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:
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.