In that case, if Rook was able to level back up to Lv. 8 he would still have only one life left because of the crumbling rune, right?
This is correct.
offtopic on hypothetical death-as-a-trigger ruleset
Similarly, you can’t do this:
L1 2/3 River attacks a L1 2/2 Zane with Tower
River kills Zane but takes 3 damage
River levels up twice from the kill, gets midband, heals, survives
This still works the same even if death is queued.
L1 River and L1 Zane+Tower fight, River gets 3 damage, Zane gets 2 damage. River’s deaths and Zane’s death go into queue.
You resolve Zane’s death first. River’s level up trigger fires, but you can’t resolve it before “River’s death” event that is already queued. So River dies anyway.
What happens if you have a Graveyard and both Rambasa Twins out, and one of the twins dies?
Rambasa A dies, goes to discard, then goes to codex.
With Graveyard in play, Unit dies and goes to graveyard instead of discard.
I would see the Rambasa go to the graveyard then get returned to codex.
So the 1st Twin goes to codex, then the 2nd one to Graveyard, and you can replay it and get the 1st one back? Sounds like synergy!
There is no “instead” in the text of either card, so it seems to me that both effects trigger in the order of the active player’s choice, and whichever triggers last is where the Rambasa Twin ends up. Note that this means that you can’t prevent the Rambasa Twin from popping a Graveyard by choosing to let it go to your codex, because it would first go into the Graveyard, adding the Graveyard’s suicide effect into the queue, then it would go to your codex, and finally the Graveyard effect would resolve.
The word instead is not used in Graveyard, but it is implied, and previous discussions of graveyards function have as much said it uses instead. The Rambasa Twin on the other hand implies it dies, and then it is returned to codex.
It could be argued your way, I agree, where the active player chooses. In this case, it would either work as I described, or the rambasa would goto codex and graveyard’s effect would lose track of it, as the graveyard is trying to find cards that went to the discard.
The Graveyard text does state that it triggers in response to a unit dying, the same as Rambasa Twin. Neither card mentions where it looks for the unit that died. The only material difference I can see between these two effects is that in one case the dead unit goes to the codex and in the other case it goes into the Graveyard, so one could argue that the codex is out of play and the Graveyard is in play, and site the ruling that cards that leave play have no memory. But, I think even that doesn’t work because if the ruling implied that cards in play have no memory of other cards that have left play, then that would completely break Prynn’s maxband ability, among others. If there has been some official ruling to state that Graveyard and Rambasa Twin’s effects are materially different in the way you suggest, then so be it, but it would make no sense to me.
If the Twin goes to the Graveyard first, and that causes the Graveyard to overfill, that raises the question of whether he ends up in the codex or the discard.
Okay, my version.
CARDS HAVE NO MEMORY
Both Graveyard and Rambasa seem to intercept the card going into discard pile and move it elsewhere.
Ergo, if Graveyard resolves first, it moves Rambasa to “Buried” zone and Rambasa’s own trigger now loses track of the card, so it fizzles.
If Rambasa resolves first, the card is moved to Codex. Graveyard loses track of it and never explodes.
Prynn’s ability does not break. Prynn herself remembers, what she trashed, and returns it to play.
However, there is a way to play around it (discussed even in this thread I believe) involving trashing something with Prynn, then Nether Draining her, then killing her.
In this case a particular instance of Prynn that remembered which cards were trashed is no longer in play and it’s trigger to return trashed cards never resolved because she was not maxbanded when she left play. So her trashed card stays trashed forever.
I think “in play” refers only to patrol zones, tech buildings + add-ons, and the general play area where non-patrolling units and stuff go. Graveyard ruling in the wiki confirms that cards buried in Graveyard are not in play, and I think the same can safely be said of the discard pile, hand, and codex.
Referring to Sharpo’s ruling on Second Chances, it seems that when some other effect’s resolution does something with a card, other queued effects do lose track of that card, though this has nothing to do with the discard pile specifically, as Second Chances is not limited to cards that went to the discard pile.
So, the Rambasa Twin would indeed either go to the codex leaving the Graveyard intact, or go to the Graveyard, potentially sending the Graveyard and the buried units to the discard pile, active player’s choice.
Clarification. “Intercept” is not the term I would choose for these effects. Previously, effects either replace the discard effect of dieing, or add a step after the discard. Brave Knight uses the word “instead” and thus is intercepted before it gets to the discard, and goes to hand. Graveyard let’s things fully resolve dieing, they just happen to end up in the graveyard after the discard. The same ordering is resolved for Rambasa Twin.
I do agree that Second Chances is a good example, and the two effects would prevent the other one from resolving.
This is all correct.
To answer the original question, the active player will choose an ordering of the 2 triggers. The first one will work and the second one will “lose track of the card” and do nothing.
What I find weird is that Reteller of Truths was ruled to let the active player choose which units return to hand when more than 3+ non-tokens die at the same time, but Second Chances says to choose randomly as reminder text rather than ability text.
Eh, sirlin specifically wanted to avoid writing things in a legalese way. It leads to writing the same kind of effect different on different cards, which leads to everything working just slightly differently.
So I have a kind of interesting question:
Say I have two invisible units in play, and one of them is a flagbearer. Does flagbearer’s ability demand tower spotting on the enemy’s turn? He can be targeted for the tower’s reveal, after all
Perhaps relevant side note would be, for an invisible and untargetable unit, is the tower allowed to spot it?
I don’t believe tower’s ability targets, does it?
There’s no target symbol on the add-on card, nor does the description mention needing to target the invisible thing to reveal it. So, I’d say the player can choose to reveal the non-Flagbearer in this case.
The tower description on page 4 mentions that revealing an invisible thing on your turn is optional, and that doing so lets you target it. So, I think that even if the Flagbearer were the only invisible thing, the active player could choose not to reveal anything to avoid being required to target the Flagbearer.
So then it follows that an invisible flagbearer is not very effective at his Targeting taunt and you would want him visible to be providing value. Mmk, thanks for the gut check fam!