Killing the Informant, revisited

There was an old thread about whether a card play to kill the Informant would let her play a card first:

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/killing-the-informant-2829

The upshot there was that she would get to call in the tip before she gets destroyed. However, that was before the "Timing and Order of Operations" ruling was handed down (and before the Fowl were errata'd in the reprint of the Matriarch):

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/timing-and-order-of-operations-4347

What's the current status? It just came up in a PBF game.

I'm almost positive that the new OoO ruling would let you choose.  If you're in a hurry to get the Prison Breaks out early, you can let her play the extra card if you want.  If you aren't, you can let her BURN.

I am equally positive that the OoO ruling does NOT change the original ruling.  These are not 2 effects trying to occur at the same time, these are 2 completely separate events.  The first is the card being played, the second is the effect of the card happening.  One still occurs before the the other, so she still triggers are a card play.

Broccoli is correct! Playing a card necessarily happens before the effect of that card occurs, so the death of an Informant does not prevent that card play.

Thanks for the confirmation, Christopher - greatly appreciated!  

Heroes don't kill. We capture and rehabilitate.

...except maybe Expatriette.

All right! Thanks for the quick resolution. I will "capture and rehabilitate" the Informant properly!

and Dark Visionary.

and Fanatic.

and Chrono Ranger (Kill on Sight).

Christopher:

Trying to figure this out (It's quite possible I'm just confusing myself)

From the rulebook:

The effects of a One-Shot happen immediately upon being played.

A One-Shot enters play, activate text.

A One-Shot enters play, Informant responds.

I just don't understand what is being said here.

The card enters play, at which point two things are trying to happen:  The One-shot text activating, and the Informant trying to respond and play a card.

Are you saying that as soon as the one-shot enters play nothing can interfere with the effect of the informant responding to it?  That even if the Informant dies the effect of the informant playing a card still happens?

Are you saying that responses have different timing than the activation of a One-Shot's text, and will always happen first?

Or am I totally missing the boat?

FAQ'd.

Here's the text I'm adding to the FAQ, in case that helps with the confusion (or in case I'm totally wrong):

some cards have effects which trigger when a card is played (example: the chairman’s “informant” card, which says “when a hero card is played, play the top card of the villain deck”).  because the playing of a card necessarily happens before the effect of the text on the card occurs, the triggered effect would happen after the card had been played but before it can be affected by the card’s text.

so in our example, the hero card would be played, the informant would cause the top card of the villain deck to be played, and then the card’s effect would be able to destroy the informant.

Suppose a Negative Energy Field were in play, however, and someone like Nightmist was able to redirect damage from it to Informant---since Informant isn't likely to be a high HP target for Negative Energy Field.  If Informant is destroyed as a result of the Negative Energy Field damage, then under the normal rules regarding effect timing, Informant would not cause a villain card to be played.  Right?

In other words, and in response to phantaskippy, I assume that this ruling is not suggesting that Informant's effect lingers after she is destroyed.  It sounds like the rule is that a one-shot's effect takes place after the card is played, but not triggered by the play, meaning any triggered effects have to be dealt with before you move on to the one-shot's text.  Does that match other people's understanding of what's being said?  And can anyone think of an interaction we already know about that goes against this timing?

Right.

So if Voss' minion (Guard?) that reduces damage to villain targets is played, but Expatriette has Hairtrigger Reflexes in play, Expatriette would be able to damage the guard before that damage reduction is in effect, right?

Ooh, good one.

But wouldn't the Guard's hp (and therefore, his status as a target) activate as part of the text activating? So he's just a villain card, until his text all activates and suddenly he is a soak-granting Genebound Guard who therefore blocks the plink Expatriette sends his way.

I'm also a bit confused at the "…the death of the Informant does not prevent a card play" thing - so you're saying you can play a card and nuke her, but then even though she's dead and therefore her text isn't around any more, the Chairman still gets to play a card? Because that sounds kind of…wrong (especially considering stuff like "oh, the thing I've Wrested-the-Mind of just died before I could hit myself, Wrest is gone now so I don't have to any more"). I've always played it (based on an earlier discussion at some point on here, ages ago) that you play a card, its text hasn't activated yet, the Informant interrupts that process to let the Chairman play a card, and once that's done, then your card's text activates, and if that's a nuke aimed at the Informant, then that's the point where she…well, gets nuked ;).

