If LS uses C-3PO to cancel the effects of my Force Lightning, can I still do damage with Vader?

What do the cards say? What does the rule book say about cancel? (Pg27)

after looking at those three items, what do you think?

Niranth said:

I wouldn't ask this question if I was sure how to interpret the rule book on this.

Since C-3PO's text says that his sacrifice cancels the "effects" of an event card, the sith event was played (even though it fizzled), therefore Vader's response goes off.

stormwolf27 said:

I must concur with this interpretation. The Vader card does not say you have to succesfully play an event card. Personally I´d suspect that the design idea is that it has to be succesfully cast. The way it is worded should mean that Vader´s reaction ability triggers though

Fbaranow said:

i agree with the way Stormwolf27 interprets the combination. The trigger on Vader's card was met and nothing undoes that.

Nerdmeister said:

Vader's reaction does require that an event card is "successfully" played. The card must meet all requirements to have been considered played (see page 13, terms). If the effect of that event card is cancelled, the event still resolves, but its effect is "not executed and has no result," per cancelled definition on page 27.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Surge1000 said:

page 13 of rulebook: "Play: describes an action where a player pays the resource cost of a card in hand and places it into play (for a unit card or an enhancement card) or resolves it´s effects and then discards it (for an event card)"

Is this the paragraph you are refering to?

Anyway nobody is disputing that the effect of the event card is cancelled but I still don´t see from this definition how Vader´s ability is invalidated. Again, personally, I believe the intent is that the event has to be succesfully played. However having an effect on an event card cancelled does not change that you did in fact play an event card, which is Vader´s reaction trigger.

page 24 of rulebook: "When a player plays an event card, he must pay it´s resource cost (if any) before executing it´s ability. After resolving the effect of an event card, it is discarded"

The card is still played, even though it´s effect was cancelled. If you know of a clearly stated definition that opposes this statement, I´d very much like a pointer in the right direction.

I think you misunderstood him. Vader's ability requires the event to be successfully played. C-3PO cancels the effects of the event, but it still is successfully played. There are some semantic gymnastics to make everything work, but this discussion came up not too long ago and the playtester supported solution was that the effects of a "canceled" event still resolve (meeting the requirements for played), but the effects are now nothing.

Then I´m not sure what the definition of an unsuccesfully played event card would be. Since it sounds like an event card is succesfully played even when it´s effect is cancelled. Ah well, I´m just musing now

Wonder if I just derailed the thread

Nerdmeister said:

Hypothetical future cards that mess with Event cards in other ways? *shrugs*

Nerdmeister said:

I would say that if someone placed Force Choke on the table, put the damage from Force Choke and from Vader's reaction on his opponent's cards, then the opponent points out that he doesn't have enough resources to play Force Choke, that would be an example of unsuccessfully played. Other than that, I, too, am at a loss.

Budgernaut said:

Not enough resources to pay the 0 for Force Choke would be tricky ;-) In seriousness though, they could print an interrupt in the future that increases the cost of event cards for the rest of the turn, which could cause an attempt to play one to be unsuccessful if you didn't have an extra resource.

dbmeboy said:

Sounds like MtG's Instants and Interrupts …

It looks like there is no simple answer to my question. In light of all arguments I think I will go with Vader's effect working despite the cancel. At lease untill an official FAQ. Thanks guys for putting light on the matter from both sides.

dbmeboy said:

Oh, right. I forgot it costs 0.

Oh yuck…I hate the idea that cancelling the effect of the card is not the same as cancelling the card. This also makes Darth Vader's Reaction unstoppable via Events and Reactions from the light side. Of course, one can use "Protect: Character" or various other damage prevention effects, but it sure seems like Vader's Reaction is uber-good if this is indeed the rules interpretation.

I hope this is in the FAQ. It seems counterintuitive to say "Ah, you cancelled part of my card, but not all of it, so Darth Vader deals one damage to your Unit."

I reject this convoluted rationale - it justifies "in the know" gameplay and will really punish new players and players new to customized card games in general in tournaments.

MIND YOU: I'm not saying this is a WRONG interpretation of the rules right now. I'm afraid that it is CORRECT and I hope there is a clarification or ruling to make it where when a card is cancelled it is considered not to be played - much like Counterspelling a card in Magic means the card was not played therefore other effects of "When you play XXXX" don't resolve.

I mean, Darth Vader is a powerful character, of course, but this seems like a real "gotcha!" to players who interpret the word "cancelled" the way it is normally used in contemporary English speech rather than in "card game terms" as it is here.

Darik said:

Actually, the rules in Magic don't care if a card is countered; once a spell meets the criteria of being "cast," any effects that would trigger do so. The timing works a little differently in SW because of how interrupts are used, typically with a "when" modifier, a specific term defined in the SW rulebook.

For an example in Magic, look at the card Quirion Dryad:

Card Type: Creature

Creature Type: Dryad

Power/Toughness: 1/1

Casting Cost: 1

Card Text: Whenever you play a white, blue, black, or red spell, put a +1/+1 counter on Quirion Dryad.

