Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: jacksmack on September 18, 2014, 09:00:05 AM
-
Any specific order these 2 cards take effect?
edit:
Also does it matter if the caltrops mangler is 'friendly' to the target moving into the zone?
(i realize caltrops damages both friends and enemies - but im wondering if it has anything to say to the order of effects.)
-
I would say that owner and controller of those cards decide in which order they activate.
-
I would say that owner and controller of those cards decide in which order they activate.
and Initiative if that matters
-
If they are both owned by the same person, they could choose the order in which they occur. They must both occur however, regardless. Even if Mangler Caltrops goes first and kills the creature, Hellfire Trap would still have to be revealed. Thus I'm not completely certain why the order is a big concern.
If they are owned by different people, then the person with initiative would decide what order to apply them in. Once again, both must occur regardless of the order however.
-
Thus I'm not completely certain why the order is a big concern.
Voltaric Shield.
-
If they are both owned by the same person, they could choose the order in which they occur. They must both occur however, regardless. Even if Mangler Caltrops goes first and kills the creature, Hellfire Trap would still have to be revealed. Thus I'm not completely certain why the order is a big concern.
If they are owned by different people, then the person with initiative would decide what order to apply them in. Once again, both must occur regardless of the order however.
How can the person with initiative decide if the enemy should reveal or not? the facedown could be a decoy or a fortified position.
-
If they are both owned by the same person, they could choose the order in which they occur. They must both occur however, regardless. Even if Mangler Caltrops goes first and kills the creature, Hellfire Trap would still have to be revealed. Thus I'm not completely certain why the order is a big concern.
If they are owned by different people, then the person with initiative would decide what order to apply them in. Once again, both must occur regardless of the order however.
How can the person with initiative decide if the enemy should reveal or not? the facedown could be a decoy or a fortified position.
You have to reveal trap as soon as enemy step in. Then you decide he order. That's when if trap and caltrop have different owner thats when whoever has initiative decide the order.
-
If the mangler caltrops and the hellfire trap are controlled by different players, then when a creature walks in and triggers them, the person with initiative can ask the other if they need to do anything before carrying out their own effects. Thus, they can ask for you to apply your caltrops before they decide to reveal their enchantment, or they can ask if you need to reveal anything before they apply their caltrops, depending on who controls what. Either way, you don't have to reveal your enchantment until after the order of events has been decided. The most you have to do is say you need to reveal an enchantment and then they decide whether to let you reveal before or after they apply their effects.
-
Thanks zub.
Awesome as always.
-
If they are both owned by the same person, they could choose the order in which they occur. They must both occur however, regardless. Even if Mangler Caltrops goes first and kills the creature, Hellfire Trap would still have to be revealed. Thus I'm not completely certain why the order is a big concern.
If they are owned by different people, then the person with initiative would decide what order to apply them in. Once again, both must occur regardless of the order however.
When a creature walks in and triggers them, the person with initiative can ask the other if they need to do anything before carrying out their own effects. Thus, they can ask for you to apply your caltrops before they decide to reveal their enchantment, or they can ask if you need to reveal anything before they apply their caltrops, depending on who controls what. Either way, you don't have to reveal your enchantment until after the order of events has been decided. The most you have to do is say you need to reveal an enchantment and then they decide whether to let you reveal before or after they apply their effects.
Correct again 8)
-
what about teleport trap and caltrops then? if teleport goes first, caltrops attack is cancelled due to a teleport?
-
what about teleport trap and caltrops then? if teleport goes first, caltrops attack is cancelled due to a teleport?
Why would you trigger them in that order? Teleport trap only targets enemy creatures. So, if you controlled both Caltrops and teleport trap and an enemy creature came into the zone, you would obviously hit it with the Caltrops first, then beam it across the arena.
There is no reason to teleport it before triggering caltrops.
-
what about teleport trap and caltrops then? if teleport goes first, caltrops attack is cancelled due to a teleport?
Why would you trigger them in that order? Teleport trap only targets enemy creatures. So, if you controlled both Caltrops and teleport trap and an enemy creature came into the zone, you would obviously hit it with the Caltrops first, then beam it across the arena.
There is no reason to teleport it before triggering caltrops.
V10lentray is correct.
-
V10lentray is correct that such a situation would be a rather unusual decision, but the question is still valid as to what happens if you were to choose to use the Teleport Trap first.
It is important to recognize that Mangler Caltrops is neither a melee attack nor a ranged attack. It is similar to a damage barrier in that range does not matter for it. Therefore, after you teleport you are still a valid target for the Caltrops and you did trigger them, so they would still get their attack. You could again think of them as similar to a damage barrier and justify these mechanics as though the attack happened concurrent with entering the zone, and you're just now getting to the part of actually applying the effects.
An argument could be made that the rules on page 7 of the FAQ regarding changing the range or target of a spell or attack would apply in this situation, but technically the change in range occurred before the attack began, even though the trigger event already occurred, and so I do not believe that would apply. It doesn't specify it in so many words, but I think an attack has to actually begin, ie go past the Declare Attack Step, before a change in range or target could possibly cancel it.
-
Also, I just realized that it might not be such an unusual situation because the Caltrops attack friendly creatures as well as enemy, so the two spells could be controlled by different players if the creature in question was controlled by the controller of the Caltrops.
-
Also, I just realized that it might not be such an unusual situation because the Caltrops attack friendly creatures as well as enemy, so the two spells could be controlled by different players if the creature in question was controlled by the controller of the Caltrops.
But the teleport trap would not trigger unless an enemy creature entered, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you would insist that the Caltrops trigger first before you beam the creature to the other side of the arena. And since the caltrops is already face up, you trigger that first, then revel the teleport trap. Both effects have to happen, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you make certain they take the damage for the caltrops first. that way there are no questions in the matter.
-
Also, I just realized that it might not be such an unusual situation because the Caltrops attack friendly creatures as well as enemy, so the two spells could be controlled by different players if the creature in question was controlled by the controller of the Caltrops.
But the teleport trap would not trigger unless an enemy creature entered, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you would insist that the Caltrops trigger first before you beam the creature to the other side of the arena. And since the caltrops is already face up, you trigger that first, then revel the teleport trap. Both effects have to happen, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you make certain they take the damage for the caltrops first. that way there are no questions in the matter.
But maybe you do not want Caltrop damage that creature because you need that creature alive to Vampirism onto it to make one of your creature stay alive?
