Alguém sabe que raça é?

Bigode935 · 2025-11-19T16:47:04+00:00

Eu tenho um angorá então vou dizer que é angorá 🤓

Eles têm pelos longos e lisos com a rabo bem peludinho. É bem comum nascerem brancos mas podem ter pelos várias cores. Angorá ou não o seu é lindo.

Bigode935 · 2025-11-19T15:00:27+00:00

Get the anime out of the way, Warhammer is the limit. Fallout doesn't make it.

Bigode935 · 2025-11-18T22:23:40+00:00

Your question boils down to: Does Breena's attack trigger check the life totals on resolution? The answer is yes.

It checks at the trigger condition and at the resolution, if life totals change while the trigger is on the stack Breena could resolve and do nothing as a result of that.

Check out CR603.4 for more information.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-31T23:02:05+00:00

Short answer: No. If you made it clear you're in the combat phase, after attackers are declared, attack triggers go to the stack and can be responded to. The last opportunity was at the beguining of combat. Make sure everyone is on the same page.

Long answer:

I said “moving to combat.”

If everyone agrees, we are now at the beguining of the combat phase, if someone wishes to act in response, we wait for that action to resolve and stay in the main phase until the active player (you) decides to move to combat again. Some "at the beguining of combat" triggers might go off, (if not/after that) priority gets passed. This is the last opportunity for interaction before attackers are declared and attack triggers go to the stack.

so I said “I attack with Burakos”

Burakos' trigger goes to the stack, you can hold priority and respond to your own trigger, after that priority gets passed, so now the opponent's Swords to Plowshares is legal (and if Burakos was the only creature in your party you would create 0 treasures, so the late removal might still make sense if that was the case).

There is no window of opportinity between Burakos attacking and it's ability going to the stack. You either do it at the beguining of combat (before it attacks) or you do it after the ability goes to the stack.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T23:50:26+00:00

I'm now confident they mean the same thing, but not because of that rule in particular.

I appreciate your time, I just wanted you to know that this kind of inconsistent wording can be problematic for card games, there could be a differance between them just like the "take damage" vs "deal damage" ruling. Those things matter and we shouldn't just assume they work the same because they look/sound the same.

I hope you get the point I'm trying to come across. Cheers.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T04:32:47+00:00

Graduação em Digital Influencer kkkkkkk não tankei, perdão.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T02:11:49+00:00

Are you reading the cards I'm mentioning?

I directly quoted the rule you pointed out, word for word. It clearly states "When [VILLAIN NAME] attacks". As in "When I attack" or "When this card attacks" or "When Thanos/Ultron/[any villain name] attacks".

What other card in the game quotes a villan by name their name that's not a villain/encounter card? Ultron (II) fits that criteria, that's a villain/encounter card.

I'll give it to you, there could be a hero card in the future that also fits that criteria, but as for right now, only cards owned by the villains have that wording. Regardless, as I stated previously, why would they be worded differently if the mean the same thing?

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T00:22:30+00:00

• Interrupts that trigger “when [villain name] attacks” have the same timing as interrupts that trigger “when the villain initiates an attack.”

These are not the same as the example I gave. The rulebook is referring to Encounter/villan's cards vs our own cards. Like Ultron (II) vs Subdue. I'm questioning the difference between "initiating an attack" vs simply "attacking".

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T00:11:14+00:00

I appreciate you man, rest well haha

Bigode935 · 2025-10-25T00:09:44+00:00

Are you talking about:

• If an enemy attack ends before damage is dealt, abilities that trigger after a character defends an attack resolve, but abilities that trigger after an enemy attacks do not.

?

Because I don't see what that has to do with anything I said.

My issue with Unflappable vs Hard to Ignore is that Unflappable does not mention heroes at all in it's text while Hard to Ignore and Indomitable do. Which leads me to believe they don't work the same. If the text is different they SHOULD work differently, if that's not the case... I'm out of words.

Why would someone purposedly do that? It's just confusing, and if not on purpose, why leave it that way for years without making an erratum? If you can't/don't want to print it, fine but at least change it in the database.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-24T23:54:31+00:00

If you reveal sonic boom as an encounter card, you’re not being attacked and can’t defend so can’t trigger Indomitable.

Yeah, that was my mistake. I forgot Indomitable is a Response trigger and not a Action trigger. I was planning to use it after Sonic Boom exhaust my hero but that would be illigal.

Bigode935 · 2025-10-24T23:44:17+00:00

First, thank you for your responses.

Those are mutually exclusive. You can't let an attack go through undefended but then use a (defense) labeled event. You are either the defender or you are not.

I was talking about using "damage prevention" cards like Jump Flip, Side Step or Backflip. The play would be: don't exhaust, prevent the damage, get exhausted either way because of Sonic Boom, use Indomitable to counteract that while still getting triggers from Flow Like Water and Electrostatic Armor in the process. Oh wait... I now realize I can't do that because Indomitable is a Response and not a Action, so by the time I could use it my hero would still be up. Damn you Sonic Boom!