Oracle Text: Whenever you cast a white, blue, black, or red spell, put a +1/+1 counter on Quirion Dryad.

If a player controlling Quirion Dryad casts Lightning Bolt, the effect of LB goes on the stack; the opponent may cast a counterspell, cancelling the effect. However, the Quirion Dryad would still receive a +1/+1 counter. The rules team for Magic fairly recently changed the terminology of "play" to "cast" technically for all non-lands card, but the intent is the same. In the case of SW, "play" would be equivalent to "cast." Although the timing is a bit different and SW doesn't employ the stack for effects resolution, the outcome is the same.

I think it's trickier than magic, because play has different definitions depending on the card type (see pg 13) I don't think vader gets to use his ability. I think Magic changed the wording of play and cast, because of this type of wording issue.

Vader says "after you play a sith event"

Play is on pg 13 - and describes an action (for an event card) where you resolve it's effects and then discard it.

After (on pg 27) says, the word after refers to a game occurence that has just been concluded.

A: Can we agree that by the above definitions an Event card is only considered (sucessfully) played when it's effects have been resolved?

If so move on to the next point - if we can't agree on this, I think we probably need to wait for an FAQ to clarify.

Cancel is usually an interrupt- which causes an effect to simply not be executed and have no result. (But the cancelled cards costs must still be paid)

B: Since the Sith Event card triggering Vader's reaction is cancelled, it's effect was simply not executed and therefore the sith event's effect is not resolved. (It was not executed), this means the sith event was not played! (by the definition of play for event cards) So Vader's reaction doesn't get to happen, because it didn't get a trigger.

What do you think of the above logic? It seems tight to me.

Ravncat said:

A: We agree. I'm not sure if it was on this board or another where I laid out the criteria for played, and yes, an event card's effects must be resolved for it to have been considered played according to terms on page 13.

B: Here's where we disagree. The rules are careful to avoid using the word "resolved" when discussing what happens when an effect is cancelled. The effect is "not executed" and has "no result." Again, notice the careful word usage. The effect resolves, but its result is nothing, because it was cancelled. The playtester I confer with regularly agreed that the explanation he was given during playtesting was the same, and they were instructed that cancelled sith event cards did trigger Vader's reaction.

I definitely expect to see clarification in the FAQ.

Ravncat said:

They say they changed it to separate entirely how lands are normally put into play vs other creatures, effects, etc. Lands are still referred to as "played" but never as "casted." Other card types are "casted" or "put into play," which is similar to "played" vs "put into play" in SW, except that in Magic, "put into play" takes all costs into account whereas in SW, "put into play" only means 0 resource cost, but any other costs are still required to be paid (a sacrifice, for example).

Surge1000 said:

Thanks for that, further thought causes me to cancel my whole argument. The problem is in the definition of play and how you read it. (Not in the definition of cancel)

Play describes an action where a player (1) or (2). vs Play describes an action where a player (1) and (A) or (B).

In the first case, you have

(1) pay the costs and of a card in hand and put it into play

or

(2) resolve the effects of an event card and then discard it.

in the second case, you have

(1) Pay the costs of a card in hand.

AND

(a) put it into play or (b) resolve the effects of an event card and then discard it.

In the first case - paying the cost of the event card is not a part of playing the card - and thus a cancelled event effect isn't actually played and vader gets no reaction trigger!

in the second case - paying the cost of the event card is part of playing the card - and thus a cancelled event effect is actually played, and vader gets a reaction trigger.

I think we'll find that the second case is the proper reading, as it makes a whole slew of problems go away - and is consistant with what you heard from the playtester. Note the nice language parallels of the and before "put into play" and the and before "then discard it". This I think helps make it easier to misinterpret the parsing.

Interesting. I never interpreted "play" the way you described in your "first case," but after rereading the term summary on page 13 a few times, I can actually see how one could make that interpretation based upon the way "and" is used. I had to squint my eyes a bit, but now I can see the ugly witch in the picture and not just the pretty lady.

I always read the criteria for "play" as follows, with each individual criterion having to be met for its respective card type:

1) Unit cards, enhancement cards -

a) player pays the resource cost of a card in hand

b) transfers it into play

OR

2) event cards -

a) player pays the resource cost of a card in hand

b) resolves its effect

c) discards it

So yeah, in my initial discussion about why cancelled Sith events still trigger Vader's ability, my argument hinged on meeting criteria for what constitutes the definition of "play" as it refers to event cards. I would have pointed that out earlier had I remembered in which post and on what board I laid out my initial argument.

I know this isn't the best 'logic' but most games tend to follow the path that even if the effects of card x were cancelled/negated then card x still counts as being played so I am happy to play things that way and I read the rules as being ok in that regards (pending an FAQ)

I try not to nit pick the rules to hard - I all to often find that rules don't have 'easter-eggs'