6 replies to this topic

[SynnerG]

Commander Shadowsun

Reaction: After this warlord commits to a planet, put a Tau attachment with printed cost 2 or lower or "Shadowsun's Stealth Cadre" from your hand or discard pile into play attached to an eligible unit at this planet.

 

Blacksun Filter

Reaction: After an enemy warlord commits to the same planet as attached unit, gain 1 resource.

 

If you are committing to a planet with Commander Shadowsun and use her reaction to put Blacksun Filter into play on an eligible unit and an enemy warlord is also committing to the same planet, will Blacksun Filter's reaction trigger? Does initiative order matter?

[Asklepios]

Great question: relates to timing of reactions to Warlord commitments I think:

 

Had something similar at GamerzNexus the other day, and I think the answers will be related so will add it to this thread:

 

Was playing Ragnar vs Ragnar. We both had Blackmane Sentinels at other planets. Me at Planet 3, him at Planet 3. I also had a Ratling Sniper at 3, so I had command at 1+3, he at 2+4.

 

We then both committed our warlords, me to Planet 1, him to Planet 2. I had initiative.

 

Nature of the command was that if I moved my Sentinel to Planet 1 he'd aid my combat to some small degree, but unless he moved his Sentinel as well I'd lose my command win at Planet 3 as well, as it'd now be a draw. Thus I was only planning to move him if he did.

 

As I had initiative, he said I had to decide whether to move my Warlord or not (p13 rrg: Player with initiative has first opportunity to react). I said actually, if I passed then he passed, we'd stay put, but if I passed then he reacted, I'd have another chance to react again, as two consecutive passes are needed to close reaction window.

 

We read this and agreed, but then he went:

 

"But actually, we're not reacting to the same commit. We're reacting to two different commits. You have initiative, so your Warlord moves first."

 

Stupidly, I accepted his rightness in this.

 

Afterwards I checked the RRG p12 and noted that on Priority of Simultaneous Resolution, the player with initiative decides which effect resolves first. I could therefore have said that his commitment happens "simultaneously, but first".

In my scenario, Initiative was what mattered, as this determined which effect happened first (and thus which reaction window opened and closed first).

 

I now believe that I could have had the reaction window to his commitment complete in full before initiating the reaction window to my commit.

 

Is that right PB?

 

---

 

On a related note, I believe that the OP is even simpler, as they're to the same reaction window:

 

Shadowsun commits. Reaction window to this opens.

Shadowsun's player reacts with Shadowsun. That reaction completes in full, Blacksun Filter goes into play.

The opponent passes or reacts.

Shadowsun's player then reacts with Blacksun. That reaction completes in full.

Then both pass.

Then the reaction window closes.

 

Its my understanding that triggered abilities check their eligibility at the time they activate, not at the time the window opens. (vide foresight vs blackmane's hunt rules thread).

 

In your scenario, Initiative only determines who has first opportunity to react.

 

In the scenario where the opponent has a relevant reaction to his own Commit (like Blackmane's Hunt), Initiative becomes important, as in my example, but in determining which effect comes first

[PBrennan]

Best Answer

To the OP's question, yes, it can.

 

In this game, there's no storing states for triggering conditions. If a triggering condition is true right now, you can trigger it regardless of whether it was in play, or non-true, when this interrupt/reaction window first opened.

 

In this example, the commitment step happens, and then the reaction window to that commitment step opens. Regardless of initiative and who has the first reaction opportunity, in your first reaction opportunity, you'd trigger Shadowsun's reaction and attach Blacksun Filter to an eligible army unit. In your second reaction opportunity, you can trigger BF's reaction because, right now, its triggering condition is true ... you're still in the reaction window to the commitment step, and the enemy warlord committed to the planet where the attached unit is currently located. So therefore you trigger, gaining the resource.