:)
-
But the teleport trap would not trigger unless an enemy creature entered, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you would insist that the Caltrops trigger first before you beam the creature to the other side of the arena. And since the caltrops is already face up, you trigger that first, then revel the teleport trap. Both effects have to happen, so as the controller of the teleport trap, you make certain they take the damage for the caltrops first. that way there are no questions in the matter.
You move your creature into a zone with your caltrops and an enemy face down enchant. You have initiative. You ask them if they need to reveal anything, then they must reveal the teleport trap before you decide to apply the caltrop damage. It is a feasible scenario.
-
If the creature is friendly and you control the [mwcard=MW1E38] Teleport Trap[/mwcard] you do not get a trigger on Teleport Trap to save it from the damage. Also on that note before I see it asked. If you force reveal Teleport Trap it would have no effect because it only teleports the creature that triggered it.
[mwcard=MW1E22] Hellfire Trap[/mwcard] Only can effect an enemy creature that triggers it. Just like Teleport trap.
Now if the other player controls Teleport Trap. You control the [mwcard=FWJ06] Mangler Caltrops[/mwcard]. The effects would apply in initiative but both are mandatory. That is to say if Teleport trap trigger resolves first. The triggering creature will not take damage from the caltrops. If the caltrop's resolve first it will take damage and if it still has not taken lethal damage it will be teleported by the trap. If it has taken lethal damage it will be discarded but the trap will still resolve the trigger.
-
Why would caltrops not deal damage if teleport trap resolves first? It still has to resolve the trigger, the creature is still a valid target, and the creature teleported before the Declare Attack Step so the rules about changing range cancelling the attack shouldn't apply in my opinion, or am I wrong on that?
-
Why would caltrops not deal damage if teleport trap resolves first? It still has to resolve the trigger, the creature is still a valid target, and the creature teleported before the Declare Attack Step so the rules about changing range cancelling the attack shouldn't apply in my opinion, or am I wrong on that?
How is it still a valid target? Just like with Divine Intervention, if target "moved", target is no more valid.
-
If the target moved during the attack, then the attack is cancelled. If I use Divine Intervention on a creature before it declares an attack, then the creature may still make an attack after being teleported. Moving before an attack occurs does not cancel the possibility of a future attack. That would just be silly. It would go like this:
Move Action Steps
1. Declare Move
2. Leave Zone Effects (if any)
3. Walls (if any)
4. Move to new zone
5. Entering zone triggers = Both Caltrops and Teleport Trap trigger at this time and both require resolution.
5A. We resolve Teleport Trap moving the creature to a new zone. Mangler Caltrops has not yet initiated it's attack, so the attack is not cancelled by this movement.
5B. Mangler Caltrops attempts to resolve it's trigger by initiating an Attack. It begins with the Declare Attack Step, in which it attempts to validate the target. The target is presumably still a non-flying creature, and the Caltrops has no range restriction. Therefore it is still valid and all further combat steps would proceed.
-
[mwcard=FWJ06] Mangler Caltrops[/mwcard] Has a triggered attack When a non flying creature enters its zone the trigger is created.
All attacks use the same steps.
1. Declare Attack -
Announce what attack you are using (in the case of caltrops the attack is set by the trigger.)
Announce what target you are attacking. You must choose a legal target (in the case of Caltrops the target is the triggering creature.)
2. Avoid Attack
(The Caltrops' attack is unavoidable by defense. If the triggering creature is teleported even if to the same zone it is no longer a legal target. The rule supplement explains this further.)
3. Roll Dice
4. Damage and Effects
5. Additional Strikes
6. Damage Barrier
7. Counterstrike
8. Attack Ends
So now lets take this even further. If creature A has a [mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard] on it and moves into the zone with Caltrops and Teleport Trap you 2 triggers when the caltrops tries to attack the creature [mwcard=MW1E02] Block[/mwcard] would then trigger. Even it the creature got moved away by the trap you would lose the block due to its trigger being activated.
-
The rules supplement never says that teleport makes the target an illegal target for future attacks. It states that it cancels the attack because the target moved DURING the attack. This could apply if you are going to make the case that the attack actually begins with the trigger, rather than with the Declare Attack Step, but that's not how the rules seem to be written from my point of view. They seem to clearly state that all attacks begin with the Declare Attack Step and this is reiterated in several places in the rules and rules supplement.
Otherwise, if you are going to say that a teleport which occurs before an attack begins somehow makes the creature an illegal target for all further attacks, we would end up with a whole lot of completely invulnerable creatures running around for the entire game, making it impossible to ever hit them and win the game. Teleport your mage right at the beginning of the game, and you are now immune from ever receiving an attack because you teleported beforehand, making you an illegal target. That's just ludicrous.
Teleport can only affect an attack if it occurs during the attack. Anything else is insanity. The rules state that attacks begin with the Declare Attack Step, not the trigger for the attack. If I have missed something that says otherwise, please point it out to me.
Edit: And in the case of your Block example, if teleport was to cancel the attack, the rules on cancel states it ends immediately. Thus the attack would end BEFORE the Declare Attack Step even occurs, by your logic, so you definitely never make it to the Avoid Attack Step to have the block affected in any way.
-
From the FAQ:
Similarly, an attack fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Apply Damage and Effects step of an attack :
1. The target of the attack is no longer a legal target, or
2. The source or target of the attack moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport was into the same zone).
If the target of a spell or attack moves, it disrupts the targeting and the attack is canceled.
-
Yes, if it moves after the attack began. However, movement before an attack was declared does not affect the possibility of being attacked. You can't cancel something that hasn't even started yet. And attacks start with the Declare Attack Step.
-
Your effectively canceling it by moving the target. Moving breaks targeting, it's how spells work, and how attacks work.
Since you can't exactly stack effects, the closest you can get would be to simply apply stock targeting rules.
It's a corner case, where if an automated attack is about to happen simultaneously with a teleport effect the automated attack fails.
Either way it works it'll feel awkward, but since the targeting rules favor canceling the attacks it makes it more consistent. (Caltrops probably ought to have melee range anyway)
-
The rule is that moving cancels an attack that is in progress. You can justify that thematically however you want, so if you want to say it's because it breaks targeting you can. However, moving does not prevent an attack from occurring. If it did, then using a teleport trap to teleport a creature TO a zone with Mangler Caltrops would also prevent those Caltrops from attacking. In both cases, the Caltrops have not attacked yet when the teleport occurs.
