PDA

View Full Version : Contemplating + attacking



SMazzurco
12-06-2010, 07:58 AM
Ok i swear it was ruled that contemplating could trigger off an attack.

Attack > deals damage > results in a vitality loss.

Contemplating states on it attack or effect or something to that nature.

So can you R with contemplating after an unblocked attack deals damage?

Sketch
12-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Yeah, you can.

SMazzurco
12-06-2010, 10:13 AM
What i thought but someone told me Jason said otherwise at nationals...

generalreaction2.0
12-06-2010, 11:05 AM
What i thought but someone told me Jason said otherwise at nationals...

trust Dave, he may not be able to do basic math but he knows the rules

RockStar
12-06-2010, 12:16 PM
Uhm, no? I believe that "vitality loss" and "damage" are two separate conditions/references, even though they equate to the same result.

SMazzurco
12-06-2010, 12:46 PM
Uhm, no? I believe that "vitality loss" and "damage" are two separate conditions/references, even though they equate to the same result.

The AGR was revised so that an attack dealing damage results in a loss of vitality.

So they ARE different, and vitality loss can happen independently of an attack dealing damage. But, an attack dealing damage does directly result in a loss of vitality.

Found it, 8.3.3.8 (which is about the damage step) "Subtract the appropriate amount from the defender's vitality total. This is considered vitality loss"

But yeah, they USE to be different.

Tagrineth
12-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Taking damage has always resulted in vitality loss, but vitality loss doesn't refer to taking damage unless the card says damage.

The important thing is that many old cards that referred to "vitality loss" also tacked on qualifiers like "from an effect" or "from a card's effect".

You've always been able to respond with "After your opponent loses vitality," after an attack deals damage.

RockStar
12-06-2010, 01:36 PM
Got it. So, Contemplating is much better than ruled at Nats. Good to know!

EscarcegaGuy
12-06-2010, 05:29 PM
I'm not understanding how this card was played incorrectly. Whenever your opponent takes loses vitality you should be able to react. Unless there is a way to just lose vitality out of nowhere. It says "After your opponent loses vitality due to an attack or card effect, draw 1 card." How else can you lose vitality?

RockStar
12-06-2010, 07:41 PM
Before the re-written AGR, there was a clear distinction between Vitality Loss and Taking Damage, despite the fact that these two conditions equated to the same thing. So, since Contemplating was referencing Vitality Loss, under the old rules, one would not be able to respond with Contemplating should you simply deal damage to your opponent.

That's where the confusion lay.

EscarcegaGuy
12-06-2010, 08:28 PM
Before the re-written AGR, there was a clear distinction between Vitality Loss and Taking Damage, despite the fact that these two conditions equated to the same thing. So, since Contemplating was referencing Vitality Loss, under the old rules, one would not be able to respond with Contemplating should you simply deal damage to your opponent.

That's where the confusion lay.

Wow, the old rules are dumb.

Tagrineth
12-07-2010, 05:14 AM
Before the re-written AGR, there was a clear distinction between Vitality Loss and Taking Damage, despite the fact that these two conditions equated to the same thing. So, since Contemplating was referencing Vitality Loss, under the old rules, one would not be able to respond with Contemplating should you simply deal damage to your opponent.

That's where the confusion lay.

No, that's wrong. even before, your opponent lost vitality when they took damage. The issue was in entirely different effects (e.g. Holding Ground's timing vs. reduce-to-0 effects).

There just weren't many cards that referred to losing vitality without saying it was specifically supposed to be from a card effect.

SMazzurco
12-07-2010, 05:36 AM
No, that's wrong. even before, your opponent lost vitality when they took damage. The issue was in entirely different effects (e.g. Holding Ground's timing vs. reduce-to-0 effects).

There just weren't many cards that referred to losing vitality without saying it was specifically supposed to be from a card effect.

Ya the problem was more that cards said "when your opponent is taking damage" or "while you are taking damage" vs things like that morrigan attack that didn't deal damage but caused "a loss of vitality"

RockStar
12-07-2010, 06:32 PM
No, that's wrong. even before, your opponent lost vitality when they took damage. The issue was in entirely different effects (e.g. Holding Ground's timing vs. reduce-to-0 effects).

There just weren't many cards that referred to losing vitality without saying it was specifically supposed to be from a card effect.

Doh! I'm so good at this game!!!