I think I'm just confused by the whole "stuff happens when you play a card" thing. It's like I seem to remember reading somewhere that cards like the two Energy Fields and Surprise Shopping Trip deal their damage even when they enter play, even though by the time their text activates, they're surely already in play, so can't trigger their own damage.

Its still a villain target even though the text has not activated. Notice the HP and the effect text are pretty far apart.

I think Arenson is right. If thats the way Informant works, then Hairtrigger would also go off before the targets effect text does as well. I dont mind slight buffs to Expat at all.

Static effects.

They don't time either.

So no, Hairtrigger would not sneak in before Guards static was active, because that static has no timing.  If the card is in play the static effect is on, just like HP.  If HP wasn't active upon entering play hairtrigger wouldn't have anything to damage.  Static effects work the same.

I buy that. There's a difference between a one-shot doing something and a Guard being something.

Thats not all true though. Damage modifiers are static effects yet have timing with other effects (see Superhuman Durability/Fortitude). How is that different?

Having HP is not an effect that gets triggered. It is not comparable here.

We aren't talking about the same thing when we are talking about when static text is active upon entering play and how it interacts with other damage modifiers when damage is being dealt.

Those are two very different situations.

The best I can understand is that only one-shots text activates when entering play, the only other text that would have timing as it's card enters play would be wording that says "When this card enters play" on it.

Otherwise the text is just there, waiting to do something.  damage reduction is waiting for damage to reduce, Powers waiting to be activated, End/Start effects waiting for the right part of the turn, etc.

So I would say Gene Bound Guard's text would enter play with no concern or relevance for timing.  Hairtrigger would trigger, and a check for modifiers would occur, and the text on Gene-Bound Guard would be there.

Otherwise Hairtrigger could also get around Sonic Mine, shoot it down with no "when this card is destroyed" text active.

I confess I'm taken aback a bit by this ruling, but rereading the old rulings it is supported there.  I'm trying to make sense of it, it seems my nice ideas of triggers and the timing of them isn't right.

Doesnt matter. The point is there are times where static effects do infact have timing

So we are saying that the whole informant ruling only applies to one-shots? 

Thats how I play it, but I always tend to re-evaluate everything when new information appears.

Took the words out of my mouth.

I'm now lost.  I've got what Christopher said, but not what it implies, with the Hairtriggers and the Guards and the whatnot.

Has there ever been an actual definition of what's a static effect and what's not (not what we think, but an actual definition from a designer I can link to), and what the actual difference is between them?

Also, we all take as fact that Hairtrigger Reflexes can't kill Fowl cards before they can cause Matriarch to deal her damage, but Christopher's ruling seems to contradict that.  Is there a link I can use the for the FAQ that points to the original ruling about Hairtriggers not killing Fowls as fast as it seems it should?  And if there is, why does Christopher's newest ruling not contradict or override his earlier one?

Honestly Spiff I think the term and definition of "static effect" was a forum creation to justify and explain timing rulings before the Order of Operations ruling effectivly dealt with all of them. As far as I am concerned it is not an official in-game term.

Hairtrigger would still cause Matriarch to backlash by killing fowls (as that target is still a fowl) and it still would cause an extra card play because regardless of when it was killed, the fowl was still played which seems to all fit.

Basically the way I look at it is that there are no shortcuts to break someones effects. A continuous effects (Whenever something happens do something) will always fire even if the card they are on is destroyed in the process of firing that effect (ie, killing the informant, killing a fowl)

No idea how that helps you spiff, but i've gotten so confused lately over the order of operations and simultaneous effects.

I generally play it as all effects fire in simultaneous situations mostly to card order, unless its among hero cards andthen its the best effect for the hero among their own cards (but if the villain is part of it, the get precedence)

i doubt thats right but i just got confused following everything and just play for fun :p

I have always played this the opposite way, and the Chairman is almost impossible to beat even without this ruling.  With it, I don't see any point in even trying to beat him.  If the Broker hits the table, and one of the heroes doesn't have a damaging innate in play, the heroes might as well just concede.  One bonus card play from a 15-card deck is enough to pretty much doom them, so if they can't kill the Informant with a card without something even worse occurring as a result, then they really can't function.  I think this is a really bad ruling, and not at all consistent with other effects in the game (such as the Toxic Seaweed + Bio-Engineering Beam ruling).

Simultaneous effects just all have the same trigger. So like multiple "When a card is played, do X" effects would all be simultaneous and resolve in order of player choice. But they would all be triggered.

