Timing of Start of Turn Effects - "Until" vs. "At"

I just want to confirm how this works.  Let's say Nightmist is in the Ruins of Atlantis (it seems like a logical place for her to go).  Pillars of Hercules is played, and then she plays Mistbound on the villain deck, or vice versa.  When it comes to the start of her next turn, if Pillars is still in play, which happens - Pillars tries to play a villain card, but Mistbound prevents this; or Misbound wears off, then Pillars plays a villain card?  Does card play order determine this resolution?  I kind of feel as though "until the start of your next turn" events should wear off immediately upon the turn starting, rather than going into the same queue as @SOT triggers.  But perhaps that's just me having an impulse that isn't in line with the game rules.

My intuition agrees with yours, but I'm not certain. Perhaps this is parallel to issue on effects that happen when a target "would" take damage (eg, redirection effects) versus those that happen when a target does take damage (eg, retaliation). I think the concensus in that other case is that the "would" effects happen first.

I'd figure that if Pillars were played first, the villain deck would attempt to play the card before the Mistbound would wear off.  

Until the start of your turn should not include any of the start of your turn.  It would end as your turn started.  So I would think the villain deck would be able to play a card.

So the order should go:

End of previous turn

Mistbound wears off

Start of Nightmist's turn

However, the word until in common usage often means up to and including, and while less correct it is common.

Under that interpretation it would wear off during your start of turn, and would be decided by the order the cards entered play.

This would be a good official question, as there are more situations with this language that can occur, like Adept boosting his own damage and infection.

I would decide on how you want to deal with it and keep constant with that until an official ruling is given.

I of course prefer it wearing off before the start of turn, because I dislike increased card order bookkeeping.

Yeah, I would tend to agree that the "until the start of the next turn" effects should wear off just before before any "at the "at the start of the turn" effects kick in. 

Bit of course I am just adding to conjecture since I am no authority in the matter... just seems more straightforward that way and, like it was mentioned before, simplifies the bookkeeping

They both happen at the start of turn, so they are simultaneous and card order would apply

Is that official?

No. But I do not see much room for debate here.  I think too much is being made of the word "until". They used "until" because the effect has to persist for an entire round after her turn ends. Mistbound does not say "until the end of your Start of Turn Phase", which is what some of you seem to want it to say. Your Start Of Turn Phase does not have little mini start/end points inside it, thats a bit much in my opinion. It is much cleaner to say they both trigger at the Start of Turn and resolve them like any other simultaneous effect.

There is a difference between the time a card enters play and the time it activates, I think it could be possible that there could be an effect that ends right before the start of turn.

There is timing inside of the start of your turn.  Your start of turn ends after the previous turns end of turn ends.  Multiple effects can resolve during your start of turn, and then it ends when it is time for your Play a Card action.

Again the correct definition of Until would not include any of your start of turn.  It may be clear to you, but definitionally the effect should end before your turn starts.  I'm not going to assume that >G is using the less correct interpretation.

But until you actually get to your Start of turn Phase, the trigger is not met. I highly doubt the intent is "right before the start of your turn, destroy this card" you know? 

"start of turn" is a sub-sect of your turn, it does not get broken up into smaller sub-sects. The Start of Turn phase ends before you start resolving effects. For Villains that flip at the start of turn, like the Rat, you don't flip him (due to SoT effect) then procceed to resolve the SoT effect on his flip side. Why? Because the SoT phase had already come and gone and you are just resolving the effects that triggered as a result of hitting SoT. 

So the "until" wording really reads "Until you get to the start of your turn phase…" not "right before you get to the start of your turn phase". The latter is a very wonky interpretation of how phases work in this game. Nothing else works that way.

Um… Yes, you do. It's still the Start of Turn phase at that point. This is why Omnitron's villain card has to specify that it only flips once per turn.

You are probably correct actually. I just rethought about that, and Omnitron-X's deck mechanics (with deployment unit puting into play a component that would still act during the SoT it was played that way) convinced me you're right.

But that really doesn't change the core argument here that both of those effects happen at the SoT and would be resolved in card order.

Yep, that's in my FAQ.  If a villain flips at the start-of-turn, you'll still be in the start-of-turn phase when his backside text is revealed, and if there's anything there that also triggers at start-of-turn, it'll trigger (unless, like Omnitron, it says specifically not to).

This is awesome, I agree on how you get there, just disagree with the result, it must be opposite day.

The start of turn is a moment that occurs, not a phase.  That moment can be subdivided into timing for simultaneous effects (just explaining my previous post a bit better)

An until worded effect does not have an end trigger.

Cards say "At the start of your turn, destroy this card."  That is a trigger.  It gives a timing trigger and an effect, Effects that activate for a specific time simply stop, they don't trigger a cancelling of the effect or something like that, they just stop.

To me they would work like Imbued fire's effect no longer effecting damage that was suddenly changed from fire to something else.  There is no timing, no trigger, it just doesn't effect things anymore.

When the start of your turn occurs the effect would no longer be active.

I have no definitive argument that will end this discussion, I just interpret the effect much like phantaskippy does. 

But for those that play it differently, do you go by ard play order? Or by activation order? Some of these "until start of turn" effects come from powers which may be on a card that was played a long time ago, but not activated until the last turn. 

