washed trifle and trifle again LSJ?

[Andrea La Malfa]

Hi
just happened this in a jol game
in A's master phase
A: vessel
B: wash
A: another vessel
A: ashur tablets

i thought this is not doable as rules say that the subsequent trifle
are regular master cards.
so even if the first did not grant a MPA because it was canceled it
was played anyway and so the second trifle is a regular master card.

Have we always played wrong (not that this happens often..)?

thanks
Andrea

[LSJ]

Andrea La Malfa wrote:
> Hi
> just happened this in a jol game
> in A's master phase
> A: vessel
> B: wash
> A: another vessel
> A: ashur tablets
>
> i thought this is not doable as rules say that the subsequent trifle
> are regular master cards.
> so even if the first did not grant a MPA because it was canceled it
> was played anyway and so the second trifle is a regular master card.

1.6.2.5 Trifle: When a Methuselah plays a trifle (and it isn't canceled), she
gains an additional master phase action. A Methuselah can gain only one master
phase action from trifles in a given master phase; others act like regular
master cards.

Vessel1 (Canceled) did not provide an extra MPA.
Vessel2 (uncanceled) provides an extra MPA this master phase, since the limit
(only one MPA from trifles in a given master phase) has not yet been met.
Leaving room for:
Ashur Tablets.

[HardyRange]

Mmhhhh....

But what about the Wash?
Wash is a Trifle, that grants (per card text) a master phase action.
And [1.6.2.5] does not mention _who_ plays the trifle triggering that
rule.

So why is the following interpretation not valid?

Vessel1 (Canceled) did not provide an extra MPA.

Wash (used to cancel Vessel1) provides an extra MPA.
Vessel2 (uncanceled) does _not_ provide an extra MPA this master
phase, since the limit
(only one MPA from trifles in a given master phase) has been met.

Best regards,

Hardy Range

[Andrea La Malfa]

because the extra MPA is provided to the player of wash in his turn...

[LSJ]

But that MPA is not the MPA from Wash being a trifle.

> And [1.6.2.5] does not mention _who_ plays the trifle triggering that
> rule.
>
> So why is the following interpretation not valid?
>
> Vessel1 (Canceled) did not provide an extra MPA.
> Wash (used to cancel Vessel1) provides an extra MPA.
> Vessel2 (uncanceled) does _not_ provide an extra MPA this master
> phase, since the limit
> (only one MPA from trifles in a given master phase) has been met.

Because the limit is a limit of trifle MPAs.

For instance:

A: Ascendance.
B: Wash.
A: Ascendance.
C: Wash.

At this point, this second Wash provides A with an MPA, since that card-text MPA
is not a trifle MPA of the type being restricted by 1.6.2.5

So it could continue:

A: Ascendance.
All: No cancel.
A: (Gain 1 pool).

[Juggernaut1981]

> A: (Gain 1 pool).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think the central point is that the player who gains the MPA from a
Trifle is the player who PLAYED the Trifle. So an OoT Trifle provides
an extra MPA to the player who plays the OoT Trifle.

The rule is there to allow only 2 Masters to be played without another
effect like Parthenon, Anson, Cybele, etc... Trifle + Any Master or 1
Master Card only.