If i played diseased sewer rats would his come into play effect of wounding someone with skill 2 or less still go off if the Y'ha-nthlei Statue is in play? Why or why not?

Thanks,

-Kama

I might be incorrect here, but I believe passive effects like the statue go off before a forced response. So in this case, you play the rats as an action, and then the statue's passive ability would destroy it before the forced response can activate.

I'm probably wrong though.

badash56 said:

jhaelen said:

Actually, he is. The forced response still must trigger. The only difference is that the rats can't target himself as he would be off the field.

"5) Forced Responses
After any passive abilities triggered as
a result of the action or disrupt are
resolved, forced responses that trigger
off the action, the disrupt or passive
ability resolved previously during the
Action Window now trigger in the order
determined by the active player."

Aka.

1.Your action, play the rats.
2.Rats enter play, triggers forced repsonse, and statue.
3.Passive resolves first, kills rats.
4.Forced response resolves second. Wound a character.

Base principle: The statue can't kill the rats until its in play. Since its technically in play(for a breef moment) its still long enough for the forced response to trigger. Thus creating a simultanous trigger. In this case, both must resolve and since the rats' ability doesn't require for it to remain in play (merely enter) the statue does not stop the wound effect.

Interesting, see I said I was probably wrong.

Just so I understand this a little better for the future: I'm looking at the FAQ right now and it looks like passive abilities resolve before forced responses are checked (step 4 then step 5 under the 'action window in detail' section). So even though the Rats are removed from play in step 4 (it says in the faq that card killed are immediately removed from play), the forced response can still trigger from the discard pile? Or does the forced response still trigger since the action of playing the Rats was completed?

Sorry if I'm not getting something, but thanks for the clarification!

badash56 said:

The chart shows the order things are resolved, not checked.

When the rats entered play it triggered 2 effects simultaneously. The statue, and the Forced Reponse . The chart helps us determine the order in which we resolve the effects.

Ahhh ok, thank you!

Magnus Arcanis said:

It's been stated (correctly) time and again, that CoC doesn't have any kind of action stack.

For the Rat's Forced Response to trigger, it must be in play. Since the Statue's passive effect is fully resolved before any Forced Responses are even looked at, there's nothing there to trigger:

Any cards that are killed, discarded,
or returned to hand as a result of the
passive ability immediately leave play.

and:

card effects on non-event cards in a
player’s hand or discard pile are not
considered to be actionable unless the
card specifically states that it can be
triggered while in its out-of-play state.

While Magnus is correct, that now any applicable Forced Responses are checked, the Rats' isn't considered because it's no longer actionable. Only Forced Responses from cards still in play are relevant (unless it's a Forced response that also triggers on entering the discard pile).

I'd definitely like to see an official confirmation about this question, though. While I appreciated the addition of the detailed Action/Response section to the FAQ, I don't feel it's particularly clear.

I stand firmly in both corners on this matter! If there is no stack, then a card effect can only be executed if the card is in play at the time its effect should be resolved. However, it is also intuitive that the effect triggered should persist throughout the resolution of the single step.

So who is going to write Damon for an official ruling?

There is indeed no stack.... but this isn't a stack. Its a simultaneous trigger.

You'd be right if this was just a Response as it wouldn't be checked until everything else is done resolving. Forced Responses are handled differently and once they're triggered they must resolve.

Too, don't forget. The rats' trigger is off of you "playing" them. I mention this to discount the rats needing to be in play to trigger the effect.

So in effect you are saying that there is a stack, but a very small one that only stores simultaneous effects?

Surely they both trigger? The rats have to come into play for the statue to kill them, so rats come in trigger and then die simultaneously. For it to be anything else seems rather silly.

That's probably the right answer, but it does require a mini-stack. The rats come into play. Two things happen: Statue triggers, Rats trigger. Passive effects resolve first, so Rats are destroyed. Now it is time for Rats to trigger, but they are not there. So the only way they can trigger is if their effect was stored somewhere between them entering play and the resolution of the Statue's effect. That would be a stack, in my understanding.

TheProfessor said:

Ehhh, almost. Having a stack means not only can we delay a resolution or partial resolution of effects but there are entire windows open that one can enter new effects which can in turn delay other effects or partial effects anywhere along the stack. However, we can't do that in CoC. So, its not a stack.

Its merely, and only, an order of resolution. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING can interrupt the resolution(s) of a simultaneous trigger. Effects can triggerd before, or after everything, but not during. Not even Disrupts .

So... ya not a stack.

When the rats are played and subsequentially enter play the two effects are triggered at the same time. They don't get re-checked later. So we know that both effects are resolving, but which one happens first? Thanks to the chart we know now. That is all.

I guess it is about semantics. We agree on the result, just differing opinion on describing it.

To me, when the events trigger, they must be stored somewhere. A stack is standard computer terminology for short term memory storage. Stacks don't require windows of access, just a place to hold things so that if the card is gone the effect is still there.

I think this little pedantic quibble is essential to logically think it through. If there is no stack, then there are only cards. And if the card is gone, then necessarily the effect is gone because it doesn't exist anywhere else. But if there is a stack into which a card effect is stored, then there is no problem if the card is gone.

TheProfessor said:

Being that we're playing a card game I think we should stick to the card game definition of stack... regardless. I think you might be getting stuck on believing that a card needs to be in play for effect to work or resolve.

Once an effect is triggered (and barring any disrupts) the effect will resolve regardless of where it came from (unless the effect requires something to be somewhere of course).

The rats, don't need to be in play for his effect to work. They merely need to be 'play'ed.

Say for some strange reason there exsisted an effect that let you "Play" cards into your discard pile. Rats would still trigger because you "played' it.

Now... I could be wrong so lets look at another effect. Let say... Dimensional Rift. When that goes off we need to move all cards in play to the discard pile. 'Technically' I'm moving those cards one at a time. I'm not really creating a stack in which cards are going to the discard pile, I'm merely choosing and resolving them in a specific order.

Yes, its definately become a argument of semantics, but if you call it a stack (in card game definitions) I believe that would be labeling it wrong and has consequences if we did anyway.

Consequences such as if it were a stack, Diseased Sewer Rats would not trigger as it would be destroyed before it can finish being 'played'.

Not a stack!!!!

Sadric said:

Sadric said:

I find this news distrubing as Damon ruled completely the opposite at worlds' 11.

However, a lot has changed since then (including my understanding of whats being described in the FAQ timing structure section).

So, based on what we have now (including my current understanding), I suppose I'd now agree with this new ruling.

It occured to me however that there was a good chance that I should've came to this conclusion much sooner if I hadn't simply re-explained what I had basically gotten from Damon (obviously not his exact words) sometime earlier instead of studing the FAQ timing structure section more.

For this I apologize. I had not realize how drastic some of the changes in the last 2 faqs where and I was still operating older intrepetations of how things worked. Again I'm sorry if I caused any problems and I'm glad a more current truth was revealed before people walked into a more critical tournament.