May I assign strikes? (ethics)

[CDavis7M]

There is still the issue that a Darkness Under Tree on-guard will eventually return to hand, and may be less useful (if player was counting on being able to discard to draw one at end of turn) than simply sending it to discard.

The player already drew one additional card by placing Darkness Under Tree on-guard (or playing a difference hazard) so they aren't missing out on the EoT discard to draw -- there is no difference in card draw. DUT will can be discarded after it's returned to hand or it can be saved at the EoT. The end result is actually better for the hazard player because they have this decision.

[Theo]

It seems like your analysis is assuming that:
1) placing Darkness Under Tree (or other potential fizzleable) on guard will lower the player below their hand size of the movement/hazard phase;
2) the other potential on-guard card will not be revealed.

Let's say the hazard player drew 2 for the move. Compare:
1) creature + Darkness Under Tree on-guard. No more cards cam be drawn.
2) creature + Darkness Under Tree fizzles + useful on-guard. Draw 1 more at end of m/h. Reveal on-guard and get option for discard and draw during end of turn.
3) creature + Darkness Under Tree on-guard + useful site card not on-guard. Draw 1 more at end of m/h, but still no chance to discard and draw, and ruined useful site card surprise element.

These are not "no difference".

[CDavis7M]

Let's say the hazard player drew 2 for the move. Compare:
1) creature + Darkness Under Tree on-guard. No more cards cam be drawn.
2) creature + Darkness Under Tree fizzles + useful on-guard. Draw 1 more at end of m/h. Reveal on-guard and get option for discard and draw during end of turn.
3) creature + Darkness Under Tree on-guard + useful site card not on-guard. Draw 1 more at end of m/h, but still no chance to discard and draw, and ruined useful site card surprise element.

Well, (2) and (3) don't work because there isn't sufficient hazard limit on the company of "solo Galva".

Regardless, there's no way to say whether it's better to keep Darkness Under Tree in hand or draw another card. The other potential differences are caused by the other cards/effects separate from whether Darkness Under Tree or some other card is in your hand or discard pile.

The bottom line is that you can't beat a tapping active condition by tapping the character. Any difference in this example is a result of the rules on active conditions or a misstep, not a difference caused by the rule allowing the resource player to have the option to start the chain of effects. When the creature is played, the hazard player sees that Galva is tapped and asks "May I assign strikes?" The resource player says "No" and then they discard Cram to untap. The Hazard player already knows that Galva is untapping in order to play an effect having a tapping active condition and not simply to avoid the -1 prowess modifier, because if the -1 modifier were the reason then Galva would have untapped at Step 4 of the Strike Sequence to avoid being tapped by cards such as Darkness Under Tree. Therefore, the Hazard player would never have had a chance to play Darkness Under Tree in this situation at all. So it doesn't matter that the Resource player can start the chain of effects.

----------

You always have the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects during your turn.

Have you been able to come up a situation where it would matter for the resource player to begin a chain of effects?

I guess not.

[Theo]

There are numerous ways to increase hazard limit while preserving the problem illustrated by the example. My previous responses was speaking to these generalities.

If you want to continue building on the earlier example with Galva and base hazard limit of 2, say the hazard player taps a Power Built By Waiting after the creature attack. Clear?

---

Regardless, there's no way to say whether it's better to keep Darkness Under Tree in hand or draw another card.

Better or worse is irrelevant. There is a difference. Thus, the ability of the resource player to ensure whichever option they think will be better for them matters. Being able to prevent option (2) matters.

Successfully resolving Darkness Under Tree is irrelevant. If the resource player didn't start the chain of effects, the hazard player could at least declare Darkness Under Tree. My original description:

In combat... basically any situation where the resource player wishes to deny the hazard player targets to keep their hand choked.

Neither option (1) nor (3) is as good as option (2) for the hazard player getting new cards in hand. Or are you confused about why a player might want to get new cards in their hand?

[CDavis7M]

Successfully resolving Darkness Under Tree is irrelevant. If the resource player didn't start the chain of effects, the hazard player could at least declare Darkness Under Tree.

Your example is based on missteps as discussed above. It's true that the hazard player may hold Darkness Under Tree or they can potentially draw a different card instead. Who knows which is better but the bottom line is that it's the outcome is the Hazard player's choice. It's not the Resource player's choice. The Hazard player would not have played Darkness Under Tree after the Resource player untapped their character before strikes were assigned unless the Resource player had given up their right to start the chain of effects. And the Hazard player would only have played Darkness Under Tree knowing full well that it would be negated by the Resource player satisfying active conditions because there is no other reason why the Resource player would have discarded Cram to untap before strikes were assigned instead of after. If the Resource player discarded cram and then assigned strikes without playing a resource having tapping as an active condition, then the Hazard player could play Darkness Under Tree at Step (1) of the strike sequence after the opportunity to cancel the attack had passed.

