Wagon's on destruction effect would occur before any other on destruction effects.

IIbii) All on destruction effects would occur in card played order. If Haka had Savage Mana in play before a Sonic Mine was put in play, than if Haka had destroyed the Sonic Mine, it would go under Savage Mana and the Sonic Mine's on destruction attack would not trigger.

IIc) Is Explosives Wagon still considered in play while other on destruction effects occur after the on destruction effect on Explosives Wagon? If Explosives Wagon is put in play, then Dominion is put in play, then Tome of the Unknowable is put in play, then Explosives Wagon is destroyed, which allows Haka to draw a card, which causes Apostate to play a card, which turns out to be a one-shot in which Apostate does damage, is that damage increased by the Explosives Wagon?  Note that the order of cards played in this scenario is such that the answer to IIb isn't relevant, as regardless the on destruction effect of Dominion is occuring after the on destruction effect of Explosives Wagon.

Anyone have any issues with the above set of questions? Am I getting anything wrong? Leaving anything out?

Arenson9, I think you summed it up well.

Just to add my 2 cents, I think this whole 'When this card is destroyed' is a misworded instruction. It's intented effect should be worded as 'When this card would be destroyed, do {this}. Then, destroyed this card." Perhaps issuing an errata and correcting the text during reprint would be a more elegent solution than to solved this tangled timing mess. Again, 2 cents.

Isn't the Okhams Razor interpretation simply

"If a card gives itself a damage bonus (EW, Staff of Ra), the bonus lasts through its destruction"?

The trouble with changing it to "when this card would be destroyed" is that then the bounty 'No Executions' can't stop Sonic Mine or Explosive Wagon (they always have to be in play before 'No Executions').  Perhaps not a huge issue, but I'd always assumed that was half the point of that bounty.  If the goal is to resolve Explosive Wagon as the first reaction to its destruction, we almost need some new timing term like 'As this card is destroyed'.

Arenson, I think that summarizes the questions well.  Although I think I may have been the only one arguing the answer to I) could be 'yes', and upon further thought it seems like the answer really should be 'no'.  It occured to me that I'm quite certain cards like Cryo Bot or more importantly Isothermic Transducer can't react to the damage which kills them, so it would be really weird if cards can naturally stick around for reactions to their destruction but not reactions to the damage which caused that destruction.

Given that, I think I really prefer the old assumption that 'When this card is destroyed' always resolves from out of play, but if we are set on the card being in play when it resolves, then I guess the best option is that cards leave play differently if they say "When this card is destroyed".

But the Staff of Ra gives itself the bonus because it says to deal damage and then destroy itself.  Although thematically he is throwing the staff, game mechanics wise the destruction is a totally separate step after the damage.  If the destruction itself caused Ra to deal damage (like it triggered Anubis who then triggers Flame Barrier) I would have previously said the flame barrier damage would not be boosted by the staff because it is already destroyed.  (And as I said in the last post, I think it is best to still say that, we just have to figure out what criteria gives Explosive Wagon the exception).

Wouldn't an implicit rules trigger on all cards that read "When this card is destroyed, put it in the trash." solve all these issues?  This would mean when destruction triggers were involved, the destroyed card would be in play up until the point in the card order in which any of its own explicit destruction triggers resolved, and then it would go to the trash due to the implicit trigger.

That implicit text would cause Explosive Wagon to behave the way it has been ruled, and is one of the possible timing scenarios that was being argued for (I think by Foote).

But if it is for all cards (not just those with a 'When this card is destroyed' trigger), then it means that Tome of the Unknowable would sometimes play a card after its destruction, based on whether it was in play before or after Ammo Drop.  It would also seem that something like Cryo Bot could deal damage as it is destroyed, since if it is in play until it has reacted to its destruction, surely the reaction to that damage is no later than that.  To be clear, I'm quite sure that Cryo Bot CANNOT do that, which is why I'm now saying cards should leave play the moment they are destroyed with as little exception as possible.

Yes that is my stance.

