Drifter/Healer

By Cachalote, in UFS Rules Q & A

Can these cards be combined to use an attack that doesn't have the reversal keyword like a reversal?

e.g.:

-my opponent attack

-I don't block and use Healer's E

-Then use Drifter's R

-Play Melancholic Mercurius like a reversal (with Zi Mei1)

Thanks.

88.jpg

53.jpg

087.jpg

Drifter says "after you block", so no. Healer allows you to play a reversal, but since you opted not to block, it does not trigger Drifter.

of course!!... jaja :P

So, change the question... suppose Drifter says only "you can play an attack like a reversal if it have 2 symbols equals to your charcter". Could it combine with Healer?

Well, it would kinda be dependant on exactly what the trigger was instead, but yes, in theory you could play any attack sharing 2 resource symbols after not blocking because of Healer and an affect similar to Drifer but without the 'after you block' caveat.

A similar situation would be starter Astrid, she allows you to play any weapon attack as a reversal. So, if you used healer and were playing Astrid (legacy, of course) you could choose to not block and still reverse with a weapon that does not have the "reversal" keyword printed on it.

OK.

Thanks.

If a card is "played as a reversal" it is still not a "reversal" card.

Healer allows you to "play a reversal". This could be taken to mean the card has to be a reversal.

Take astrid + healer for isntance.

I say, it wouldnt work.
Healer makes it so "you do not need to block this attack to play a REVERSAL to it" (reversal being capped as the key word)

Astrid says "You may play any attack with the weapon keyword AS a reversal". This lets you play weapons AS IF they were reversals, however, it does NOT make the weapon cards "reversals"...it just lets you play them as if they were (i.e. after you block an opponents attack)

Healer may not see Astrid's weapon attacks as a reversal, just as a weapon. Independently of that it may see a floating effect allowing astrid to PLAY weapons AS reversals, but that doesn't make the weapon a reversal while in hand/transitional zone, etc. (i.e. it does not have the reversal keyword printed on it, the definition of a "reversal")

I could see it being ruled the other way....but I am just saying it is not definitive.

Agreed with smazz. Playing a reversal is not the same as playing an attack as a reversal.

Playing a reversal means the attack must have the reversal keyword (Healer).

Playing as a reversal means the attack doesn't have to have the keyword (Astrid).

Astrid cannot use Healer to play a weapon AS a reversal unless the weapon already has the reversal keyword (like Astrid's Wolf Strike or something).

I would consider the wording of "play a reversal to it " to infer "play a reversal to this attack" which is different to "play a reversal", in which case it would still work.

The problem is that it still requires a cartain amount of assumption on the part of the players to reach that conclusion. Assumptions BAD.

We can clearly see what it means by 'play an attack as a reversal', but since a reversal is normally played as a responce, which defines it's timing, how can we decide weather the attack played 'as' a reversal is a response or not? Either we have to play it as an attack during the reversal step, which is totally unsupposted by rules, or play it as if it had the reversal R:, which defied the point of playing it 'as' a reversal rather than just giving it the reversal trait.

When Pirate and I discussed his Pirate TR some time ago, we considered the relative merits of hanging Reversals to be a step in the procedure and competely removing the ability associated with the keyword. The current AGR (no disrespect intended to Antigoth) seems a halfway house, introducing a reversal step but still fundamentally requiring the R: part of reversal, which in itself seems to render the reversal step superfluous. As it is we just seem to have some grey left in the middle.

Inquisitor M said:

When Pirate and I discussed his Pirate TR some time ago, we considered the relative merits of hanging Reversals to be a step in the procedure and competely removing the ability associated with the keyword. The current AGR (no disrespect intended to Antigoth) seems a halfway house, introducing a reversal step but still fundamentally requiring the R: part of reversal, which in itself seems to render the reversal step superfluous. As it is we just seem to have some grey left in the middle.

No disrespect taken. It was also written during the last night of writing during the AGR, and was more an attempt to document everything that had been said about reversals, more so then knocking something new around.

While there were some changes, at the end of the day, the designer still wants to act of playing a reversal to be an R. So I am still beholden to that concept. However adding additional clarification of stuff I am not beyond.

