Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Arianne Martell: Jumping in a Dupe / Reacting to Pre-Then effects

- - - - - 2.0 Martell

Best Answer istaril , 14 July 2015 - 07:13 PM

Alright, let's dig into this one. 

 

For the initial question, Arianne putting a copy of herself into play is legitimate, but the copy becomes a duplicate. 

 

Put into play, p17. If an additional copy of a unique card a player already owns and controls is put into play under his or her control, it enters play as a duplicate.

 

Since a duplicate is not a character , a character was not "put into play" after all, so the "Then" portion of the effect does not initiate. What you've done is used Arianne's 1/phase ability to dupe her outside of the Marshalling phase, which is by no means broken, and occasionally be useful.

 

For the second question that came up, which is whether there is an opportunity to react to Arianne putting a character into play BEFORE she herself leaves play, the answer is no. Masterdinadan has almost the right idea here - in order for the two to be reacted to independently, they would have to have their own timing. The catch here is from the entry "initiating abilities/marshaling cards" on p.10; there is only one "step" to which we can react at the end: "resolving". 

 

Initiating abilities/marshaling cards p10.  7. The effects of the ability (if not canceled in step 6) complete their initiation, and resolve.  

 

Everything that happens in that step is technically happening simultaneously from the point of view of the game - just like all costs are being paid simultaneously (costs p5). A then effect initiates at the same time as the rest of the effect, but it's resolution is "held", conditional on the pre-then effect resolving succesfully. If it helps, you can think of "Then" as an indication not of timing passing, but of telling us that one effect's resolution is conditional upon the other's. For practical purposes, that means that one has to have happened before the other, but from a formal logic standpoint it just means the post-then effect can't happen if the pre-then effect doesn't.

 

I know this one is convoluted, so I'm trying to think of a few more good examples to contextualize it. There's the fact that a delayed effect does already exist as a game term - that's an effect which has some effects which occur at a timepoint "After" they're initiated. A "then" effect clearly isn't a mini-delayed effect, if that helps at all?

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
ScionMattly

ScionMattly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Under the current rules framework, you cannot return an Arianne for another Arianne, and then return that Arianne for her again, correct?



#2
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

Arianne puts herself into play, and, if 1.0 is anything to go buy, instantly becomes a duplicate. 

 

Whether the "then" effect goes off depends on whether putting a duplicate into play would satisfy the "put a character into play" having happened successfully, but my guess at this point would be that it does not. 

 

In this scenario, you have "cheated" an Arianne dupe into play, using up the limit 1/phase on her ability. Not usually the best use of her, but could conceivably be an optimal play in some situations.

 

If for some reason, the "then" effect does go off, then Arianne will return to hand (cannot be saved), discarding the duplicate from play in the process. In this scenario, you have "cheated" an Arianne dupe into the discard pile in order to Bounce Arianne without having a character. Could sometimes be an optimal play.



#3
ScionMattly

ScionMattly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Oh, of course. I misremembered her ability, I thought it was to return her to hand to put a character into play. Not put a character in play, then return her to hand.



#4
Avatar

Avatar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts

If the timing were reversed, you could stand her an infinite number of times by kneeling her and then bouncing her and immediately playing her again as a standing character.



#5
mplain

mplain

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1009 posts

Is there a window for reactions between "put a character into play" and "return Arianne to your hand"? Can I play a reaction to a character entering play before Arianne leaves play?


  • uPoHu4Hu9 likes this

#6
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts

Probably not.

 

From what we know so far about 2.0 - and if the interrupt/reaction timing of other LCGs is any indication - reactions to part of an effect cannot be played until after the ability's entire effect has resolved. That is an assumption, of course.

 

Note that this will probably be different for costs, though. Since paying the cost is complete before the ability's effects ever start to resolve, you CAN trigger a reaction to a cost before the effects have resolved. So, for example, if Arianne were "Put a character into play from your hand to return Arianne to your hand," you could react to the character coming into play for cost before Arianne was returned to hand by effect. 



#7
mplain

mplain

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1009 posts

In view of the Rules Reference I take it that the answer my last question is no, I have to wait for Benjen/Arianne's ability to resolve in full before getting an opportunity to play a reaction or interrupt to a part of it?



#8
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts
Arianne's ability creates two different triggering conditions (character put into play, and Arianne leaving play) but these conditions do not occur simultaneously.

You should first resolve any interrupts to the character enterring play, then put it into play, then resolve reactions. Then, resolve interrupts to Arianne leaving play (except saves), then Arianne leaves play, then resolve reactions to Arianne leaving play.

Reactions to separate triggering conditions only occur in the same reaction window if the triggering conditons occurred simultaneously (for example, two characters killed simultaneously due to military claim). In Arianne's case, it seems pretty clear that these aren't simultaneous.

#9
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts
✓  Best Answer

Alright, let's dig into this one. 

 

For the initial question, Arianne putting a copy of herself into play is legitimate, but the copy becomes a duplicate. 

 

Put into play, p17. If an additional copy of a unique card a player already owns and controls is put into play under his or her control, it enters play as a duplicate.

 

Since a duplicate is not a character , a character was not "put into play" after all, so the "Then" portion of the effect does not initiate. What you've done is used Arianne's 1/phase ability to dupe her outside of the Marshalling phase, which is by no means broken, and occasionally be useful.

