[Dungeon Command] Playing immediates that 'pevent X damage' after Piercing Strike

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Can immediate actions, like Riposte, be added to a stack after Piercing Strike has been played?

Riposte [immediate].  Prevent 20 damage to this creature from 1 source.  Make a melee attach that deals 10 damage.

Piercing Strike damage cannot be prevented, see below:

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

As the damage cannot be prevented, can Riposte be used as the first part of the action is to prevent damage ... is the preventing a requirement to trigger the card?

Also, if the card is playable, could it eliminate the Piercing Strike attacker before its attack damages ... but then if it does how can the damage be prevented?  I'm confused.
I'd be interested in seeing the official ruling on this.  Honestly, I'd allow it, as the guy using Riposte is still going to take damage.  He's basically wasting the more useful aspect of the order card in order to do a measly 10 points of damage.  It's really only useful if the attacking creature has 10 hit points remaining.

However, Dungeon Command isn't D&D, and if any organized play is going to happen, we'll need official rulings from WotC rather than DM adjudication.
Yes. You can use riposte. 

The damage prevention would not work. However, If the attacking creature happened to be killed by the 10 damage, it's attack would never go off.
Chris Dupuis Tabletop Games Designer Dungeons & Dragons Twitter: gameguruchris
So if the source of an effect is killed, the effect is cancelled? I'm asking because that's the first serious divergence from the Magic:TG stack rules, where effects on the stack will resolve no matter if the source is killed (well, that and the fact that one card can spawn multiple stacked effects, but I see that more like an extension of the principle rather than a different way of doing things).
Magic and DC are going to be very difficult to compare due to fundamental differences in card "speed," turn phases, and what attacking even means. If you really wanted to draw a parallel, though:


Piercing Strike (sorcery)
Tap target untapped creature you control. If you do, that creature deals damage equal to its power +1 to target creature an opponent controls. This damage can't be prevented.


Riposte (Instant)
Tap target untapped creature you control. If you do, prevent the first 2 damage that would be dealt to that creature this turn, then deal 1 damage to target creature.

Since we can't really view the stack as constrained by Combat Phase rules in MtG if we're going to make a fair comparison to the DC stack, I have to let this take place during a Main Phase.

Player 1 casts Piercing Strike targeting his 2/1 Elf Whatever
Player 2 responds with Riposte, which resolves first and destroys Player 1's Elf Whatever. Piercing Strike, which has no legal target, fizzles.
So if the source of an effect is killed, the effect is cancelled? I'm asking because that's the first serious divergence from the Magic:TG stack rules, where effects on the stack will resolve no matter if the source is killed (well, that and the fact that one card can spawn multiple stacked effects, but I see that more like an extension of the principle rather than a different way of doing things).



My understanding is that this isn't the case.  The reason this one doesn't work is that if the creature's gone, it can't make an attack.  Basically in MTG terms, it's more like removing an attacking/blocking creature before damage resolves.  My understanding is that if the ability were a non-attack ability, like the Dwarf Cleric's ability, then it'd still go off.
Does this work for attacking aswell? Say I was being attacked by a Melee attack, and I play an immediate that allows me to shift 3 squares (shifting away from his Melee attack) would this stop the stack and make the attack "miss"?
My Commander Decks Zur The En-hancer Omnomnom
Does this work for attacking aswell? Say I was being attacked by a Melee attack, and I play an immediate that allows me to shift 3 squares (shifting away from his Melee attack) would this stop the stack and make the attack "miss"?



yes.

(Edit) upon reading your post again, it wouldn't actually *stop* the stack, just that action wouldn't resolve for lack of the target. (also as per the rulebook you can't change your mind at this point and target another creature that *is* in range). (/edit)

Pretty much says exactly that in the rulebook: (p8)  "When the action resolves, it checks wether the target is legal (it's still in play, is still in range, has the right key words and so on).

As for all the MtG comparisons, that's just confusing things to be honest. Why compare them? They're two different games. I would suggest we all stick to the Dungeon Command rulebook and try to forget what we've always done in MtG.
Yes. You can use riposte. 

