General Confusion (not mine) on Ready to His Will

[Konrad Klar]

Then would not the creature becoming an ally override what normally happens (discarding)?

Yes. Creature becoming an ally override what normally happens (discarding).

Creature is target here. Ready To His Will is not played on creature in discard pile. If canceling of attacks and making ally would be separate actions (like discarding PE and cc in case of Marvels Told, where it have important consequences - discarding as first coruption card on sage makes cc easier), then action "creature becomes ally" could not have valid target.

[Bandobras Took]

Actually, I'm trying to find where a creature is discarded immediately after an attack is canceled. The closest I can find is

A detainment attack from a creature is never defeated and the creature's card is always discarded after the attack is resolved.

In most cases, only canceling occurs, and so the creature is discarded because its attack is resolved.

In the case of Ready to His Will, canceling occurs, but also another action, and this precludes discarding the creature since no other actions may occur between the resolution of multiple actions on a card.

I think.

[Konrad Klar]

It would mean that character cannot discarded as result of failed cc if cc is first action of multiple action card (nice perpective for targets of Malady).

No action may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.

P.S.

I'm tired.

[Bandobras Took]

If it can't be declared, then it certainly can't resolve.

[Konrad Klar]

Results of actions are never declared, similarly as exhausting of play deck.

[Bandobras Took]

But then we're back to whether the attack has resolved. I don't think an attack is fully resolved until all the cards affecting it are resolved; and a creature is not discarded until the attack is completely resolved*. However, by that time, Ready interposes its own effect.

* resolved according to the rule previously quoted, not in the usual sense of resolving in a chain of effects.

[Konrad Klar]

So where is now moot point?

I see two options:

1. Canceled attack is considered fully resolved (creature card is discarded) when the cards affecting it are resolved.
2. Canceled attack is considered fully resolved (creature card is discarded) when action "cancel" is resolved.

In second case action of Ready To His Will "creature becomes ally" would be obviously simultaneous with "all attacks are canceled". Otherwise "creature becomes ally" could not have target at its resolution.

Effectively Ready To His Will is working in the same way in both cases.
Difference is in way in which it is internally working.



Arguments against option 1:

- If creature have multiple attacks and Forewarned is Forearmed is in play then it leads to strange (funny?) situation, where attacks are not canceled but creature becomes ally.

- Following scenario would be possible:

Playing of:
1. Token of Goodwill
2. Token of Goodwill
3. Ready to His Will

Even if attack(s) would be canceled by Ready to His Will they would not be considered as resolved and as being still in play could be targeted by Token of Goodwill (played for purpose of searching for resource).

[Bandobras Took]

Can you cancel an attack that's already been canceled?

[Konrad Klar]

Can you wound character already wounded?
As long as he is in play - yes.
Target exists and still may be targeted.

But returning to question when exactly canceled attack is fully resolved I think that:

an attack is fully resolved when all the cards affecting it are resolved

is bad concept. However it is your concept. Canceling of already canceled attack is one of practical consequentions of this concept.

Maybe your was not quite precise saying:

I don't think an attack is fully resolved until all the cards affecting it are resolved; and a creature is not discarded until the attack is completely resolved*

and this phrase requires some polishing.

[Bandobras Took]

Then I'm left with no choice but to say that you can play multiple Tokens in response to one another.

The multiple actions cannot occur simultaneously because the Balrog rule on cards with multiple actions forbids this.

I also cannot conceive of any definition of resolving an attack that allows it to be resolved before all cards affecting it have resolved.

[Konrad Klar]

If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed. As an exception, in one of the
effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.

It does not prove and does not exclude possibility of simultaneous actions. It just forbids of declaring anything between multiple actions of card.
After all such actions exists. e.g. "Discard the Wizard (i.e., he becomes unrevealed) and any non-item cards he controls. Place any items he controls under this card and keep these off to the side (these items are considered to still be in play)." from Sacrifice of Form does not seem to be separate actions.

Resolving it strictly as separate:
1. Discard the Wizard (i.e., he becomes unrevealed) and any non-item cards he controls.
2. Place any items he controls under this card and keep these off to the side (these items are considered to still be in play).

would lead to situation where during resolving 1. items are discarded too, because

When a card leaves active play (discarded, eliminated, returned to owner’s hand, etc.), discard all cards played on it.

(another Balrog clarification)
not giving chance for 2. (items can be placed off to the side, but cannot hang in air without host).

[Konrad Klar]

Oh, sorry. I forgot completely about other confusion concerning Sacrifice of Form and active conditions. Maybe it is not good example of simultaneus actions created by card.

[Bandobras Took]

If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed. As an exception, in one of the
effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.

It does not prove and does not exclude possibility of simultaneous actions. It just forbids of declaring anything between multiple actions of card.

I think it does preclude the possibility of simultaneous actions:

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.

They are declared in an order and resolved in an order. That is of necessity one after another, not simultaneously.

Perhaps you'll at least agree with me that this rule makes dingo's kidneys out of trying to interpret any card with multiple actions?

[Konrad Klar]

I don't know what is "dingo's kidneys". English is not my native language...

[Bandobras Took]

A dingo is a small doglike animal, and kidneys are a part of processing human waste.

The general idea is a "Big mess."