If you try to say that attacks begin with the trigger, then first I'd like to ask you where you are finding this rule because my books all say they begin with the Declare Attack Step. But after that, I'd point out the following:
1) This would result in the attack being cancelled before the Declare Attack Step even begins.
2) It would make it possible to avoid Damage Barriers by teleporting after your attack but before the Damage Barrier.
The whole gimmick of the Damage Barrier is that it is a simultaneous attack. By saying that because Mangler Caltrops is occurring simultaneously it gets cancelled, you are negating the rules on Damage Barriers which state that because they occur simultaneously they do not get cancelled. Currently with Damage Barriers, the trigger already occurred but the attack did not, so movement and even death do not cancel the attack. That's how it should work with Caltrops as well.
-
Isn't Teleport an Effect that bypasses walls and objects?
-
Perhaps we can clarify that teleport also cancels a previous attack trigger. That would support Shadow's description and provide more clarity around the concept of a 'trigger'.
-
Isn't Teleport an Effect that bypasses walls and objects?
It bypasses walls and objects in between zones A and B, but not those inside of zones A and B. If you enter or leave a zone, even via teleport, you still cause all enter zone triggers and leave zone effects.
Perhaps we can clarify that teleport also cancels a previous attack trigger. That would support Shadow's description and provide more clarity around the concept of a 'trigger'.
That is true, but it has to be kept in mind what the ramifications of that would be. It would completely fly in the face of the rules on Damage Barriers currently. Sure, we could write out an exception to Damage Barriers, but I really don't like that nor see the necessity. It would just make the rules more clunky and convoluted. If people want the attack from Mangler Caltrops to be negated, then the easiest errata I think would be to turn them into a Melee Attack. I'm not sure why people have a problem with them still getting their attack though.
You did enter the zone. You had to set foot there in order to trigger these cards, thus you must have stepped on a Caltrop. You might have instantly been teleported when you set your foot down, but you were still injured.
-
Yes, if it moves after the attack began. However, movement before an attack was declared does not affect the possibility of being attacked. You can't cancel something that hasn't even started yet. And attacks start with the Declare Attack Step.
Then if the teleport is before the attack (so no attack is made at all) what are you arguing about?
The teleport is made before the attack, so it does not cancel the attack. However, the teleport is made after the trigger, so the attack still needs to be made. The attack has no range limitations, therefore the creature is still a valid target. Ergo, the creature still takes damage for the Caltrop that it stepped on.
-
I'm going to find the solution to this question gentlemen. I'll be contacting Bryan about the issue. Hopefully, we'll have a firm ruling soon.
-
I'm going to find the solution to this question gentlemen. I'll be contacting Bryan about the issue. Hopefully, we'll have a firm ruling soon.
This amazes me, gonna get a fast turn around on something that is obvious via intent (teleport cancels the attack) just that the rules are not quite in-sync. However the Warlord striking himself with his War Sledge (me thinks this is not the intent) we are told that rules, hit the road jack, we'll work on it later, maybe, if you don't forget. :'(
-
I'm going to find the solution to this question gentlemen. I'll be contacting Bryan about the issue. Hopefully, we'll have a firm ruling soon.
This amazes me, gonna get a fast turn around on something that is obvious via intent (teleport cancels the attack) just that the rules are not quite in-sync. However the Warlord striking himself with his War Sledge (me thinks this is not the intent) we are told that rules, hit the road jack, we'll work on it later, maybe, if you don't forget. :'(
I won't forget about that either. In fact, I'll send that email in just a moment.
-
However the Warlord striking himself with his War Sledge (me thinks this is not the intent)
you can attack yourself?
"Why you hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself?" - Older brother to little brother
-
"Why you hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself?" - Older brother to little brother
Being a big brother: ROFLMAO
-
However the Warlord striking himself with his War Sledge (me thinks this is not the intent)
you can attack yourself?
The case under discussion was that of a Sweeping attack, such as on a War Sledge, and too few valid targets in the zone not counting the Warlord using the Sledge... the Warlord has to target himself instead of deciding that he wants to stop attacking. Strange, huh? It was in another fairly recent thread.
-
Any news?
-
Yes, I actually have something on both of those a little later today. It's been a jumble this morning.
-
There were a couple of recent posts regarding Teleport Trap that reminded me that we never really heard back on this.
-
There were a couple of recent posts regarding Teleport Trap that reminded me that we never really heard back on this.
I had forgotten about this also.
-
I'm affraid we have an unsolved problem here: Trap & caltrops mangler in the same zone.
1) Which one goes first?
I think the rules are clear if the player with initiative controles one and only one of them: he goes first. And if one player controles both I think he chooses.
2) If the trap was a teleport, does the Caltrops attack?
The question was about the target mooving befor the first step of the attack...
Any news?
-
Didnt read the entire tread, but the controller of the creature decides whenever there are timing issues. However, he cannot force you to reveal an enchantment thus even though the rules state this, in practice it is the controller of the enchantment who decides.
-
Didnt read the entire tread, but the controller of the creature decides whenever there are timing issues. However, he cannot force you to reveal an enchantment thus even though the rules state this, in practice it is the controller of the enchantment who decides.
the controller decides during upkeep. this is not upkeep.
the trap and the Caltrops give no choice.
the enchantment is revealed and the Caltrops attacks. I think that if the player with initiative controles one and only one of them, this one will trigger first.
(if there were 2 non-mandatory enchantments, the player with initiative would have the choice to reveal his first, and then the opponent)
isn't it?
-
Didnt read the entire tread, but the controller of the creature decides whenever there are timing issues. However, he cannot force you to reveal an enchantment thus even though the rules state this, in practice it is the controller of the enchantment who decides.
the controller decides during upkeep. this is not upkeep.
the trap and the Caltrops are mandatory.
the enchantment is revealed and the Caltrops attacks. I think that if the player with initiative controles one and only one of them, this one will trigger first.
Have you checked the movement action and Mandatory action sections under RAW version 4 for any clues? This sounds like an interaction of these two rules and I know the movement action was defined with specific steps in that document to help with these types of questions. If I understand your question you want to resolve whether an opponents Teleport Trap (a mandatory reveal) triggers prior to your creature being attacked by your or another opponent's Mangler Caltrops when both are in the same zone. So the general case involves two mandatory actions which are each controlled by a different player.
