Ok… lets just settle a few things here.
1. I know what a replacement effect is… not sure why you keep bringing it up like I don't. I never argued that it wasn't and even mentinoed several times that it was a replacement effect. So yes… I agree. EM's effect is a replacement effect. Actually, I'll apologize here lil a bit. Rereading it, I know why you're continueing to lecture me about replacement effects. There was a small bit of confusion when I quoted a *snipped* portion of one of your posts to re-open the discussion about the 'altering passive' rule. Instead of possibly getting my intented effect it seems that you mostly saw my arguement from the an unintended angle which has likely skewed this discussion a small amount.
2. Damon's quoted responses, implied that EM's effect didn't actually finish turning into an attachment until step 4. This is obvioulsy not what actually happens (but merely what I thought you guys were trying to tell me). Regardless, I still think, with the wording we have, should still be resolved before step 3. So we still have something to discuss.
3. Damon and I (and I believe everyone else including you, but trying not to assume to much here) seem to agree that the 'altering passive' rule applies to this situation. I know this because even Damon said that the effect is triggered and resolved in step 1.
So in the timiing structure, all the way up to step 1. b)… we're all one big happy family. So my next step is to, as simply as possible, explain the 'alter passive rule'. (lol, I could be doing an aweful job of that right now as I think this now counts as a book. lol)
""NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied.""
If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resloved on the action,…..
Resolved. Aka. Completely executed. Note its past tense. Its not 'will reslove', its not 'resloving', but in fact resolved. Finished. How do you completely execute an altering passive without actually following it through to the end?
I'll actually answer this question later, so please hold thy rage.
…which now altered, is initiated.
This puts EM's ability resolustion and resolved state in step 1 Action is Initaited.
Now, I already think EM should be attachment at this point. However, that is not Damon's intent. Damon (and I pretty sure you as well Pen) think that EM's ability is applied on the action and is merely waiting till EM is wounded or is made insane.
See, I clearly get what you guys are going for. However… EM's effect doesn't, and I repeat, does NOT say "When EM is wounded…." which is the typical wording used in a replacement effect that is meant to not actually replace anything until the thing it is replaces is actually happening.
IE. Mr. David Pan, Professor Sam Campbell, Chess Prodigy… "When resolving struggles at a story that Mr. David Pan is committed to, count the total skill of all participating characters instead of the icons to determine the winner of each struggle."
The wording on those cards is the correct way to word an altering passive effect who's applied effect doesn't actually do its replacing until the thing its replacing is actually happening.
Expendable Musle on the other hand does not follow this!
"If Expendable Muscle would be wounded or go insane,…"
- Would be =/= (does not equal) When.
Would be, is an explicit refrence to its designation to a wounding/insanity effect. So in order to resolve EM's effect… it only needs to be designated to be affected by a wounding or insanity effect. Not actually being wounded or made insane. So when EM is deginated by a wounding/insanity effect it instead turns into attachment. Which is a perfectly legit replacement effect.
This of course… does mean that the effect that does the designating effect can be canceled and EM would still become an attachment anyway. Actually… let me rephrase that.
EM would actually become an attachment BEFORE disrupts could even possibly cancel the effect. Because as we read above, the passive effect is resloved on the action well before disrupts can touch the triggering action.
- This, in no way, breaks the game… at all. It clearly fits the wording provided.
This is, obviously, not what Damon intends to happen and why I blamed it on a old wording error. Thus I suggested it be erratta'd, not to use the word resloved (or rather (more clearly?) define the different levels of resolved) in certain ways…… or the ruling be changed. Otherwise… techincally… it doesn't work the way you/they want it to. (still) In my opinion anyway.
I believe I'm actually now pretty sure that I'm correct in this. The wording I've quoted fits perfectly. It doesn't break the game. I have clear examples of how its supposed to be done. I've pointed out how EM doesn't follow those given examples. I can't find an example that clearly defies my intreptation in the same way that I've found examples that defies the official ruling. What more do I need?
Oh… just to make sure I don't get accused of this. I'm NOT trying to twist words to fit how I'm now reading this. First glance I saw nothing I disagreed with. It wasn't until after digging much deeper that I've come to this conclusion. Yes there were some bumps along the road during the learning proccess, but once I switched sides everytime I've dug I only ended up coming to the same conclusion in a stronger way than the last.
Sorry for that disclaimer…
Anyway… so ya. If it makes anyone feel better I agree with the Short Fuse + Educated Officer ruling! I'm not a fan, but based on everything else its legit and follows other consistancies similiar to the one you already pointed out Pen.