As for the core question iteself - Stamps to all those who said - Healer + Drifter = Fail because drifter says "when you block", and healer said "As if you blocked." creating two different states.

Could you stamp or correct the Astrid + healer discussion?

My opinion is that healer allows you to play a REVERSAL, and Astrid allows you to play a weapon AS a reversal.

Thus healer does not allow astrid to reversal with a (non-reversal) weapon without blocking.

Thanks, as always, appreciate what you do on the forums.

Actually, I think I'm going to muddy this water a little more...

Astrid's continuous ability allows you to play Weapon attacks as reversals. The only way a a reversal can be played is by using the reversal response, or with an ability that explicity states that you play the attack NOW, which is usually an R: of sime kind or could be a F: or E: with a pending effect, which is ultimately the same, since there will be a trigger as to when that reversal should be played.

E.G.

"E: If this attack deals damage, you may play a reversal as if you had blocked the attack"

or

"R: After you block this attack, play any attack as a reversal"

The first example modifies the rules to make playing the reversal keyword possible even though you don't meet the requirements, and is easy enough to interpret. The second is far more convoluted, as the restriction of one reversal per attack is in the Reversal responce itself, and does not therefore affect this R:, so you could play multiple copies of this R: to play multiple reversals because the effect is telling you to play a card NOW, it is not referencing the reversal rules in any way. Even though we do not have the trigger window of the Reversal R:, this R: gives us a different trigger and so we can play it no problem, along with other R:'s that allow us to play even more reversals to other triggers.

Astrid presents an unusual problem where there is no trigger for Astrid's ability, it is truly constant, not just in terms of game terminology, but in terms of timing as well. It doesn't say "all your attacks get reversal", so the attacks do not have the keyword, and thus do not have the timing window it provides. Further, there is no existing game rule that allows for the playing of a reversal by any other method, it always comes under the golden rule of doing so because the card effect tells you to. This card effect doesn't actually tell you how or when to do so, even if it SEEMS obvious when you would. I submit therfore, that without functional errata, Astrid's constant ability is broken, as you can either play any weapon attack as a reversal absolutely ANY time you have one in your hand because it's a constant abiltiy, OR it never actually allows you to play one ever because it refers to a 'rule-theory' which doesn't exist, i.e. the point when you would normally play a reversal without playing the Reversal R:.

Further, after inspecting the interaction between the Reversal step and the Reversal keyword, it is clear to me that the Reversal R: is not actually played during the reversal step at all, since by adding a step to the attack sequence you are effectively still resolving the attack, and that makes the Reversal R: illegal at that time (it's not "after an attack has resolved").

Not here to ruin anyone's day, but you can't fix it 'till you know exactly how it's broken...M out.

P.S. I really hope someone can show me something I missed...

Actually, if I'm Astrid, and I use Healer, you can ply the weapon attack as a reversal.

If functionally works like this:

Healer says "Pretend the block effect was applied."

Astrid says "Weapons think they have the reversal keyword printed on them."

Weapons say "Smash!"

That's how I view it.

Putting this in AGR Terms:

Healer Evokes 8.3.3.12.1 Sending the attack sequence to the Reversal Step.

Healer Fulfils the requirement of 8.3.4.1

Astrid allows you to utilize any weapon keyword attack at step 8.3.4.2

Astrid's weapon reversal can still be negated by R negation per 8.3.4.6

While that seems to be the overall intent, the idea that Astrid's ability actually gives Weapon attacks the reversal keyword seems...unreasonable. There are abilities that explicitly say they give attacks the reversal keyword, but Astrid's ability doesn't, so how could someone reading the card know that was the case and how do you define the difference?

To say That Astrid DOES give Weapon attacks the reversal keyword IS a functional errata and effectively proves my point. To play an attack 'as a reversal' is giving that a type, a kind of description, as Smuzz pointed out already it is not that same as actually making it a Reversal, and other post similarly assumed that Astrid does not give it the actual keyword.

Inquisitor M said:

While that seems to be the overall intent, the idea that Astrid's ability actually gives Weapon attacks the reversal keyword seems...unreasonable. There are abilities that explicitly say they give attacks the reversal keyword, but Astrid's ability doesn't, so how could someone reading the card know that was the case and how do you define the difference?