This very well could fall under the "ambiguous situation" senario as defined by the SotM Rulebook. Under that interpretation, the resolution order would be left up to the player. 

Phantaskippy is slowly changing my mind I think.

Maybe we can look at it from another angle. Lets take Legacy and Galvinize with an infection. Infections have Legacy deal himself damage at the Start of his Turn. If he used Galvinize last round, would his Infection damage be Galvinized as well? Honestly, when I thought of this senario, my instinct was that the damage would not be Galvinized. But that doesn't mesh with how I saw the Pillars example. "Until" might very well act before "At".

Pretty sure it will not turn out to be player choice but I can give no reasoning.

It's not the way I would play it at my table, but it was worth bringing up as a possibility.

Well…looks like Player Choice is the official ruling for this. Well done team.

I competely disagree. They both mention start of turn so it's card order. (And this is probably the better place for the duiscussion than the offical ruling thread).

Copy and Paste since Matchstick is correct that this discussion should stay in this thread:

The point is that the interaction is "ambiguous" at best. The proof for that is that the thread was created at all and generated debated discussion. Sounds like all "ambiguous" situations fall under this new ruling.  

"Until" vs "At" sounds a whole lot like "dealt damage" vs "would be dealt damage" debate (its all a timing issue). If Fort/SHD is coming down on the side of player choice, then this will as well.

You are free to argue that this situation is not, in fact, ambiguous at all. But I think this thread disagrees with that notion.

Edit: I would still play it at my table that these cards follow the simultaneous action rule and be resolved in card order. But I think the Order of Operations ruling leaves that choice to the players.

But I don't think an effect that remains in place "until the start of your next turn" is considered a start of turn effect

You know how Christopher confirmed that One-shots stay in play and are only removed once they have been resolved? Would Mistbound stay in play for an entire round while it's effect is active?

That's… not what the ruling says.

It says if it is a start of turn or end of turn effect it is resolved in card play order, if the cards do not refer to start of/end of turn and the situation is ambiguous then it falls to player choice.

Then this ruling has no bearing on it.

Either it is a start of turn effect and processed in card order or it is not a start of turn effect and we need further guidance on which 'phase' it actually expires.

No. The effect remains but the card is removed. Just like damaging someone removes their HP and that effect remains even after the one-shot leaves play. Or Hypersonic Assault's "no damage" remains around.

Its not a start of turn effect in a traditional sense though (like Forced Deployment). Its an effect that activated a round ago and is persisting until a certain point.

It is still reasonably ambiguous whether or not "until the start of your turn" includes the actual start of your turn. Again, if it was clear, there wouldn't be a thread about it. If its not clear, then it is an ambiguous interaction, which sounds like it defers to player choice. 

Just because it's ambiguous to us about whether it happens before or during the start of turn does not mean we get to lump it in with this new ruling because it happens to be similar. We need a ruling on what point it expires before we know how this new timing rule affects it.

The new ruling still requires it to have timing to fall under hero choice, at least as far as I would say.  I don't thik the new rule is quite as sweeping as people might jump to believing it is.

So I have been thinking about this non-stop at work (I know, I am compulsive. Sorry).

Consider the following sentence: "Hey Boss, I will be out of the office until Thursday"

It sure sounds like I will be in the office Thursday, does it not? If you told your boss that and was not there on Thursday, I would think you would be getting fired.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the interpretation that "until" means "up to and including". I know I have flip flopped on this topic a few times in this thread, but theres a lot of nuance to it. I think given the rest of the context, it should not be interpreted as "up to and including". So that probably now puts me into the camp of Mistbound ends right before the Start of your Turn. Ugh.

Start of turn is as much a phase of a turn as Play, Power, or Draw. I'm not sure there's much disagreement on this point, but someone above seemed to be arguing that 'Start of turn' was just a point of time.

I think the correct interpretation is that 'until the start ...' means that the effect ends just before the Start of turn phase.

So, apologies for not adding much to the discussion besides weighing in on a particular side.

No arguments from me, either - I'm with arenson9.

I think the correct interpretation is that 'until the start ...' means that the effect ends just before the Start of turn phase.

If someone said "I'll wait for you until 2pm", they don't mean they're going to leave at 1:59pm, they mean that they will wait until 2pm clicks over and then they will leave.  I think that if you're doing something "until the start of your turn", the start of your turn (the trigger to end the until-loop) has to actually occur before the "until-ed" thing will end.

Would you agree or disagree that at 2 you are no longer waiting but at 159 you are? That seems to me what you are saying. If 2 is the start of turn and your waiting status is the mistbound effect in this analogy, then maybe there is another way to view it. 

English is a terrible language this way isn't it. 

I recall the official ruling being that "until the start" wore off BEFORE the start; the example at the time being Next Evolution interacting with Infection. Christopher (I believe) said that Legacy WOULD still take the start-of-turn Infection damage, because the Next Evolution power wears off first.

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/interaction-between-next-evolution-and-infection

Is this the topic you were refering to?

Ok, not Christopher; it's always hard for me to remember WHO says WHAT. But yes, that was the topic I was referring to. This is pretty unambiguously the same situation, but with different cards.