Rules Questions thread

[Hobusu]

I think this issue of “how do attacks work” might be cleared up by a step that a lot of people gloss over, which is that before you declare which specific thing you attack you have to declare which player you will be attacking. It’s more important to have that step in free for all, but it’s still relevant in 2 player for things like obliterate (you declare that Terras Q will attack something controlled by your opponent, then obliterate destroys their weakest units, and then you see what’s left and choose a legal target for the attack from among those controlled by that opponent).

With Stalking Tiger, I think your solution works (didn’t see it before posting my original response). Still, I’m not 100% certain of that, so if you need to know exactly how it works, you’ll need to check with @sharpobject.

[mysticjuicer]

@Coiser

My idea is to allow any ‘attack to be declared’, then, apply all attack modifiers (like tiger gaining stealth if attacking a unit), and then go back and perform the ‘is this attack legal’ process. I’m trying to list out what else this ‘messes up’, but it at least fixes the ‘declaring an illegal attack, and then gaining abilities that make it legal’.

That’s probably the more correct way to think about it, yes. Otherwise, Stalking Tiger’s ability would never allow it to attack a unit behind the patrol zone. I believe the only other attack ordering situation that gets weird is the Behind The Ferns/Steam Tank interaction, which is explicitly addressed by the card database.

[Hobusu]

@Coiser

(As best I can tell I haven’t recently asked a question that is clearly answered in the database or ability/card rules log. I try to review it prior to asking each question. Please forgive me if I ask something clearly answered there!)

Thank you for this, by the way. I’ve answered several questions other people have had by just quoting a ruling there, so it’s nice to see real questions!

[mysticjuicer]

Actually, a good guiding principle was pointed out by @MVashM earlier, which could contain the example of Debilitator Alpha.

@MVashM

I thought the atk/hp modifications rule was as easy as being always temporary except when the atk/hp modification is said to be by runes.

Put -1/1 rune. Always permanent.
Get -1/1. Always dependent. (Eg Abomination)

Is there any card that would contradict wih this simplification?

As far as I know, this is true in all cases.

[sharpobject]

I’ve been treating Stalking Tiger’s ability (and the similar abilities Unstoppable, “Unstoppable by X”, and “Unstoppable when attacking X”) as abilities that modify the set of things a unit or hero can declare an attack against. This gives mostly the same results as your model.

One situation in which these models differ is with Steam Tank + Behind the Ferns. Steam Tank really can use the stealth granted by Behind the Ferns to attack a building, probably dealing 7 damage.

[Coiser]

@sharpobject

I’ve been treating Stalking Tiger’s ability (and the similar abilities Unstoppable, “Unstoppable by X”, and “Unstoppable when attacking X”) as abilities that modify the set of things a unit or hero can declare an attack against.

Thanks for clarifying.

[ARMed_PIrate]

@Raiddinn

One thing MTG certainly gets right is templating, I think it wouldn’t hurt to come behind after the fact and add some templating to be applied to future print runs of the physical cards, to the tabletopia version, and to the CodexDB. It shouldn’t take that many hours and it would pay a lot of dividends down the road as people are less confused about how things are supposed to work.

It took MtG about 15 to 20 years of iterating before they really started getting the templating down pat. So I forgive Codex for having iffy templating in its first edition (even if there will never be a 2nd edition).

The only card game I’ve seen that got templating right on the first try was Spoils. (Leave it to professional MtG players to know how important templating is.)

Though for what it’s worth, Dominion, whose templating isn’t always great, at least got complete rulebooks with (literally) all the necessary answers at publication, so that can be done.

EDIT: I just want to make clear: I am not disagreeing with your statement. It has merit.

[Coiser]

Hi all, thanks for help on understanding things.

I have a general question regarding how much ‘difficult to track’ information needs to be retained from turn to turn. It was mentioned that there is a rule of thumb for atk/def/armor changes, so now I am curious about other attribute changes.

As an example:

Player A has a Regular-sized Rhinoceros.
Player B Mind Controls Rhino.
(Player B controls Rhino).

Player B plays Final Smash and gains control of Rhino.
(Player B controls Rhino and has also gained control of it)

Player A plays Hardened Mox.
Player A destroys Mind Control.

Does the game need to look back, and see that Player B has the most recent ‘gain control of’ Rhino? Is this a tracked attribute where you need to maintain a history of this ‘gaining’ occurring?

Possibility one:
Player A has Rhino.
Player B Mind Controls Rhino.
(Player B controls Rhino). -> The game knows that the original controller is player A. The only other information it knows is that player B controls it.

Player B plays Final Smash and gains control of Rhino.
(Player B controls Rhino and has also gained control of it) -> The game knows that the original controller is player A. Final Smash sets the controller to player B. Mind Control ‘overwrites’ this ownership and sets control to player B. The ‘past history’ of Final Smash gaining control of it is NOT tracked.

Player A plays Hardened Mox.
Player A destroys Mind Control.
Rhino returns to player A.
Player A trashes Mox.

Possibility two:
Same as #1 until…

Player B plays Final Smash and gains control of Rhino.
(Player B controls Rhino and has also gained control of it) -> The game knows that the original controller of is player A. Final Smash sets the controller to player B. Mind Control overwrites this ownership and sets control of Rhino to player B. The ‘past history’ of Final Smash gaining control of it IS tracked.

Player A plays Hardened Mox.
Player A destroys Mind Control.
Rhino returns to player A.
Player A trashes Mox.
The game checks and see’s that player B should control it (from having gained control with Final Smash).
Player B gains control of Rhino. (And it has arrival fatigue.)

