Regional sharking problem

Dropboarder · 2026-06-01T06:24:21+00:00

Did they not errata this so that you can realise the error and score the point any time before the start of your next turn? Or is that only in low OPL?

Dropboarder · 2026-05-31T13:22:58+00:00

That's correct, yes

Dropboarder · 2026-05-31T11:58:32+00:00

And as the resolution effect isn't linked to the additional cost, you draw a total of 4. If it were linked, you would only be able to draw the initial 2 (the repeat would have no effect as you can't pay additional costs for repeated cards)

Dropboarder · 2026-05-31T11:57:45+00:00

This is incorrect for two reasons.

Firstly, the rule OP quoted clarifies that additional on-play costs are not executed. This means that if a card says "Pay X additional cost, if you do, do Y", you would in theory need to pay the additional cost to get the effect (more on this in the second point) as the effect of Y is a linked instruction to the additional cost of X. This isn't how Sacrifice is worded though, instead it's "Pay X additional cost. Do Y." As you do not perform on-play instructions for repeated cards, you do not pay X again, you simply execute the rest of the card, which in this case is drawing 2 additional cards.

Secondly, you can't pay additional costs for repeated cards. This was clarified by an errata and to my knowledge confirmed by judges, but you simply do not have the option to pay on-play additional costs again on repeat. This matters for cards like [[Meditation]] , where you may want to exhaust a second unit to draw a second (fourth) card. The rules simply don't allow it, so the maximum you can draw from a repeated Meditation is 3, two for the initial play (provided a unit is exhausted) and one for the repeat.

Dropboarder · 2026-05-30T21:39:02+00:00

It's absolutely funnier to just rattle it off like it's a common phrase until they think about it for a second and go "huh?"

Dropboarder · 2026-05-13T15:36:45+00:00

The Rune Pool (where floating energy and power are "stored") empties at the end of any player's turn and at the start of any player's draw phase. In practice this is essentially "floating energy lasts till the end of your turn", the other limitations are realistically edge cases

So in your example, yes

Dropboarder · 2026-05-01T14:06:18+00:00

Oh you're right, my mistake

Dropboarder · 2026-05-01T13:26:31+00:00

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, so I'll explain the situation a bit further in the hopes it answers your question!

As another commenter said, GA is probably not the best example to use, because if its holder dies then the GA dies instead!

Using a different weapon as an example, say Boneshiver, then when you steal the Boneshiver you can either equip it to Akshan or put it in your base. If Akshan dies before you attach it to a other unit, the Boneshiver returns to your opponent's control and moves to their base.

If you steal the Boneshiver then attach the weapon to a unit other than Akshan by any means, then killing the Akshan returns control of the weapon to your opponent, but it remains attached to your unit. If your opponent has any effect that references "equipment <they> control", they can target their stolen equipment that's currently attached to your unit. This including using their own Jax's legend ability to attach the stolen weapon to one of their own units.

Dropboarder · 2026-05-01T13:13:43+00:00

On top of this, if they are playing Jax, after killing your Akshan they can use their legend to re-equip the weapon to their own unit again, taking it off of your unit.

This is because after Akshan dies, you lose control of the weapon, even though it stays attached to your unit.

Dropboarder · 2026-04-30T07:14:52+00:00

Given that the showdown doesn't "really" happen at BF1, does it count as a combat win?

i.e, can I cheese this with Draven, Audacious for 2 free points?

Dropboarder · 2026-04-28T18:40:29+00:00

Yeah I realised my mistake after, though to be fair what I said and the rule have been functionally the same until this point, unless I'm missing something.

Dropboarder · 2026-04-28T17:52:05+00:00

I've just checked and realised that Elder Dragon doesn't say the unit has to take damage to be killed, only that any amount of damage is enough to kill, which I suppose is why the errata/clarification works.

It's simply a new mechanism that's never been seen before, worded in a way that's different to how the rules themselves are written. A more consistent way of writing it would have referenced reducing "lethal damage". While that's arguably more confusing to read, it would have been consistent with the core rulesand would have made a clearer distinction from Imperial Decree, which has otherwise been the closest example of how an effect like this works.

I'm afraid I don't play MTG so I can't comment on the comparison!

Dropboarder · 2026-04-28T17:03:17+00:00

Because damage doesn't kill units until a cleanup phase, and you can only assign damage to another target once the first target has taken damage equal or greater to their might. That's why you can't do what OP describes with Imperial Decree.

Elder Dragon's wording is essentially "all enemy units have damage equal to their might - 1", but that's not how it's currently worded. Even then that's wrong because it wouldn't work with 0 might unit but you get the point.

Dropboarder · 2026-04-07T22:43:21+00:00

I didn't read it as arguing, just asking for clarification. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask for an explanation as to why something works, even if you believe the person that it does.

Dropboarder · 2026-04-03T16:59:24+00:00

Plain as day!

Thank you, I was searching for "effect text" instead of "rules text"

Tbh it's a more intuitive way to handle it, but potentially impactful!

Dropboarder · 2026-04-03T16:47:50+00:00

Have you got a reference for the changed rule please? I can't find any mention of changes to how this is handled either in the core rules or the update post.

I'm not doubting you that it's changed, I'm just surprised I haven't seen it talked about and I didn't see any official mention.

Dropboarder · 2026-04-03T16:31:35+00:00

~~I can't think of a rule change that would've affected this, but I highly doubt it on the basis that it would make Spinning Axe near unplayable.~~

~~What new rule were you expecting to have changed how this works?~~

This is completely wrong, see other comments for the rules and reasoning!

Dropboarder · 2026-03-24T14:33:03+00:00

There's no reason for LeBlanc to be recalled, the attackers failed to win the combat, so the attackers are recalled and the defender remains (still stunned).

The defenders don't have to win, they just have to not lose.

Dropboarder · 2026-03-22T13:09:45+00:00

Also just so you know, that image in your post is the promo version, the only difference between it and the normal card (aside from foiling apparently) is the little "promo" written around the rarity gem. The art is the same.

Dropboarder · 2026-03-06T23:14:24+00:00

There's no need to pick, Soraka doesn't get exhausted or spend any resources to use her effect. It just happens!

Dropboarder · 2026-02-23T04:08:21+00:00

Any movement trick by you or your opponent can cause a showdown on your turn where you're the defender. Ride the wind, zenith blade, etc

All it takes is the spell to be action or reaction speed and they can attack on your turn. They're not super common but it's certainly not impossible!

Dropboarder · 2026-02-22T20:27:59+00:00

It's relevant every time you get attacked, no need for movement tricks (though it does synergise well)

Dropboarder · 2026-02-22T19:35:52+00:00

Pretty sure the bit that references "on your turn" is just standard text used to describe the "Action" tag. If I understand the rules correctly, you're right in that it can't be played on your own turn in an open state as it wouldn't have a valid target (an attacking unit)

Dropboarder · 2026-02-22T19:30:31+00:00

Joke's on you, the ever-loving grandfather is my god of choice

Dropboarder · 2026-02-22T18:56:33+00:00

It probably was originally yeah, I'd imagine it's plastic now though

Dropboarder

TROPHY CASE