The only thing thats a little wonky is that "When damage is dealt" triggers are actually simultaneous with other damage modifiers, as seen with the way Fortitude can be applied before or after Super Human Durability's effect. That would also umbrella most redirection effects like Driving Mantis. So Fixer with Pipe Wrench/Driving Mantis being hit with 1 instance of damage can choose to trigger the redirect before applying the -1 from Pipe Wrench (which an instance of 0 damage would not allow the redirection to trigger)

Yes, Chairman is supposed to be hard, you missed that memo I guess.

And this has nothing to do with Toxic Seaweed/Bio-Engineering. Its not remotley close to similar buddy. Comparing Apples and Oranges will never work in your favor man, just wont happen. 

It is times like this when I wonder if we simply overthink things on the forum. Perhaps seeking exact syntax justifications for what seems to me to be more based on the spirit of the rules.

Did you play a card? Yes. The Informant activates and plays a card. What card did you play? Activate fire blast and kill informant.

Did a villain target get played? Yes. Hair trigger will shoot it, but you can't shoot something if you don't know what it is, what is it? Gene-bound Guard which has DR 1.

End of Days is destroying everything. It destroys Bee-bot. Bee-bot gets to destroy a card, destroys End of Days. End of Days can't continue destroying stuff when it is in the trash

Will it work perfectly all the time? probably not, but even if it isn't mechanically consistent it feels thematically consistent to me

Beat the chairman several times with the Broker playing cards even as we kill her  with one shots. So... yeah.

There's a difference between "hard" and "definitionally impossible".  What happened to "any hero team can beat any villain"?  If you don't have Haka or Ra or Parse or a similar innate-damager, how are you ever supposed to win a game when Informant enters play, which thanks to the Operative (unless you can kill her in 4 turns, probably less) she always will?  The Chairman is more than hard enough the way I've been playing him, and it wasn't even on Advanced (well, once).

And this has nothing to do with Toxic Seaweed/Bio-Engineering. Its not remotley close to similar buddy.

They are totally similar.  One question is about whether a power resolves before checking for triggers; the other is about whether a card play resolves before checking for triggers.  Why should they not have the same answer?  What is this "check for triggers before some game events resolve but after others do" nonsense?

Same.  The Chairman is hard, but not unbeatable, and an extra card play every now and again doesn't take him from hard to unbeatable.  We've always played that the Informant still goes off, and we still one.  Additionally, in numerous games, we've left her out to fish for Prison Breaks early.

And you think "definitionally impossible" isn't just massive hyperbole? No one can take you seriously that way. 

No man. One question is whether a power needs to fully resolve before considered "used" to meet "on power use" triggers. This is about weather playing a card nessesarily comes before the effect text of that card.  You are lacking understanding of important nuances in the arguments here.

There was an official ruling that static effcts do not have timing, that caused trouble when the ruling that Fortitude and Super Human resolve in order of play.

The ruling on static effects not having timing was on a question of damage modifiers like Imbued Fire and close quarters.  Leading to the ideal that static effects are ones that do not state a condition but have a constant effect, like damage +1 or -1, all damage is fire, or all ongoings are equips.

It is even more complex since our entire idea of "triggers" is called into question now that we know responses to cards entering play do not trigger like we thought before.

The entire Static effect thing came out of an official ruling.

Here is the first use of "Static Effect" I can find.

I can't think of another time when it would even be a question.  If an ongoing or equip, or heck even a target card said "when this card enters play destroy a target with 2hp or less," then I guess we'd deal with it that way too.

The only question for non-One-shots would be a card that prevents cards from being played from the villain deck.

Take Down is a great example, and a perfect test case for how the court would see static effects vs. reaction effects.  Take Down says "Villain cards cannot be played," when it enters play does Informant get to play a card, or does she go to play a card, only to find an effect that stops her?  

This would, to me, seem the same as the Hair-trigger/Gene-Bound Guard question.  So you know where I lean on that.

I would say that Take-Down does stop the Informant from playing a card, but Mistbound would not, since it is a one-shot, and the discarding and selecting of a deck will not have occurred when Informant plays a card, so at that time there is nothing stopping her from playing a card.

NOTE: You mention "before they can cause Matriarch to deal her damage" above, but the issue is about whether or not The Matriarch gets to play another card, not deal damage. 

Christopher originally ruled that when HtR killed a Fowl card, The Matriarch still got to play another card. He was later convinced that the text on the cards did not support that ruling [1], and thus the latest version of the Matriarch's deck has moved the text about playing another card from the Fowl cards themself to the Matriarch's gameplay. 

