Long Dark Reach + Stealth

[Leon]

I was trying to react to Konrads post and I agree with you, melkor.

[Konrad Klar]

You, as hazard player, can't avoid its attack (to prevent it from being defeated ad example). It doesn't cover how the creatures are played.

It is good that you (as hazard player) have at least choice of playing or not playing of Long Dark Reach...
Seriously, some actions are optional, some other are mandatory.
How about not counting creature against the hazard limit? Is not counting against HL part of playing of hazard card? I so, why such exception is mentioned on Exhalation of Deacay, In Great Wrath, and on Long Dark Reach (in last case as clarification in CRF)? Meaningless text?

Sorry mate i don't see your point here. Not counting against HL is part of text of the hazard, but i don't see the point

mm75

By default each played hazard card counts against HL. By default action created by card in play does not count against HL. Default values and behavior does not need to be printed. Non-default values, behaviours, requirements need to be printed.
So if card's text says that attacking creature does not count against HL then are two posibilities:
a) it is exception of normal procedure of playing hazard.
b) such text is meaningless (as duplicating with standard rules). Card without such text would be working in exactly the same way.

[Wacho]

@Konrad: There are a lot of cards/rules that seem clear but people still argue about them. I think this is simply a clarification that the attack doesn't count against the HL, but it is a nice clarification to have so that people won't try to say that it does.

@BTook: My point is that the creature card is never played. You don't have a chance to respond to the creature before it attacks. You can respond to LDR or to the attack, but not the creature itself. The CRF entry doesn't change that. I agree that there is some language confusion but to say that the CRF entry changes the whole timing/play of LDR is reading a lot into the CRF that simply isn't there. I think it makes a lot more sense logically and textually to read the CRF entry as simply stating you can't choose to not have a creature attack if one is available.

[Konrad Klar]

You can respond to LDR or to the attack, but not the creature itself. The CRF entry doesn't change that. I agree that there is some language confusion but to say that the CRF entry changes the whole timing/play of LDR is reading a lot into the CRF that simply isn't there. I think it makes a lot more sense logically and textually to read the CRF entry as simply stating you can't choose to not have a creature attack if one is available.

Why not using similar logic for interpreting of text of Stealth?
Creature from LDR is not actually played because lacking of normal procedure declaring and resolving, so here we can speak about "playing" only in quotation marks ("").
However "No creature hazards may be played" from Stealth is treated absolutely strictly - only declared and resolved creatures may be taken into account here, creatures attacking as result of event not.

You can only respond to Test of Form, you cannot respond to special ring item. Can you say that, for this reasons (lack of normal procedure declaring and resolving), special ring is not played?

[jaded]

to Wacho: If the creature is not played - can you reveal it in chain of effects?

[Bandobras Took]

@BTook: My point is that the creature card is never played. You don't have a chance to respond to the creature before it attacks.

How is that the definition of playing a card? I don't have the chance to respond to characters my opponent plays during the organization phase; does that mean these cards are not played?

At certain points, card play is an action that can be responded to. But the ability to be responded to is not necessarily a trait of playing a card or treating a card as played.

[Konrad Klar]

@BTook: My point is that the creature card is never played. You don't have a chance to respond to the creature before it attacks.

How is that the definition of playing a card? I don't have the chance to respond to characters my opponent plays during the organization phase; does that mean these cards are not played?

Oh no. Twilight may be played in response and your opponent have chance to play something in response to declaration of characters.
Wacho's point was if I understand, that if something is not declared, then it is not played.

[Bandobras Took]

Declaring and Resolving still really have nothing to do with playing a card.

For the sake of argument, though:

# Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception.
# @ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] %

Long Dark Reach is considered as declaring an attack as soon as it is played. The possibility of the attack resolves when the card resolves.

And the creature card is still considered played because of the errata.

Otherwise the fact that the creature card is never in your hand is a far stronger argument against it being played than its being declared or not.

I would say that playing a card is a process of putting the card into play from anywhere (be it hand normally; discard pile, sideboard or even play deck with appropriate cards)

That does make sense, but it isn't what the rules say.

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.

There's really no way to get around that definition except by a specific override on a card's text/rules.

[Konrad Klar]

Long Dark Reach is considered as declaring an attack as soon as it is played. The possibility of the attack resolves when the card resolves.

And the creature card is still considered played because of the errata.

Otherwise the fact that the creature card is never in your hand is a far stronger argument against it being played than its being declared or not.

I would say that playing a card is a process of putting the card into play from anywhere (be it hand normally; discard pile, sideboard or even play deck with appropriate cards)

That does make sense, but it isn't what the rules say.

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.

There's really no way to get around that definition except by a specific override on a card's text/rules.

Looks like that in certain cases cards are played without playing them.

P.S.
Ultimate solution for reconciling errata to LDR with strict definition of "playing" in CRF.