News Shop
Events Chat

Rules Questions thread

If you wanted that, I think you could change to the token being for the Gargoyle being in its initial stone form, and for being at -3 attack, rather than for coming out of it. The effect removes all stone form runes (to get around Plague Lab), then at arrival/upkeep the Gargoyle gains a stone form rune if it doesn’t have one. That way, being out of stone form isn’t an ongoing effect, so Entangling Vines “overrides” it.

… Ah, it doesn’t quite work if something else copies the Gargoyle, though. Hmm.

Maybe this would have been a good place to have another card that can flip? That has the same problem, though.

“1: Gargoyle loses all printed abilities, then gains flying and +3 attack. At your next upkeep, undo this ability.”

Removing the interaction with entangling vines would be fairly simple to do, remove imprisioned as a keyword and change to:

Gargoyle can’t attack or patrol unless it has a [whatever] rune.

Now there are no messy “can attack” effects, just “can’t attack” and “can’t attack unless condition”. I just don’t know which way it should work, ideally, because I don’t know if gargoyles countering entangling vines is relevant to competitive play.

I added a rune to the effect because I want to have physical components and means for tracking any effect that lasts longer than end of turn. I don’t like having to just remember that one spell effect is ongoing, that thing targeted this unit, I powered up this guy but not that one, etc etc.

I think you’re mixing up Entangling Vines and Thunderclap.

Oops, so I am! I’ll remove it, less junk in the rules thread.

Indestructible implies “can’t be sacrificed” which various spells and abilities use to ignore units. Glaxx’s ability could do the same when gold is present, and then those cards and abilities could all just look for “can’t be sacrificed” and work as intended. Granting indestructible to Glaxx or giving him massive XP would make Glaxx survive damage he shouldn’t be able to and it wouldn’t prevent other removal effects like trashing and returning to hand.

Indestructible also implies that if it hits zero health or less, it exhausts and heals. If the Glaxx hits zero or less health outside of combat damage, it doesn’t do anything, it just sits there.

1 Like

Unfortunately, Pestering Haunt complicates this as it can’t be sacrificed but is still a legal target for some effects that indestructible things aren’t. I believe this is an exhaustive list:

Obliterate: ignores indestructible units and Gilded Glaxx
Hooded Executioner: ignores indestructible units and Gilded Glaxx
Sacrifice the Weak: ignores indestructible units, Gilded Glaxx, and Pestering Haunt

If glaxx has indestructible it simplifies things significantly. Sacrifce the Weak does work as you suggest, by ignoring units that can’t be sacrificed, and the other two can filter for non-indestructible units.

As for your and charnel_mouse’s concerns abut the implementation, I think I’ve accounted for your concerns already. Let me quote the new glaxx text again:

While you have gold in your gold pile, [Gilded Glaxx] has indestructible, +0/+9999, and it cannot be destroyed, trashed, or returned to your hand. When it is dealt combat damage it loses these effects until the end of that attack.

In every situation I can think of, this version functions identically to the Codex Classic version. The obvious exception being, if its dealt over ten thousand non-combat damage, which I think we can agree is large enough to be wildly impractical in a real match. But, by all means, if there is a situation where they diverge, I’d love to know about it.

1 Like

Why do you need to change the text anyway? The text as written is pretty clear.

1 Like

Glaxx itself isn’t terrible, but it is an unusual card that breaks a lot of rules and conventions. Two-lives, soul stone, and even indestructible never allow for units just hanging out in play with lethal damage on them, Glaxx is the only exception. I think the card is clearer if these interactions are made explicit.

The bigger issue is in codifying obliterate and Hooded Executioner ignoring it. I want to be sure to make that clear through how those effects are worded, but there is no clean way to do it if I leave Glaxx’s wording as-is.

Right?

You could also have the dancer read something like “when the music stops, become an angry dancer by flipping this card in meatspace or imagine flipping it if illusionary”

Ehh??

It’s like going to a chess tournament because you like chess, then finding out at the tournament about en passant, castling, maybe some fictional obscure rule that changes how promotion works depending on some odd board state (to imagine a complex rule in chess).

And then when you ask how you were supposed to know about those rules, why aren’t they in the official rulebook, the response is to point to the “helpfully” published minutes of the royal chess society over the past decade, where the rules were debated thoroughly. Of course, since the minutes are debates, it’s easy to get confused as different interpretations are advocated for.

