My issues with Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader is that it would raise more questions than it solves.

Do you have to decide to activate Vader from the first shot before shooting the second time? If so what happens if the Gunner shot kills the initial target? Do you still have to activate Vader, do you still take damage from Vader? What about the second Vader use? Do you have to declare you are activating him before you resolve the first one? If the first Vader draws Direct hit and the target is destroyed what happens?

First question: No, of course you don't. He has been triggered, and waits to resolve while we deal with another card that triggers at the same time. The choice to use him doesn't come up until his turn does.

If the Gunner shot kills the initial target, or if the first Vader destroys it, then when the time comes to resolve (the other) Vader, you simply decide "No, I will not use him." Just as you could, for example, resolve Push the Limit, then come to Experimental Interface and decide "No, I will not use this."

Except that in this situation you haven't activated Vader. You have to trigger him at the same time as Gunner. You can't then decide not to perform his card. You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

Hence why Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader makes much more sense.

My issues with Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader is that it would raise more questions than it solves.

Do you have to decide to activate Vader from the first shot before shooting the second time? If so what happens if the Gunner shot kills the initial target? Do you still have to activate Vader, do you still take damage from Vader? What about the second Vader use? Do you have to declare you are activating him before you resolve the first one? If the first Vader draws Direct hit and the target is destroyed what happens?

First question: No, of course you don't. He has been triggered, and waits to resolve while we deal with another card that triggers at the same time. The choice to use him doesn't come up until his turn does.

If the Gunner shot kills the initial target, or if the first Vader destroys it, then when the time comes to resolve (the other) Vader, you simply decide "No, I will not use him." Just as you could, for example, resolve Push the Limit, then come to Experimental Interface and decide "No, I will not use this."

Except that in this situation you haven't activated Vader. You have to trigger him at the same time as Gunner. You can't then decide not to perform his card. You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

Wait, what?

You have to trigger [Vader] at the same time as Gunner.

Vader's trigger--the activation condition--is met. You don't have to do anything to trigger him.

You can't then decide not to perform his card.

Once you start resolving Vader's effect, you get to decide whether or not to use him: "...you may suffer 2 damage..."

Resolving the card text and activating Vader's ability are two separate decisions.

You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

There's literally no other place in the game where this logic is used. Borrowing Klutz' example of Push the Limit + Experimental Interface, suppose I trigger both upgrades by taking an action. If I decide to resolve Push the Limit first, do I lose the opportunity to use Experimental Interface?

Or, more simply, suppose I have two ships on PS2. If I decide to resolve Ship A's steps in the Combat phase first, does that mean I can't activate Ship B?

My issues with Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader is that it would raise more questions than it solves.

Do you have to decide to activate Vader from the first shot before shooting the second time? If so what happens if the Gunner shot kills the initial target? Do you still have to activate Vader, do you still take damage from Vader? What about the second Vader use? Do you have to declare you are activating him before you resolve the first one? If the first Vader draws Direct hit and the target is destroyed what happens?

First question: No, of course you don't. He has been triggered, and waits to resolve while we deal with another card that triggers at the same time. The choice to use him doesn't come up until his turn does.

If the Gunner shot kills the initial target, or if the first Vader destroys it, then when the time comes to resolve (the other) Vader, you simply decide "No, I will not use him." Just as you could, for example, resolve Push the Limit, then come to Experimental Interface and decide "No, I will not use this."

Except that in this situation you haven't activated Vader. You have to trigger him at the same time as Gunner. You can't then decide not to perform his card. You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

Wait, what?

You have to trigger [Vader] at the same time as Gunner.

Vader's trigger--the activation condition--is met. You don't have to do anything to trigger him.

You can't then decide not to perform his card.

Once you start resolving Vader's effect, you get to decide whether or not to use him: "...you may suffer 2 damage..."

Resolving the card text and activating Vader's ability are two separate decisions.

You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

There's literally no other place in the game where this logic is used. Borrowing Klutz' example of Push the Limit + Experimental Interface, suppose I trigger both upgrades by taking an action. If I decide to resolve Push the Limit first, do I lose the opportunity to use Experimental Interface?

Or, more simply, suppose I have two ships on PS2. If I decide to resolve Ship A's steps in the Combat phase first, does that mean I can't activate Ship B?

Good point on Vader's may. I always think of triggering the card being his may. But you are correct. His trigger is post attack. Once triggered he may or may not resolve.

But on the second point. Vader does Trigger off the post attack. If you don't trigger him you don't get to resolve. This is true everywhere. PTL and EI have different triggers. You can't trigger both off a single focus action. You can chain them.

