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:
- 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
- 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.