Here's Christopher's original ruling on HtR vs. Fowl cards: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/hairtrigger-reflexes-vs-fowl

[1] Order of operations – both HtR and card play triggered on the Fowl coming in to play, so in the past you would do the trigger from the card that was in play first, which would be HtR. HtR would destroy the Fowl and thus the trigger for another Fowl would be gone. Even with the more recent ruling on order of play, players could choose the order. With the text for playing another card moved to the Matriarch's setup, players can no longer destroy the trigger for playing another card. So, even with the more recent ruling on order of play, although players could choose to destroy the Fowl card before another card is played, the text for playing another card is still valid and the other card still gets played.

It's not by much.  Chair has only a 15-card deck at the start of the game.  I've had him virtually always pull an Underboss as his first card play, then another one for the Operative, and often that happens twice.  So by turn 3 all the Underbosses are out, leaving 10 more cards, and assuming the Broker was the last to turn up, playing one of those ten cards when you go to kill her, unless you have Haka in position 1 or something.  Meanwhile, you've probably had to kill at least the Contract and the Deputy in order to have any chance at all, and that means that the 2 Prison Breaks in those 10 cards are going to undo all that work and leave you getting riddled with bullets again.  I was not exagerrating by much.  Both of my two Chairman victories have been absolutely skin-of-the-teeth, and one of them was due to a rules error on top of it (though there's a fair chance that game might still have been won otherwise).  A single card play, even if it's the weakest one (Perfect Human Specimens), is very much enough to tip the scales.

Credibility is priceless. Don't be so quick to throw yours down the drain. I'll show myself out.

@Skippy: I see what you are saying and I think I pretty much agree. Take-Down would be a great case study of the interaction. 

Setting aside that some people (including sometimes me) rather enjoy digging in to the syntax, I don't think that the spirit of the rules is always clear enough to avoid needing syntactic distinctions. If everyone at the table agrees, great, do your thing. As much as I like to focus on just having a good time, however, I have run in to situations both at the table and online where it's been quite frustrating to not be able to easily reach agreement. 

Hell, ive beat the Chairman in Rook City, when he is getting Scum and Villany extra plays + the Broker extraplays. With Expatriette as one of my heroes. So... yeah. Its possible. Nighly impossible is nice and all, but its obvious that people beat him without that ruling given the... dun dun duh... Statistitics project... He is only lost to about 43% of the time, in about 250 games. Id say that's not 'highly impossible' - and from old data we already know all the non promo heroes at least have one win against him.

This I can totally agree with, the main thing is to have a good time, not get everything right.

Some of us really, Really enjoy digging into the mechanics of this game.

I wouldn't want anyone to think our arguments are that important, we just like digging into things.

One of the problems with a game designed by a English Major is we have a game more about the experience of playing than the rules of playing.

By problems I mean why this game is awesome, because the experience is far more than just the rules and cards, that's the beauty of Sentinels, and also why we get to argue over semantics because there are little cases like this that drive the technical minded ones a bit crazy.

I also just reread through and saw that I referred to a test case and "the court," it's been 9 years since I've dug through Supreme court rulings for school.

sigh.

Expat is actually really good against the Chairman, which I found surprising since she's weak in most other matches.  Being able to choose between Shotgunning the Operative and SMGing down all the Thugs is a lot of great utility.  When I mentioned the "any hero team" part, I was thinking along the lines of, say, Argent Adept plus Bunker plus Absolute Zero (original, not Elemental Wrath).  Or maybe you're Tachyon and you draw two Blinding Speeds, a Lightning Reflexes and a HUD Goggles.  Lots of heroes just don't have much ability to contribute against the Chairman, and anything that makes him even slightly more unforgiving is a Big Deal.

A good rule of thumb for game design is that every situation should have an answer.  With this ruling, if you don't happen to have a damaging innate, there is nothing whatsoever you can do to stop Informant from playing an extra card.  And that's bad design.  (It is a rare example of bad design in a mostly excellent game, but it stings particularly because it's not inherent in the game itself, it's entirely due to Christopher's handed-down edict, which I strongly believe he should reconsider.)  As long as you can use a quick Charge to kill the Informant as the first action of the round, she's merely a threat.  Without that option, she's pretty much an insurmountable one.

