Hi Folks. Loving the game so far. But we have encountered a tough to resolve card interaction.

Armageddon Cloak"This creature gains... and Destroyed: Fully heal this creature and destroy Armageddon Cloak instead."

Stealer of Souls "After an enemy creature is destroyed fighting Stealer of Souls, purge that creature and gain 1 Aember."

Does this fall to the "active player determines order of events" rule?

For Reference:
Armageddon Cloak: This creature gains hazardous 2 and, "Destroyed: Fully heal this creature and destroy Armageddon Cloak instead."
Stealer of Souls: After an enemy creature is destroyed fighting Stealer of Souls, purge that creature and gain 1[Æ]. (A purged creature is removed from the game.)
Destroyed: When a card is destroyed, it is placed in its owner’s discard pile. If a card has a “Destroyed:” ability, the effect resolves automatically when the card is destroyed, immediately before it leaves play
Purge: When a card is purged, it is removed from the game and placed facedown beneath its owner’s identity card. Purged cards no longer interact with the game state in any manner.

No need to have the Active Player make a decision here, actually. The creature that is fighting Stealer of Souls gets Destroyed:, it has to, to trigger the Destroyed: effect of the Armageddon Cloak. Since the creature was destroyed after fighting the Stealer of Souls, the Armageddon Cloak gets destroyed (going to the Discard pile), the creature is fully healed, and then the creature is Purged (and removed from the game).

It's important to note that being Destroyed is not a requirement to being Purged, and Purging does not trigger Destroyed: abilities.

18 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

Hi Folks. Loving the game so far. But we have encountered a tough to resolve card interaction.

Armageddon Cloak"This creature gains... and Destroyed: Fully heal this creature and destroy Armageddon Cloak instead."

Stealer of Souls "After an enemy creature is destroyed fighting Stealer of Souls, purge that creature and gain 1 Aember."

Does this fall to the "active player determines order of events" rule?

Active player would determine the order giving you two scenarios:
1: Resolve Stealer of Souls ability first, it's owner gains 1 aember and the creature with Armageddon cloak is purged, it's secondary effect does not occur because it may no longer interact with the game state as per the purge rules.
2: Armageddon Cloak is resolved first the creature is fully healed, armageddon cloak is discarded. Then you must resolve stealer of souls ability.
Thus in the end the outcome is the same, the creature is still purged and stealer of souls owner still gains 1 aember.

3 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Active player would determine the order giving you two scenarios:
1: Resolve Stealer of Souls ability first, it's owner gains 1 aember and the creature with Armageddon cloak is purged, it's secondary effect does not occur because it may no longer interact with the game state as per the purge rules.
2: Armageddon Cloak is resolved first the creature is fully healed, armageddon cloak is discarded. Then you must resolve stealer of souls ability.
Thus in the end the outcome is the same, the creature is still purged and stealer of souls owner still gains 1 aember.

I think for the 2nd case, the creature wouldn't be purged because the Armageddon Cloak says "destroy Armageddon Cloak instead" so the creature wouldn't be considered destroyed thus it cannot be purged since Stealer of Souls requires the creature to be destroyed in order to purge it.

2 minutes ago, Psi23 said:

I think for the 2nd case, the creature wouldn't be purged because the Armageddon Cloak says "destroy Armageddon Cloak instead" so the creature wouldn't be considered destroyed thus it cannot be purged since Stealer of Souls requires the creature to be destroyed in order to purge it.

Not sure, because it has to be destroyed for the Destroyed effect on Armageddon cloak to even go off, I believe the "instead" is referring to following through with the normal process of destruction being placing the card into the discard pile and "instead" is merely healed whilst the upgrade is discarded.

3 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Not sure, because it has to be destroyed for the Destroyed effect on Armageddon cloak to even go off, I believe the "instead" is referring to following through with the normal process of destruction being placing the card into the discard pile and "instead" is merely healed whilst the upgrade is discarded.

Creature gets Destroyed This triggers armageddon cloak

after creature gets destroyed (stealer of souls) - no creature was destroyed (cloak was instead), so fails to trigger.

Destroyed and after destroyed logically do not trigger at the same time. Cloak will always trigger first and prevent Stealer from triggering.

25 minutes ago, Palpster said:

Creature gets Destroyed This triggers armageddon cloak

after creature gets destroyed (stealer of souls) - no creature was destroyed (cloak was instead), so fails to trigger.

