Klaus' pocketful of personalities - ignores requirements?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Klaus' pocketful of personalities...

Is there any rules reason would be subject to the requirements of the trigger it is emulating?

 

The trigger just resolves the trigger, and costs are associated with declaring triggers if I'm not mistaken. You would check costs on pocketful of personalities at the time of declaring (which the only one is choose a trigger that doesn't summon), and then get to do any trigger ignoring requirements.

Examples:

• Copy austringer trigger to make an upgrade, ignoring enemy only.
• Copy Vasilisa trigger to make scrap for summons, ignoring enemy construct only.
• Copy Alan Reid's Talk trigger, ignoring enemy only.

All these combos work, right?

[solkan]

17 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Copy Alan Reid's Talk trigger, ignoring enemy only.

And accomplishing what, exactly?  Getting that sentence FAQ’d to “by opposing player, we mean ‘target’s controller’”?  Because we’re not expecting multi-player games to exist or anything....

 

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, solkan said:

And accomplishing what, exactly?  Getting that sentence FAQ’d to “by opposing player, we mean ‘target’s controller’”?

 

 

Well, the next FAQ/errata isn't until March, so need to figure out what to do until then to help inspire those FAQs/Erratas!

[Paddywhack]

Should have worded it "This model declares and resolves the chosen trigger....". 

I would think the intent is that unless you have a specific special ability (like Seamus) that spells it out, you can't get around those restrictions. But who knows 🤷‍♂️.

[LeperColony]

PoP does direct you to resolve the trigger, but the rules for cost indicates that if the cost is not paid, "no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." (emphasis mine)

While I believe the most natural reading of PoP indicates you can just ignore triggers, the cost section does at least arguably articulate the concept that the cost and the effect of the trigger are separate effects and avoiding the first may render the second inert.  In other words, the cost is an integral part of the trigger, so when PoP tells you to resolve the trigger, you do have to resolve the entire trigger.  Unfortunately, you're past the declare stage so you can't pay the costs, and that means any other effect can't be resolved.

It may also be possible that what Wyrd really intended is for PoP to essentially begin a new trigger sequence including declaring.

But as I said, I think the most natural reading (which doesn't mean it's the one Wyrd will ultimately endorse) is that you don't have to pay the trigger's cost.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

PoP does direct you to resolve the trigger, but the rules for cost indicates that if the cost is not paid, "no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." (emphasis mine)

While I believe the most natural reading of PoP indicates you can just ignore triggers, the cost section does at least arguably articulate the concept that the cost and the effect of the trigger are separate effects and avoiding the first may render the second inert.  In other words, the cost is an integral part of the trigger, so when PoP tells you to resolve the trigger, you do have to resolve the entire trigger.  Unfortunately, you're past the declare stage so you can't pay the costs, and that means any other effect can't be resolved.

It may also be possible that what Wyrd really intended is for PoP to essentially begin a new trigger sequence including declaring.

But as I said, I think the most natural reading (which doesn't mean it's the one Wyrd will ultimately endorse) is that you don't have to pay the trigger's cost.

 

Hmm... Funky interpretation there.

This of course would mean you also couldn't resolve 'friendly only' or other triggers that you would meet the requirements for?

If you were to go with this interpretation?

[LeperColony]

9 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Hmm... Funky interpretation there.

This of course would mean you also couldn't resolve 'friendly only' or other triggers that you would meet the requirements for?

If you were to go with this interpretation?

Special Restrictions do not have the same text as cost (the text that indicates you can't resolve other portions if you don't resolve cost).  Rather, Special Restrictions say you can only declare the trigger if it meets the listed requirement.  Since PoP appears to skip the declaration stage, and there doesn't appear to be a listed consequence of not fulfilling the Special Restriction other than forbidding the trigger's declaration, I think it would ignore those restrictions.

Personally, I think the cleanest way to resolve it is for Wyrd to say PoP essentially re-starts the trigger declaration sequence (for the trigger PoP is using), so costs must be paid and Special Restrictions adhered to.

But RAW, in my opinion, there's textual support that says not paying the cost renders the rest of the trigger null, and that Special Restrictions can be avoided if the trigger somehow completes its entire resolution sequence while skipping declaration.

---

Also thinking about it a little more, I'm not so sure it's all that funky.  The reading relies on the same timing logic that makes costs skippable.  Namely, that you aren't ever declaring the trigger, and costs are paid at declaration.  What it does though is assign a different significance to not paying the cost.  Your initial interpretation assumed if you can skip the cost paying segment, then you get the trigger for free.  There's text in the rules to support the idea that that's not how it works.

[santaclaws01]

19 hours ago, LeperColony said:

PoP does direct you to resolve the trigger, but the rules for cost indicates that if the cost is not paid, "no other portion of the trigger may be resolved." (emphasis mine)

While I believe the most natural reading of PoP indicates you can just ignore triggers, the cost section does at least arguably articulate the concept that the cost and the effect of the trigger are separate effects and avoiding the first may render the second inert.  In other words, the cost is an integral part of the trigger, so when PoP tells you to resolve the trigger, you do have to resolve the entire trigger.  Unfortunately, you're past the declare stage so you can't pay the costs, and that means any other effect can't be resolved.

It may also be possible that what Wyrd really intended is for PoP to essentially begin a new trigger sequence including declaring.

But as I said, I think the most natural reading (which doesn't mean it's the one Wyrd will ultimately endorse) is that you don't have to pay the trigger's cost.

 

If you want to get technical, the cost rules say "These costs must be paid when the Trigger is declared or no other portion of the Trigger may be resolved". That means a restriction is imposed on resolving a trigger when that trigger is declared, but PoP only says "Choose a trigger... This model resolves the chosen trigger at it's normal timing...". The trigger being resolved is never actually declared, so any restrictions on what happens when it's declared are null.

[LeperColony]

That's actually not the only way to read it.  You're taking "when the trigger is declared" to be a condition on the action of paying costs.  Namely, if you don't pay costs when the trigger is declared, then it doesn't matter whether you pay them or not, the effect still happens.

However, there's another coherent way to read it as "if you don't pay costs when the trigger is declared, then you don't get the effect."  As there is no declare stage, costs aren't paid.  Because costs aren't paid, there's no effect.

The "or" in "...when the trigger is declared or [nothing else is resolved]" indicates the consequence of failing to pay the cost when the trigger is declared.  There's no need to read it in the manner you described.  

It may be helpful to construct a sequence flow chart:

1.  Declaration Step:  Were costs paid in this step?  No.

2.  Resolution Step:  Effects are resolved if costs are paid in the Declaration Step. 

-Were costs paid in the Declaration Step?  No

-Therefore, no effects are resolved

So in fact, whether or not you want to see this as a matter of being "technical," it's entirely consistent with the language to say the consequence of not paying the cost is the nullification of further effects.  And in fact, so far as I know, no part of the rules says if you can skip a cost's timing stage, the effect still occurs.  However, there is text to indicate what happens if you don't pay a cost.

But I don't think it's clear cut either way, and that makes sense, because this isn't a situation the original rules likely intended to cover.  Which is why I think RAW resolutions aren't particularly helpful in this case.

 

 

[AlexDS]

So, do we have an official ruling of this for VWS22?  @Maniacal_cackle