 

For the second question that came up, which is whether there is an opportunity to react to Arianne putting a character into play BEFORE she herself leaves play, the answer is no. Masterdinadan has almost the right idea here - in order for the two to be reacted to independently, they would have to have their own timing. The catch here is from the entry "initiating abilities/marshaling cards" on p.10; there is only one "step" to which we can react at the end: "resolving". 

 

Initiating abilities/marshaling cards p10.  7. The effects of the ability (if not canceled in step 6) complete their initiation, and resolve.  

 

Everything that happens in that step is technically happening simultaneously from the point of view of the game - just like all costs are being paid simultaneously (costs p5). A then effect initiates at the same time as the rest of the effect, but it's resolution is "held", conditional on the pre-then effect resolving succesfully. If it helps, you can think of "Then" as an indication not of timing passing, but of telling us that one effect's resolution is conditional upon the other's. For practical purposes, that means that one has to have happened before the other, but from a formal logic standpoint it just means the post-then effect can't happen if the pre-then effect doesn't.

 

I know this one is convoluted, so I'm trying to think of a few more good examples to contextualize it. There's the fact that a delayed effect does already exist as a game term - that's an effect which has some effects which occur at a timepoint "After" they're initiated. A "then" effect clearly isn't a mini-delayed effect, if that helps at all?


  • Ratatoskr, agktmte and uPoHu4Hu9 like this

#10
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

I'm going to add (even though it was also in this thread) a direct quote from Nate supporting this ruling:
 

Both effects (pre-then and post then) do share a common initiation point, so there is only a single opportunity to cancel the effect. What this means, in practical terms, is that you cannot let a “pre-then” effect resolve, and cancel the post then effect. There are separate interrupt windows for "pre-then” and “post-then” effects. This is because the post-then effects are not permitted to complete their resolution until the pre-then effects have successfully completed their resolution.

 
Finally, once the entire effect has resolved, the pre-then and post then aspects share a common reaction window.
 
For reference, Arianne’s text is:
 
Action: Put a character with printed cost 5 or lower into play from your hand. Then, return Arianne Martell to your hand (cannot be saved). (Limit once per phase.)
 
So, for Arianne, the sequence would be:
 
1) Effect initiates/ cancel opportunity for entire effect.
2) If the effect is not canceled, the "pre-then” effect (put a character with printed cost 5 or lower into play from your hand) attempts to complete its resolution. (The rules covering the word “then” delay resolution of the “post-then” effect, by creating a condition that must be met.)  Interrupts to this "pre-then" effect may be used at this time.
3) Next, the pre-then effect resolves: The character is put into play.
4) The full resolution of the pre-then effect allows the post-then effect (return Arianne Martell to your hand, cannot be saved) to attempt to complete its resolution. Interrupts to this "post-then" effect may now be used.
5) The post-then effect resolves: Arianne is returned to your hand.
6) Reactions to any aspect (pre-then or post-then) of the effect may now be used.
 
So, the effect shares a common beginning (initiation point) and ending (reaction window), but the presence of the word “then” stretches out the middle by adding a conditional element to the post-then effect, which is prevented from completing its resolution unless the pre-then aspect resolves in full.

 



#11
Wigg

Wigg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts

I find myself confused as to how Arianne can dupe herself using her Action.  

If the pre-then condition is satisfied because her dupe card entered play as a character, then she should have to be returned to your hand and it cannot be saved, thus losing the dupe anyways.  Or the dupe cannot enter play as a duplicate because they have "no text, titles, characteristics, type or traits." and thus you are not satisfying the pre-then condition on her action.

If it is the first case, the net result is that you basically just discarded a copy of Arianne to your discard pile (obviously there are bits about characters entering play and leaving play, which could become useful with future cards).  

 



#12
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
What you seem to be missing is that the nature of the card changes over the course of the initiation process. It IS a character when you check play restrictions on Step 1, but it enters play as a dupe in a step 7 (thus negating the post-then part of the effect).

Your two choices assume that the card must maintain the same status/type through the whole process, but the situation is more dynamic than that. Arianne can dupe herself because the card is a character when play restrictions are checked, but changes to a dupe as it enters play - as per the dupe rules. This transformation mid-effect really is right out of the rules documents (where it is well established that copies of unique character cards can be put into play as dupes on the original, and when this happens, a dupe, not a character, is considered to enter play, WHEN it enters play).

#13
uday

uday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

But card effect failed to resolve, both pre-then and post-then aspects. Did we really changed game state in terms of this card? We did not put character into play.

 

Or is a general rule that initiating an effect is allowed if game state will change in any way, directly after resolving effect.



#14
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
The rule states that the effect has to have the potential to change the game state, not that the effect has to have the potential to resolve successfully as written.

Usually, "potential to change the game state" and "resolve successfully as written" are the same thing (hence the tendency for people think one means the other), but not always. Putting cards into play as dupes is perhaps the most common example of the difference.

#15
mjje

mjje

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
What about dupes on other characters? Would she also stay in play?

#16
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

What about dupes on other characters? Would she also stay in play?

 

Yup.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2.0, Martell