Blissful Agony

From the Rulings page:

An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is already a pending combat queued. [RTR 20020501]

Now, all depends on how you interpret "Pending".
Here are a couple of examples:

A plays Bum's Rush on B. A gets blocked by C.
In the resulting combat, if A plays Torrent to continue the action, (which means that, if the action is successful, a new combat will happen):

• C can play Blissful Agony, and the "continue the action" part from Torrent will be lost (General Rulings)
• C can play sup' Psyche! (and the "continue the action" part will be lost) (General Rulings)

Now, say A gets blocked by C, and D plays Siren's Lure. E now blocks. The results above still apply.

The idea is that the SL combat happens "late enough" (past resolution), whereas Psyche!, Blissful Agony, Hidden Lurker et al. combat all resolve immediately.

Said differently, Siren's Lure has its own "pending window" (which means you can't play two Siren's Lure on the same action, [LSJ 20020123] ).

Therefore it looks like we have (as far as I can see) four "pending combat windows":
- The classic block window (when Ali Kar blocks your Bum's Rush on AMaravati)
- The classic resolution window (when you enter in combat with Amaravati)
- The less-classical Yawp Court window (which follows its own rulings regarding Psyche! vs damage)
- The special Siren's Lure window

In each window, the ruling above applies. It doesn't extend to other windows.

thanks Pascal but seems unnecessarily complicated!

Squidalot wrote:

thanks Pascal but seems unnecessarily complicated!

"Metaphysics aren't easy" -- A. Einstein

Here's an example:

Saulot plays Bum's Rush on Nahum Enosh.
Qawiyya el-Ghaduba attempts to block. Anarch Convert (Inceptor + SIren's Lire + Blissful Agony) plays Siren's Lure.
Ariel attempts to block.
In this combat, one combatant could play Blissful Agony (sup), but not both.
Let's say none does, and Saulot plays Toreador's Bane (to continue the action).
The action is successful, Saulot enters combat with Nahum Enosh.
In this combat, one combatant could play Blissful AGony (sup), but not both.

At the end of the action, one combattant of the Anarch Convert vs Qawiyya combat can play Blissful Agony, but not both.



I think it's better to have this than to face stuff I've faced during the EC 2010, where two players weren't aware that you cannot play Psyche! after the opponent plays Blissful Agony, and did it. Three times. In a row. No queued combat.

I didn't need the example I got how it worked and I appreciate the it's bad if players play psyche to get queued combat but I find:

"At the end of the action, one combattant of the Anarch Convert vs Qawiyya combat can play Blissful Agony, but not both."

non-intuitive as you haven't queued anything yet just played a strike later that will queue something [hence always used [1] in James's post above as the ruling]
I just don't understand why at some stage BA has moved from ruling [1] to ruling [2] or why - that's the metaphysics i'm missing.
You can't 'pend' with BA until resolution so it doesn't make sense that the second player couldn't play a BA as well.

The unnecessarily complex bit referred to the 'four' cases of combats above. Eurgh mess and doesn't add anything as they're all the same case.

Ok, let's start from the other side.

Can't queue combats. That's the main idea. If you disagree with this one, it's easier to stop reading now, and say so

Now, suppose two players would actually play sup' BA. We'd be in a situation, during strike resolution, where we would have to have two combats start. They can't happen simultaneously, so someone would have to sequence them. One of them being the first, and the other being the second. I hope you see the trouble here. We now have queued combats (which, as stated several times, is forbidden).

If you think this state is OK, do let me know. I think it's not, as it introduces queued combats.

no I certainly don't think that's ok

I just don't think the 'metaphysics' of the card works like that and i'm interested why you can play a Sup BA on a Siren's lure action because that seems even more blatant 'combat is queued' than two sup BA's that haven't resolved.

[to make it easier I think Siren's Lure queued = BA already played at Superior as it seems like a sensible standardisation]