October 31, 2024, 08:32:24 PM

Author Topic: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me  (Read 5068 times)

farkas1

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 533
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« on: May 30, 2017, 01:20:04 PM »
I understand upkeep when it comes to conditions.  The creature's controller chooses the order.

It gets fuzzy when multiple things start to do different things to the same creature during upkeep.  Looking up past threads about this topic have somewhat made it for me even fuzzier.

I know the person who has initiative gets to determine the order on which cards activate first if there is a timing issue.  So what really causes a timing issue mostly is things that regenerate and things that deal damage. 

My brain just needs a simple solution.  I maybe am just overthinking things here.



things I am looking for are:

Are these timing issues?  Do these scenarios follow the rules and are they the correct results?

So here is the couple of scenarios I thought of.

Scenario 1

my highland unicorn has one damage and in a poison gas cloud.  my opponent has initiative.  My opponent waits for highland unicorn to regenerate the one life, so that he may deal the two damage from the poison gas cloud.

Result:
Highland Regens the 1 damage, but takes 2 damage from the poison cloud

Is this scenario correct?   

Scenario 2

same thing except my highland unicorn has 0 damage.  My opponent has initiative.  my opponent chooses to do the damage last. 

Result:
my highland unicorn does not regen that upkeep but takes 2 damage from the poison gas Cloud



I would say A is correct and B is not.

This is how I see Scenario B playing out.

 there is not damage so the unicorn can not use the regenerate until the damage is applied thus allowing the unicorn to regenerate at the end of upkeep.

Alternate result for B:
unicorn regens 2 from the poison cloud.

If these are not timing issues then of course unicorn heals 2 no matter what the circumstances, because that is the smart play. 

They are different objects contending different things here so I feel these cards are timing issues.

I may have answered this question myself.  I just want to put my brain at ease since it has been thinking nonstop about the different scenarios.  Thanks in advance. 
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1547
  • Banana Stickers 8
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2017, 01:49:55 PM »
This is not a timing issue.  Poison Gas Cloud generates an effect and that effect applies to all creatures in the zone.  Each creature's controller adds it to the effects to resolve for their creatures during the upkeep.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Schwenkgott

  • Thunderdome
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1430
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2017, 01:52:17 PM »
I don't see a timing issue here. The unicorn is the creature affected by two effects. The controller of this creature can choose the order of these effects. So normally you would want to take the damage first so your regeneration can heal 2 damage instead of just 1 or 0.

As far as I understand timing issues, it means a situation where only one of the two effects can occur ... and after one has occured the second one cannot. Death Link is a famous example.
Can you heal your wounded creature first by leeching another ones power and maybe kill him? Or can this other creature regenerate first and survive while your creature is killed first before it can regenerate from Death Link? This is where Initiative is important.
Akiro, I have never prayed to you before. No one will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that one stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Akiro... so grant me strength! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

farkas1

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 533
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2017, 01:57:45 PM »
Ok thanks to both of you.   I was told that this was a timing by someone else that does not go on he forums much.  But has been really invested in the game for several years.  Sets my brain at ease. 

Few  more ?s

Does the same apply to idol of pestilence?  Regenerate and heal happen simultaneously? 


How does the elk staff work with healing in upkeep?  Is that a timing issue in relation to the idol or poison cloud? 
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2017, 02:09:58 PM »
Each player decides when to resolve effects that affect objects they control. The only time there is a timing issue is when deciding the relative order between an object I control and an object you control.

So if I have a creature that is taking damage and healing, all of that is happening to MY creature and I get to decide all of it. However if I have a creature that is healing and YOU have a different creature that is taking damage, and for some reason we want to decide the order those things happen in (maybe there's an on death effect) then that is a timing issue and initiative decides.

None of the things you've mentioned are timing issues. They all get decided by the player who's objects are being affected. My creature taking damage? I decide. My creature being healed? I decide.

farkas1

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 533
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2017, 02:15:04 PM »
Ok great thank you.  That's how I originally thought up until a few days ago this was questioned by a buddy.  It made me rethink some things.  I'm glad this will settle the debate. 
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2017, 02:17:14 PM »
Timing issues are actually very rare. Sometimes it might be difficult to tell whose object is being affected, and thus gets to decide, in which case I recommend letting Initiative decide at the moment and then checking the supplement or forums afterwards for an answer, but almost always there is a single person in charge and Initiative doesn't need to get involved.

farkas1

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 533
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2017, 02:35:37 PM »
Awesome again great info.  My question next to the rarity of these occurrences is maybe we could list the cards that are often at the center of these conflicts.  Or create a new thread with upkeep conflict cards to look out for

So what cards are the most notorious to create conflict in the upkeep phase?

To list a few that I have come across or read on here

Skeelax,
Pillar of righteous flames, whirlpool ect. 