So… yeah. Its possible. Nighly impossible is nice and all, but its obvious that people beat him without that ruling given the… dun dun duh… Statistitics project… He is only lost to about 43% of the time, in about 250 games.

This is completely meaningless, because there is no way for the statistics to prove whether every one of those games was played according to this Informant ruling.  Heck, there's no way to know if any of them were AT ALL legal.  I know for a fact that one of my six Chairman games, one of only two that I won, was largely clinched due to a FILTER Spy shooting at him when I'd forgotten he was immune to environment damage.  That game ended with two heroes incapped, Nightmist at 1 HP when she went into Mist Form, and Scholar at 5 with Flesh to Iron.  Would we have won if Chairman had kept a few more HP and not dealt relatiation damage to the Spy which helped him die before he could turn around and shoot us?  I don't know.  But even though I played that game at least slightly wrong, it's part of your statistics.  They do NOT prove much of anything, because they don't archive all of the data that might be relevant, nor is there any way to verify that the data is all accurate.  Hell, someone could just lie on the submit form if they wanted to try to prove something was true when it wasn't ("Nerf Omnitron, he's beaten me twelve games straight" or the like), though I doubt anyone would bother.

Ugh.

We've been over this before. You don't think statistics works, the world does. Thats all i need to say about this.

Statistics don't "prove" anything.

For what it's worth, it's not my usual argument.  That one is about probability being fallacious, which I can get you not accepting; this is just about the fact that nobody is sanitizing your data inputs (not at all, and specifically not about this ruling, which many players probably don't even know about).

Can you prove that all of those chairman victories were played with the Informant playing a card before she's one-shotted?  If not, then those victories are technically invalid and should technically not count toward the statistics.  That's all I'm saying here.

So you need to personally verify every game played that goes into the statistics pool?

Technically, yes.  Practically speaking, of course not.  But if there were a World Professional Sentinels Tournament competing for a $10,000 prize (not that unrealistic, given that Poker and Magic the Gathering have such tourneys), then you damn well better believe there would be IRONCLAD rules enforcement in those games; a judge would watch the table like a hawk with a Complete Indexed Rulings document open on the computer in front of him for quick reference.

If that level of scrutiny isn't being applied to the statistics, then they are not "hard proof" of anything.  At best they're a loose guideline.  In this case, I would say a high win percentage against the Chairman proves only that players don't tend to like losing, and may not be as hard on themselves as they theoretically ought to be, in order to properly reflect how vicious the Chairman is supposed to be.  Maybe they're just out for beer-and-pretzels gaming with their buddies, and when the Chairman is about to destroy them, they just cheat a little bit so that they can all cheer at the end of the night for having achieved victory (nevermind whether it was legitimate - hey, they're all slightly drunk).  If that level of input into the Statistics is theoretically possible, and nothing is preventing it, then their value is distinctly limited.

ugh.

I just ... Go take a statistics class at your local community college envisioner, and ask your professor about Margin of Error and Observational Error.

Just FYI, incase you wiki it, our Margin of Error on the Chairman is around 7%. Given inconsitances in the data gathered, the result could be +/- ~7% from where it is showed. Inconsistances like you are bringing up cause this error rate. Thats part of statistics. So, even with the margin being 7%... its still not highly impossible. (50% win rate to a 64% win rate against The Chairman. Still not below half)

edit: No one says the statistics are Hard Poof. But they are far more evidence, supported by mathematics, than your 'Highly Impossible' statement.

I can assure you that there will never be a "World Professional Sentinels Tournament competing for a $10,000 prize".

Well, Envisioner, first off, post #42, secondly, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Oy, let's not let this get turned into another Envisioner-focused topic, please.

So it sounds like what we're saying is:

1) Christopher's ruling re: playing a card must happen before the text of the card is taken into account stands as it is.

2) The link that Andy referenced explains how Christopher understands that the way the original Matriarch/fowl destruction worked wasn't clean, but with the RC update, the text about what happens when a fowl is destroyed was moved to the villain character card, so the timing of Hairtrigger Reflexes is no longer an issue.

3) Static effects remain the chupacabra of the forums.  Everyone swears they're real, but no one can actually define them or say how they work. ;)

Do I have that correct?

Everytime I see a post stating something is impossible I remember that I regularly play more games of Sentinels in a month then some people frequently on this forum have in their lifetimes. Then I remember all the times I have seen the impossible situation happen within that month. Then I drop the topic and move on.

I recommend it as a solution.

Didn't see that one, we cross-posted.

