Rules Questions thread

Kinda cool …You can potentially use a gargoyle with 2 chaos mirrors to give any unit the switched atk value + 3 more :grinning:

Errrrr but what will.happen when chaos mirror effect end… Lol

Maybe revise what happen to the physical activate gargoyle card to be
0/2. flying. +3atk.
So that (+3atk) ability will not get copied. I will edit above posts

After editing above posts:
No, you cannot potentially use a gargoyle with 2 chaos mirrors to give any unit the switched atk value + 3 more :frowning:

My interpretation is that gargoyle (activated or not) has printed attack of 0
When activated it has a printed ability (+3 atk)
Which is totally different from a +3 atk granted by spells. This printed +3 wont carry over if the card is changed by polymorph or manufactued truth. Comparable to Makeshif Rambaster printed ability (+2 when attacking building). If you manufacture truth Makeshift Rambaster into a a 1/1 skeleton, it will not deal 3 damage when attacking buildings.

Unactivated Gargoyle
0/2. indestructible. Cant attack or patrol. Pay1 to activate.

Activated Gargoyle
0/2. flying. +3atk.

2 Likes

That’s not how stuff like Chaos Mirror works in this game. The thing you switch with won’t benefit from the +3 atk

It’s the same as +3 atk granted by a spell.

2 Likes

Would have been simpler if gargoyle +3atk was printed ability similar to steam tank +4atk when attacking building

Very sad :frowning: it is more complicated than that.

I guess now you can use activate gargoyle, manufacture truth into Centaur and deal a nice 6 flying overpower attack.
Thats a pretty cool combo.

However I still think making activating gargoyle gives “flying and +3atk” as printed abilities is better than making the activation equals to casting a spell that says “until upkeep give +3atk and flying and it now Can attack and patrol”

2 Likes

Or, you know, Chaos Mirror it with TerrasQ and deal a nice 18 flying ATK.

1 Like

Yeah, sorry for asking some of these things. I’m not trying to ‘trip anyone up’, etc. Just checking that I have a ‘weird’ interaction noted correctly.

2 Likes

I thought it was easy but it turned out to be complicated if you read the following posts.

1 Like

This is what I expected, based on the previous discussions.

Random thought: I find it interesting that gaining ‘Can Attack’ overrides “Can’t Attack”, because there is something about a ‘normal’ unit having something similar to an ability of “Can Attack” by the base rules of the game.

i.e. A Tenderfoot ‘can attack’ without having something written on the card which states it can. So we have to track if a card ‘can attack’ which is a separate trait from the Gargoyle given ability of ‘can attack’. Otherwise, entangling vines would do nothing, because Tenderfoot already has some-type-of ‘can attack’ trait already built in, (which without this ‘trait’ it could not attack).

From the rulebook “You can attack with any unit or hero that you controlled at the beginning of your turn.” Couple that with Entangling Vines and it looks like ‘Can’t attack’ should win.

Don’t really need a response to this one; its clear we need some way for Poor Gargoyle to be able to attack and not attack based strictly on its own wording, just making a point about this ‘overriding can attack’ trait as being separate (and all powerful) from the typical ‘can attack’ given from the rulebook. It is a special attribute, and must be tracked separately.

Thanks for clarifying. That’s why I worded it as a pseudo-ability, as I wasn’t sure how you were handling it. This gaining of ‘can attack’ can only go away at the end of the ability duration (eot) or leaving play, etc methods.

1 Like

@sharpobject too bad Gargoyle’s text isn’t “Gargoyle gains flying, +3 ATK, and loses indestructible and “can’t attack or patrol””

I find that to be the most intuitive understanding of the card, and it cleans up all the messy interactions.

Maybe a stealth interpretation-errata-for-intent is warrented?

3 Likes

Or “Gargoyle loses all printed text and gains Flying and it’s printed stats become 3/2”

In no way am I interested in changing the ‘intent’, etc of cards. I’m not a game designer; I don’t have any knowledge of how to make things balanced, etc. I just petition for things to work as ‘straightforward and intuitively’ as possible, so I would agree with this.

Similar to when someone asks “What does ‘up to X’ mean in Codex”? The response to that question is “It depends on what card you are referring to, because there are different meanings for that statement based on the card its written on.”

In this case Entangling Vines would win, and a ‘Vined Gargoyle’ couldn’t attack. I think this is the most straightforward approach and removes some of this cumbersome ‘book keeping’ while still allowing the card to function as (I can only assume) the intent is/was.

2 Likes

Ok based on gargoyles discussion here we go g

corner case.
What if Gargoyle is activated and Manufactured Truth into Sparring partner. Can you now use this card and 6g to attack with it 4 times in the same turn dealing 20 damage to opponent base?!
I mean that is a 5/2 sparring partner with flying that when you un-exhaust with 2g it has “cant attack this turn” and “it can attack” at the same time and so far , gargoyle’s “can attack” seem to take priority.

Also can gargoyle attack when opponent’s Moment’s Peace is active?

3 Likes

Now I need to play a {blue]/Discipline/Demonology deck.

As for moment’s peace, it does not modify the units ability to attack, but instead the list of valid targets to attack. In my opinion. Especially given how it works in FFA.

1 Like

Yeah, I think MtG handled this a little bit better. It has some word “Defender” that means “Can’t attack, can only block” and then when you want to be able to attack with that stuff you write “Can attack as though it didn’t have defender.”

Gargoyle needs to be able to override “Can’t attack or block” in this case, but it’s the same sort of thing.

That would be a good way to write Gargoyle!

I don’t think you’ll be able to do this one. So far we only talked about “Can’t attack” effects that were older than the “Can attack” effect.

Definitely not.
Edit: I mean you definitely can’t attack the player who played Moment’s Peace.

3 Likes

I have a question about Taunt and units that can bypass the patrol zone.

Flying
Invisible
Stealth
Unstoppable

When choosing to attack a patroller, which ones are still bound to the Taunt ability of the Squad Leader?

I saw a play where a Nullcraft (Flying) ignored the Squad Leader (ground unit without Anti-Air) to attack a Scavenger patroller.

If something has some kind of evasion against the taunting unit, it can ignore the taunt ability.

Even if the squad leader had anti air, the nullcraft wouldn’t have to attack it unless the unit also had flying.

That’s a fairly good question.

I always assumed (and have seen played in pretty much every relevant match), that SQL is simply a “front line in front of the front line,” meaning:

  1. Fliers can fly over ground SQL to hit flying or ground patrollers, or back line if there are no flying patrollers.
  2. Stealth and invisible can bypass SQL to hit patrollers or back line, provided there are no detectors and no tower, or another stealth/invisible unit has already used up the tower’s sight.
  3. Unstoppable can bypass SQL to hit patrollers or back line, no matter what.

@sharpobject, can you confirm this? Going to the big Core rulebook, I realize that the rules for SQL are actually fairly vague. (Edit: I’m not seeing anything more clear in the Starter rulebook, either.)

2 Likes

I am not sharpobject, but yes this is correct. Think of the metaphor for squad lead as “guy who stands in front and blocks your path” (so you can sneak past him, fly over him, be unstoppable to him, etc.). The metaphor is not “guy who is so annoying that you lose your temper and attack him first whether you want to or not”.

7 Likes