Destroyed and after destroyed logically do not trigger at the same time. Cloak will always trigger first and prevent Stealer from triggering.

We may need more clarification there because you start with “creature gets destroyed”. This is a must for the destroyed trigger, which in turn should trigger the stealer of souls ability even if the cloak takes the hit as the creature still had to be destroyed to trigger the cloaks ability. I can see where you’re coming from and you may be right but I’d like to see an official ruling here as it’s a bit muddy with the instead and general requirements for a destroyed effect (that or the cloak should have been a constant effect that merely said “when this creature would be destroyed instead destroy Armageddon cloak and heal it to full) as it stands making it a destroyed effect just keeps it in play but still technically fits the trigger for SOS.

Edit: Nevermind I believe you may be correct. Went and looked up Destroyed on page 10:

”When a card is destroyed it is placed in its owners discard pile.

If a card has a Destroyed: ability, the effect resolves automatically when the card is destroyed, immediately before it leaves play”

I could certainly see that “instead” basically doing what you say given the effect is not “after” it’s destroyed but instead happens at the same time.

A good one for the devs still for some clarification.

There are some simple language clarifications that could help. Armageddon Cloak could say “if this creature would be destroyed, destroy Armageddon Cloak instead.” Right now it doesn’t.

@blinkingline the problem is that in the middle of being destroyed (which involves going to the discard pile) you trigger an action that causes the creature not to be destroyed. Armageddon Cloak says “instead,” indicating that the creature is not destroyed. And Stealer of Souls says “after.” I think your interpretation sounds valid but there is enough doubt that people are going to argue about it unless there is some clarification.

1 hour ago, BigBadAndy said:

There are some simple language clarifications that could help. Armageddon Cloak could say “if this creature would be destroyed, destroy Armageddon Cloak instead.” Right now it doesn’t.

@blinkingline the problem is that in the middle of being destroyed (which involves going to the discard pile) you trigger an action that causes the creature not to be destroyed. Armageddon Cloak says “instead,” indicating that the creature is not destroyed. And Stealer of Souls says “after.” I think your interpretation sounds valid but there is enough doubt that people are going to argue about it unless there is some clarification.

I disagree about his interpretation sounding valid, or perhaps it sounds that way, but certainly isn't. Again, Stealer of Soulds triggers after a creature is destroyed, which will not have happened, because the Cloak will have been destroyed instead.

19 minutes ago, Palpster said:

I disagree about his interpretation sounding valid, or perhaps it sounds that way, but certainly isn't. Again, Stealer of Soulds triggers after a creature is destroyed, which will not have happened, because the Cloak will have been destroyed instead.

This is clearly the correct answer. Anything that happens only "after" a particular event happens can not occur unless that prerequisite event actually occurs. The result of Armageddon's Cloak effect is that the creature is NOT destroyed, therefore effect of Stealer of Souls can NOT happen either.

I'm having some serious Destiny déjà vu right now.

3 hours ago, Palpster said:

I disagree about his interpretation sounding valid, or perhaps it sounds that way, but certainly isn't. Again, Stealer of Soulds triggers after a creature is destroyed, which will not have happened, because the Cloak will have been destroyed instead.

There may be more than one valid interpretation. The way Armageddon Cloak is written it gives the character a destroyed action. That only triggers when the character is destroyed. It’s tough to say, then that it’s a preposterous interpretation that soul stealer still applies because the card is not destroyed. If it’s not destroyed then Armageddon Cloak doesn’t trigger either. It’s up for debate. I suspect what people view as valid will be predicated pretty predictably by whether they are holding Armageddon Cloak or Stealer of Souls in their deck... Which is why it should be clarified. If a player using Armageddon Cloak is destroyed but not removed from play then it’s tough to say they shouldn’t be purged by Stealer if Souls. But if Armageddon Cloak retroactively prevents that destruction (rather than just preventing the creature being removed from play) then it shouldn’t. This also opens up a discussion about what triggers first.

I have to say too that it’s a bit disappointing. These are both powerful cards and it took exactly one game of a Dis versus Sanctum to discover the issue. I know it’s nearly impossible to produce simple, unambiguous gameplay on day 1 for a game like this, but this one seems like it probably should have been identified before release.

Cloak literally says: "destroy instead", not discard instead.

Also I don't see why there would be a discussion about what triggers first. Destroyed triggering before "after destroyed" seems crystal clear to me.

Then again, apparently it isn't to everyone, so I agree it would be good to have this in a FAQ.

