The Hand's Judgment (THJ)
Interrupt: When the effects of an opponent's event would initiate, cancel those effects. X is that event's printed cost.
The rules are quite clear about canceling THJ canceling another THJ at zero cost.
But what about the following rule anomaly.
RR page 7
When a player plays an event card, its costs arepaid, its effects are resolved (or canceled), and thecard is placed in its owner's discard pile prior toopening the reaction window which follows theability's resolution.
Looks to me like an event card is placed in its owner's discard pile between the resolving of the effects and the reaction window.
Is the following timing correct?
Player A plays some event card #1, pays cost, chooses targets
Triggering condition T1 becomes imminent: effects of #1 initiate
Interrupt window for T1 opens
Player B plays THJ #2, pays cost
Triggering condition T2 becomes imminent: effects of #2 initiate
Interrupt window for T2 opens
Player A plays THJ #3, pays 0 cost
Triggering condition T3 becomes imminent: effects of #3 initiate
Interrupt window for T3 opens
Interrupt window for T3 closes
Effects of #3 are resolved: #2 is canceled
#3 is placed in discard pile
Reaction window for T3 opens
Reaction window for T3 closes
Interrupt window for T2 closes instantly, because T2 is canceled
#2 is placed in discard pile
Interrupt window for T1 closes
Effects of #1 are resolved
#1 is placed in discard pile
Reaction window for T1 opens
Reaction window for T1 closes
If yes, what prevents player B from playing his THJ #2 in the interrupt window for T3?
The card is still in his hand, the 0 cost can be paid, it has the potential to change the game state, there is a new triggering condition.