News Shop
Events Forums

Rules Questions thread


Does macciatus, the whisperer grant an ability to illusions, or just changes the game rule? Relevant for Midori’s Midband effect.

I am pretty sure it just changes the game rule, but wanted to check :slight_smile:


That would be my understanding as well, that it just alters the game rule.


I would agree. Cards that grant abilities use wording like “give” (Bloodlust), “gain” (Maestro), “gets” (Drakk maxband), “have” (Behind the Ferns) or “are” (Fox’s Den School). Macciatus’ wording seems closer to that of Reteller of Truths, or Graveyard.

In a similar vein, what about Soul Stone and Spirit of the Panda? My reading is that Soul Stone doesn’t count as granting an ability, but SotP does.


Agreed on both counts.


Quick, simple question, sorry if it’s been asked before.

If your unit in the technician slot dies, do you draw a card before or after you discard that unit? So if your draw pile were empty and you needed to reshuffle, could you get that same card back?


You move the card first, so you have a chance to draw it again.


When a token copies a non-token unit, is it still a token? This is particularly relevant if someone plays Jefferson DeGrey, Ghostly Diplomat.

Consider that in the definition of a token, it says “all tokens count as tech 0 units”, but @sharpobject’s ruling on Sirus Quince states that “If your Mirror Illusion copies a Tech 1 unit, it becomes Tech 1.” This presents a clear contradiction to the assumption that the mirror in question is still a token.

On the other hand, if the unit dies and is not considered a token, then the question arises of whether it should go to the discard pile or other appropriate zone as a non-token unit. This contradicts the part of the token definition that reads “they don’t have standard cardbacks so they can never be shuffled into your deck or go to your hand.”

So then, one might think these units are non-tokens while in play, but become tokens again if and when they die. This would seem to suggest that a Reteller of Truths should ignore the death of a Mirror Illusion copying a non-token unit, but here we run afoul of @sharpobject’s ruling (and likely others) that if a tech 0 unit copies a Rambasa Twin and dies, the starter card goes to the codex, which implies that effects that trigger on death treat a copied unit as if it were the unit it copied, not its original card. Moreover, the question arises of what should happen if a non-token unit copies a token and dies. Does it go to the discard pile, or is it removed from the game?

So it seems that to abide by these rules and rulings, the process must go something like this:

  1. Token X enters play.
  2. X becomes a copy of a non-token unit, stops being a token, and can survive DeGrey.
  3. X leaves play by some other means, triggering effects like Second Chances.
  4. X resumes being a token, is removed from the game, Second Chances etc. fizzle if no other valid units died at the same time as X.

This has the counter-intuitive consequence that a player can completely circumvent Reteller of Truths by first targeting both of Quince’s maxband-empowered Illusions and then targeting his other Illusions (assuming, or course, that Macciatus, The Whisperer is not in play).

The least disruptive way I can think of to resolve this would be to rule that “all tokens count as tech 0 units” is actually meant to mean “all tokens are tech 0 units by default” and that a unit’s token status does not change as a result of becoming a copy of another unit.


I’m fairly sure that the “tokens count as tech 0 units” bit only refers to tokens as they are by default. If a token copies something, then it counts as whatever tech the unit it is copying.


It’s also in keeping with the Golden Rule principle: specifics trump generals. Tokens are normally tech 0 all the time, but if one of them copies a unit, it takes on the tech and color of the unit copied.


To answer your larger, more general question: tokens never stop being tokens, no matter what they copy.


Why do the Wisp tokens get destroyed, and not say, a Wisp and a Skeleton token?


Obliterate sometimes causes confusion because of the wording on Sacrifice the Weak. Obliterate would actually allow you to choose to destroy a wisp and a skeleton token, instead of 2 wisp tokens in that scenario. Sacrifice the Weak would require you to get rid of the wisp tokens before getting rid of the skeleton. They both use “lowest tech units” as a requirement, but sacrifice the weak adds the requirement “with the least attack”.


If a card controlled by the non-active player triggers, is whether or not it resolves determined by whether or not it uses the targeting symbol?


Nope, the question is whether or not the controlling player needs to make a choice.

For example, Geiger’s maxband does target and Garth’s maxband doesn’t, but neither of them triggers if they happen during the opponent’s turn, because both require a choice by the controlling player.
And the other way around: Crash Bomber’s ability does target and Reteller of Truths’ ability doesn’t, but both of them do trigger if they happen during the opponent’s turn.

The confusion probably comes from the fact that most targeting abilities require a choice (which Crash Bomber circumvents by having a “default” target).


Ahh, so a non-active player’s reteller won’t fizzle even when 3 or more illusions belonging to the non-active player die at once, because the card isn’t asking the player to make a choice, the mechanics of the game are asking the player to make the choice?


The way this particular rule is described has always seemed a bit confusing, because even in the case of Reteller of Truths, the active player makes a choice if multiple Illusions die simultaneously. I think the key is that when a hero ability says “You may”, “you” refers to the controlling player, not the active player, but when a card simply says that something happens, e.g. Orpal Gloor, the active player has to choose any details of that behavior that aren’t explicitly mentioned on the card.


So here’s a borderline case that might help us distinguish these two explanations:
Active player has a maxband Prynn, which has previously trashed a Cursed Ghoul. Now Prynn dies, and the Cursed Ghoul returns. Since the card says “Put a -1/-1 rune on a unit” (and not “You may…”), does the ability fizzle? If not, who chooses where to put the rune?


It would fizzle unless the only unit in play was the Ghoul itself, in which case it would put a -1/-1 token on itself, as it has only one legal target in that instance.


It does put a -1/-1 rune on a unit of the active player’s choice (active player is the only player that can even make choices of any kind).


Since there seems to be disagreement, I guess we’ll have to wait for a ruling by @sharpobject, but until then we can keep theorizing :slight_smile: .

Why wouldn’t the imperative “Put” refer to the controlling player, just as “You may” does on other cards?