Neither option (1) nor (3) is as good as option (2) for the hazard player getting new cards in hand. Or are you confused about why a player might want to get new cards in their hand?

Option (2) is not a real option because it's based on missteps and misunderstanding of the rules. All cards that are not playable are sitting in the player's hand. Darkness Under Tree is not playable unless by missteps or according to my example above. The entire point of this post is how to avoid such situations.

So this example is not a situation where it would matter for the resource player to begin a chain of effects.

[rezwits]

I am just gonna reply real quick.

Due to the question: "Cancel?" (Yes|No);
Not being able to start combat immediately.

Arguments: |||

That's 3 arguments, since this post.

Yeah real good system...

I'll keep the tally updated.

Please someone explain to me why you wouldn't want (to stop arguing) and use this as the be all?
I am just saying what does it hurt? Am I missing some kind of strategy here (besides clarity)?

"Move along. Move along. Move along" – some confused Desert Storm Trooper in a wasteland...

[CDavis7M]

Please some explain to me why you wouldn't want (to stop arguing) and use this as the be all?
I am just saying what does it hurt? Am I missing some kind of strategy here (besides clarity)?

Maybe certain players don't want to stop arguing?

One style might be to put the game into a situation to ensure an ongoing rule debate. Actually, for competitive play, maybe this could be a good way to stall without making it look like you're stalling?

[Theo]

Neither option (1) nor (3) is as good as option (2) for the hazard player getting new cards in hand. Or are you confused about why a player might want to get new cards in their hand?

Option (2) is not a real option because it's based on missteps and misunderstanding of the rules. All cards that are not playable are sitting in the player's hand. Darkness Under Tree is not playable unless by missteps or according to my example above. The entire point of this post is how to avoid such situations.

So this example is not a situation where it would matter for the resource player to begin a chain of effects.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not following what your point is. You ask for an example of when it matters that the resource player is guaranteed to be able to start a chain of effects, and I give you an example of why there would be a different outcome if it weren't the case, and then you complain that because it would involve the resource player not playing first the example is impossible? That is precisely the point.

The Hazard player would not have played Darkness Under Tree after the Resource player untapped their character before strikes were assigned unless the Resource player had given up their right to start the chain of effects.

That is precisely why the Hazard player must ask if the Resource player is giving up their right to start the next chain of effects. This is what you asked for:

Have you been able to come up a situation where it would matter for the resource player to begin a chain of effects?

[CDavis7M]

You ask for an example of when it matters that the resource player is guaranteed to be able to start a chain of effects, and I give you an example of why there would be a different outcome if it weren't the case, and then you complain that because it would involve the resource player not playing first the example is impossible?

It is an example of where it could matter but it's also a situation where it never would matter if the players knew the rules and weren't bluffing.

The resource player doesn't know that the hazard player has Darkness Under Tree in their hand. So there is no reason for them not to play Concealment immediately after using Cram. Unless they were bluffing to see whether the hazard player had a tapping effect. And the hazard player would never have a reason to play Darkness Under Tree. Unless they asked to start the chain, which is also a bluff to see if the resource player would let them discard their card. So there is no difference because the situation wouldn't happen.

To clarify - I'm interested in knowing whether there is a situation where the resource player looking at their own hand would need to start the chain of effects in order to get the result they want based on their own cards. This could be a rule of thumb that everyone could play by.

I'm not interested in a situation where a player can bluff their opponent into revealing cards if their opponent didn't know the rules of the game.

[Theo]

Then you should be able to reason it out with what you already have.

If your basis is to believe that the hazard player is never going to do anything that could be fizzled by the resource player for the purpose of getting cards out of their hand, then I can see why you would believe that the timing rules don't matter.

The resource player doesn't know that the hazard player has Darkness Under Tree in their hand.

I've heard that, in many card (or other) games, it is an indication of expertise to take into consideration what your opponent might have at their disposal. Maybe that isn't how you choose to play, but others might (and are allowed to).

Until then, I will leave you with an idea that your words indicate may be new to you:

Just because one player wants to do X doesn't necessarily mean that the other player wants to prevent them from doing X. The two players have access to different information.