Second, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Have you not heard of the concept of "umwelt"?  My world does indeed revolve around me; all of you live in your own worlds, but periodically your world intrudes upon mine and vice versa.  How much concern to have for other people is a choice that each person must make individually; there is absolutely nothing inherent in the nature of the universe which forces us to care about one another, or disproves any inclinations toward solipsism which we may develop in the privacy of our own thoughts.  We make negotiated agreements with one another when we deem it necessary, that is all.  The cosmos does not tell us where to draw that line; it's our own individual decision.

So... Those static effects, huh? Kind of a pain. *subtly trying to get us back on track. Look at Post 49*

STATIC EFFECTS:

THIS LINK!!!

No we don't have an exhaustive definition, but we have an Official ruling that they exist, that once a card that contains one is in play the effect is also in play, and that Imbued Fire contains two effects that are static effects.

I don't have a link to the other one where it is stated that static effects don't have timing, but it is easy to logically derive that from the post linked to, since both were about when the card entered play.

Let's work with what we know:

Static effects don't work like one-shot text, if the card is in play the effect is in play, that is straight from the ruling.  We Know both effects on Imbued fire are static effects.

I would go from there and make an assumption that card effects worded similarly will also be static effects, Cramped Quarters Combat, both parts static.  Gene Bound Guard's damage reduction, static.  Fortitude, Static.  The effects are in play when the card enters play.

Skippy, Adam wrote that before the Order of Operations ruling. In light of how Fort/Superhuman Durability now works, all that needs to be readdressed. That post is effectivly obsolete because it is a FACT that some "static" effects DO have timing. Am I the only one who thinks this?

Edit: Maybe a timing system that does seperate Source/Target effects into timing catagories would fit current rulings. Fort/SHD are considered "Simultaneous" effects as of the Order of Operations, so you choose the order in which they resolve. They are both acting on the target. Maybe we should lump effects that act upon the source as well, resolve them first, then resolve effects for the target? 

For example, Iron Legacy is about to deal Legacy 3 damage. He has his +1 damage ongoing and there is an Explosive Wagon in play. Legacy has both Fort and Superhuman Durability in play. For timing, take all Source effects first. So its base 3 damage, then we can choose to apply his ongoing and Explosive Wagon in any order (in this senario the order here doesn't change anything), making it 5 damage. Now move to Target effects. Legacy can choose to resolve Fort and SHD in any order they choose, so the smart play would be resolve SHD first, bringing the damage down to 2, then apply Fort making it 1.

Lets take another example to highlight a different useage of the OoO rule. Mr. Fixer has Driving Mantis in play. Chairman is going to deal him 2 damage. There are two Irradiation Vats in play (both giving +1 to damage dealt). As of right now, the OoO ruling leaves the door open for you possibly resolve Mantis before resolving the Irradiation Vats and adding those modifiers. So the redirection would trigger off the 2 damage, turn it back on Chairman himself, then add both +1's making the Chairman smack himself for 4. In my proposal of separating Source/Target effects into timing blocks, both Vats would have to be resolved before Driving Mantis gets a chance. If there was only 1 Vat and Fixer also had Pipe Wrench, the redirection could then trigger in that case.

So how would Gene-Bound Guard and Hairtrigger Reflexes work?

The posts about static effects deal with them coming into play and dealing with other static effects.  Fort and SHD deal with a static effect competing with a non-static effect.

That's why I say they are different.  Because Fortitude and SHD compete with each other over which can work the static effect must have timing.

Just like Pipe Wrench, Shielding Winds and Mantis.

Oh look, we've discussed these things before: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/static-modifiers-on-targets-that-trigger-hairtrigger-reflexes-3779

Also, in tonight's all-Legacy game, Iron Legacy had Vigilance in play ("The first time a player plays a hero card each turn, Iron Legacy deals that player's hero 2 projectile damage") and one of our Legacy's played Fortitude ("Reduce damage dealt to Legacy by 1"). Does Legacy get the damage reduction when Iron Legacy deals him the 2 projectile damage? This is analogous to the HtR before Genebound Guard situation.

Does this hold true for Ra's Living Conflagration ("When this card enters play, Ra deals 1 target 2 Fire damage), which is not a one-shot?

Just for reference, the Informant's text is "When a hero card is played, play the top card of the villain deck".

