Ruling Request - Sentinels Tactic extra power use

Other Games SotM Game Engine
1

Hello,

I'm currently moderating a PBF game on Boardgamegeek where a situation has occurred that we are unsure of the timing rules on.

 

The Villain is the Mad Bomber Baron Blade Promo and one of the heroes is the Sentinels. The Sentinels have the card Sentinel Tactics in play which grants them a power use the first time one of the Sentinels does damage. On the Sentinels turn, they are playing Coordinated Assault which currently does enough damage to cause Baron Blade to flip. When Baron Blade flips he will destroy 9 ongoing/equipment cards which will include Sentinel Tactics.

So do the Sentinels get the power use since one of them did damage? Or does Baron Blade's flipping destroy Sentinel Tactics before they get a chance to use a power?

 

Thank you in advance,

~Corey

2

Sentinel Tactics has to be in play for the Sentinels to get the benefit of the card since it is not of a specfic duration.  However, that power usage could be used before the flip and the destruction

3

I'm not sure, it's one of those timing questions that have answers that are not purely intuitive. On one hand, the timing ruling says if two cards trigger off the same event the players choose order. On the other flip mechanics/ destruction mechanics are not 100% intuitive. So in the first case, the players get to choose to use the power first; however, Blade has not flipped yet so TeleJab would simply take him into his negative hp, not hurt his other side. However, if the damage vs destruction riders are different, Blade may be forced to flip first, in which case Sentinel  Tactics would be destroyed before the power use was able to occur.

TLDR: I'm not sure, it depends if destruction effects have a different priority que then damage effects, and you won't get a response at least until Pax is over, and you may never.

If I had to make a judgement, I'd say you can use the power, because the flip and the power use are simultaneous events.

4

Lot's of things involved here:

1.  Baron's on destruction text:  It goes first.  The card flips.

2.  Target and text entering play with "When this card enters play" text on it.  I believe that goes first right?  We keep the chain of events going until there is a break, then go to the next effect waiting to happen.

3.  Does Sentinel Tactics have to be in play for it's trigger, that is already activated, to resolve?

The Case Evidence:

 The new list of rules MigrantP put up has a ruling that cards that go under another card after their response to destruction text has activated, even though they lose that text upon going under another card, still process their effect.

The effect of Tactics, has already triggered and is "in qeue" does it still require the card text to be in play?  Cards going under other cards don't, I don't see why cards leaving play wouldn't either.

This is different from cards who are dealing damage and leave play, since there is no longer anything there to deal damage, or an action that is mid-process getting interupted, like an environment effect that leaves play because of BeeBot.  The effect has triggered, and is wiating to resolve.

I don't see how there could be a difference between a card losing its text from going under Savage Mana but still, but having the already triggered effect resolve, and this situation.

Because of that I would say the extra power would occur after the flip.

On a side note I think this makes sense with the Informant ruling that you can't stop her effect by destroying her as well, but that is a different case adn I don't want to open that can of worms, just point out that we know you can't stop it, and MigrantP's post seems to go along with it.

5

I almost agree. Baron Blade is not a target entering play, he was already a target in play and is still a target in play when he flips, he merely restores his HP to a certain level.

6

I think Phantaskippy was saying that Sentinels Tactics already triggered off the damage dealt before Baron Blade flipped, so even though Baron Blade destroys the card, the Sentinels still get an extra power usage.

7

I get that, I just disagree that step 2 "Target and text enters play" is correct, the text certainly enters play, the target does not.

8

I agree, the problem is we don't have any timings rulings for cards flipping, and I am assuming it works the same as if it was a new card entering play.

Didn't word it the best.

9

Referring to the Unofficial Damage Dealing Timing doc:

Flipping the Villain would pretty cleary be part of step 17 (and I've just added a comment ot that effect), "If any effect *replaces* the destruction with some other effect...".

Sentinel Tactics triggers on damage dealt by The Sentinels, so is clearly part of step 20: "Apply all effects that trigger when damage is dealt to the defender or when damage is dealt by the attacker."

So I believe that Sentinel Tactics would be destroyed *before* it could trigger, and thus would not take effect.

10

I'm sorry, but I am not treating the unofficial damage dealing timing thing as anything official at all.

11

I never claimed it was official.  Are your claims particularly official?  Is there some ruling that supports your idea that "The effect of Tactics, has already triggered" before the Villain flips?

12

This topic needs to cool off a bit. After the most important is to play it the way it feels right for your game group and to have fun doing it. Since this is a coop game there will  probably never be quite as much of time given by developpers to iron out all these little knacks.

