So, what am I missing? Time Stop Says:
"Search your deck for any number of cards and put them in your hand; if you play this card during an encounter, you may play any number of cards of each type during the encounter"
We also have this rule for playing cards during an encounter:
"In some situations, you are limited to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful"
So, I can draw cards with Time Stop, but unless there's a power that references the number of cards in my hand - I'd be required to *do something else* (i.e. play the drawn cards) in order to make Time Stop relevant - and therefore playing Time Stop during an encounter should be illegal.
On what basis am I allowed to play Time Stop during an encounter ?!?
OK, it's a good question, which I hadn't considered.
But.... isn't gaining the ability to play any number of cards of each type immediately relevant?
But.... isn't gaining the ability to play any number of cards of each type immediately relevant?
Тhat's the thing - it may not be relevant *unless* you play 2 or more cards of the same type... which is again "requiring you to do something else".
I see. We already do have a ruling that I can play Rage if the player is going to use the ability it grants, which contradicts the rule you cite in exactly the same way.
The fact Time Stop explicitly tells you that you can play it during an encounter by including the text "if you play this during an encounter" is what lets you play it during an encounter. In other words, this card overrides the rulebook rule. The cards you fetch don't have to all be played on that encounter.
The fact Time Stop explicitly tells you that you can play it during an encounter by including the text "if you play this during an encounter" is what lets you play it during an encounter.
Well, it doesn't actually tell you "explicitly", but OK, from what I gather - your reading is that:
"if you play this during an encounter"
is actually intended to *implicitly* mean:
"You may play this card during an encounter; if you do, you may play any number of cards of each type during the encounter."
I can see an argument for this, but the actual problem (which, looking back, I have failed to properly identify in my original post) is not with Time Stop being playable at all during an encounter, but rather with the way everybody seems to suggest they're playing it - being played to draw card which you want to then play during the encounter.
To attempt to clarify: Time Stop currently may be seen as a perfectly functional card, that essentially boils down to:
"Play during an encounter to draw cards from your deck IF THE NUMBER OF CARDS IN YOUR HAND IS RELEVANT TO THE ENCOUNTER"
OTOH, it CANNOT be read as:
"Play during an encounter to draw cards from your deck, which you then intend to play ("DOING SOMETHING ELSE") in order for Time Stop "TO BE MEANINGFUL" - which is illegal, by the Rulebook quote in OP.
I also think "play any number of cards of each type" is relevant even if you don't play more than 1 of each type. I can't get into it now, but I'll explain why in a few hours.
I'm with Longshot on this one, it seems clear that the intention is:
"Search your deck for any number of cards and put them in your hand. You may play this card during an encounter, if you do, you may then play any number of cards of each type during this encounter"
Note however that those cards you play must still be allowed to be played during that encounter: you can play 2 blessings, but cannot play 2 cards that define the skill to be used, or a card with the poison trait, or a Cure...
Note also that TS allows you not only to play cards that you draw, but also those you already had in hand (providing you respect the limitations on my previous sentence).
I know all that is obvious/overkill, but now it's written :-).
Now if I wanted to add something fun I would add that a perfect wording would rather be:
"Search your deck for any number of cards and put them in your hand. You may play this card during an encounter, if you do, you may then play any number of different cards of each type during this encounter"
See the point? Just to avoid revealing 1000 times the same card that gives you +1 to the check ;-).
... or maybe you can. After all TS is the ultimate magic...
Not sure of that. Time stop stops the time so you have a time to play cure, augury or any other card because you have unlimited amounth of time of doing it. But I agree that you can only play one card that spesific the skill... or... I at Least supose so...
;)
See the point? Just to avoid revealing 1000 times the same card that gives you +1 to the check ;-).
This is still covered by this rule:
"You may not reveal the same card for its power more than once per check or step.""The limitation above is completely different from the "one card per type per step" (which is override by Time Stop)
In some situations, you are limited to playing cards or using powers that affect or otherwise relate to the current situation. In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the situation.
