User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#561358
Dukat wrote: That is not enough.

If we are unable to have a definition that uses itself to define it, we have a problem.
The Glossary needs a definition for 'play' so that future design and rules efforts can work more efficiently.
I disagree. The language is pretty self-explanatory.

I fear that by going down this road this will box in design and cause an untold amount of grief for cards that don't exactly fit this 'play' definition that people are trying to put onto the game.

There is a difference between a card 'being played from hand or the deck' which is really an action I am doing vs 'being put into play' which is the result of my action and puts that card into the 'field of play'. There is a gap between 'being played from hand or deck' vs 'being put into play' that allows for proper responses to happen (like I play Temporal Rift and you play Amanda Rogers or I say I am downloading using a [DL] and you flip Computer Crash).

However many of those proper responses have been neutered or banned for ages via OTF so it's not much of an issue anyway about understanding

Maybe something should be added to the action area of the CR to explain how playing a card from hand or downloading from a deck is considered the start of an action that has allowable responses by either yourself or another player.
So, if I have Anya already in play, I can start to play Salia from my hand, and (during the responses phase) use Anya to download *another* Salia. The first Salia is not yet in play, and so Anya's download is validly initiated. Furthermore, this has no effect on my original Salia play -- even though the condition "if you have in a play a version of a given persona, you may not bring another into play" is no longer met, we're past initiation and it's too late: both Salias resolve.
Also no, this wouldn't even be remotely understood to be able to happen. Since you are using the [DL] to suspend play, you are thereby pausing everything happening in-game (unless it was somehow a proper response to the [DL] like computer crash), and since that [DL] Salia comes into play first so the one from your hand is an invalid play unless you have something that allows for duplicates. I don't even remember what happens if you do an improper play offhand since its been ages Ive run into it.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#561365
Dukat wrote: If we are unable to have a definition that uses itself to define it, we have a problem.
The Glossary needs a definition for 'play' so that future design and rules efforts can work more efficiently.
Again, I'm not seeing a self-referential definition. Yes, the definition of "in play" (in the glossary) depends on that of "playing" a card. But the discussion of "playing" a card (in the rulebook) does not refer to "in play" in a circular way. Perhaps the explanations could be improved, but I don't see a logical inconsistency.
DarkSabre wrote: Also no, this wouldn't even be remotely understood to be able to happen. Since you are using the [DL] to suspend play, you are thereby pausing everything happening in-game (unless it was somehow a proper response to the [DL] like computer crash), and since that [DL] Salia comes into play first so the one from your hand is an invalid play unless you have something that allows for duplicates. I don't even remember what happens if you do an improper play offhand since its been ages Ive run into it.
I agree that this *shouldn't* happen, but that my reading of the "improper play" rule you are referring to is that it actually might allow this. Specifically this part of "actions - step 2: responses, responses modifying targets or conditions":
If a condition for an action becomes invalid before the action resolves, for any reason other than the activation of a hidden agenda (e.g., through the play of another card in a Manheim effect "hiccup"), it has no effect on the initiation. For example, if you initiate the play of K'chiQ, and I close your Alternate Universe Door with a Revolving Door during a "hiccup," you can still play K'chiQ because the condition was met during the initiation and is not re-checked.
In other words, the rule that "you need a card allowing [1E-AU] to play K'chiQ" is checked during step 1 (initiation), so even if you close my AU Door during step 2 by suspending play it doesn't matter -- conditions have already been checked and the play resolves.

In my scenario, the rule that "you can't play a unique personnel if you have the same persona in play" is also checked during step 1, so even if another instance of that persona enters play during step 2, it doesn't matter for the same reason -- conditions have already been checked.

The questionable points in my argument are: (1) initiating the second Salia download relies on the fact that the first is not "in play" until step 3; (2) whether the uniqueness rule is a "condition" like the AU icon rule is; and (3) whether the rule about an appropriate *target* comes into play (targets and conditions are handled differently if invalidated; the example given is that Supernova-ing the outpost where I'm reporting K'chiQ causes her to discard).

Point 1 is discussed at length in this thread, without consensus. As for point 2, I have not looked deeply into any differences between the "AU rule" and the "persona rule," but my initial reaction is that if the first one is a "condition" the second should be too. Point 3 is fuzzy in my mind (as is what exactly constitutes a "target") but it doesn't seem like a good fit for the uniqueness rule.

I may also be missing something else entirely in the timing rules, and I'd appreciate other rulebook/glossary text showing how this analysis goes wrong -- because I agree that it *should* go wrong somewhere.

(This question also has parallels to question 6 in Franklin's thread about whether you can use the same QtR repeatedly to download infinite [Ref] cards, since it only discards upon resolution and you can suspend play as much as you want before that.)

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the f[…]

1EFQ: Game of two halves

Or maybe keep your unsolicited snark to yo[…]

Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]