Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8588133" data-attributes="member: 6877472">That doesn't mean that instantaneous =/= instant.&nbsp; I know it seems like that's a contradiction, but I remember the early days of MtG, when creature activated abilities were called &quot;fast effects&quot;.&nbsp; In an issue of Duelist (oh yeah, I'm old), one of the designers said &quot;fast effects are like instants, but we never said they are instants, or are resolved as such&quot;.Obviously, they changed their mind on this topic, but the point remains that they didn't clearly define what the difference was, or that there even was a difference, until they felt they needed to.&nbsp; Instantaneous is defined solely by the rules for spells.&nbsp; All we definitively know about reactions is that they resolve &quot;after their trigger&quot;.Until we get clear developer insight on this topic, that's all the rules say.&nbsp; You can select a trigger, your action resolves after the trigger.&nbsp; Shield resolves after it's trigger but can still negate an attack.&nbsp; Counterspell resolves after it's trigger, but can still cancel a spell.We know this, because it's clearly spelled out that is what these spells DO.&nbsp; Just because something is not clearly spelled out isn't proof of anything.&nbsp; It may appear that there is a difference, that these discrete rules elements are called out as being different by the terminology used, but just like &quot;fast effects&quot;, that's not necessarily true.In absence of any clarification, the game remains, however you feel about it &quot;rulings not rules&quot;.&nbsp; Any way a DM falls on this topic isn't objectively right or wrong- it just comes down to whether or not it makes the game more or less fun for all involved.EDIT: I, for one, can't stand &quot;rulings not rules&quot; just because of debates like this.&nbsp; But some people still defend this game &quot;design&quot; and like it, and even though I think it's half-baked, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what people should and shouldn't like.Someone's reasons for preferring a thing are their own.&nbsp; Even when I point out that, &quot;you know, this isn't always an advantage&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8588133, member: 6877472"] That doesn't mean that instantaneous =/= instant. I know it seems like that's a contradiction, but I remember the early days of MtG, when creature activated abilities were called "fast effects". In an issue of Duelist (oh yeah, I'm old), one of the designers said "fast effects are like instants, but we never said they [B]are[/B] instants, or are resolved as such". Obviously, they changed their mind on this topic, but the point remains that they didn't clearly define what the difference was, or that there even was a difference, until they felt they needed to. Instantaneous is defined solely by the rules for spells. All we definitively know about reactions is that they resolve "after their trigger". Until we get clear developer insight on this topic, that's all the rules say. You can select a trigger, your action resolves after the trigger. Shield resolves after it's trigger but can still negate an attack. Counterspell resolves after it's trigger, but can still cancel a spell. We know this, because it's clearly spelled out that is what these spells DO. Just because something is not clearly spelled out isn't proof of anything. It may [I]appear[/I] that there is a difference, that these discrete rules elements are called out as being different by the terminology used, but just like "fast effects", that's not necessarily true. In absence of any clarification, the game remains, however you feel about it "rulings not rules". Any way a DM falls on this topic isn't objectively right or wrong- it just comes down to whether or not it makes the game more or less fun for all involved. EDIT: I, for one, can't stand "rulings not rules" just because of debates like this. But some people still defend this game "design" and like it, and even though I think it's half-baked, I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what people should and shouldn't like. Someone's reasons for preferring a thing are their own. Even when I point out that, "you know, this isn't always an advantage". [/QUOTE]

Verification