My issues with Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader is that it would raise more questions than it solves.

Do you have to decide to activate Vader from the first shot before shooting the second time? If so what happens if the Gunner shot kills the initial target? Do you still have to activate Vader, do you still take damage from Vader? What about the second Vader use? Do you have to declare you are activating him before you resolve the first one? If the first Vader draws Direct hit and the target is destroyed what happens?

First question: No, of course you don't. He has been triggered, and waits to resolve while we deal with another card that triggers at the same time. The choice to use him doesn't come up until his turn does.

If the Gunner shot kills the initial target, or if the first Vader destroys it, then when the time comes to resolve (the other) Vader, you simply decide "No, I will not use him." Just as you could, for example, resolve Push the Limit, then come to Experimental Interface and decide "No, I will not use this."

Except that in this situation you haven't activated Vader. You have to trigger him at the same time as Gunner. You can't then decide not to perform his card. You merely decided to resolve Gunner first. If you don't trigger him then it is a missed opportunity.

Hence why Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader makes much more sense.

Vader tiggers "After you perform an attack against an enemy ship".

The resolution of Vader is "you may suffer 2 damage to..."

So Vader trigger, you wait to resolve him until the second attack is compleated. If the target was destroyed you simply opt to not suffer any damage as it is a "may" ability.

[Edit - ]

Good point on Vader's may. I always think of triggering the card being his may. But you are correct. His trigger is post attack. Once triggered he may or may not resolve.

But on the second point. Vader does Trigger off the post attack. If you don't trigger him you don't get to resolve. This is true everywhere. PTL and EI have different triggers. You can't trigger both off a single focus action. You can chain them.

No, you are incorrect.

"Once triggered he may or may not resolve. [...] If you don't trigger him you don't get to resolve"

Triggering Vader is never a choice. He triggers after every single attack. And you resolve him every time he triggers.

It's just that when you resolve him, you can say "nope, not doing that".

"PTL and EI have different triggers. You can't trigger both off a single focus action. You can chain them."

A few different things are wrong with your comprehension here:

1. PTL and EI have the exact same trigger (literally, word for word identical): "Once per round, after you perform an action, ..."
2. They trigger every single time you take an action, and resolve every single time. But, again, thanks to the "may" clause, you can opt to not perform the free action, and therefore not get the stress.
3. There is no reason why you cannot trigger them both off a single focus action. The following is a totally valid sequence for Tycho:
   1. Take action (Focus)
   2. EI and PTL trigger
   3. Decide to resolve EI first
      1. Decide to perform a free action (Expert Handling)
      2. PTL triggers (not EI, since "once per round")
         1. Resolve PTL, decide not to perform an action
      3. Receive stress from EI
   4. Resolve PTL
      1. Decide to perform free action (Evade)
      2. Receive stress from PTL

The only reason people chain PTL and EI is that, (other than Tycho) if you finish resolving one of them before resolving the other, you'll have a stress token and therefore won't be able to perform actions.

[Apologies for formatting fail]

What an excellent discussion for a new player like myself to mull over. I've read the whole post, and by gum! I think I understand several tertiary matters much better because they were discussed offhandedly while making these points.

Abilities Resolve Once per Opportunity: A game effect can only resolve once per opportunity. For example, Luke Skywalker’s pilot ability applies “when defending,” so he can only use his ability once against each enemy attack - top of page 5 of the latest FAQ.

I get (from the FAQ above) that both Vader and Gunner have abilities which need to be resolved when the opportunity for each ability presents itself.

Q: If a player has multiple effects that resolve at the same time, can he resolve them in any order?

A: Yes.

- top of page 15 of the latest FAQ.

I get (from the same FAQ) that if a player has multiple effects that resolve at the same time (such as in the case of Vader and Gunner), the player is allowed to resolve each of those effects (the Gunner's effect and Vader's effect) in the order that the player chooses.

Darth Vader:

A ship equipped with Darth Vader can use this ability if it has at least 1 hull remaining.

If a ship equipped with Darth Vader can attack twice in one round (such as a ship equipped with Gunner or Cluster Missiles), it can use Darth Vader after the first attack. If Darth Vader destroys the ship to which he is equipped, it can still perform its second attack

- top of page 12 of the latest FAQ.

I get (from the same FAQ) that if a ship is able to fire twice, Vader's ability will present two opportunities each of which must be resolved

Text of the current Darth Vader Card: After you perform an attack against an enemy ship, you may suffer 2 damage to cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage.

