|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 7:25AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2011
|
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
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 10:56AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2010
|
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?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 11:20AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2002
|
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).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 11:23AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 11:04AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2011
|
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
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 1:15PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2002
|
A question : does Piercing Strike overrides cowering? Does cowering count as 'preventing damage' in this context?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 2:05PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
|
Yes. Piercing strike does override Cowering.
Card text trumps rule book.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 3:05PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Cowering doesn't really prevent damage, though. It just shifts it directly to morale.
I could see a ruling either way.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 5:17PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
|
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'.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 27, 2012 - 11:28PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2010
|
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 
|
|
|
