From the new rules:

"To be able to resolve an effect, it must have a valid target."

What does this mean?!?!?!?!

Does it when someone uses the Enhance on Amy's Ass on their own attack, if their opponent no longer has an asset to commit by the time you get to the resolution of the enhance they have to give their own attack a damage debuff?

Does it mean you can't use Bereaved (E: Your attack gets +1 damage. Gain 1 vitality) on your opponent's attack to just gain vitality?

it says to be able to resolve, meaning if there is no target it fizzles. it doesnt say to be able to play/use and effect

Ziephnir said:

**Stamp**

Clarification (aka, aslum's second question):

Does the entire effect fizzle if only part has no valid target? Or do we still resolve as much as we can?

In aslum's example, if we played the E on the opponent's attack, would we still gain life?

I think the point is that something like TYPFG will fizzle and not "resolve" if the opponent has no ready cards to commit.

edit: basically what i mean is you will do as much as you can, and if that ends up meaning the ability does nothing, it effectively isn't considered "resolved".

2.13.4 kicks in first.

If it tries to resolve itself, and can't find a valid target, then 2.13.7A happens.

Note that 2.13.7A does fall after 2.13.4

So you can't play Kung Fu Training as an enhance on your opponant's attacks now?

Antigoth said:

Generally in rules structured like this later/higher rules are considered either clarifications, special cases and have higher priority, so since 7A comes after 4 it would have greater importance in the resolution of things.

Never mind that my second question hasn't been answered yet, here's another:

If the effect doesn't resolve because of this, does that mean that the R,E or F didn't resolve?

aslum said:

Can you rephrase your second question so I'm not as confused?

If an effect fizzles, it means it's resolved unsuccessfully.

Is someone gonna answer my question? *cry*

B-Rad said:

You play the E, but nothing happens.

"Does it mean you can't use Bereaved (E: Your attack gets +1 damage. Gain 1 vitality) on your opponent's attack to just gain vitality?"

I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

aslum said:

That was your third question.

You were asking about your second question.

But correct. That is was what it means.

aslum said:

The above isn't really a question, so much as a statement of incredulity at the possible ramifications of this rule, hence the string of interrobangs instead just a question mark; as such no answer was expected and I didn't really count it as a question to be answered.

Also, this probably needs to be changed to "To be able to resolve an effect successfully..." as otherwise the current wording technically precludes the effect resolving at all whilst lacking an appropriate target.

aslum said:

this is an interrobang "?"

or the text for it wont show up, yay for 2 wasted replies

?! or !? is an accepted replacement for an interrobang when the actual typographical mark isn't available. For example, when useing *** editor.

</English Geek>