To expand on the two player example what happens when both spells are controlled by different opponents of the player taking the move action? If the movement and mandatory action section of the rules/supplement don't address this case, then we have two choices for determining the sequence of events triggering.
1. Controller of the creature decides the sequence.
2. Controller of each spell decides in clockwise order from player with Initiative.
A related question then comes to mind, but may be covered under mandatory actions in the supplement. If two or more mandatory actions are triggered and each are owned by one or more opponents and option 2 above is used to resolve the sequence of resolution, then does each opponent decide the sequence of their mandatory actions or simply resolves the spell since it is a mandatory action? For example, if there are 3 spells to resolve each controlled by a different opponent (think 4 player match) can the first player decide that their spell triggers 2ND, the next player selects their spell to resolve last and the last player must resolve their spell first in the sequence of 3 since they were last in initiative order
-
Timing is easy and covered by the base rules. If both the trap and the caltrops are controlled by the same person, they can choose the order of resolution. If they are controlled by different people, you have a timing issue and the person with initiative decides the order of resolution.
Now, if the teleport trap is chosen to occur first, we do not have an answer on if the caltrops will get to attack. I have been talking with Aaron about this again recently actually, and he is going to discuss it with Bryan. The same issue applies to a new spell in PvS, forget the name, which brought it back to light and we will get an answer. It's just a rare edge case that got forgotten for awhile.
-
Timing is easy and covered by the base rules. If both the trap and the caltrops are controlled by the same person, they can choose the order of resolution. If they are controlled by different people, you have a timing issue and the person with initiative decides the order of resolution.
Now, if the teleport trap is chosen to occur first, we do not have an answer on if the caltrops will get to attack. I have been talking with Aaron about this again recently actually, and he is going to discuss it with Bryan. The same issue applies to a new spell in PvS, forget the name, which brought it back to light and we will get an answer. It's just a rare edge case that got forgotten for awhile.
Bed of Urchins.
-
Timing is easy and covered by the base rules. If both the trap and the caltrops are controlled by the same person, they can choose the order of resolution. If they are controlled by different people, you have a timing issue and the person with initiative decides the order of resolution.
I can't see where you find that the player with initiative chooses.
In the rules, page 6, it's writte: "the player with initiative goes first whenever you must determinethe order of events"
Now, if the teleport trap is chosen to occur first, we do not have an answer on if the caltrops will get to attack. I have been talking with Aaron about this again recently actually, and he is going to discuss it with Bryan. The same issue applies to a new spell in PvS, forget the name, which brought it back to light and we will get an answer. It's just a rare edge case that got forgotten for awhile.
Thank you! I'm looking forward to this!
-
The codex entry for initiative says it decides all timing issues. In this case it's not a matter of who goes first, neither player is going/acting. Both effects trigger simultaneously and it's an issue of which order do things get resolved in. That requires a decision to be made and whoever has initiative is the one to make it.
-
The codex entry for initiative says it decides all timing issues. In this case it's not a matter of who goes first, neither player is going/acting. Both effects trigger simultaneously and it's an issue of which order do things get resolved in. That requires a decision to be made and whoever has initiative is the one to make it.
I see your point: these are 2 effects, no actions from one player or another.
But then, why would it be differnent if the same player would controle both Cantrops and trap? (2 effects that trigger automatically, no action, why woudn't the player with initiative choose, even if the other controls both objects?)
-
Oy. Didn't we do this once before?
-
In general, if everything being discussed is controlled by the same player, then they have control over the things being discussed and can make all decisions regarding them. Basically, there's no conflict in that case. It's only an issue when both players control something and need to decide how they occur in relation to each other. For example, if I controlled 2 effects in the zone and my opponent controlled one, I would still get to choose which of my two effects happens first and which happens second, but the player with Initiative would decide when my opponent's effect happens in relation to my two (before both of them, after both of them, or in between). They do not, however, get to dictate my choices for things that I control.
If we both controlled two effects, then I would decide the order of my effects and my opponent would decide the order of their effects, then the player with Initiative would decide how these separate orders of events compare to each other. The rules don't require you to plan everything out in advance though, and typically such would not be practical, so usually the person with initiative will simply choose who gets the first effect, see what choice is made and what happens, then choose who gets the second, etc.
Relevant rules: Codex entry for Controller and Codex entry for Initiative. Also page 20 of the Arena Rulebook under traps may be of interest.
-
That's how it works in the Upkeep phase, but isn't it different during the rest of the round?
-
Specifically, during the upkeep phase, you control the order of the effects that affect the objects you control. If an effect affects multiple objects controlled by different players or an object that isn't controlled by a player like an orb, (or -- I assume -- if an effect occurs that doesn't effect any objects but instead does something to a zone or whatever) the player with Initiative choses the order in which things happen.
Outside of the Upkeep phase, I was under the impression that the player with Initiative just decided everything regardless.
--
There's a bit of a rules issue with cards like Teleport Trap. The effect teleports the creature, but it also destroys the trap. So even if the creature somehow triggered Teleport Trap during the Upkeep, hypertechnically it's possible that the player with Initiative would always decide when the trap ability happened.
-
The best place to point you to is the codex entry for controller. You make all decisions for objects and spells you control at all times. Your opponent can't dictate how your objects and spells work. This includes when you use them. The only time initiative matters in regards to timing is when there's a timing issue, which only happens when you want to see when two effects with different controllers happens in relation to each other. These are general rules. Upkeep isn't really special, it's just highlighted because it is the most likely place to require these rules since the whole phase is kind of simultaneous. They put a little bit of emphasis on the section for traps as well, but the general rules in the codex for controller and for initiative are actually always true.
-
The best place to point you to is the codex entry for controller. You make all decisions for objects and spells you control at all times. Your opponent can't dictate how your objects and spells work. This includes when you use them. The only time initiative matters in regards to timing is when there's a timing issue, which only happens when you want to see when two effects with different controllers happens in relation to each other. These are general rules. Upkeep isn't really special, it's just highlighted because it is the most likely place to require these rules since the whole phase is kind of simultaneous. They put a little bit of emphasis on the section for traps as well, but the general rules in the codex for controller and for initiative are actually always true.
And the same for multiplayer game? I.e. the player with initiative selects the order for all players or just his/her? For example, In a 3-player game does the player sitting clockwise from the Initiative player select the order for his/her objects/spells after the initiative player has first choice?