I think we have to look at the spirit of the Wagon/Mine ruling. What primary idea is it trying to accomplish? Both were off cuff rulings, so I would rather view them generally. Both rulings are really trying to address a core issue of the SotM game system in my estimation, that being the elimination of sourceless effects, especially sourceless damage. That is the heart of it. By absolute nessesity of the game system, Wagon/Mines can not resolve their damage effect if they are not in play to do so. Why do you think it is possible to interupt normal damage sequences like Omnitrons Electropulse? Because by removing that card from play it is no longer able to continue the resolution of the effect.

It is also worth noting here that the 3rd off cuff ruling eliminated the idea that Wagon, once destroyed, can be destroyed a second time as a way to interupt its damage sequence. This is significant because it also eliminates the possibility of errata with wording of "when this card would be destroyed, instead do…". Because the intention is that Wagon is still considered "destroyed" and still in play. That errata's effect would kick in before the card was tagged as destroyed, opening back up the possibility that Wagon could be destroyed a second time to interupt the damage sequence. That is clearly not the intention.

The overwelming majority consensus before all of this was that cards are removed from play immediatly upon being destroyed. The rulebook definition seems to support that and there was never any issue taken with that interpretation. (Someone will bring up Solar Flare in response to this point. I get no general consenses is "safe", but there is little reason to question every major consensus. Even Christopher varied his initial Solar Flare ruling slightly to better fit with the forums general idea of how the card should function remember).

Because Wagon/Mine functions slightly differently due soley to a nessesity within the games mechanics, it does not follow that all cards would function the same way since there is not the same nessesity to do so. That interpretation, at this point with these rulings, is a fairly large logical stretch that has far wider implications to the game as a whole than at first glance. It is much more simple and sensible, given all of the above, that Wagon/Mines are a slight deviation from the norm due simply to the nature of their effect trigger instead of jumping to the "this changes everything!" conclusions. And if you also reach the same conclusion as myself after all of this, the question of when those effects actually trigger naturally falls upon the "resolve simultanious triggers by card order played" rule (and remove Wagon/Mines from play after they complete their damage sequence).

This is the more stable interpretation of those presented in this thread so far. I just do not see how I could accept any of the other interpretations as true at this point in time without specific clarification to the contrary. 

I agree and I like the term of implicit vs explicit triggers. Excplicit triggers are ones that come right from card text. Implicit triggers are baked-in aspects of Core Game System terms. Those Core Terms are found in the glossary of the rulebook. 

For instance, One-Shots have an implicit trigger that states once the effect is over, it is moved to the trash. See the rulebook definition for One-Shots to see what I am talking about. Destroyed is also in that list of core game terms that have an implicit trigger. And that implicit trigger is word for word what you described.

We do not associate the timing of when a One-Shot leaves play with the timing of other explicit triggers. It just happens immediatly after the One-Shot has completed its task.  So why would Destruction be any different in this sense. 

Arenson9, 1 addition.

With the Apostate question, if he played the card that heals all relics would the relic:  1.  Recover HP and stay in play, 2.  Recover HP but still be destroyed, 3.  be unable to be healed, since it is in play but already destroyed.

In case it goes that route that will need to be clear.

I am pretty certain that once a card is tagged as destroyed, no amount of healing will make it "undestroyed".

The reason Fixed Point allows this is that while it is in play, it prevents cards from being tagged as destroyed. So if it was full HP before Fixed Point was in play then reduced to or below 0 then healed back up before Fixed Point leaves play again, it would be safe as it was never able to be tagged as destroyed. 

I can't think of any effect that undestroys a destroyed card.

I don't think there is a rule that says a target that is destroyed is un-destroyed if its health goes above zero.  Health going below zero causes destruction of the target.  But the reverse is not true as far as I recall.

There's also no rule for the other questions being asked.

If there was, we wouldn't ask them.

Which means that a new rule would be needed if healed targets were un-destroyed.  And in this case if healing reverses destruction, I believe Gloomweaver could cause his Cultists to become extremely hard to kill with the right relic out.

There isn't a rule either way, so either way we are getting a new rule.  There is no rule about destroying cards and their health, other than Kismet being able to save herself by healing from Lady Luck, and that is a very different case.

Really, there aren't official answers to these questions.  What more is there to say here?

Kismet being healed by Lady Luck functions because it delays the actual part where you tag her as destroyed. Same concept in play as Fixed Point. They prevent/delay the tagging of "destroyed".