I get (from the card text) that there are two ways to resolve Vader's ability (because of the word, "may"): either you [1] suffer/deal damage, or [2] opt not to - but you must choose one or the other because if you fail to do so you will miss the opportunity and the default in such a case is that Vader neither gives nor receives damage.

Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect, such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade card) twice?

A: Yes, once after each attack.

- quoted from the October 2013 version of the FAQ (Nothing is truly lost on the Internet).

I understand that what was made specific in the October 2013 version of the FAQ, has since been removed in favor of the generalization we find in today's FAQ under the "Abilities Resolve Once per Opportunity" clause (see above).

Significantly, I did not find the question about resolving multiple effects in the October 2013 FAQ either.

Now, I wasn't playing X-Wing in 2013, so until today, I hadn't heard of the old ruling that has now been superceded by the generalization that has replaced it. But having found the original source, and noting that the older FAQ made no mention of how to resolve multiple effects that trigger off the same text (where the current FAQ does...), I don't feel I am going out on a limb to expect that the new FAQ has the greater authority between the two.

All the old FAQ really said was that Vader's effect happened every single time there was an attack. Since Gunner grants a second attack, Vader's effect happens twice - once after each of the attacks.

The new FAQ tells us 2 things that inform the detangling of this particular knot:

[1] abilities resolve once per opportunity, and

[2] the player gets to choose what order to resolve multiple effects in.

Since there are two abilities to resolve the player either:

[A] chooses to resolve Vader first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Vader, Gunner (Vader)), or

chooses to resolve Gunner first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Gunner (Vader), Vader).

I understand that at one time option [A] may have been universally accepted as the only Option, but the FAQ as it stands - given the clause about resolving multiple effects, allows for Option .

That's how it looks to me at least.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: of course, when the designer says, option A only - well, option A it is.

And we have an answer.

[snip]

*Sigh* Another "because we said so" ruling.

I sent in a question asking for clarification:

Is this a "special feature" of Gunner, where you need to resolve all other "After you perform an Attack" abilities before resolving Gunner?

Another case with a similar interaction is the following:

I'm attacking Soontir who is in my arc, at range 2. I have Gunner and Tactician.

Can I do the following:

• Attack
• Miss
• Trigger Gunner and Tactician (A)
• Resolve Gunner First
  • Attack
  • Trigger Tactician (B)
  • Resolve Tactician (B)
  • Soontir gets Stress + Focus
• Resolve Tactician (A)
• Soontir gets 2nd Stress + 2nd Focus

Doing so would prevent Soontir from have a focus token to spend on the Gunner attack.

The new FAQ tells us 2 things that inform the detangling of this particular knot:

[1] abilities resolve once per opportunity, and

[2] the player gets to choose what order to resolve multiple effects in.

Since there are two abilities to resolve the player either:

[A] chooses to resolve Vader first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Vader, Gunner (Vader)), or

chooses to resolve Gunner first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Gunner (Vader), Vader).

I understand that at one time option [A] may have been universally accepted as the only Option, but the FAQ as it stands - given the clause about resolving multiple effects, allows for Option .

That's how it looks to me at least. I appreciate the, "we've always done it this way argument" - but it looks like the current FAQ allows both options - at least as far as I can find (and back up with links).

Except we now have a ruling that the order is [A] not . See my previous post on the response to my rules enquiry. (Note this only holds until the next ruling or FAQ....)

[snip]

Since there are two abilities to resolve the player either:

[A] chooses to resolve Vader first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Vader, Gunner (Vader)), or

chooses to resolve Gunner first, in which case we get:

• Missed Attack (Gunner (Vader), Vader).

I understand that at one time option [A] may have been universally accepted as the only Option, but the FAQ as it stands - given the clause about resolving multiple effects, allows for Option .

That's how it looks to me at least. I appreciate the, "we've always done it this way argument" - but it looks like the current FAQ allows both options - at least as far as I can find (and back up with links).

That is, to me and others, the correct interpretations of the rules as written currently.

So, big thumbs up to you - you seem to have a good understanding of the rule set and how the different rules and FAQ entries interact!

However (unfortunately), it seems that it was not meant to be used that way, as Alex Davy's e-mail says.

And we have an answer.

[snip]

*Sigh* Another "because we said so" ruling.

I sent in a question asking for clarification:

Is this a "special feature" of Gunner, where you need to resolve all other "After you perform an Attack" abilities before resolving Gunner?