Possibility three:
Same as #2 until…

Player A plays Hardened Mox.
Player A destroys Mind Control.
With Mind Control gone, the game checks and finds that player B should control it (from having gained control with Final Smash -> i.e. it sees the next-most ‘gain control of’ in line after Mind Control).
Player B gains control of Rhino. (It does NOT has arrival fatigue.)
Player A does NOT trashes Mox.

(Note that possibility three is inconsistent with the Mind Control ruling in that Rhino did not return to player A.)

To recap:
Question: does the game keep a history of attributes that are modified by something which is no longer (or never was) in play?

[Bryce_The_Rice]

Is the Mox actually relevant to this question, or are you just using it as a determinator for who owns the Rhino at the end of the sequence? (Ie, if it’s trashed or not you know who has the Rhino.)

[Coiser]

@Bryce_The_Rice

Is the Mox actually relevant to this question

Mox was added as an extra clarifying element between the outcome of possibility 2 and 3. It makes it further confusing (not really what I’m going for), but its there so I can establish a sequence of what happens so it can followed in a logical fashion repeatedly across similar scenarios.

Between options 2 and 3 (maybe neither is correct, so hypothetical at this point) “who has the Rhino” doesn’t necessarily tell you if Mox is trashed or not.

[Bryce_The_Rice]

I believe that option two could not occur, because ownership is a “state based action” (I think), which means it’s calculated immediately and not sequentially.

[mysticjuicer]

Rules Questions thread

Just want to make sure that I’m getting this right. Essentially as soon as something is Mind Controlled, it cannot be “stolen back” by “gain control of target unit” effects, unless it is with another effect that continuously applies “you now control this unit.” In other words, the only “gain control of this unit” effect that permanently steals the unit back is another Mind Control, and other effects don’t give you the unit even for a moment?

Mind control has some weird stuff going on. Not sure where the ruling on MC vs Final Smash and other “gain control” effects is at atm. Last time this discussion came up, the effects of Mind Control trumped all other effects; in other words, you don’t get to take back a unit that is Mind Controlled even for a second.

Not sure how that interacts with a situation where you’ve Final Smashed a unit into your control that you already control. I would assume that Final Smash just does nothing, personally.

edit: Was hoping that would show up as a link. You can find the discussion by using the search function for this thread and typing in "mind control " (the additional space after mind control is important) and going “show more” to look for sharpobject’s comments.

[sharpobject]

Mind control vs. all other change of control effects is one of a few things I would like to change. So we’ll see if I get to do that. The thing I’d like to change isn’t actually relevant to Cosier’s question in this case though.

[sharpobject]

You’ll get outcome #3 there. Final Smash creates a “non-card thing” that says “Player B controls this particular Oversized Rhinoceros” and that thing lasts until it stops doing anything. This is the same sort of thing that is created when you play Death Rites or Kidnapping, except that it might last forever. It won’t go away because of Mind Control. It will go away if that Oversized Rhinoceros ever leaves play.

Every time anything happens, you recalculate the derived state by applying a huge mountain of effects to everything. When you do this, the very first ones you apply are effects that change the controller of a thing, then effects that copy a thing.

Edit: I suppose I should edit that ruling to clarify that that’s what will happen in the absence of other effects that change the controller of the unit being Mind Controlled.

[Coiser]

@sharpobject

Every time anything happens, you recalculate the derived state by applying a huge mountain of effects to everything.

I feel like I am getting close to having all of these effects laid out correctly, in order, etc. Thanks for bearing with me while I try to get some of these ‘seldom likely to occur’ interactions outlined.

[sharpobject]

For this type of thing, in my abandoned rules implementation I wrote down one order that I think gives the right results all the time. codex_rules/ongoing_effects.txt at master · sharpobject/codex_rules · GitHub

[Coiser]

A.)
Regarding cards worded similar to Fire Dart, Ember Sparks, etc, can you choose an option which has no targets?
i.e. Can you play Flame Arrow and choose to deal 4 damage to a unit if none are in play, or do you have to choose to deal damage to a hero or building?

B.)
When playing Burning Volley, can you choose to deal 5 damage among 0 units, 0 heroes and 0 buildings?
i.e. Have Burning Volley effectively ‘do nothing’ based on the text written on it (choose zero for ‘any number’).

Not asking if A or B is a ‘good play’, just whether they are legal actions that can be taken.

C.)
You have a tech 1 building
Your opponent has neither a tech 1 nor tech 2 building
You cast Injunction
Do you have to choose your own tech 1 building or can you choose one of the other 3 options (opp tech 1, opp tech 2, your tech 2; although none of those buildings are in play) so that you are not negatively effected by it?

I see the ruling:
If an opponent does not have a tech II building, you won’t be able to use Injunction to disable their tech II units.

But I’m not sure if that implies that you cannot choose opp tech 2, or if choosing opp tech 2 just does nothing (i.e. does not disable their building and units) in that case.

[sharpobject]

A.)
If you play Flame Arrow, you can’t choose to use the unit mode if there are no units and there are some heroes/buildings. If you play Ember Sparks, you can’t choose to assign 1 damage to your opponent’s base, 1 damage to your own base, and the remaining 1 damage to nothing.

B.)
I think you have to pick something to do damage to, but I’m not sure. The point of “Any number” is that when it gets boosted by Hotter Fire the maximum number of targets increases, but it seems like it could also let you pick 0. Sickness has the same sort of issue.

C.)
You have to choose your own tech 1 building.

[Coiser]

Player B has tech 2 building in play

Player A casts Injunction and chooses to disable Player B’s tech 2 building

Player B plays Feral Strike and puts a Tech 2 Unit into play.

Is that legal? i.e. Will a ‘constructed but non-operational’ tech building suffice for Feral Strike requirements?

[sharpobject]

I think a non-functional tech 2 building should be enough for Feral Strike, but again I’m not sure.