-
To avoid confusion of two separate issues, I'm going to go over both.
First, the person with Initiative always gets the chance to act first, and other players will get their chance in clockwise order from them. So when Deploying, Quickcasting in a Quickcast Phase, and doing creature Action Phases always start with the person with Initiative. Nobody else is doing anything during these times, you're just taking turns, so there are no timing issues.
Second, when things happen simultaneously, such as during the Upkeep Phase or when multiple things trigger at the same time, then each player makes all choices regarding objects and effects they control. If you control multiple objects/effects, you choose for yourself which one happens first, second, etc. If multiple players have things happening simultaneously, and you need to know when they happen in relation to each other, then the player with Initiative gets to decide how they relate to each other.
Example A: In a three player game between Timmy, Johnny, and Spike, Timmy currently has Initiative. Something happens that triggers effects A and B, controlled by Johnny, as well as effects C and D controlled by Spike. Johnny gets to decide the order for effects A and B, and decides that effect B should go off first. Spike gets to decide the order for effects C and D, and decides that C should go off first. So, now we have effects B and C going off simultaneously, and Timmy gets to decide the order for them, deciding that B should go off first. After that we have effects A and C going off simultaneously, and Timmy again gets to decide the order and decides that C should happen. Then we have A and D occurring, and Timmy decides D should go off next. Then we have A occur.
As you can see, Timmy gets to make a lot of choices, but he is limited by the other player's control over their own objects. He could not have possibly made A happen before B, nor could he have made D happen before C. All he can do is decide when you are comparing multiple players to one another.
Voluntary Enchantment Reveals is a special scenario that I'll go over separately. It is sort of a simultaneous event, but due to it's voluntary nature and dealing with hidden information, the rule book makes it very clear that you should handle it in turns. So, starting with the player with Initiative, you may reveal as many enchantments as you want, and then the next player on your left gets to do the same. It continues going around and around the table indefinitely until all players have passed consecutively. Consecutively is important. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to pass on one go around, and then decide to reveal the next time the chance comes back around to them. It's only when all players have passed in a row that the chance to reveal ends. This description could be debatable since the rules were clearly written for 2 player games instead of multiplayer, but that's how I believe it should be interpreted.
This is different from triggered mandatory enchantment reveals, where you don't get a choice on the matter. You can't pass or say you don't want to reveal when dealing with a trigger. You only get to decide what order things happen in if you have multiple things trigger. A triggered mandatory enchantment reveal is entirely under the rules for handling simultaneous events as outlined in Example A.
Example B: After any step, phase, or activation, you should check to see if any player wants to voluntarily reveal an enchantment. If someone does, then you start with the player who has initiative and go around the table taking turns, revealing as many enchantments on your turn as you wish, until everyone passes in a row.
Example C: Something happens to trigger one of your enchantments. You immediately interrupt the action to declare that you are required to reveal something. If you have multiple things that triggered, you choose the order. If multiple players have things that trigger, they all announce this and the person who has Initiative gets to decide which player resolves first, as described in Example A. You do not have to tell the person with Initiative what a triggered enchantment is before resolving it, just that it has triggered.
Note: Mandatory Reveals trigger in response to things happening, meaning that they actually get revealed during a step or phase. You cannot voluntarily reveal other enchantments while handling these triggers, unless the triggered effects provide steps that you can reveal between, such as making an attack.
I hope this helps everything make sense. As you can see, it's actually a very robust system despite it's simple description. Take turns when acting. You always control your own stuff. Initiative decides any other timing questions.
-
rulebook 3.3 page 6:
The player with the initiative acts first during the Action
Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the
order of events
page 7:
In the rare
case that a timing issue occurs,
the player with the initiative
decides the order.
Confusing to me.
-
There are only three things at play here:
1. When determining what order players go in, always start with Initiative and go clockwise.
2. You make all decisions regarding objects and effects you control. ALL decisions.
3. When there's a timing issue, Initiative gets to resolve the timing issue.
These rules are all covered by the codex section for Controller and the codex section for Initiative. We then get some examples of how to apply these rules with the Upkeep Phase rules on page 7, and the Trap rules on page 20. These could be considered to be specific rules for just these types of occasions rather than examples of the general rules, but I don't think so due to reasons explained later.
So, now to the conflict and confusion. First, when acting in turns there are no timing issues. You do your turn and then the next player does theirs. Timing issues only occur when things happen simultaneously. When things happen simultaneously, if they are all controlled by the same person, they get to decide the order to resolve them in because they get to make ALL decisions regarding objects they control according to the general rules in the codex. This is consistent with both the section on the Upkeep Phase and the section on Traps. So, if they are all controlled by the same player, you again do not have a timing issue because the rules cover how to handle it.
So, the only time you have a timing issue is when multiple effects controlled by multiple players happen simultaneously. Now, the example of the Upkeep Phase, if we take it as an example, says explicitly that Initiative gets to decide how to handle these issues. Active conscious choice. Which since these things are normally decided by the player who controls them (when it's just one player), having them resolved by an active decision from someone makes sense to me. However, the general rules in the codex are admittedly more vague. Saying simply that Initiative "resolves any timing issues" without saying explicitly how it resolves them. So, if you don't take the Upkeep Phase and Traps sections as examples of the general rules, then you do have a small gap to fill in.
If you fill it in by looking for similar situations and examples though, you will not find a single example of Initiative being forced into a resolution without any choice in the matter. Initiative going first only seems to occur when taking turns. The closest thing you'll find is voluntarily revealing enchantments, in which case it tells you to take turns. If you were to handle other simultaneous events like that, you're left with unanswered questions and it just doesn't work very well. Does initiative need to resolve all of their triggers before moving on to the next player's turn, or do you go back and forth? Could a player pass on their turn? Active decision making is required when you sit and think about it.
So, I hope we can all agree now that:
1. Timing Issues only occur when multiple effects, controlled by multiple players, happen simultaneously.
2. These issues are resolved by active decision making on the part of the Player with Initiative.
3. The player with Initiative can not dictate how to resolve effects controlled by another player. The controller always decides ALL things regarding objects/effects they control. Initiative only resolves the conflicts caused by timing issues, i.e. when things controlled by different players happen in relation to one another.