I don’t think it would be unusual under those circumstances to ask that at the least an updated list of the conclusions from the rules debates were made available to players who are interested in playing the game without engaging with or studying the rules debates.

In this community it’s pretty difficult to prepare for games without studying the rules debates. This is a big ask for new players.

I ask you, quite sincerely and genuinely, how many times have you been caught in tournament matches by unclear/obscure interactions?
You speak as if this happens constantly, that it repeatedly impedes your victory. Is that true?

1 Like

I’ve done a full pass on anything combat damage and how its assigned, trying to make everything clear and consistent with all the rulings. First off, Glaxx needed a slight tweak, the wording above says he gets his immunities back at the end of combat, meaning Crash Bomber or Opal’s max band could potentially be able to finish him off when they shouldn’t be able to. Changing that last sentence to:

When it is dealt combat damage it loses these effects, if it doesn’t die it immediately regains them.

I’ve also changed the wording on armor, in Codex Classic it is ambiguous whether dealing damage to armor counts as dealing damage. In some cases it does (MoLaC, deathtouch) and it some cases it doesn’t (Glaxx, stuff that deals damage as -1/-1 runes). Armor’s reminder text now reads:

Armor prevents that much damage and is then destroyed.

MoLaC is then updated to read:

Whenever you attack, if the attacker has at least 1 power put a [whatever] rune on this.

This also clarifies that you don’t get additional runes if you also do damage with effects like sparkshot or overpower. However there is a corner case when attacking a squad leader Debilitator Alpha with a 1 power unit. I can see this corner case actually making a difference in a real match, but I’ve painted myself into a corner here, I can’t find a better wording.

Moving on to deathtouch:

When this deals combat damage to a unit or hero, the first point of damage ignores armor and destroys the recipient.

The intent with this somewhat awkward wording is to codify the interaction between deathtouch and overpower more clearly. Even though the first point of damage is lethal you still have to chew through the rest of their health and armor to overpower. This isn’t super clear, but barring a paragraph of explanation in the reminder text I think this is the best we’re going to get. Overpower now reads:

Combat damage this deals to a patroller in excess of their HP and armor also hits something else this could attack.

The interaction with armor piercing is still a little ambiguous here, but atleast it now says “also hits” clarifying the interaction with Focus Master.

I’ve also made sparkshot and the tower specify that they do combat damage, and Hotter Fire now specifies non-combat damage. Not 100% satisfied with all of these wordings, but trying to get all of these interactions to line up while still keeping things clear has been a real challenge. Overall I think things are a significant net improvement. IDK how many of y’all are gonna be interested in digging in to this nonsense with me, but as always the feedback is appreciated, especially if you can point out anywhere the new wording diverges from the old.

I want to address several of your points but I feel this is better suited to a separate thread, so it does not confuse people seeking answers to codex official rulings.

3 Likes

I think it’s worth addressing the parts that contradict the rules here, just not the wording. For example, the MoLaC tweak doesn’t work, because units with 0 power still trigger it if their sparkshot goes off.

1 Like

New thread here:

Excellent catch, back to the drawing board.

1 Like

Just a few more notes, now I have the time:

  • Damage in -1/-1 runes to armour still counts as dealing damage, it’s just that the counters are… applied to the armour, I suppose. You are correct that an armoured 0 HP Glaxx is an exception here, though.
  • Deathtouch rewording: personally I find this more confusing than the original text: “first point of damage destroys the recipient” heavily implies all the rest goes to overpower to me. I don’t think the new overpower text helps in this regard.

This reminds me that one of my pipe dreams was to essentially turn the ruling in this thread into a list of “unit tests”, removing any out-of-date ones along the way, with the intention of reducing the initial learning curve for people trying to make rules-enforced digital versions of Codex. It would be a long undertaking, though, and I don’t know whether people would use it.

1 Like

It does happen constantly. I wouldn’t say that I would otherwise win, but it doesn’t feel like a good match.

If you look at all the tournaments I’ve played here, only 1 or two I have succeeded in being eliminated without triggering a significant reunderstanding of the rules for me. I literally measure this as a kind of success for participation.