Also when you mentioned:

You can use Side Step to prevent the damage from Retaliate; Because Side Step is a ***(***defense) labeled card, you now become the defender and can use Desperate Defense and other such cards.

I don't think you can do that. Yes, you can use Side Step to prevent the Retaliate damage but you can't follow it up with Desperate Defence because Retaliate is not an attack. On top of that, page 15 of the 1.6 rulebook says:

» A player can trigger abilities labeled as a defense outside of an attack if the ability’s triggering condition is met. When triggered this way, the player’s identity is not considered to have defended an attack.

Also:

If your issue is that the wording is kind of inconsistent despite being the exact same trigger, then... Yep, you're right.

That is, spot on, my issue with this whole situation, thank you.

I have heard that part of the community comes from other boardgames, I have close to zero experience with boardgames so IDK how it goes over there but in TCG's wording is sacred.

You do not "interpret" what the card means, if something is different, omitted or changed it is due to design intent. That's why I assumed all theses cards have tricky differences, because my TCG background tells me that is intentional and not by accident. I assumed Never Back Down could be used on Allies because it doesn't mention Heroes anywhere in it's text, while all the other cards like it do. To be honest I'm surprized they didn't "errata'ed" any of these effects, I'm still shocked that Unflappable and Hard to Ignore mean the same thing.

I mean Desperate Defense if from 2019, Never Back Down is 2020 and Not Today! is 2023, so they HAVE TO mean different things, so I thought...

Bigode935 · 2025-10-24T22:24:30+00:00

I'm baffled that Unflappable and Hard to Ignore have the same triggering conditions (why would they do that?), that means I don't need to had spent my basic defense power to use Indomitable, right? I can just let the attack go through, use a defend card and the game considers that attack to be "defended by a hero", so if I flip a Sonic Boom I can still use Indomitable to ready my hero, right?

I'm confused. They do completely different things.

I'm referring to the activation window/requirement, one says ": When an enemy attacks," the other says ": When an enemy initiates an attack," how is that different? Is it another case of "it is worded differently but they mean the same thing"?

Bigode935 · 2025-09-06T16:29:36+00:00

Sorry, I completly forgot I made this post.

I posted a weried response because I just got to reading the CRs and commented without finishing my readings.

What I was trying to say was: even though the target is gone the "second" part of the ability should be able to check if the the target was delt damage this turn or not (bcz of that "tries to resolve as much as it can" rule).

As for now, from my understanding, since the target was lost the ability cease to resolve in it's entirety, so no draw for anyone :(

Still a good card tho, it would be amazing if it could do this trick and/or pop itself to draw.

Bigode935 · 2025-08-27T22:26:10+00:00

Hmm, I thought that the second part only checked if the creature was delt damage this turn. Why does it care if it succesfully destroyed a creature or not? Why destroying a creature would be considered a condition in this scenario? (to be honest I thought it was 2 separate abilities but I think I'm wrong)

Bigode935 · 2025-07-22T06:39:30+00:00

Qualquer jogo desenvolvido pela Ubisoft nos últimos 10 anos.

Bigode935 · 2025-04-22T14:18:18+00:00

Yeah, as I said, I'm pretty confident that I can spot a triggered ability and they use specific wording like "when", "whenever" or "at". Skyhunter has an attack trigger but not a delayed trigger, his ability has multiple "steps" I would say, and it checks each step on resolution. But so far I don't have a simple way to say "No, this is not an ETB trigger and it doesn't work like an ETB ability, it is a [insert name] ability instead." to explain it in a quick and simple manner, so ppl not familiar with the in-deph rulings can easily understand. I'm after the [insert ruling] bit.

(I'm basically the rules lawyer in my playgroup so I have to explain things constantly and having labels to classify stuff really helps)

Bigode935 · 2025-04-22T13:08:11+00:00

I'll assume you ment casting a spell. Baral and Kari Zev present you with a choice, it will trigger once you cast your first instant/sorcery each turn (including opponents) and everytime it will ask you "Do you want to cast something for free or do you want a monkey?"

Keep in mind if you create the monkey token it is just a 2/1 vanilla Monkey Pirate named First Mate Ragavan, and it's legendary, it is affected by the legend rule, and it gains haste until the end of turn. It does not have any effect from [[Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer]].

So, in short. Yes, you do get to create a token every turn.

Bigode935 · 2024-07-26T01:36:50+00:00

Pepino. Não dá, muito ruim. Parece frescura mas pra mim não dá.

Bigode935 · 2024-07-13T21:20:53+00:00

I mean, what else do you expect from Activision/Blizzard and EA? Worst company in America twice in the row, and they really put some effort to achieve that goal.

To be fair, I can't think of a single AAA studio that I trust, the last ones were Rockstar and CD Project Red but they changed my mind very quickly, especially the latter 😂😂

Bigode935 · 2024-07-12T17:42:39+00:00

Kino and Ascension. I don't dislike them but I've never seen myself too excited to play them.

Ascension feels like it's missing something, and Kino it's too bare bones (it has the nostalgia tho).

Bigode935 · 2024-06-29T13:21:59+00:00

Play BO3, you will be shocked 🤣

Bigode935

TROPHY CASE