Another case with a similar interaction is the following:

I'm attacking Soontir who is in my arc, at range 2. I have Gunner and Tactician.

Can I do the following:

• Attack
• Miss
• Trigger Gunner and Tactician (A)
• Resolve Gunner First
  • Attack
  • Trigger Tactician (B)
  • Resolve Tactician (B)
  • Soontir gets Stress + Focus
• Resolve Tactician (A)
• Soontir gets 2nd Stress + 2nd Focus

Doing so would prevent Soontir from have a focus token to spend on the Gunner attack.

I agree this seems like a because we said so ruling.

I think it is just a special feature of gunner which is itself badly worded. It should have read something like "After you perform an attack that does not hit, immediately resolve all other effects, then you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack. You cannot perform another attack this round."

I agree this seems like a because we said so ruling.

I think it is just a special feature of gunner which is itself badly worded. It should have read something like "After you perform an attack that does not hit, immediately resolve all other effects, then you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack. You cannot perform another attack this round."

That would be a very clear and concise errata!

I think it is just a special feature of gunner which is itself badly worded. It should have read something like "After you perform an attack that does not hit, immediately resolve all other effects, then you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack. You cannot perform another attack this round."

That would be clear to us who are used to discus such maters. It would probobly result in many a confused player though scratching their heads and woundering about what thouse "other effects" could possible mean...

I think it is just a special feature of gunner which is itself badly worded. It should have read something like "After you perform an attack that does not hit, immediately resolve all other effects, then you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack. You cannot perform another attack this round."

That would be clear to us who are used to discus such maters. It would probobly result in many a confused player though scratching their heads and woundering about what thouse "other effects" could possible mean...

Just put the equivalent in a FAQ entry, with Tactician and Vader cited as examples of such effects then.

In any case, I just hope it doesn't show up in the next FAQ as an entry targeted specifically at Gunner+Vader.

An entry that "fixes" the way Gunner interacts with all other "After you perform an attack" effects would be much better.

I also got a response from Alex Davy:

The only valid order is Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader, and likewise Attack-Tactician-Gunner-Tactician. X-Wing is not intended to have a complex “stack,” and operations like Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader and Attack-Gunner-Tactician-Tactician go against the simple spirit of the game.

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Here's a generic example of how the rules of X-Wing deal with 2 abilities that trigger at the same time:

• Event X triggers both abilities A and B

  (The player decides which ability to resolve first, eg: Ability B)

• Ability B resolves
  • Any abilities triggered by ability B resolves
• Ability A resolves
  • Any abilities triggered by ability A resolve
• Play now continues after event X

Now, if we look at Gunner and Vader crew:

• Player performs an attack that does not hit
• "After performing an attack" triggers both Gunner and Vader

  (The player decides which ability to resolve first, eg: Gunner)

• Gunner resolves
  • Resolving Gunner triggers Vader
  • Vader resolves
• Vader resolves
• Play now continues

There is obviously no question of being allowed to resolve Vader much later, as you seem to think this suggests.

This seems to be the hearth of your incomprehension:

You call a separate attack an ability? A separate attack is simply that- a separate attack and NOT an interruptable ability. I am sure everyone will agree an attack is quite separate and distinct from an interrupt able ability as Push the Limit.

I see no reason why a separate attack cannot be an interruptible ability. The Gunner card is pretty straight forward...

It's an ability that triggers "After you perform an attack that does not hit" and allows you to "perform a primary weapon attack".

Also, an attack has always been interruptible. Many cards interrupt the normal steps of an attack: Draw their fire, Xizor, R3-A2, Tactician, Rebel Captive, and many others trigger during (and interrupt) an attack.

"Interrupt" probably was a bad word choice as you pointed out, resolve I should have said! Essentially, you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack. At the end of step 2 gunner and vader are triggered which is absolutely true and you have a choice, BUT if you move on with an attack with gunner, that effect is now resolved along with the first attack being resolved thus the first Vader ability is missed. It doesn't make sense and overpowered to say you can get all the damage/shields to hit to arbitrary decide a single or a double crit.

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way.

"Interrupt" probably was a bad word choice as you pointed out, resolve I should have said! Essentially, you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack. At the end of step 2 gunner and vader are triggered which is absolutely true and you have a choice, BUT if you move on with an attack with gunner, that effect is now resolved along with the first attack being resolved thus the first Vader ability is missed. It doesn't make sense and overpowered to say you can get all the damage/shields to hit to arbitrary decide a single or a double crit.

Your interpretation of the rules as written is incorrect.