So now, back to my previous example:
Example A: In a three player game between Timmy, Johnny, and Spike, Timmy currently has Initiative. Something happens that triggers effects A and B, controlled by Johnny, as well as effects C and D controlled by Spike. Johnny gets to decide the order for effects A and B, and decides that effect B should go off first. Spike gets to decide the order for effects C and D, and decides that C should go off first. So, now we have effects B and C going off simultaneously, and Timmy gets to decide the order for them, deciding that B should go off first. After that we have effects A and C going off simultaneously, and Timmy again gets to decide the order and decides that C should happen. Then we have A and D occurring, and Timmy decides D should go off next. Then we have A occur.
As you can see, Timmy gets to make a lot of choices, but he is limited by the other player's control over their own objects. He could not have possibly made A happen before B, nor could he have made D happen before C. All he can do is decide when you are comparing multiple players to one another.
-
ב"ה
Well, I understand the rules a little different about initiative.
I totally agree about-
1. Timing Issues only occur when multiple effects, controlled by multiple players, happen simultaneously.
But I think you are wrong about -
2. These issues are resolved by active decision making on the part of the Player with Initiative.
Specifically in the initiative phase the rules indeed say- In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.
But that rule applies only in the initiative phase.
In the action stage the rule is different and the rules say - The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the order of events
So when you need to decide the order of anything in the action stage, the one with the initiative must go first (and not decide who is going first).
-
I went over all of that. The most general rules can be found in the Codex section which says Initiative "resolves any timing issues." That admittedly doesn't tell us one way or another how they resolve though.
If you want to try and resolve simultaneous events by taking turns with Initiative going first, then how exactly would that work? The rules do not make any accommodations for such. The closest thing is voluntarily revealing enchantments, which doesn't work for mandatory triggers. If Initiative "must go first" then how does that work? How does that resolve the issues? What does that mean exactly? And where is your support for these answers in the rules?
The only thing that makes sense is for the player with initiative to get to decide when comparing things. Which fits with the fact that players normally get to make an active decision when comparing things if those things all fall under their control, and also fits with how the Upkeep Phase is handled and any other example you can find regarding resolving simultaneous effects. You'll not find one single example where you're forced to resolve effects in a specific order due to Initiative.
Initiative going first is a separate rule governing taking turns.
-
... I was out 3 days and there's so much to read here...
bu it seems the "controler" entry in the codex is the clue here!
-
Would it be correct to sumeriseit like that?
"The player with initiative goes first if both players want to act simultaneously.
The order of resolution of simultaneous effects is choosed by the controler of the effects. Exception: during the upkeep it's the controler of the objects affected by the effects who chooses the order.
And if the two rules don't solve the timing issue, the player with initiative chooses the order."
-
ב"ה
If you want to try and resolve simultaneous events by taking turns with Initiative going first, then how exactly would that work? The rules do not make any accommodations for such. The closest thing is voluntarily revealing enchantments, which doesn't work for mandatory triggers. If Initiative "must go first" then how does that work? How does that resolve the issues? What does that mean exactly?
Very simple. First the player with the initiative resolve all of the mandatory effects that he control, then the other player resolve all mandatory effects that he control.
Enchantment revealing Timing issues stay the same whether they are mandatory or not. First the one with the initiative must resolve his, and then the other player resolve his.
With many players it goes by the initiative order.
And where is your support for these answers in the rules?
Page 6 in the codex say-
The player with the initiative acts first during the Action
Stage, and goes first whenever you must determine the
order of events.
While there is an explicit exception in the upkeep phase, outside the upkeep phase the one with the initiative always go first.
Just because some events are mandatory, it doesn't make them any exempt them from this rule.
-
@Super Sorcerer
"goes first whenever you must determine the order of events" is not the same thing as "must resolve all effects before any other player." Where are you getting this interpretation from? Goes first merely means they go first. They take the first turn. You need to find support in the rules for whether they must resolve all of their effects on their turn or whether they take turns resolving one effect at a time. You also need to find rules saying whether or not you're allowed to pass on your turn and delay till after your opponent takes their turn. In short, how are such turns supposed to be handled, and where in the rules does it explain this? Unfortunately, you won't find any answers to any of these questions.
In point of fact, all examples in the rules are contrary to your interpretation. Every example of the players taking turns is either done resolving one thing at a time (creature actions) or allows the players to choose how much they do at a time, with passing being a valid option (voluntary enchantment reveals). All examples of simultaneous events have the players deciding the order they get resolved in (Traps / Upkeep Phase). Show me one single example where the player with Initiative is forced to resolve all of their effects before the next player is forced to do the same. I can't find it.
-
@Super Sorcerer
"goes first whenever you must determine the order of events" is not the same thing as "must resolve all effects before any other player." Where are you getting this interpretation from? Goes first merely means they go first. They take the first turn. You need to find support in the rules for whether they must resolve all of their effects on their turn or whether they take turns resolving one effect at a time. You also need to find rules saying whether or not you're allowed to pass on your turn and delay till after your opponent takes their turn. In short, how are such turns supposed to be handled, and where in the rules does it explain this? Unfortunately, you won't find any answers to any of these questions.
In point of fact, all examples in the rules are contrary to your interpretation. Every example of the players taking turns is either done resolving one thing at a time (creature actions) or allows the players to choose how much they do at a time, with passing being a valid option (voluntary enchantment reveals). All examples of simultaneous events have the players deciding the order they get resolved in (Traps / Upkeep Phase). Show me one single example where the player with Initiative is forced to resolve all of their effects before the next player is forced to do the same. I can't find it.
Doesn't the deployment phase work like that? Either you have to deploy everything before opponent deploys anything, or pass on the deployment phase? That's the way I was taught to do it. However, The vast majority of spellbooks use no more than one spawnpoint, and most of the time people don't decide to pass on their deploy after seeing what the opponent has deployed. Maybe I was wrong and it was just never pointed out to me because it never became relevant.
So then if I'm facing a Druid who is deploying multiple times in a round, and I have a spawnpoint of my own, and I have initiative, could I pass until the Druid has only one deployable planned spell left, and then deploy from my own spawnpoint?
-
Druid would have to deploy everything first if he/she has initiative.
-
The rules on the deployment phase are not currently very clear and there's another old thread somewhere where they were debated. Laddinfance is still working on an answer on that very topic, and basically right now we don't know exactly how deployment works with multiple spawnpoints. It definitely doesn't force you to deploy though.