To say That Astrid DOES give Weapon attacks the reversal keyword IS a functional errata and effectively proves my point. To play an attack 'as a reversal' is giving that a type, a kind of description, as Smuzz pointed out already it is not that same as actually making it a Reversal, and other post similarly assumed that Astrid does not give it the actual keyword.

Ok... just to be clear... Astrid reads as follows:

You may play any attack with the Weapon keyword as a reversal.

So physically the attack never gains a keyword. However when the window opens up for you to play a reversal, you can slot that weapon keyword attack in there just the same.

My quick synopsis was merely paraphrasing in an attempt to use different words to describe the situation and simplify it.

Please see the AGR steps that I cited. All we're doing is playing a reversal at step 8.3.4.2

Does this "break the rules of the game?" Yes. Does it require functional errata? No. At the end of the day, the Golden rule covers this.

That's not clear, that's my point. That we already know.

8.3.4.1 Says in the reversal step I can play the Reversal Response, not play any card as a reversal. This doesn't give me the right to play Astrid's reversal. (also, the Reversal R: can't be played here because the attack hasn't resolved, by being at this point you are still resolving the attack sequence, 8.3.3.12.1-3 prove this)

8.3.4.2 Doesn't say you can play a non-reversal as a reversal, it just tells you that playing a reversal is like playing a card from hand, seeing as a reversal IS playing a card from hand the while line seems obsolete. Since playing an R: from an attack in hand is something of an anomaly in the rules, I can understand it being there though. Anyway, this rules governs HOW a reversal is played, it does not allow you to play one through Astrid.

Astrid's ability does not have a timing window. It doesn't say WHEN you could play said attack as a reversal, and saying 'when you would normally play a reversal' doesn't work, since Reversal is a responce and by nature interrupts the 'normal' process of play, it would have to BE a responce in order to emulate it, or be played on your turn as a form like playing any other attack (though as per Astrid's ability you can also play any weapon attack on your turn 'as a reversal' if you have any other effects that key off attacks played as a reversal).

Golden rule is irrelevant here because the ability printed on the card isn't telling you to play an attack at 8.3.4.1-2. In fact, as I keep reading, 8.3.3.12.1 is also totally obsolete, since any card effect saying you can play a reversal ignores this step by applying the golden rule, AND the flow of play should be going to the Reversal step anyway, so why would you need a redirect to where your'e going next anyway?

Which then leads me on to 8.3.3.12.2, which directs you away from the reversal step and into resolving a multiple (or otherwise generated pending attack) and actively skips the reversal step. So, either the reversal step (unfortunately) is a complete waste of space and we play the reversal R: anyway, or you simply aren't allowed to play the Reversal R: to anything but the last reslving attack in a chain.

Astrid's ability is based on making an assumption, and I think most of us have been playing CCG's long enough to know that that is a bad thing and needs to be changed.

Ok, I think I'm seeing where you're coming from now.

At this point I think you're hanging on 2.14.2.7

And because it's there I can see the problem.

2.14.2.7 is more or less a copy and paste from the previous rules, with little to no tweaking.

The entire 8.x section was completed on the last night of writing the AGR, and unfortuantely as main writer, I didn't have the time to go back and sanity check every aspect of the document once the new areas were added.

I'm in the midst of finishing up the tournament floor rules, and then moving onto the revision of the AGR.

2.14.2.7 is going to be reworded to roughly thus:

Reversal: (Response) - R : At the reversal step, if a player with this card successfully blocked the attack, he may immediately attempt to play this attack from his hand, proceeding as if he played a regular attack. Once this attack has resolved, the current Combat Phase resumes. A player may only attempt to play one Reversal per attack. (See 8.0 The Combat Phase for more information on playing cards and resolving attacks.)

2.14.2.7.1 & 2.14.2.7.2 will both stand.

I will probably have to add:

2.14.2.7.3 If a card ability states that an attack "...may be played as a reversal..." that attack may be played during the reversal step, as though it had the reversal keyword.

2.14.2.7.3.1 clarify that said attack does not physically have the reversal keyword for any effects or abilities that target or look for key words.