As for Phantaskippy<s credentials he<s been a playtester for quite a while and judging by the work he<s done on the Cauldron he<s pretty good at it. His comment may seem brash but I too feels it makes sense that you can<t destroy a target (or effect that replaces destruction) before the damage bringing the target to 0 hp (destruction trigger) is dealt. That means that it feels very logical for me that Sentinel Tactics would trigger before it<s destruction, but you could<t use the extra power to put damage on Blade<s flipped side since he hasn<t quite flipped at that point. All in all it will get resolved one way or another when the videogame gets there in the meantime the most important thing is to enjoy the game even if it may mean putting rule lawyerism aside.

13

Yes, because the effect triggers on damage being dealt, which happened before Baron Blade flipped.

In the example given no damage is dealt after Baron flips so for Tactics to trigger then doesn't work, because unless damage is dealt it cannot trigger, and when damage is dealt it triggers.

I was curt in my previous post, and I apologize for that.

The problem with the damage dealing FAQ in this case is the FAQ is dealing with the resolution of effects, not the triggering of them.

When damage is dealt to a Dynamic Syphon that is enough to destroy the syphon, the "when dealt damage" effect triggers, it just happens to be out of play before it can act.

What I'm wondering: is the new ruling from MigrantP on text no longer in play still finishing specific to destruction, or if it is a more general application that an effect that is already triggered leaves play by an effect other than the one that triggers it.

The situation this thread comes from is not one I've seen ruled on, and now that we have official word that text that is no longer in play can resolve I wonder what factors cause that exception to be made.

EDIT:  I just argued myself in a circle there, as just like Dynamic Syphon, Tactics triggers but leaves play before it can resolve.

This ruling that self-destruction text has no timing advantage over external on-destruct effects is problematic, because now we have a rule that a card under another card can act inspite of not having any text.

If that is the case then why does a card leaving play lose an effect that is already triggered?  The whole reason that text didn't occur is because the text was no longer in play.

We already know effects with duration don't require a card in play, and now we have responses that don't require the text to be in play to resolve.

It seems pretty bizarre to me.

14

I also apologize for my own curtness.

"The problem with the damage dealing FAQ in this case is the FAQ is dealing with the resolution of effects, not the triggering of them."

Ah!  An excellent point, which I had overlooked.  Thank you for pointing that out, keeping it in mind will help in future maintenance of that doc.

 

I agree with you that the current set of rulings produce somewhat inconsistent results.

This inconsistency will need to be resolved (eventually) by the App.  Whether that comes in the form of entirely new ruling paradigms, or a few "This exception works this way" errata remains to be seen.

15

At Pax. Don't have time to go into it in depth. But no you wouldn't get the second power use. Tactics is destroyed before you can use the other power.

16

Hmm ... for what it's worth, I don't think The Sentinels would get the second power usage.

The first power does damage to Blade. That damage would reduce Blade to zero or below, so Blade flips. When Blade flips, he destroys the relevant card. There is now no card in play which says that The Sentinels may use a second power.

 

I gather that the opposite argument is that the relevant card would have 'triggered' previously, but I think an analogous situation would be if, say, Hud Goggles were destroyed during Tachyon's play phase after Tachyon had already played one card, but not a second card. I wouldn't think that Tachyon would be able to play a second card at that point. Assuming you agree the situation is analogous, it could be tested in the app. ... so I did: Tachyon does not get the second card play.

 

 

17

One of the problems is that there isn't a good analogous situation to test.

Hud Goggles isn't a response trigger.

Honestly the best analogy I can come up with is Informant vs. Sucker Punch, and we have a ruling on that, that the effect of the card played cannot prevent the reaction by the Informant.

Another good one is the very case MigrantP speaks of in his rules post, where a card going under Savage Mana can still react to destruction even though the text is no longer in play.

That is the confusing part to me.

18


The reason why The Informant cannot be "prevented"  by the card being played is because Informant will trigger before Sucker Punch.

 

Note that in MigrantP's post, he specifically points out that this occurs with Destruction effects.

If there are multiple cards interested in a card’s destruction, they all happen (in player decided order) even if the card gets put under another card. For example, if Haka destroys Pterodactyl Thief with Savage Mana in play, Pterodactyl Thief can go under Savage Mana and then the thief’s cards return to the owners’ hands.
19

I understand that, maybe my problem is trying to make a consistent system out of effects that don't create one.

20

This problem shouldn't drive you to drink

For though Sentinels are solely in ink,

Prickly Cactus is not

and the trigger's a lot

like the one on their Tactics, ya think?