Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (
More info?)
Christophe Dehlinger <dehlinger@evc.net> wrote:
>I don't really see your point here. There was never a question of an effect
>on layer 5 depending on an effect in layer 3,
There seemed to be one given. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
>it was that the existence of a
>dependency between two effects on layer 5 depends on an effect in layer 3.
>The question is : given a layer n, as effects on layers <n affect the
>dependencies within n, what information is taken into account when
>determining the dependencies in n, and in particular which effects are
>applied before determining them ?
_Given_ the layers, you can pretty much assume a 'background' of "all the
layers below the one you're looking at have been applied already". Which can,
for layers 1,2,3,4, change what exists in later layers or what the existing
effects say or do.
>The comprehensive rules are quite clear as
>to the role of the layers and more generally to what to take into account
>when computing the _values_ of characteristics, but not so much when
>determining dependencies, as they do not precise in what context the test
>should be made.
Well, you can't -ignore- already-applied effects, that pretty much leads to
totally unintuitive and incorrect results ("I Sleight the Crusade to say
'blue', but it still checks only white creatures?")... and you can't ignore
things in the same layer, because that's what you're checking -for- dependency.
But how to construct the 'background' - do you include all the effects in the
layer except the two you're looking at? only the ones you already (somehow)
know aren't dependent on either one? only effects from previous layers? - all
the ways to do it have -some- flaw or other, and have one or more people who
are against doing it that way.
>Anyway, I guess I misunderstood your previous post. When you wrote:
>> That's one of the great not-very-talked about questions of timestamp/
>> dependency. I -prefer- to think of effects as depending on each other or
>> not, independent of what other effects MIGHT be affecting them or what
>> permanents may or may not be in play.
>you also meant "...but dependent of the other effects that are _known_ to be
>applied before the considered effects, such as effects of previous layers",
>right?
Right. I think. As you note, the layers actually divide the dependency
question into six separate subquestions (some of which are trivial in many
situations), taken in order...
>What I had originally understood was that there was no distinction between
>potential and actual dependencies. Thus, dependencies could be determined
>outside the game : Hidden Path would always depend on Darkest Hour,
>regardless of the game state.
That's what I'd like to be the case. But there are features of that that
others are unhappy with, or argue against, including the fact that it gives
-too many- dependencies. More precisely, I'd like there to be a potential
dependency there, but also that you check whether there is an -actual-
dependency there before trying to order stuff. (In this case stuff from
a lower layer can 'enable' the potential dependency - or stuff in this
layer, say "All black creatures are also green", could. But in either case
there's another effect needed to drive the potential to actual, whereas
there's no intermediary needed for Darkest Hour / Reclamation [though an
intermediary can -remove- their dependency by changing a color word on one
or the other...].)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
. I haven't been looking into
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram