In another thread, I was reminded that something that triggers off a hero using a power activates after the power occurs. The example was using Stun Bolts against Spite when he has PL626 Compound XI active. Wraith would take reduced damage, since the Stun Bolts went off first. This much is in Spiff's FAQ.
So, would it be the same in regards to playing a card? The Informant triggers whenever a hero plays a card. If you play a card that kills her, would playing that card still provoke a villain draw?
I try to puzzle this out every time I play against the Chairman. Currently, I play that it does provoke a villain draw. This should probably be in the FAQ.
Based on the rulings for Positive/Negative Energy Field, I assume it WOULD trigger a play. I know that powers and cards played are treated differently with regards to reacting to them.
Just tossing in that I have always played it to where it would active a card play. Since the action of slapping the card down is playing, though I activate the effects, if any, on the hero card first considering it was already there.
Order of cards played determines what happens. The card that is in play already was, by definition, played first, so its effect is handled first. In this case, The Informant triggers before the card that's being played can destroy The Informant.
As an aside, there is currently a known, contradictory ruling to this (Hairtrigger Reflexes vs. Fowl). Christopher is currently muling over what he wants to do about that.
If Expat has Hairtrigger Reflexes out, she can kill the birds as they come into play. Since Hairtrigger Reflexes was in play first, the birds would not get their text about playing the top card of the villain deck. Which is not the way he wants the ruling to go. Is that the issue? Or am I confusing things?
No, that's the issue. I think the current thinking is that because Fowl trigger "when they are played from the top of the villain deck" that it happens before they actually come into play, but introduces a nasty precident of cards having text on them activated before they come into play.
Not neccesarily an Enhanced Edition, not quite the overhaul the core set got, probably just a 2nd edition to fix some typos and get some cards caught up to the change in how villain character cards are targeted, among other small fixes. After all, why not fix things when they're going to do another print run anyway. I'd probaly buy it again for some updated cards, would be my 3rd copy, letting a friend use my 1st copy. When EE came out I wanted my collection to get a fresh start.
I think that cards that react to cards being played or entering play should resolve after the card entering play is resolved. For one thing, it's consistent with the way cards that trigger in response to Powers work. Also, I don't see how a card can be considered to have been played if it hasn't been resolved.
So…does this mean that you would resolve a card played before the Informant acts? In which case, does this indeed mean that if you play a card that would kill the Informant, that she is destroyed before her own ability causes the villain deck to play a card?
It's the way I've played it. It's still a pain in the neck, because it means you end up not making useful setup plays because you have to kill the Informant instead.
Does that not conflict with what you do concerning Spite's "take two damage and discard five cards" drug? Because I thought that was supposed to trigger after you've resolved the played card. Okay so you're never gonna be using your played card to destroy the drug since it's indestructible, but if the drug doesn't interrupt your card-playing to make its action, surely the Informant shouldn't either?
Spite's drug does not react to cards being played, it reacts to powers being used. I agree that it would be nice if playing a oneshot and using a power were as similar as possible, so my personal rule is that one-shot text is resolved before reactions to a card being played, but I think that may be contrary to the official ruling.
I can't actually find an official ruling, but I guess what it comes down to is:
Option 1: Resolving one-shot text is part of playing the one-shot. (just like resolving power text is part of using the power). In this case reactions will go off after resolving the text.
Option 2: One-shot text is a reaction to playing the one-shot. (basically there is an assumed "When this card is played" on the top of each one-shot). You would resolve any reactions in the order cards were played, so the one-shot would be resolved last.
EDIT: Ok, here is the positive/negative energy ruling: http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/comment/8983#comment-8983, though it's one of those rulings based on the idea that there is no stack or chain. That always bothers me because if effects are resolving in sequence according to some rules, that is by definition some kind of stack. It's just hard to pin down how that stack works because it officially doesn't exist.
It says I'm not authorised to view that page - I'm guessing it's in the playtesting forum? The issue with Positive Energy Field actually came up this evening, and we ended up completing the card text and then enacting the healing from the Field - it mattered because the card being played was one that destroyed one of the things that would have been healed by the Field. Had it been healed first, it would have had enough hp to survive the One-Shot.
Sorry, I guess that's why I didn't see it until I did a search for positive energy field.
The statement (regarding positive/negative energy field) was:
Since there is no "stack" or "chain" or anything like that in SotM, the damage/HP regaining happens upon the act of the card being played.
But like I said, I don't consider it a particularly useful ruling since effects in SotM do not resolve simultaneously and there are rules about the order they are resolved in, so there is some kind of "stack".