One problem I see with setting the “can this attack” attribute as a true/false toggle is that normal Vined units would remain unable to attack even after Vine was removed.
We have some understanding that things gained from attachments are lost when attachments are removed. Although not specifically stated, if Soul Stones goes away, the unit loses +1/+1 for instance.
So it also loses its ‘can’t attack = true’ ability (i.e. it gets ‘reset’ however you want to think of it)
If you really want to know the details…I skipped the information regarding how many abilities are really considered, and where you compare their true/false states:
i.e.
Can the card attack on its own (arrival fatigue, etc)
is the card allowed to attack based on another card
'other abilities that prevent attacking…don’t want to unnecessarily lengthen this)
Then its a big if-then statement to arrive at the final result of ‘can this attack’, based on the true/false Boolean operators of all the other attributes.
So, in the above (garg with vines)
Can attack on own = false
allowed to attack = false
can attack = false
Activate Gargoyle ability
Can attack on own = true
allowed to attack = false
can attack = false
next turn destroy vines
Can attack on own = false
allowed to attack = true
can attack = false
Then activate its own ability
Can attack on own = true
allowed to attack = true
can attack = true
Note: This is my model/understanding of implementing, potentially not correct.
1 Like
In this case, when attachments are removed do they ‘reset’ the unit to the state they were in immediately prior to the attachment being played, their “natural” state without the attachment, or their initial state? For example, if a Vined Gargoyle’s ability is activated, and Vine is then removed, would it be able to attack? What if it was Vined after the ability is activated, then had Vine removed?
If you add Entangling Vines to a unit, then remove it, and do nothing else, that should not change whether it can attack or patrol. It might sideline it though.
1 Like
So do attachments withdraw their effects only or reset the unit to the state they were in before when removed? If a Gargoyle’s ability is activated mid-Vine then the Vine is removed on the same turn, am I right in thinking that it can attack?
The state at the end there should be the same as if you activated the ability without any vines being involved.
4 Likes
This wouldn’t allow you to increase your number of targets with hotter fire, though. (I still think 0 should be valid, by your reasoning that “up to” means “less than or equal to,” and 0 is a number in modern counting systems.)
Well, Behind the Ferns and Spirit of the Panda are both ongoing spells (“enchantments” in MtG terms, even if one would be an aura and the other not) with continuous effects, right?
So if you have BtF first, the Huntress gets Stealth, then you play SotP on it, and it gets +2/+2, but the BtF is continuously checking attack power, so the Huntress immediately loses stealth, right? (Even if you are applying both of these continuous effects after or “on top of” any continuous or triggered effects created by the unit card itself.)
Steam Tank is a different matter. I would argue that Steam Tank loses Stealth once it attacks a building (as soon as it gets the ATK bonus, the BtF Stealth falls off), but it doesn’t matter because Stealth only limits target selection, not what happens after target selection, and it already selected a legal (at the time) target.
Though I really appreciated @Coiser pointing out earlier that the Stalking Tiger’s wording is really funky and doesn’t seem to work with the Steam Tank ruling. I would say that Stalking Tiger’s ability should be rewritten or ruled to really say:
“Stalking Tiger can attack units as if it had Stealth (all detector rules apply when doing so).”
This fixes the timing, because it doesn’t require you to choose your target before getting stealth; it instead says that you are always treated as having an ability that is similar to stealth, but with a more limited range of attack targets (backline units, but not backline buildings/heroes).
2 Likes
It seems crazy to me that Xenostalker can’t choose zero for its “Attacks:” ability. Likewise, if you aren’t supposed to be able to choose zero for Sickness, then it should be templated similarly to Ember Sparks.
3 Likes
Word. This goes to what @Coiser was saying about “feeling tricked” before. “Up to” not including 0 goes against the way those words are used in virtually every other card game, and, more importantly, the English language in all mathematical contexts.
1 Like
You forgot to add “and almost all other contexts”.
1 Like
I think at this point in the discussion, its time to accept Codex has flawed wording, stop trying to justify interactions in terms of the text, and just ascertain then follow the official ruling/spirit of the law.
4 Likes
I have no problem with this approach, except to tell you ahead of time that my next question is going to be:
What is the official (unwritten) ruling that changes the way Tenderfoot works?
And I have to repeat this question for every single card in the game. (This is an unfortunate situation, and for sure I can’t get my friends to play a game with me when I tell them that they can’t go by the wording on the cards.)
So, instead, I’m hoping that some type of ‘generalization’ can be made between cards worded similarly.
Well, you can start here: Codex Card Database | Tenderfoot
And if you see something there that you still don’t understand, you can ask in this thread.
1 Like
I am 99% sure he isn’t talking about official rulings.
Coiser specifically asked for unofficial rulings for Tenderfoot, I am guessing as a sarcastic way to say that they can’t trust the wording of any card to describe the intent of that card and they also have no way to know the intent of any card because not even the official rulings are guaranteed to be describing the real intent of any given card.
What Sirlin wants is what a card does, and that’s not the same thing as what’s on the card for a whole lot of cards.
Edit - We need a document that just goes card by card and says what the intent is behind each card, how it’s “supposed to” be played in a given game.
1 Like
I dunno. I’ve probably played something like 50 games of Codex now and I’ve enjoyed myself probably 99% of the time (or else I wouldn’t be playing it so much). I don’t have access to any more information than you or @Coiser does, yet I still generally feel like I understand how to play the game and how the cards interact with each other, and in general what my options with any given card are.
Maybe you’re over-thinking some things? For example, the intentions behind Stalking Tiger seem really straightforward to me. When you attack with it, if you want to attack a unit, it has stealth. As the player of the game, I don’t feel like I have to worry about the specific implementation of the idea, just the idea itself.
3 Likes
Not all interactions in Codex are equally unclear. A good number of the rules in Codex are intuitively clear to many - I, for example, never comprehended the rules in technical terms such as “state-based” or “queue” but played the game correctly in most cases regardless. You came in and had confusions and questions over the rules that no one’s communicated before, which is good. But a significant portion of your concerns are focused on whether effects can be applied to no effect spread out over questions on different cards, which can be resolved with a generalization that may or may not adhere to the exact wording on the cards equally. And official rulings might not always make the intent of the card clear, but that is far from them being useless when trying to discern the function of a certain card. So no, you won’t have to re-examine every card from scratch. Read the rulings, play the game, and ask questions when unclear interactions arise. Otherwise, trust your intuition to carry you through. Codex isn’t a twisted amalgam of cryptic and contrary rules and intentions, it simply has some miscommunicated points in certain places. Play some PbF games as well, it might allow others to help spot some of your misconceptions about the way the game functions, which imho is a better way than you trying to comb over evey inch of the game yourself.
Also, I’m responding to the entire discussion in general, not your questions alone.
2 Likes
My apology.
I didn’t realize the questions I’ve asked the last week or so have all been common knowledge. I’ll go ahead and move on to the ‘hard questions’ I have on my list once we get through these ‘easy’ ones…maybe those will intrigue you.
Please bare with us mere mortals until we get to that stage.
I’m fine with this line of reasoning, so long as Steam Tank does not have Stealth when it attacks a building (assuming Behind the Ferns is in play for Steam Tank’s controller).
I think the reason for the Steam Tank ruling is to avoid the paradox. If using stealth to attack a building made it lose stealth and therefore lose its ability to attack the building, then it both can and can’t attack the building at once.
Coiser,
You have complained of people trying to insult you in this thread as well as assuring your own goodwill. But can you see how your response here can be construed as uncivil or hostile? We are all just trying to help here, not start a war over the rules of a game.
3 Likes