There is nothing in the rules that state that "you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack", or that if you if you "move on with an attack with gunner [...] the first Vader ability is missed".

Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling.

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way.

As I said in response to Amraam01 above: Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling.

The reason is that it goes "against the simple spirit of the game" and that "X-Wing is not intended to have a complex 'stack'".

And I agree that keeping the rules simple is a good thing.

I just hope they include the information in the next version of the FAQ as a general ruling that gives us a rules as written interpretation that can be applied to future similar interactions (eg: IG-88B and a future illicit upgrade with a "after you perform an attack" trigger, or a BTL-A4 Y-Wing and a future astromech with a "after you perform an attack" trigger).

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way.

Oh well Buhallin got the question resolved.

I think he answers you point exactly, with post #48- unnecessary complexity. A lot more questions in the 'stacking' way ambiguity etc. Do you need to call out Vader after attack 1, then state I interrupt with gunner? I think the obvious issues should be reason enough that attacks are separate entities that must get resolved and closed up if then can be, in this instance, mechanistically think of it as what is the simplest answer -

Ask, "Can attack 1 can be closed out when you have an option of dual instantaneous triggers before you start attack 2." I think that simple answer solves this.

"Interrupt" probably was a bad word choice as you pointed out, resolve I should have said! Essentially, you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack. At the end of step 2 gunner and vader are triggered which is absolutely true and you have a choice, BUT if you move on with an attack with gunner, that effect is now resolved along with the first attack being resolved thus the first Vader ability is missed. It doesn't make sense and overpowered to say you can get all the damage/shields to hit to arbitrary decide a single or a double crit.

Your interpretation of the rules as written is incorrect.

There is nothing in the rules that state that "you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack", or that if you if you "move on with an attack with gunner [...] the first Vader ability is missed".

Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling.

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way.

As I said in response to Amraam01 above: Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling.

The reason is that it goes "against the simple spirit of the game" and that "X-Wing is not intended to have a complex 'stack'".

And I agree that keeping the rules simple is a good thing.

I just hope they include the information in the next version of the FAQ as a general ruling that gives us a rules as written interpretation that can be applied to future similar interactions (eg: IG-88B and a future illicit upgrade with a "after you perform an attack" trigger, or a BTL-A4 Y-Wing and a future astromech with a "after you perform an attack" trigger).

I see your point which is why I brought up Rulebook pg 10 Combat phase steps 1-7. I understand steps 1-7 as a discrete attack and Vader number 1 is absolutely intimately tied to part of that attack- of course the "after" part. So, I don't see how it is unreasonable to interpret resolving Vader with this attack is a prerequisite to starting a new attack with "declare target".

Someone bookmark this so we'll have it to reference the next time this comes up

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way.

There is no answer to why it works this way, beyond "Because I said so". Because the answer is it shouldn't work that way.

Vader and Gunner have the same trigger. How those are resolved is perfectly well defined in the rules. But Gunner making a full attack as one of those effects leads to a lot of head-scratching weirdness that people either don't like or feel doesn't make sense. So, they say it works differently, forcing one effect to resolve before the other.

This isn't all that unprecedented - IG-88A and Dead Man's Switch interact the same way. They have the same trigger, which means they should resolve in initiative order. But the FAQ says IG-88A gets his shield back first. Why? <shrug> Because Alex really likes IG-88? Who knows.

X-wing has always had a lot of rulings that fall into the "Because I said so" category. This is just one more of them.

I also got a response from Alex Davy:

The only valid order is Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader, and likewise Attack-Tactician-Gunner-[/size]Tactician. X-Wing is not intended to have a complex “stack,” and operations like Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader and Attack-Gunner-Tactician-[/size]Tactician go against the simple spirit of the game.[/size]

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

So does that mean that the PtL stacking shenanigans are now disallowed? Because they're the same thing with different cards.

Sigh. Stuff like this makes me want to go back to Magic...

EDIT: Formatting fail. Stupid phone...

I also got a response from Alex Davy:

The only valid order is Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader, and likewise Attack-Tactician-Gunner-[/size]Tactician. X-Wing is not intended to have a complex “stack,” and operations like Attack-Gunner-Vader-Vader and Attack-Gunner-Tactician-[/size]Tactician go against the simple spirit of the game.[/size]

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

So does that mean that the PtL stacking shenanigans are now disallowed? Because they're the same thing with different cards.

Sigh. Stuff like this makes me want to go back to Magic...

No.

That answer applies to both:

• PtL shenanigans being disallowed
• You going back to Magic