I think that may also help those that come across this thread, that may simplify the issues. 
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 03:06:39 PM by farkas1 »
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2017, 04:56:13 AM »
Death Link:
Always causes timing conflict.

Lullaby:
When the last dissipate token on Lullaby is removed there is a timing conflict. The owner of Lullaby must have initiative in order for the creature to be affected a final time.

Whirlpool:
See Lullaby. The owner of Whirlpool must have initiative when the last token is removed for the enemy to take damage a final time. If the owner of Whirlpool has creatures himself that are effected he can 'save them' by resolving dissipate before damage on his creatures AFTER the opponent has received damage from Whirlpool (final dissipate token only).

Creatures with a death effect (goblin bomber, rot zombie, Unstable Imp) + something that kills them in the upkeep (burn, rot, bleed, idol of pestilence, Pillar of Light):
Just imagine a 1 health Goblin bomber in a zone with a 1 health Idol of Pestilence that can die to the explosion.

Pillar of Righteous flame:
Owner (if he he/she has initiative) can choose to resolve the 'remove dissipate token' before the opponent gets to regenerate his low HP unicorn and get the attack in.
Or if the unicorn is full HP he can choose to delay the 'remove dissipate token' and ask the owner of unicorn to do his upkeeps first so regen will have no effect as its full HP at the time.

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2017, 10:53:52 AM »
Quote from: jacksmack
Death Link:
Always causes timing conflict.

I feel like I must mention that this doesn't inherently, and thus doesn't always, cause a timing conflict. The important thing to note with how it is written is that the healing and the damage have to happen simultaneously. And the controller of Death Link gets to decide when they happen, per the card.

However, it should still probably go on the list because it will often cause a timing issue if the creature has some form of healing like Regeneration.

bigfatchef

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 603
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2017, 01:28:53 PM »
Death Link:
Always causes timing conflict.

Lullaby:
When the last dissipate token on Lullaby is removed there is a timing conflict. The owner of Lullaby must have initiative in order for the creature to be affected a final time.

Whirlpool:
See Lullaby. The owner of Whirlpool must have initiative when the last token is removed for the enemy to take damage a final time. If the owner of Whirlpool has creatures himself that are effected he can 'save them' by resolving dissipate before damage on his creatures AFTER the opponent has received damage from Whirlpool (final dissipate token only).

Creatures with a death effect (goblin bomber, rot zombie, Unstable Imp) + something that kills them in the upkeep (burn, rot, bleed, idol of pestilence, Pillar of Light):
Just imagine a 1 health Goblin bomber in a zone with a 1 health Idol of Pestilence that can die to the explosion.

Pillar of Righteous flame:
Owner (if he he/she has initiative) can choose to resolve the 'remove dissipate token' before the opponent gets to regenerate his low HP unicorn and get the attack in.
Or if the unicorn is full HP he can choose to delay the 'remove dissipate token' and ask the owner of unicorn to do his upkeeps first so regen will have no effect as its full HP at the time.
Good list!
So besides death link, the timing issues appear whenever a dissipate-triggered effect would take place at an enemy controlled creature, when the owner of the dissipate card has initiative, right?

Now we have a fiddly solution how to handle those, but I would love to see upkeep phase divided into more steps that are just clean and easy to use.

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2017, 01:44:28 PM »
Quote from: jacksmack
Death Link:
Always causes timing conflict.

I feel like I must mention that this doesn't inherently, and thus doesn't always, cause a timing conflict. The important thing to note with how it is written is that the healing and the damage have to happen simultaneously. And the controller of Death Link gets to decide when they happen, per the card.

However, it should still probably go on the list because it will often cause a timing issue if the creature has some form of healing like Regeneration.

Erhh... Speaking about Timing conflicts kinda involves at least 2 separate effects.

The creature with deathlink could also provide an upkeep effect to others such as Malacoda, so its not limited to effects on the actual creature with deathlink.

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2017, 01:55:59 PM »
Good list!
So besides death link, the timing issues appear whenever a dissipate-triggered effect would take place at an enemy controlled creature, when the owner of the dissipate card has initiative, right?

Not excately.

Regarding dissipate the conflict happens no matter who has initiative. That's what Timing Conflict is all about. 2 things happen. Different controllers. Who choose what happens first?
Regarding Lullaby it will be different result depending on initiative (assuming initiative  player decides optimally respectively ), but the timing conflict is there regardless.

It does not have to involve the dissipate trait. That's why i gave the goblin bomber example.

Its not as bad as it might seem as its pretty rare.

Some of the most important things to remember is:
How lullaby works (to avoid bad surprise of losing a round)
Whirlpool (to avoid bad surprise of losing a round)
Deathlink: a full hp 2 regen creature that recieves no other healing with deathlink will after maximum of 2 upkeeps always have 2 damage. And, remember it can kill regen creatures if they reach treshhold when owner of Deathlink has initiative.
How Pillar works.

These situations do happen and are easy enough to go through.