It's most similar to revealing voluntary enchantments, where again you can choose how much to do and passing is a legitimate option. The main question is whether or not it would come back around to you after you've had your turn, or if you only get one turn, and thus one chance, to deploy. So, it doesn't work any better as a guide than revealing enchantments does. We're still left with an example where Initiative can choose to resolve as many triggered effects as they wish, or none at all, before giving their opponent the chance to resolve triggers. And if both players continuously delay? Well, I guess that's just not covered.
Or we could use the Action Phases as an example and say you HAVE to resolve a trigger unless your opponent has more triggers than you, and you go back and forth resolving one at a time. That doesn't really sound right either though, honestly.
And of course, if you use any of these as an example, you run into the same argument that is being used against me with the Upkeep phase. It's not an example of the general rule, but rather something specific to that situation.
In short, we have no rules spelled out anywhere telling us how to resolve simultaneous effects in a turn order kind of fashion. All we have is the instructions in the back of the codex that the person with Initiative resolves the issue. Which is fine if we let him decide how to resolve it. But people saying that he needs to resolve it according to a prescribed method that isn't detailed anywhere in the rules need to justify where their prescribed method comes from.
-
for the deployment the rules are clear:
"starting with the player who has the initiative, you can cast the spellS you assigned to your spawnpointS"
-
for the deployment the rules are clear:
"starting with the player who has the initiative, you can cast the spellS you assigned to your spawnpointS"
That's not clear -
- Do you start with that player and alternate?
- Do you start with that player, do all his Deployments, then all the other players?
FWIW I'd say we multiple spawnpoints in probably two thirds of our mages.
-
for the deployment the rules are clear:
"starting with the player who has the initiative, you can cast the spellS you assigned to your spawnpointS"
That's not clear -
- Do you start with that player and alternate?
- Do you start with that player, do all his Deployments, then all the other players?
FWIW I'd say we multiple spawnpoints in probably two thirds of our mages.
the "S" make it clear for me (the spellS of the first player and then the spellS of the second player)... but I see how you read it... well, an official rulling would be cool!
-
the "S" make it clear for me (the spellS of the first player and then the spellS of the second player)... but I see how you read it... well, an official rulling would be cool!
The plural could refer to the spells of the first player, or the players in general. It doesn't say what you have written (in bold) - that would be clear.
That sentence doesn't parse in English to definitively mean one or other.
-
So, to recap again:
1. During the upkeep phase, you decide the order of events that affect objects that you control.
For example, If your opponent's Ghoul Rot is damaging your creature, you decide, not your opponent.
2. During the upkeep phase, if an event should occur, but it would affect objects controlled by multiple players, the player with Initiative decides when it happens.
For example, if Death Link will heal you and damage your opponent's enchanted creature, the player with Initiative decides when to do that.
3. The exact wording of an ability matters. Highland Unicorn gives all creatures the Regenerate 1 trait, so each healing is a separate event, and will happen sequentially. But the 8th skull on Altar of Skulls gives all creatures the Finite Life trait, so it only happens once, not to each creature individually.
4. For a single event in the upkeep that affects multiple objects with seperate controllers, the player with Initiative derermines when the event happens, as if they controlled each affected object.
5. During the upkeep phase, the player with the initiative also determines which player to ask "what happens next?" The chosen player can only answer with events that affect an object they control, as usual.
6. The player with the Initiative may of course choose themselves to pick the next event. And they also are the player that choses the time of occurence for events that affect multiple players's objects. The combined effect of these rules is that for these sorts of events, the player with Initiative choses exactly when the event happens.
---
Outside the upkeep phase, RAW is that the player with Initiative resolves any timing isues by going first. I concur in part and dissent in part with Zuberi on this one.
I disagree that this isn't a playable RAW. If I have the Initiative and three events that could happen, and my opponent has four, what happens first? The rules say that I "go first," since I have the Initiative. There's no way to reason that away, without declaring a rules error, which I don't see enough evidence for, yet.
Ok, so if I'm not ready to declare a clear rules error it's incumbent on me to explain how exactly we can play the rules as written. Do we take turns or something? Nope.
After having my go, now I have two events and my opponent has four. As happened before, I go first, because I have the Initiative. Then, yet again, there is a timing issue, and I go first. Finally, there is no more timing issue, and the other player acts.
This is exactly what happens in the Upkeep phase except that instead of giving the player with Initiative a choice of player, the rules chose the player for us.
----
So, uh, are there any other reasons this might be a rules error?
Well, yes. The biggest problem is that I can't find any card this rule would apply to. Zone attacks would be the obvious candidate, but the rules specifically say that in their case the attacker choses the order.
How about Force Wave?
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13953.msg34022#msg34022
Nope. It's an old ruling, and not justified in writing, but the decision is that the Caster chooses. It's that way in the FAQ, too. Same for Repulse. Same for Gate to Hell. Same for Earthquake.
In fact, I can't find any example where the rulebook is even cited for this sort of question.
So the rule, in actual practice, is that the controller of the spell gets to pick.
I don't know how we got into this situation, but that's the answer. I propose altering the Codex and FAQ to reflect it.
-
Are you sure for the unique event with many effects during the upkeep?
For example if an object would deal 1 damage to every creatrure and another object would heal 1 damage to every creature, the player would decide the order for all creatures and not the creatures's controlers?
Outside the upkeep, I think the player with initiative goes first when players want to do something. But he chooses the order for effects of objects controled by different players.
What does "RAW" mean?
I proposed earlier the sentence below... does it seem correct?
The player with initiative goes first if both players want to act simultaneously.
The order of resolution of simultaneous effects is choosed by the controler of the effects. Exception: during the upkeep it's the controler of the objects affected by the effects who chooses the order.
And if the two rules don't solve the timing issue, the player with initiative chooses the order.
-
RAW is an abbreviation for Rules As Written. It conntrasts with Rules As Intended and Rules As Played.
---
If -- during the upkeep phase -- a card causes an event that does one damage to every creature in the arena, then the player with the Initiative choses when that event happens. This is because that event affects multiple players' objects, and someone has to decide when to complete the event.
On the other hand, if the card causes multiple seperate events, one for each creature in the arena, then there are no conflicts of control and each creatures' controller choses when those events happen to each of their own creatures, seperately.