The damage prevention would not work. However, If the attacking creature happened to be killed by the 10 damage, it's attack would never go off.



So if the source of an effect is killed, the effect is cancelled?.



This is still a very valid question though. The rulebook mentions effects nog going off for lack of a target, but doesn't mention actions being removed because of a source being removed from a stack.
Yes. You can use riposte. 

The damage prevention would not work. However, If the attacking creature happened to be killed by the 10 damage, it's attack would never go off.


This sounds a lot like the time travel paradox.

If I go back in time and accidentally kill my mother before I'm born, then I'll never be born.  Since I'm never born, I'll never be able to go back in time to kill my mother.  Since I never go back in time to kill  my mother, I'm born.  Since I'm born, I can go back in time to kill my mother.  Since I go back in time to kill my mother, I'm never born.  Since I'm never born ....

 
So if the source of an effect is killed, the effect is cancelled? I'm asking because that's the first serious divergence from the Magic:TG stack rules, where effects on the stack will resolve no matter if the source is killed (well, that and the fact that one card can spawn multiple stacked effects, but I see that more like an extension of the principle rather than a different way of doing things).




Yes, if the attacking creature is destroyed (or in a later example if an immediate allowed a creature to shift) the attack would clear off the stack with no effect. In those examples, the moment it clears off the stack either the attacker or the target is not there.
Chris Dupuis Tabletop Games Designer Dungeons & Dragons Twitter: gameguruchris

How about the "effects independent of source" thing in general, though?  I thought I'd read that it applied here, but looking again I can't find it.

What if a Dwarf Cleric dies while its healing ability is on the stack, but the target for the ability is still valid, does the ability work? 

How about the "effects independent of source" thing in general, though?  I thought I'd read that it applied here, but looking again I can't find it.

What if a Dwarf Cleric dies while its healing ability is on the stack, but the target for the ability is still valid, does the ability work? 



Unfortunately I can't think of an actual existing example where that (or something similar) would happen right now, so it may be the rules team hasn't thought deeply about that problem yet. But I agree, is the rule that both source and target must be valid (thus, by extension, still in play) for a stacked effect to resolve *in general* or is that something special with attacks? Right now that's probably an academic decision but at some point I expect more cards will exist that will make these distinctions a lot more important.

As for people who wonder about my introducing M:TG in the discussion, some people understand rules better by discussing them as a whole and some of us understand them better by analogy to other rulesets, by making comparisons. In fact some of us have a geeky/nerdy interest in game design and like to obsever the implications of decision points that are made differently (for instance, the choice of only caring about the target of an effect still being in play to resolve VS needing both source and target in play).

It could in theory come up with the current sets, though it's unlikely.  Any of the retributive damage Immediate cards could in theory kill the priest while its ability was still waiting to go off, though there'd have to be a pretty complicated stack going on. 


How about the "effects independent of source" thing in general, though?  I thought I'd read that it applied here, but looking again I can't find it.

What if a Dwarf Cleric dies while its healing ability is on the stack, but the target for the ability is still valid, does the ability work? 



In your example, if the Dwarf Cleric died before his heal cleared the stack, when the heal came up in the stack, the target would still be eligible (the creature being healed) but like the attacks, the source of the power (the cleric) is no longer on the battlefield, so the heal would not go off. 
Chris Dupuis Tabletop Games Designer Dungeons & Dragons Twitter: gameguruchris
A question : does Piercing Strike overrides cowering? Does cowering count as 'preventing damage' in this context?
Yes. Piercing strike does override Cowering.

Card text trumps rule book.
Cowering doesn't really prevent damage, though.  It just shifts it directly to morale.

I could see a ruling either way. 
Cowering doesn't really prevent damage, though.  It just shifts it directly to morale.

I could see a ruling either way. 



Page 14, Cowering, second paragraph "When a creature cowers, it prevents all damage ..."

Other threads on this site and BGG have confirmed this, that Cowering 'prevents damage'. 
Cowering doesn't really prevent damage, though.  It just shifts it directly to morale.

I could see a ruling either way. 



Fortunately I asked it and the ruling was already issued, you can't cower from it Smile