The creature has to have been destroyed, because you are utilizing the Destroyed: effect. Stealer of Souls doesn't care what happens after it was destroyed, it just says after it's destroyed, purge it. It doesn't say anything about it has to end up in the discard pile, and purging doesn't care about it it was destroyed or not either...purging is just taking it out of play and putting it where it can't come back. There are cards that let you purge cards that are in play. When a card is purged it does not trigger the Destroyed: effects.

I can definately see both sides here (having been on them) in that Destroyed by it's very nature says a creature must be destroyed to trigger it and the Cloak saying instead seems like it intends to want to replace that... but since it's a destroyed effect the creature was still technically destroyed. Seems another case of sloppy wording, pretty sure RAI here is that the creature wouldn't be purged but honestly it could go either way since, again, destroyed by it's very nature says a creature must be destroyed for it to occur. Hopefully it gets included in the new FAQ

2 minutes ago, blinkingline said:

The creature has to have been destroyed, because you are utilizing the Destroyed: effect.

Which states that the artifact is destroyed instead. So no, the creature is not destroyed. Unless you are implying both artifact AND creature are destroyed. Which wouldn’t leave the creature in play and make cloak rather pointless.

Just now, Palpster said:

Which states that the artifact is destroyed instead. So no, the creature is not destroyed. Unless you are implying both artifact AND creature are destroyed. Which wouldn’t leave the creature in play and make cloak rather pointless.

Yeah the problem here is how the card was designed though, because the rules for Destroyed say the creature must be destroyed to trigger the effect, so the creature is and isn't destroyed in this situation. Would have made more sense if instead of being a destroyed effect this was a constant effect on the Cloak that said "when this creature would be destroyed, Cloak is destroyed instead" then there would be no confusion. Mind you I agree with you that I believe that's the intent of Cloak but I also see how someone could rules lawyer it the other way simply do to the nature of the destroyed rules.

7 minutes ago, Palpster said:

Which states that the artifact is destroyed instead. So no, the creature is not destroyed. Unless you are implying both artifact AND creature are destroyed. Which wouldn’t leave the creature in play and make cloak rather pointless.

The creature is destroyed, which triggers the Destroyed effect of the Armageddon cloak.
The cloak is destroyed, and the creature is healed.
The creature is then purged (not destroyed) by the Stealer of Souls, because the creature was destroyed.

Totally agree with TwitchyBait here that what they should have done to accomplish what I'm presuming is the designer's intent is a constant ability. But that's not what is there, so you have to do what's on the cards.

A similar issue comes up with most creatures with Destroyed: effects and Stealer of Souls, like Bad Penny and Dextre; I think they get resolved the same way.
Bad Penny/Dextre is destroyed, and then they get purged.

14 minutes ago, blinkingline said:

The creature is destroyed, which triggers the Destroyed effect of the Armageddon cloak.
The cloak is destroyed, and the creature is healed.
The creature is then purged (not destroyed) by the Stealer of Souls, because the creature was destroyed.

Totally agree with TwitchyBait here that what they should have done to accomplish what I'm presuming is the designer's intent is a constant ability. But that's not what is there, so you have to do what's on the cards.

I will agree to disagree then

I've submitted it to FFG for a clarification, we'll see if they ever respond.

Destroyed Effects happens BEFORE it leaves play

Stealer of Souls happen AFTER it is Destroyed

So Cloak activates first, and causes itself to be destroyed INSTEAD

Stealer activates to Purge a creature that was Destroyed, There are no creatures that were destroyed, Stealer does not Purge.

11 minutes ago, Talamare said:

Destroyed Effects happens BEFORE it leaves play

Stealer of Souls happen AFTER it is Destroyed

So Cloak activates first, and causes itself to be destroyed INSTEAD

Stealer actiavtes to Purge a creature that was Destroyed, which now there are none.

yes and in addition, I would argue that Armageddon cloak stops the destruction of the creature and the creature is never destroyed (hence "instead" in the card text), so Stealer of Souls does not come into effect without active player involvement due to the "after" in SoS.

same for Annihilation Ritual, because the card will never be entered into the discard pile.

3 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

I would argue that Armageddon cloak stops the destruction of the creature and the creature is never destroyed (hence "instead" in the card text), so Stealer of Souls does not come into effect without active player involvement due to the "after" in SoS.

same for Annihilation Ritual, because the card will never be entered into the discard pile.

(we are arguing the same thing, but I'll add some more clarity to my post)