Would those alterations resolve the issue in your mind?

Yeah, that's pretty much all the stuff I'm getting at.

2 immediate issues with that that immediately stand out to me though, is that the reversal wording has potential issues with "A player may only play one reversal per attack" because on a technicality could not block with an attack that was a reversal, and then play a reversal, because wording does not discriminate how or what a reversal was player during the attack. Also, you probably need to decide on weather you want stackable attacks as reversals, which is currently legal. Changing "play one reversal" to "play one attack as a reversal" fixes the issue in one sense, but only by taking that line out of the Reversal R: and making it a general game rules can you stop multiple effects generating multiple attacks played as reversals.

The other issue is that I really do implore you to change the whole 8.3.3.12 sub-step. Resoultion of attacks should always pass through the reversal step regardless of any effects that allow you to play reversals in unusual ways, so the first point really is utterly obsolete, and the 2nd step is still broken if you leave it in, because it really does skip the reversal plase if you play a multiple. Also, "if there are no reversals pending" is incorrect, there are never reversals pending at that point, only the potential for reversals can be pending, so really I feel that whole sub-rule should come at the end of the reversal step simply to define weather you complete the form or resolve the next pending attack, i.e. multiple copy.

EDIT: oh, and purely as a templating issue (I'm talking to you here Mr Hatta), Astrid's constant ability still causes issues because it has no timing window. All other similar effects have either a play trigger (R:'s) or a resolution trigger (pending E: or F: effects), because effects should never exist without such explicit timing. As it is we all know what it means, probably to the point that no-one else was terribly likely to even notice that it is a technical anomaly, but it would be something I think would be best avoided in future.

Inquisitor M said:

2 immediate issues with that that immediately stand out to me though, is that the reversal wording has potential issues with "A player may only play one reversal per attack" because on a technicality could not block with an attack that was a reversal, and then play a reversal, because wording does not discriminate how or what a reversal was player during the attack. Also, you probably need to decide on weather you want stackable attacks as reversals, which is currently legal. Changing "play one reversal" to "play one attack as a reversal" fixes the issue in one sense, but only by taking that line out of the Reversal R: and making it a general game rules can you stop multiple effects generating multiple attacks played as reversals.

Acknowledged. I'll incoroprate that into the next revision.

Inquisitor M said:

The other issue is that I really do implore you to change the whole 8.3.3.12 sub-step. Resoultion of attacks should always pass through the reversal step regardless of any effects that allow you to play reversals in unusual ways, so the first point really is utterly obsolete, and the 2nd step is still broken if you leave it in, because it really does skip the reversal plase if you play a multiple. Also, "if there are no reversals pending" is incorrect, there are never reversals pending at that point, only the potential for reversals can be pending, so really I feel that whole sub-rule should come at the end of the reversal step simply to define weather you complete the form or resolve the next pending attack, i.e. multiple copy.

Eh... forgive me, but the verbiage being used here is telling me I've not had enough sleep. I'm not sure if we're using the same verbiage to describe the same stuff. I think that the 8.3.3.12 substep needs to be there, because the reversal step is frequently skipped and the rules need to reflect that.

8.3.3.12.1 is essential. If it's not there, we have had complaints that it's not explicit enough how/when those effects should resolve.

8.3.3.12.2 needs to be there, but based on your feedback I can see that the wording should be revised. Right now there is no elegant way that I can envision on how to word it. (Note I say right now. Note my previous statement about lack of sleep)

8.3.3.12.3 also needs to be there now because we have created the entire "attack sequence"

Part of the debate I need to finish having with myself / James / folks who want to weigh in, is... should we not consider the initial attack resolved until the entire attack sequence is resolved. (if anyone seriously wants to have that discussion *DO NOT* respond to it here in this thread. Create a new thread to discuss it in general discussion. )

Part of the problems that we're running into is everyone thinks they understand conceptually how the game should work. However the rules were never properly documented / written to actually encompass what happens. The AGR is an exercise in correcting that. Additionally that means that in some situations we are "changing the rules" / revising how stuff works. The good news is, those changes are at least being documented in a single source, that is readily downloadable by every player. That being said, with this next revision, there will also be a section of the AGR dedicated to documenting all the changes from the previous version.