This is the rule in question (which didn't exist at the time of Wrath, I might add, although that fact is not relevant to my argument).
The default situation in an encounter is that you can only play one card of each type. When you play Time Stop, it changes that so you are no longer bound by that restriction. That right there is affecting the current situation; Time Stop directly changed the rules for the encounter. No other cards need to be played and no other actions need to be performed for that rules bend to happen, it just happens. Whether or not you make use of that to play 2+ cards of a single type is irrelevant in determining whether or not Time Stop affects the situation of an encounter.
However, I find this argument to be weaker than what I initially wrote. That is, the fact Time Stop explicitly mentions what happens when you play it during an encounter is it also granting you permission to play it during an encounter, thereby completely bypassing the above rule about affecting the situation (as the Golden Rules state that cards trump rulebook, and the affecting the situation sidebar does not use the word "never"). I find this line of reasoning to be far more prescient for Time Stop, as the ability to draw any number of arbitrary cards from your deck will mostly likely have you grabbing cards you do not plan on using during the encounter, but rather to help you power through the rest of your turn(s). Normally, such a thing would not be allowed during an encounter (even drawing cards you plan on using that encounter would not be allowed), but by applying the logic of "Time Stop having an effect that happens during the encounter means I can play it during an encounter, which means it bypasses the affecting the situation rule" you can get away with doing that.
If you really think it needs to explicitly say "You may play this card during an encounter." then fine, but I think the intent is clear enough already; there'd be no point in having an extra effect when you play it during an encounter if you weren't allowed to play it during an encounter.
The default situation in an encounter is that you can only play one card of each type. When you play Time Stop, it changes that so you are no longer bound by that restriction. That right there is affecting the current situation; Time Stop directly changed the rules for the encounter. No other cards need to be played and no other actions need to be performed for that rules bend to happen, it just happens. Whether or not you make use of that to play 2+ cards of a single type is irrelevant in determining whether or not Time Stop affects the situation of an encounter.
However, I find this argument to be weaker than what I initially wrote. That is, the fact Time Stop explicitly mentions what happens when you play it during an encounter is it also granting you permission to play it during an encounter, thereby completely bypassing the above rule about affecting the situation (as the Golden Rules state that cards trump rulebook, and the affecting the situation sidebar does not use the word "never").
I see what you're saying, but here's the problems I have with this 2 arguments:
Argument 1 (that elcoderdude mentioned) - "changing the '1 card per type' is relevant enough'": Notice the way TS is worded - "Search your deck for any number of cards and put them in your hand; IF YOU PLAY..." To me, this appears similar to the case of another spell that was discussed on the forums -can't remember the name and exact effect, I believe it was a Class Deck spell, but the logical construction was something to the effect of:
"Discard this card to [EFFECT_1]; you may {EFFECT_2]"
A user was asking if he was able to play the card for Effect 2, even though Effect 1 wasn't relevant to his situation - the natural consensus on the forum was that "No, you cannot", as Effect 1 was the 'main', "relevant" cause to play the card, while Effect 2 was just a 'bonus', if it happened to apply to the situation.
Similarly, TS wording appears (to me) to say "Bury this card to draw cards (Effect 1); IF it happens to be in encounter, you may play more than 1 per type (Effect 2, "bonus", only conditionally applicable if played TS for the "relevant" Effect 1)
(This argument is in addition -and in support of- my opinion that changing the '1 card per type' rule is not "relevant" in and of itself; this is why we have the Rage FAQ mentioned by elcoderdude)
Argument 2: "'if you play this card during an encounter' implies an exception to the "relevance" rule.
This would in fact be a pretty solid argument if Time Stop HADN'T any other sensible way to be played. As I mentioned a few times above, however, TS *IS* perfectly capable to be played during an encounter - only its power would be almost useless (if only something else cares about the number of cards in hand); the absence of such effects, though, doesn't just give us a free reign to *assume* designer's intent and to dismiss the need for "relevance".