Andy,

Not directly analogous as Legyacy is already in play and a target, whereas the guard is newly played and his hit points appear at the same time as the DR 1 does. For Fortitude, the HP target (Legacy) is already in play when the DR comes up so you can be shot by Vigilance when you play foritutde before your skin's hardend, at least by my understanding.

And Living Conflagration, IMO, acts as a one shot for the On Entering play text. As the text is not in existence whe na card is played, which appears to occur before it enters play with full text, I'd say the Informat stillplays a card. This woudl also be the case with LEgacy. She'd get one last play fbefore Take Down too keffect. However, I know I'm not definitive.

Hmm, I thought the Order of Operations ruling was supposed to remove the need to do detailed analysis like this.

Hairtrigger is not a "static" effect though, its triggered. Not sure if thats what you were saying or not.

As for "static effects competing with non-static effects", Im having a hard time understanding your position on why that distinction matters. Fort/SHD interact the way they do because they are simultaneous effects under the OoO. It has absolutley nothing to do with SHD being non-static or whatever forum constructed term you wanna come up with. That ruling was the entire point of the OoO in the first palce right?

I f a "static" effect has timing in any senario, they must have some kind of timing in all senario's for the sake of consistency. It doesnt just gain timing when its convenient. I do not think the term "static" is usefull anymore since they all now conform to some sort of resolution timing. It no longer accurately describes what is happening as well as it used to.

As for how Gene-Bound Guard and Hairtrigger should work? I'm as confused as everyone else to be honest.

We have a clear ruling that static effects entering play do not follow OoO timing.  They enter play with the card they are on.

We have a clear ruling that static effects already in play can have competing effects that are resolved by the OoO.

We now have a ruling that effects that react to cards entering play do not fall under OoO rulings, they happen as the card enters play.

The resolution for me is that the first ruling applies to a static effect entering play, and the second applies to when that static effect would compete with a non-static effect.  (like Super-Human and Fortitude when one can cancel the other from happening)

The third seems to fit in with the first ruling, static and reactive effects are different than One-Shot and (Assumption here->) "when this card enters play" effects.

Both 1 & 3 deal with cards entering play.

#2 deals with cards already in play being activated.

As far as I am concerned, I'd say that if a card that enters play had not text yet , then you can wonder if it has any HP yet either - Hp are a text on the card, after all. So for Hairtrigger to work, everything on the card, be it text or number has to apply as soon as it enters play. The Genebound Guard has its DR. The old fowl card had it's "if destroyed" clause working, and so on ( byt the way, if a card had no text at this point - does the Fowl keyword exist yet ? ). If the target can redirect or punish projectile damage, it applies. And yes it means Hairtriggering Sonic Mines is bad luck.

As for the Informant - if you try to kill her with a card, she activates. It encourages you to kill her with powers and forsake your card play. I think all text on a card should be applied even when destroyed, reduced to 0HP or anything else, untill his removal from the table is complete.

( I think I will soon don a costume and become "Ockham's Razor", the defender of simplicity in rule interpretation, for some a hero, for others, a villain, for all a boring guy !)

Sometimes I can't tell if we are talking about the same thing with very different terminology or if we are totally off base of eachother

Perhaps we should carefully define a group of terms that we mutually agree upon and then state our arguments?

Or define our terms when we state our own perspectives.

If you are talking to me, which terms?

Yes I was. As I have noticed often, we see the game rather similarly but view it through different lenses.

In this case, your framing of Static/Competeing effects vs my framing of Simultaneous/Consecutive effects. Both try to explain the same situations, but the inherent connotations of the way we choose to frame it shifts how we see the practical effects play out. 

Just look at the biggest difference off the bat here. Our notions of "timing" are 180 degrees of eachother due to our framing. Mine implies timings for all effects, while yours implies timing doesn't exist for certain cases. So its no coincidence that our biggest head butts all revolve around questions of "timing" specifically, as is the case here because on some level we are diametrically opposed in that regard.

This is going off topic really, but its important to understand how we frame things in our mind translates directly to our interpretations.

I agree.

I don't think we are far off though.

It seems to me that timing, and therefore OoO only takes effect when there is competition between effects.

Competition meaning a situation like Fort-SHD, where one can deny the other.  Without that timing doesn't matter.

Then we have two official rulings that involve cards entering play, the Informant ruling and the old one where "Static effect" enters official terminology.

The way I make sense of it, static effects don't have timing, until they are forced to by a competing timed effect like SHD and fortitude.