Inquisitor M said:

EDIT: oh, and purely as a templating issue (I'm talking to you here Mr Hatta), Astrid's constant ability still causes issues because it has no timing window. All other similar effects have either a play trigger (R:'s) or a resolution trigger (pending E: or F: effects), because effects should never exist without such explicit timing. As it is we all know what it means, probably to the point that no-one else was terribly likely to even notice that it is a technical anomaly, but it would be something I think would be best avoided in future.

Now while IANJH (I am not James Hata)...

There shouldn't be a timing window, because this ability is covered under 2.10 Continuous abilities.

With what you're suggesting, and templating the ability as a triggered ability would allow it to be countered.

So making it a continuous ability was a deliberate choice.

Antigoth said:

Eh... forgive me, but the verbiage being used here is telling me I've not had enough sleep. I'm not sure if we're using the same verbiage to describe the same stuff. I think that the 8.3.3.12 substep needs to be there, because the reversal step is frequently skipped and the rules need to reflect that.

Well, that explains how we see it so differently, I can't even conceive of a single situation where you would skip the Reversal step. even if another effect denies you the ability to play a reversal, you still go through the step, just as you would still have an enhance step even if you were not allowed to play enhances. If you do not automatically do the reversal step to every attack, then the rules as per the current AGR mean you can never play a reversal's R:, because you cannot access the reversal step unless you external effect 'pending' to activate 8.3.3.12.1 since the idea is that you don't play a reversal until the reversal step, it can't be 'pending' with the Reversal keyword R:.

To go step-by-step:

I finish the damage step for a blocked attack and want to play a reversal from hand, weather it dealt damage or not is irrelevant, and I resolve 8.3.3.12 in order.

8.3.3.12.1 Do I have any pending effects to play a reversal? No, skip this part. (in fact, as far as I can see it doesn't actually explain anything about how such effects resolve, it just tells you to go to the reversal step, which also doesn't say anything about how such effects resolve)

8.3.3.12.2 Are there any other attacks pending? No, skip this line too.

8.3.3.12.3 End the attack and return to the active players combat phase. I have not gone to the Reversal phase, so I can't play a reversal.

By resolving this sub step I literally do not get the option of playng a reversal R:, there is simply no option to do so in the written rules, unless you ignore the whole reversal step completely and just rely on the timing window of reversal's R: text. In which case, the reversal step is redundant, since you're playing a reversal without being in the reversal step. There is onle 1 line in the AGR that takes you to the reversal step, and that rules does not account for the most obvious reason, so that you can play the reversal keyword.

8.3.4.1 says you can play the reversal keyword here, yet you can't actually get to the reversal step unless you have already played a reversal-related ability that is pending. So you can never play the reversal R: here, ever, the rules simply don't allow for the possibility.

As for Astrid's continuous ability, 2.10 changes nothing regarding what I have said. Giving it a timing window does not make it any more counterable than it already is. How would "After you block an opponent's attack, you may play any weapon attack as a reversal" be more counterable?

Continuous abilities that let you do something ALWAYS have a timing condition attached, for example: "If you discard this card due to your opponent's card effect, your opponent loses X vitality...etc", In this situation do that . Astrid's ability is supposed to let you DO something, but without a qualifier for when and without explicitly saying what to do, it in fact does nothing. After all, I could just as easily say that every character has that ability by default, because there is no rules saying that weapon attacks can't be played as reversals, you normally just need some way of doing it, usually the reversal keyword. So yeah, thanks Astrid for letting me do something I wasn't denied the ability to do already, now if only you gave me a way of actually playing those attacks after blocking an opponent's attack, but no luck, you don't. If Astrid was going to actually give you the ability to PLAY an attack in the same manner as a reversal, it would have to say "after you block an opponent's attack, play any weapon attack as a reversal", because that is an ability that says when this happens, do that . Without actually saying saying do that , you still don't have a way of physically playing the card in the timing window of a reversal.

