I did a bit of research, reading through the “unofficial rulebook” here:
Codex - Google Docs
Based on this I updated the “sad robot” x/0 indestructible case to discard attachments.
I think I need help with the Section 4 part about cloning abilities interactions. It sure sounds like there’s some good candidates for my project in there, but I can’t really wrap my head around it. Are there clearer examples somewhere?
Trivial thing to probably add here:
Things that are triggering in the upkeep all trigger simultaneously. If then something arrives (in the example I researched it was a Rememberer arriving from a Rememberer removing a time rune due to fading) that also has an upkeep trigger, this new trigger does NOT trigger in this same upkeep. You’ll have to wait for your next upkeep.
Cool, that’s just for rememberer, yes? Any other situations where that would happen?
I’ll also add Gilded Glaxx because he has several non-trivial rules clarifications that just apply to him.
Well the ruling is about upkeep triggers in general, Prynn could be used to return anything else to the game in your upkeep. These things then also don’t get their trigger resolved.
Another thing: things with fading don’t die when the last time rune is removed. Your fading things only die if it is you yourself to remove the rune. If the opponent removes the last rune, the cards stay in game until they leave due to another cause.
How does that work?
The discussion around this post was the source for me saying so. After revisiting I just realized that this maybe was not entirely 100% clear. But with EricF in the mix I didn’t question it.
Please click on this post as it is referencing a ton of relevant other posts.
That is, indeed, how the ability would work if the ability’s text was correct. Later rulings indicate that it’s not. sharpo says as much a few turns posts later, for example.
Ah, thanks for pointing out that I stopped reading too early <3
If I remember correctly, there are a few situations where sharpo rules one way, then changes his mind a few years later, so it’s an easy mistake to make 
That doesn’t make the idea “break up the rules question thread and let a group of people crawl through it” any easier 
Yeah… I’ve been avoiding saying it, but it recently became very clear to me that there should never have been a rules questions thread, but instead a folder of threads so that each question can have it’s own discussion confined to a thread, with official rulings pinned. Or something like this.
It’s painful to use that thread, with its majority content of confused questions and sometimes misguided answers, as any sort of official reference.
So, part of me thinks that if we’re going to crawl through there we might as well separate the thread into mini threads per question in a new folder. That’s obviously a lot of work.
That’s (part of) why I wrote the Anatomy of Card-Time document, so that we could consolidate a lot of that work by saying “oh, that’s a timing question, refer to that document, it’s legit and thorough.”
After reading the rulings on Glaxx it feels almost like another (smaller) document could be written just on how combat damage works. Then I realized that half of that would only apply to Glaxx (and to a lesser extent Brave Knight) so… if I ever come up with an easy way to diagram rulings examples then Sirlin’s rulings on Glaxx would be useful to visualize! In the meantime, study them 
Combat damage is damage dealt directly by units or heroes during an attack action, and does not count abilities that do damage (except sparkshot).
I think that covers it.
Also: tower damage counts as combat damage.
Also: damage mitigated by armour cannot kill unless superseded by deathtouch.
I’m confused what the second one means. If you have 2 armor and take 2 damage I feel like it’s pretty obvious that none of that damage can be lethal because you didn’t take any actual damage from it.
It’s for the case that Glaxx has less than 1 HP.
There is a sense in which armour is temporary extra HP. If that were merely the case, dealing combat damage to Glaxx to reduce both HP and armour to 0 would be lethal.
It’s worth clarifying, especially since deathtouch treats armour as merely extra HP.
Deathtouch is combat damage, and cannot kill a Gilded Glaxx whose owner has gold in their gold pile.
Therefore, I don’t think your second clarification is necessary?
Gilded Glaxx’s ability doesn’t defend against death from combat damage.
Yeah I got that backwards, you’re right. I guess it makes sense then.
Yeah, this kind of stuff is why I think there’s a need to work on clarity in the rules. My intent here isn’t to get clarification on how Glaxx works, it’s clear enough after some study. It’s to help people create clear and accurate mental models of how the rules work in general.
In the case of combat damage, it’s not really complicated, so I’m kind of joking when I compared it to the Anatomy of Card Time (which is genuinely complicated). I think a page or two of snappy visual examples would be a good reference, which probably wouldn’t be necessary at all if Gilded Glaxx didn’t introduce a couple of edge cases.