The thing with informant is wierd becuase previously I understood that One-shots trigger their text upon entering play, and Informant triggers her text when a card enters play, which gives the image of simultaneous effects (therefore also Competing)

Official ruling says no.  They do not compete.  I don't know why they don't, it seems they should.  I can't go with consecutive effects in that case because that does not make sense to me.

I don't see how two effects that are triggered by the same cause can trigger consecutively, unless there is a notion of card speed, or even effect speed, which has officially been shot down, that does not exist in this game.  So how?

I came to terms with it by largely throwing out my entire sense of timing being a universal and consistent thing.

Because it clearly isn't in this game.  It isn't going to do me any good to try to hold this game to a system that it isn't meant to work under.

The idea of competing effects is a step in that direction.

Yes, assuming you're actually capable of doing so.  Which only Haka, Ra, Fanatic, KNYFE, the Sentinels, and Parse are capable of doing on round 1.  Five heroes out of twenty-three, and one of these is nerfed by DR 1 (though fortunately I don't think anything can create DR 1 for a Thug on round 1), and another one is ultra-vulnerable to Contract + Hired Gun.  If one of these heroes isn't in the game, a round-1 Informant can't be killed in any fashion without granting a card play.  And if one is in the party but not at position 1, other heroes have to forsake their opportunity to set up, and possibly their entire turn (drawing two) to give the damager the chance to kill her safely.  I still say this is thoroughly unreasonable; requiring the first hero to use a damage-dealing one-shot instead of setting up would be more than sufficient.  The change does NOT make the Chairman easy, just a bit less ridiculous.

I think all text on a card should be applied even when destroyed, reduced to 0HP or anything else, untill his removal from the table is complete.

This would cock up the Visionary's ability to use Wrest The Mind without hurting herself, among other consequences.  I'm more comfortable with the idea that cards with explicit destruct triggers stay in play (but marked as "destroyed", and unable to be destroyed again) until they finish resolving those triggers, while all triggers not so explicitly marked are aborted mid-sentence by card destruction, as we have long understood.

Is it possible that the informant ruling is specific to one-shots and how they work? We know previously that one-shots function differently than other cards (like being moved to trash after the effects are complete). 

Playing a one-shot and it's text activating might very well  fall under "consecutive effects", as playing the one-shot is very much an implied trigger. That logic could satisfy the Informant Ruling. 

Targets like Gene Guard don't function like one-shots so I'm hesitant to apply that same logic. Guard and Hairtrigger both have competing effects so it makes sense that Hairtrigger would see the DR. So maybe it would be correct to assume all targets enter play with their text active while one-shots only activate after they are "played". 

Why would playing the One-Shot not immediately produce its effect, before anything else happens?  I still don't see why it should function differently from activating a Power.  There's no "counterspell" in this game; you don't need to pause after playing a card to see whether it was actually successfully played, because nothing can prevent it.  So why would you pause after the card is played before resolving its effects?

Reread the thread please. I'm not trying to rehash pages of arguments here. 

The information has long since passed the point where it becomes a giant wall of lorem ipsum and my eyes glaze over.  If you can't be bothered* with summarizing the consensus for me, that's perfectly fair, but you will have to accept the consequence of my remaining ignorant.  If your conscience can bear that burden, more power to you. 

• I really wanted to say "can't be arsed" here because I think it sounds hilarious, but I wanted to be clear that I'm not picking a fight or anything.  My casual use of profanity is probably not blameless in the number of needless conflicts I get into.

This is pretty close to my thoughts on it.

Our ideas of timing are a concensus, not official.  I honestly can't see how one-shots (as worded in the Manual) and the text of Informant aren't simultaneous.  With it being officially stated that there are not different speeds, or chains of cards in this game I don't see how it can happen,

unless

Our entire notion of timing is wrong.

So I'm going to throw it out and see where that leads.

You can't be bothered reading, I can't be bothered explaining. Sound fair?

Short answer to your question is: Informant Ruling. That's why. 

Well there are "chains" in the sense that, say, Ambuscade can play bunches of his "shuffle the deck and play another card" cards and they'll all pile up in play, not quite finished resolving until they're all done.  So I can maybe see the possibility of a scenario where, if the Informant had to wait for the one-shot to resolve before she played her card, she might have to wait a long time for the stack to clear (say, if AZ played Onboard Module Installation, drew and played Hoarfire to kill her, she'd die before responding to either of the cards played, instead of responding immediately to both of them).  I'm guessing that this is the reason why it's not allowed, though I still disagree.