And there are rules about destroying cards and their health. When a target reaches 0 HP it is destroyed. Totally in the rulebook.

If Stealth Bot has a gender, it would be female, since it's a robot modeled after the Wraith.

It's the software not the hardware that determines gender

Stealth bot is too sneaky to ever have a chance to find out what (if any) gender it truly has

Does anyone besides me still think that there's anything unclear about the interaction between Bee Bot and Explosives Wagon?

Nope. It been ruled that Exploaive Wagon can’t be destroyed twice.

EDIT: Sorry, I was (and still am) on my phone and didn’t want to type up every possible situation. I think the ruling clears things up, but if you have something specific in mind, we can discuss it.

EDIT2: If I remeber next time I am by a computer.

Can you find that ruling?

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/38269#comment-38269

The problem with that comment is that dealing 20 more damage to the 0 HP character during Fixed Point can produce triggers such as Flame Barrier…so if the Wagon has a trigger that occurs upon being "destroyed", then wouldn't even redundant destruction cause that trigger again?  (I realize that if that was the case, Bee Bot and Wagon would form an infinite loop - but there aren't really any infinite loops, so if the heroes have more HP/soak than the villains, it could allow them to do arbitrary amounts of damage and win some games, while horribly losing others.  It'd be very stupid either way and thus I'm not actually advocating it, just checking whether it's been addressed.)

Flame Barrier works because it is triggered on damage, and at that point you can deal more damage. However, once something is destroyed it is destroyed, and it can’t be destroyed again. If Explosive Wagon hits Bee Bot, Bee Bot cannot select Explosive Wagon to destroy, because it is already destroyed. It might still be in play, but it was already destroyed.

I see what he's saying. Christophers words were "It's like dealing damage to a character with 0 HP."

I think it depends what people are hoping to use Bee Bot for. You couldn't use it to interrupt the damage and save everyone, but since the damage triggers on destruction (but before it leaves play) you could potentially double-explode the wagons, maybe?

I think that was the situation Christopher was trying to answer, Bee bot can target an already exploding Wagon, but since it is already being destroyed there is no effect at all, it can't stop or re-trigger the on-destruct text, if Bee Bot targets an exploding wagon for destruction the wagon continues dealing damage and then leaves play.  Bee Bot didn't affect the result at all.  Sonic Mine will affect the result, by dealing the wagon damage and stopping the remaining damage from being dealt.

It's really weird to me that Bee Bot can stop End of Days but not Explosive Wagon.  They feel like they're doing the same thing, but a quirk of rules wording prevents it from working the same in both cases.

Bee Bot can distract Fanatic's destruction of everything, but it cannot stop an explosion that is already happening.

Fanatic:  "Smite you!, and you!  Smite you as well!  Ouch!  That bee just stung me. . . now what was I doing?

The difference with End of Days is that End of Days is not destroying itself; it destroys everything but itself (and Relics), first, then it destroys itself (which would be after Bee Bot would destroy it). The situation isn't really comparable with Explosive Wagon, given the wording on End of Days.

Another data point for this Explosive Wagon thing comes from observing behavior of the App (whose makers clearly spent a lot of time getting Christiopher Badell to clarify edge cases).  While they don't have EW implemented yet, the behavior of One-Shots may be illuminating.  When played, One-Shots go to the "Cards in Play" section of the board, and they stay there until every piece of their text has finished resolving.  Only then do they go to the Trash.  Characters who have chain-able "play a card" cards, such as Tachyon and Wraith will often have 2 or 3 One-Shots stacked up on their board, which all collapse into the Trash at once when the chain completes.

I would expect EW to similarly remain on the board while it was processing its own "destroyed" effect, and only go to the Trash when that was complete.

That's not a full answer to the "destroyed" issue, but it's a data point.

Honestly, I don't remember any of the arguements from this thread (incuding mine), but I thought this issue was resolved somewhere else. I could be wrong, but I thought we had a ruling that whenever a card says "When this card is destroyed do X," it should be read as "When this card would be destroyed do X, then destroy this card."

That's how I remember it, too.

Can confirm. This is correct