Rules Questions thread

[sharpobject]

It does 2 to both.

[Shax]

I get the feeling this was a known interaction and we are just rediscovering it.

[AaronD]

@zhavier

This is misleading, because tokens actually do arrive at whatever zone they are sent to, they just cease to exist if that zone is not “in play”. There is no in between zone between being in play and being in discard, and tokens don’t disappear as they are leaving the in play zone, they disappear when they get to any other zone.

Yeah. I think the misconception is caused by confusion about what “leaving play” means. Maybe it’d be helpful to detail exactly what the correct sequence of events is:

1. A token takes combat damage in excess of its health
2. The token moves from the play “zone” to the discard “zone” (this is an instantaneous move that can’t be interrupted once it begins)
3. The token is now out of play, so it vanishes

I suspect a lot of people are interpreting it in the following fashion, which is incorrect:

1. A token takes combat damage in excess of its health
2. The token card is picked up and removed from the play area, to be moved toward the discard pile
3. The token card is in a “no man’s land” between the play area and the discard pile
4. The token is not in play, so it vanishes before touching the discard

This “no man’s land” doesn’t exist; it’s not defined by the game rules so cards can’t be there. A card is always in a zone, whether that zone is the patrol zone, the general play area, your deck, your hand, your Codex, etc.

[EricF]

This quote from http://codexcarddb.com/card/earthquake seems wrong:

If opponent has a damaged tech building and the 4 damage is enough to destroy it but his base is undamaged, the base will take 2 damage from the destruction of the tech building but none from the spell. This is due to that you never read twice the same sentence. So you deal 4 damage to the damaged buildings, which upon destruction cause the base to take 2 damage , but then you are at the “Deal 1 damage to all their undamaged buildings.” line and the base is no more an undamaged building. — Sirlin

In no other case do you do other things in the middle of resolving a spell - why would you deal 2 damage to the base when destroying a Tech building, prior to the “deal 1 damage to undamaged buildings”?

[AaronD]

The 2 bonus damage to the base occurs simultaneously with the damage to (and destruction of) a tech building; it’s not a separate thing that occurs afterward. You would be correct if the card read “Deal 4 damage to all an opponent’s damaged buildings and 1 damage to all their undamaged buildings”, but because Earthquake is worded to have two distinct steps, the base damage occurs before the second step.

[EricF]

Why is the Base damage from destroying a tech building treated differently than drawing a card from your Technician dying?

[Legion]

maybe is me, but honestly this rule (if true)makes no sense at all

[AaronD]

Why is the Base damage from destroying a tech building treated differently than drawing a card from your Technician dying?

What rule are you referring to here?

[EricF]

If you shadow blade a Bugblatter who is patrolling as Technician, you do the following:

1. Put 3 damage chits on Bugblatter
2. Notice that Bugblatter has damage >= HP
3. Move the Bugblatter card to the discard pile
4. Per Shadow Blade text, Bugblatter’s controller discards a random card
5. Put the Shadow Blade in its caster’s discard pile
6. The active player decides the order of:
   6a. Deal 1 damage to the active player’s base
   6b. Bugblatter’s controller draws a card

[AaronD]

This sequence of events occurs because Tactician is a triggered ability, and dying from damage is just considered a part of taking damage. This matters because effects go on a queue in Codex. The second post of this thread has a good explanation of this in general, but here’s a detailed explanation of this example:

1. Play Shadow Blade, targeting Bugblatter (effects to be resolved: “bugblatter takes 3 damage” then “if bugblatter dies from shadow blade, its controller discards a random card”)
2. Put 3 damage chits on Bugblatter. As part of this action, Bugblatter dies and goes to the discard pile. Bugblatter’s effect and Technician’s effect go on the queue. (effects to be resolved: “if bugblatter dies from shadow blade, its controller discards a random card”, then “bugblatter’s controller draws a card” and “active player’s base takes 1 damage”)
3. Bugblatter’s controller discards a random card. Shadow Blade goes to the discard. (effects to be resolved: “bugblatter’s controller draws a card” and “active player’s base takes 1 damage”)
4. Next on the queue are two simultaneous effects, so active player chooses the order of:
   4a. Deal 1 damage to the active player’s base
   4b. Bugblatter’s controller draws a card
5. Queue is now empty, so active player is free to do whatever they want to do next

[EricF]

@Barrelfish

the Rulebook.

Note @Sirlin that the link to the rulebooks on the referenced page is broken.

[mysticjuicer]

Agreed. This seems way less intuitive than “Earthquake deals 1 damage to your base if it was undamaged before it destroyed a Tech building.”

…though truth be told, it’s a difference of exactly 1 damage to base. Meaningful, sure. Annoying, yes. But ultimately not something I’m going to lose sleep over until it loses me Codex grand finals at FSX2017.

[Shax]

@mysticjuicer

it’s a difference of exactly 1 damage to base. Meaningful, sure. Annoying, yes. But ultimately not something I’m going to lose sleep over until it loses me Codex grand finals at FSX2017.

Triggered
Freakin snapback…

[Dizeaze]

Hey guys my cousin is in need of clarification. Does abomination give -1 -1 in the form of runes. (My answer no). He is thinking it does therefore synergizing with plague lord

[Shax]

nope. Anything that gives out -1/-1 runes will explicitly say so like the Plague Lords “Put a -1/-1 rune on each opposing unit and hero.” Think of the abominations effect like a aura or something instead. The Abominations aura is a constant affect rather then something that needs to be applied, and it effects your own units.

[GRAG]

Abomination smells that bad

[Shax]

I was trying to be nice

[Dizeaze]

Thx guys. Codex great game

[rabid_schnauzer]

Wait. I know Codex wordings are loose in the interest of sounding natural, but are you Seriously arguing that there is a meaningful distinction between the actual card text of “Deal 4 damage to all an opponent’s damaged buildings. Deal 1 damage to all their undamaged buildings.” and your hypothetical card text of “Deal 4 damage to all an opponent’s damaged buildings and 1 damage to all their undamaged buildings”…?

If the design intent is for it to work the way you suggest, then the card needs errata along the lines of
"Deal 4 damage to all an opponent’s damaged buildings. THEN, AFTER THAT Deal 1 damage to all their undamaged buildings"

[AaronD]

Uh… yeah, I am arguing that. It really doesn’t seem that strange to me? They’re two separate sentences printed on two separate lines, indicating two separate abilities.