So, I read the article on the upcoming set, and I'm curious how the passive effect of resilient interacts with paying costs. For example, if you have to sacrifice a resilient card (as a cost), wouldn't using resilient to put it on top of your deck negate the paying of the cost? In other words, if you use the resilient ability, was the card still sacrificed? What about other, similar interactions?
If you prevent the cost then that would indeed negate the paying and the effect wouldn't work. However, Resilient doesn't seem to cancel or prevent the Sacrifice, just where the character goes as a result of it so I don't think it would interfere. Now, if an effect said "Put a character in your discard pile to do X" then Resilient WOULD interfere with that because the cost is no longer being paid.
I'd like to see the exact wording for the new Resilient keyword before I make any assumptions. It's still a while until the box is released.
Actually, I'm more interested in the definition of Sacrifice. What we know in the rules is "A character that is sacrificed is also placed in the discard pile." I haven't found a more complete definition in the Rules or FAQ. So, what I meant to be asking is if the card ends up out of play but not in the discard pile (or who knows in the case of sacrificing something other than a character), is it still considered sacrificed for the purpose of paying costs? (And I know that if the paying of costs is prevented, then the effect doesn't happen, but does this form of interference negate the paying of the cost, or is it good enough as long as it left play?) Do we have any examples of anything else that would interfere with a sacrifice in a similar way? If so, then we can draw some inferences.
As I already said: It depends on the exact wording. If it's a replacement effect that effectively negates the sacrifice, then it won't work. If the wording was chosen to just modify the consequence of sacrificing the card (i.e. being put into the discard pile), then it works.
To give an example of an existing card, look at Andrew Chapman's ability:
Disrupt: When an opponent's effect would destroy or make you sacrifice a character you control, instead discard a card from your hand. Then, place a success token on Andrew Chapman.
This is an example of a replacement effect that negates the sacrifice.
Thank you. You answered my question with your second post, but not with your first post. A logic tree does count as an answer -- and a fine one at that.
As I already said: It depends on the exact wording. If it's a replacement effect that effectively negates the sacrifice, then it won't work. If the wording was chosen to just modify the consequence of sacrificing the card (i.e. being put into the discard pile), then it works.
To give an example of an existing card, look at Andrew Chapman's ability:
Disrupt: When an opponent's effect would destroy or make you sacrifice a character you control, instead discard a card from your hand. Then, place a success token on Andrew Chapman.
This is an example of a replacement effect that negates the sacrifice.