On the other hand, we could assume that 'may' basically stands for 'if you want to then go ahead and do it because the golden rules applies'. Healer is in fact the perfect example of how this wording is being used, it says when you block you MAY play any attack that shares 2 symbols with the block as a reversal. I assume 'may' is supposed to mean 'do it now because the golden rule says you can'. Ok, well if that's the case, after my opponent plays his 3rd foundation of a turn, the Astrid player says 'I'd like to play this weapon attack as a reversal now', because the constant ability says he may. Not, he may when he blocks an attack, just permanent you may, all the time, constantly. If that seems ludicrous and 'you may' only means 'when you would normally' the Healer's ability does nothing, because it would effectivey say 'when you could nomally play an attack, you can play an attack that shares 2 symbols etc.', which won't happen because of course you can't normally play an attack on your opponnet's turn, you need an explicit rule to TELL you to play the attack and thus invoke the golden rule.

The whole problem here is that Astrid and healer both rely on the idea that 'play as a reversal' means something and and of itself. It is supposed to be a way of playing an attack as a reversal without actually playing the reversal R:. This is simply not the case however, the only reason such wording has worked in the past is because abilities that allowed you to play attacks 'as reversals' explicitly stated that you may/must play an attack at the time the ability was resolving, thereby invoking the golden rule. The reversal keyword works because it says "he may immediately attempt to play this attack from hand", so you have timing in the form of the response trigger, an extra condition of having played a block, and an option to be carried out immediately or not at all. If an attack does not actually have the reversal keyword to play, then it can only be played as a reversal because another effect explicitly tells you that you can. Astrid's abilitiy does NOT do this as written, or, if it does, then since it has NO timing trigger and therefore can be played any time. Again, healer is excellent proof that this already exists in the game, since the trigger for the responce is 'after you block an attack', meaning that you are not in fact playing the attack during the reversal step, you're just playing it whenever the effect tells you to.

Wait, wait...I see something...is your intention that healer allows you to play the attack immediately, but it waits until the reversal step to resolve that attack 'as a reversal'? Is that what you mean by playing an attack 'as a reversal'? Suddenly it makes sense that that might be what you mean, or at least, what the AGR is supposed to mean, and hence why you see 8.3.3.12.1 as being essential, where as I cannot understand what it actually does. Also, you said "Healer fulfills the requirement of 8.3.4.1" which implies that you see 'playing an attack as a reversal' as meaning 'play the reversal response as if it was printed on the attack, even though it isn't", which would make a lot of the other stuff make sense. Is that it?

Inquisitor M said:

Wait, wait...I see something...is your intention that healer allows you to play the attack immediately, but it waits until the reversal step to resolve that attack 'as a reversal'? Is that what you mean by playing an attack 'as a reversal'? Suddenly it makes sense that that might be what you mean, or at least, what the AGR is supposed to mean, and hence why you see 8.3.3.12.1 as being essential, where as I cannot understand what it actually does. Also, you said "Healer fulfills the requirement of 8.3.4.1" which implies that you see 'playing an attack as a reversal' as meaning 'play the reversal response as if it was printed on the attack, even though it isn't", which would make a lot of the other stuff make sense. Is that it?

Bingo.

That is pretty much exactly it.

I've just gotten home from another meeting, so I'm not going to try and digest everything else written at the moment. Please note with the AGR we are attempting to codify everything, and give everything a specific timing step so you can say "X happens here."

I totally agree with you that the entire attack sequence needs some cleaning. Armed Pirate has been so kind as to go line by line through the entire document and providing feedback, much of which is going to be used in the AGR revision. What you're reading is largely what was the first draft, of what James and I agreed was going to be a living document. (It had to be better then what we had (which it is by miles) but we both agreed that while it would be nice for it to be perfect on the first go through, we agreed that I was human and would not be capable of providing perfection on the first draft. )

I'm a little on the crispy side, so I'm just going to stop rambling here, and will come back to it after I've had some sleep.

Well..the forum will still be here when your'e awake :P

But yeah, ok, so I get the theory behind that, but I'm honestly surprised if anyone actually thought that, for example Healer, didn't play the attack as soon as the card told you to as opposed to let you play a card later. That seems ambiguous at best without a glossary description of what 'playing an attack as a reversal' actually means, because usually if an ability says you can play a card it means NOW unless if specifically gives you a time frame, which effects like Healer don't, they at best vagely infer a general concept.