[PBrennan]

To Askelepios' question, there is just the one reaction window which opens to the mass commitment because it's a framework driven step where all units commit simultaneously. Within that reaction window, all reactions to each unit committing would occur, starting with the player with initiative and then alternating between the players. So you had the right of it in the first place ... you could have passed, forcing your opponent to react first, if at all, and then you could have come back in and reacted after that as there hadn't been two consecutive passes to that point.

 

If a reaction within that window results in a new commitment happening (a la Foresight), then in that case a new nested reaction window would open to that individual commitment (and which would have to close before you continue within the initial reaction window), because that's an example of an individual effect-driven commitment, as opposed to the mass framework-driven commitment which has just the one reaction window.

 

I recall there might be a Ragnar or Blackbane Sentinel thread that covers this, and another for Foresight and Eldorath Starbane that has some examples of how this plays out, if you're looking for something to point your opponent at.

[xraysteve]

I believe the scenario I'm going to propose is similar to one suggested in the Blackmane thread:

 

If the enemy warlord were to move to a different planet post-committment (but still in that reaction setting)prior to BF's triggering, BF's reaction would not happen, correct?  

 

Similar to if the warlord were to move off of Blackmane's planet prior to his reaction triggering?

[PBrennan]

Correct. At the time it's your reaction opportunity, BF's triggering condition is not true (the enemy warlord has committed - tick - but the enemy warlord is not currently at the same planet as the attached unit).

 

In retrospect, this might have been more simply worded as "Reaction: After an enemy warlord commits to this planet, gain 1 resource.", because they each resolve the same way.

[sharpobject]

At the time it's your reaction opportunity, BF's triggering condition is not true (the enemy warlord has committed - tick - but the enemy warlord is not currently at the same planet as the attached unit).

This ruling seems to contradict this other ruling from another thread:

On the other hand, though, once valid, the movement of the enemy warlord cannot STOP Ragnar's reaction, either. For example:
1) Ragnar and Eldorath commit to Planet A (TC #1) -- NOTE, there is an enemy warlord where Ragnar committed during TC #1
2) Eldorath reacts to TC #1 and uses Foresight to commit to Planet B (TC #2)
3) Eldorath reacts to TC #2 and exhausts a unit at Planet B (nested reaction)
4) Ragnar reacts to TC #1 and damages a unit (remaining) at Planet A because there was an enemy warlord there when TC #1 was created (even though there is NOT one there now)
5) Eldorath reacts to TC #1 and exhausts a unit at Planet A
6) Ragnar reacts to TC #1 and uses Hunt to commit to Planet B (TC #3) -- NOTE: There is a warlord at Planet B when Ragnar committed for TC #3
7) Ragnar reacts to TC #3 and damages a unit at Planet B because there was an enemy warlord there when TC #3 was created (nested reaction)
8) Ragnar reacts to TC #3 and moves a Sentinel to Planet B (nested reaction)
9) Ragnar reacts to TC #1 and moves a Sentinel to Planet A

link to other thread: http://www.cardgamed...window-resolve/

Is that other ruling incorrect?

How would you phrase an ability that just requires the warlord to have committed to the planet where the unit is present, but does not require the warlord to still be at that planet?

It is somewhat confusing when abilities that read "Reaction: After X event occurs, do Y" are ruled to secretly mean "Reaction: After X event occurs, if some other unwritten condition W is true, do Y". I don't have a good sense for how to find out what W's exist, if any, for each reaction in the game.

Edit: I spoke to some L5R rules knowers and they said this is about which part of the reaction is specifying a triggering condition and which part is specifying a property of the gamestate that must be true when the reaction is actually used. That's good to know, but we seem to still lack any way to determine in general which category things fall into. In the case of Ragnar, we're told that the location of the enemy warlord is part of the triggering condition, and in the case of BF, we're told that it is not. When reading any other card that reacts to commitments, how can a player know whether the location of the committing units to use is the one at the time of commitment or the one at the time of triggering the reaction? How can a player know whether the planet which was committed to is part of the triggering condition (as is also the case with Ragnar) or just a weird way of saying "the planet where the unit is"?