---
If a spell, outside of the Upkeep Phase, causes multiple events -- acording to the FAQ for every card that I can think of where it would matter -- the spell's controller choses the order. There's clearly a lost ruling involved here, but that's what the FAQ says.
From a gameplay perspective, it's pretty clearly better this way anyway. We just need a rule to clarify the ruling.
-
If -- during the upkeep phase -- a card causes an event that does one damage to every creature in the arena, then the player with the Initiative choses when that event happens. This is because that event affects multiple players' objects, and someone has to decide when to complete the event.
just to be sure: the controler of the affected object can choose when other event that affects only his object happen (befor or after the multi target event)?
-
Nope.
During the Upkeep Phase, the player with Initiative makes all contested choices. If the order is contested, the player with Initiative choses who goes first, last, and inbetween.
The player who controls the affected object choses the order of all events that affect only that object, but the player with Initiative can insert the contested event anywhere they want.
Think of it like this:
I control a creature that will be affected by upkeep events A, B, and C. My opponent has the Initiative, so they control contested event X.
So, what happens first? I want C. My opponent wants X. My opponent choses that X happens. Then I get to decide how I want to order A, B, and C.
Or
I want C, and my opponent who has the Initiative thinks that's fine, so there's no conflict. Then I want B. My opponent decides that instead, X will happen now. Then I chose the order of A and B.
Or
Suppose I want X to happen first. Too bad, X affects more than one controllers' objects, and my opponent has Initiative. I can't chose X to happen, and I have to choose something else. So I pick C. Then I pick B. Then I pick A. Only then does my opponent decide that X happens.
---
Basically, Initiative gives you two separate powers.
1. You chose the order of events for any control-conflicted event, as if it only affected your objects.
2. You determine who says what happens next. The chosen player may only chose from events that they have control over.
If Alice has only one upkeep event, the player with Initiative decides when Alice's event happens. If Alice has two events, the player with Initiative decides when Alice's first event happens and when Alice's second event happens, but not the order of events. Alice can chose either of her two events to happen first. This is consistent with Alice's power to chose the order of all events that affect only her objects. But whenever there is a contested decision on what happens first overall, the player with Initiative decides.
-
wow...
it makes the initiative very powerfull!
are you sure of your interpretation?
I try to sumerise again:
The player with initiative goes first if both players want to act simultaneously.
The order of resolution of simultaneous effects is choosed by the controler of the effects's cause. Exception: during the upkeep it's the controler of the objects affected by the effects who chooses the order.
And if the two rules don't solve the timing issue, the player with initiative chooses the order (for example if an event affects objects from many players during upkeep).
-
Am I sure? Maybe 85%. There's no official, well spelled out, instructions with examples.
The official rules are that during the upkeep you make decisions affecting your own objects, and if there's a timing issue the player with Initiative decides. That's pretty much all that's written.
The examples I gave assume that the player with Initiative cares about the order of everything that he possibly can, so he or she gets to decide it all.
It's not nearly as powerful as it looks, though. Nearly all abilities that occur in the upkeep only effect one player's objects, or effect them with individualized events, so that no single event affects more than one object.
Burns, all curses except for Death Link, Regeneration, Upkeep +X except for Mind Control, etc all create single object events.
There's some rules ambiguity about which cards exactly qualify, but off the top of my head, it's mostly only two categories of cards. Idol of Pestilence / Altar of Skulls and that sort of thing on the one hand, and Enchantments with Upkeep +X and a secondary effect like Force Crush on the other. And even with Force Crush, you can't do the damage before you pay the mana because of the way the card is worded.
Force Crush is actually an interesting corner case, because it may not qualify. Normally, the controler of Force Crush would be the one who decides when to pay Force Crush's Upkeep cost. It's not clear if the damage is a new event that the creature's controller must order, or if it's part of the same event, which would cause a timing conflict and be reaolved by Initiative.
Now that I think about it, being conditional like that probably means that Force Crush's controler is the only player who decides when to pay the upkeep, and the damage is added to the event too late for it to matter in the ordering of events.
So there you go. Not even Force Crush counts.
I do know that it matters for Skeelax, Taunting Imp, because if the flame is on an opponent's creature it might go out before Imp has a chance to regenerate.
Really, though, there aren't that many times when it matters. Most players probably never have it come up. You've played this far without worrying about it, right?
-
the rules say you choose the order in wich EVENTS that affect your creature... and that makes a point for what you say...
-
Er, yes. I've been typing these responses on my phone.
-
the rules say you choose the order in wich EVENTS that affect your creature... and that makes a point for what you say...
Is that still in the v4 Rulebook? All references to Events were supposed to be removed at v4 because Events is not a defined game term (and this lead to all the changes in Enchantment reveal opportunities...).
-
Hmm, good question.
I'm pretty sure I've got the newest PDF. Hard to say since they stopped putting the version number in the file name.
You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order. Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.
My sense is that "events" is being used in the natural language meaning of the word, not any sort of jargon.
-
v4, yes.
-
My sense is that "events" is being used in the natural language meaning of the word, not any sort of jargon.
I agree, although I think it's a piece of natural language they should have avoided, having just removed it's rules connotation.
-
Personally, I wish they'd put it back and define it.
-
After looking over the rules again here is the simplest interpretation that I came up with and the one that i use in play.
Players act in the Action Stage AND whenever you must determine the order of events (this last clause covers Ready Stage and Action Stage) starting with the Initiative player and moving clockwise to remaining players. [Rules: p. 6 Phase 1: Initiative - "The player with the initiative acts first during the Action Stage and goes first whenever you must determine the order of events".]
In the Upkeep Phase this rule is used to resolve "the rare case that a timing issue occurs". The statement on p. 7 "...the player with the initiative decides the order" is interpreted as a restatement of the rule on p. 6, but in the context of resolving the order of events that affect your creatures and objects. So each player during Upkeep resolves events effecting their objects in their preferred order, but when a timing issue occurs all players must resolve in initiative order to determine the timing.
Revealing enchantments is resolved in initiative order except that players can continue to reveal after the first cycle if a player earlier in initiative order decided to reveal. [Rule p. 18 Revealing Enchantments - "If both [any] player want to reveal an enchantment at the same time, the player with initiative goes first. [...] Then the first player can reveal again, and so on."]
The Codex definition for Initiative p. 42 states. "Also, it is used to resolve any timing issues." So I use this as the basis for setting the sequence of timing IN Initiative order rather than giving a choice of timing to one player or another.