I played a Death Victor today, and had a few interesting questions come up. First, how does Torn Hero react to Darkness Blade?

I play Darkness Blade and use it's E. Does the opponent respond now, and cause the first card commited to be Torn Hero? Does the opponent respond when I play my next enhance and the floating effect commits their highest difficulty card? Or can my opponent just not do jack until I choose to commit it with the rest of the one difficulty cards? It makes sense to me that the opponent couldn't respond to my other enhances, because they don't actually commit anything. If that were the ruling, then Red Lotus would be able to negate anything during a Darkness Blade.

Second question regards Dead for One Thousand Years. Assuming my opponent can somehow play the Torn Hero response to commit it instead, if I respond with Dead for One Thousand Years, are they still able to commit two of my cards? Or does Torn Hero become blank before the static kicks in (probably even before Torn Hero's effect happens and it is commited itself)?

I'm not sure exactly how Darkness Blade plays out, but you must respond to DBlade's E being played -- Torn Hero responds "when your opponent plays an ability that commits stuff", and DBlade definitely commits stuff. I'm not sure what happens next tho

I'm not sure what you're asking about DF1kY. Torn Hero cannot respond to DF1kY being activated, because Dead doesn't commit things. If you play a commit effect and Torn Hero responds then Dead responds to Torn Hero, then both players pass responses, Dead resolves and blanks Torn Hero, Torn Hero resolves and redirects the commit effect, then the commit effect resolves and actually does the committing. By the time Torn Hero is actually committed, it is already blank, so its static text will not do anything.

hope this helps, particularly on DBlade ... wait for someone with more authority for that one

That's what I told you would happen with Dead for a Thousand, silly tallman xD

But yeah, he asked me about DBlade and I had to stop and think. I could see it going one of three ways, like in the original post:

1. Must respond with TH when DB enhance played - TH commits, and due to "instead" DB cannot commit anything else. TH commits 2 cards.

2. Must respond with TH when first card would be committed (this one seems least likely)

3. Can't do a **** thing until TH gets committed (btw, if this is the case, be sure to stop using enhances in just such a fashion as to leave JUST TH ready)

I've spent a lot of time looking at Torn Hero, and the only way the card seems to make sense is if its response replaces the entire effect with Torn Hero being committed, i.e. Your opponent plays the ability on Darkness Blade, Torn Hero responds and is immediately committed instead of the rest of Darkness Blade's ability resolving.

Otherwise, Torn Hero makes no sense when interacting with Amy's Assistance, Darkness Blade, Akuma and any other conditional/multiple commit effects.

This really needs an official ruling, since as MegaGeese mentioned, there are several possible rulings and the above one is only my local one for my tournaments.

You respond with TH right when the ability is played (as the card states) and when Darkness Blade's Enhance would get to the point where it commits a card, it is forced to commit TH instead.

With regard to conditional commit effects, TH basically forces their resolution to go a certain way, even if the ability shouldn't normally commit Torn Hero. Amy's Assistance will still reveal the top card of the deck, but when there would normally be a decision to reduce damage or commit an asset, Torn Hero's effect kicks in and says "No, I get committed instead of whatever you intended to do right there."

So it doesn't stop the floating conditional of DBlade, but rather forces itself as the first target?

Interesting...

Sorry, Jacob...neutered combo ftl =(

So, just to clarify, does Torn Hero place all of the commit effects on itself? Or does just the first commit go to Torn Hero, and then the rest work as normal?

Just the first, the rest can't re-commit a committed card regardless.

Tagrineth said:

I actually agreed with a ruling that tag has made? shocking.....

but seriously with jokes aside this is the only way that it can work because the way UFS works you have to resond when the ability is played you cant respond to it when an effect is actually happening or going into effect so to speak

so if it didnt work this way then the other outcome would be that the TH players gets to commit the cards immediately without the ability even commiting anything

Tagrineth said:

That's how I read the effect as well, so I assume that this would replace the entire commit part of Akuma's enhance as well since the committal is simultaneous , i.e. Torn Hero is committed instead of however many targets there were?

Speedsta said:

Correct, Torn Hero is one of the best defenses against Akuma. Granted it can respond as 'instead' even under the Hell Snipe blanket + his enhance . (note red lotus/tag along cannot under the blanket of Heel Snipe because they cancel the ehance).

- dut

As it was ruled for me ages ago, Torn Hero does not replace the entire effect, you can merely use it as a shield for cards that you want to keep ready. So you can use a torn hero to replace a card of your choice being committed, but not the whole ability.

Yes, but as we have been discussing above, that does not make sense when using cards like Amy's Assistance, etc.

Tagrineth said:

All of Akuma's effect happens simultaneously, and Torn Hero responds to Akuma's ability being played (i.e. before a target is chosen) and commits Torn Hero "instead". Torn Hero's response is triggered as soon as the ability is played and before it resolves it replaces any or all targets of the original ability with itself.

As no targets have been chosen when Torn Hero is triggered, it has to replace any and all targets of the original ability, otherwise there is nothing for it to replace using the condition of "instead" (it does not say it commits itself instead of any one foundation, it says it commits itself instead when an ability is played that commits cards).

In order for it to work the way Babelfish666 suggests, it would need wording similar to that found on Journey of Repentence.

Is there any chance of an official ruling on this since it seems likely to come up a lot?

Thanks.

dutpotd said:

Where did you see that TH can trigger with Heel snipes ability.

iceman01 said:

he didn't, nor did he say he did.

he said that Akuma's E, when protected by Heel Snipe, can still be "redirected" with torn hero, even though HS prevents it from being "negated"

Sorry I missed read the entire thread. Then Dut and I talked it over last night on the phone. Sorry guys it's been a crazy week.

Speedsta said:

Say Akuma activates his ability, X = 10. His opponent is sitting on 13 foundations including a Torn Hero and a Holding Ground he wants to protect. And a momentum. His opponent activates Torn Hero. It resolves. Akuma's E ends up with no other responses, and resolves. The first foundation to be committed is Torn Hero... and now the Golden Rule kicks in, and tells Akuma he has 9 more foundations that he has to commit to resolve as much of his effect as possible. Just like Darkness Blade, he can't commit a foundation that's already committed, and so he has to choose another foundation to be committed.

Wafflecopter said:

First of all, the golden rule is - what is said on the card overrides any other rule in the rulebook. Your use of it above eludes me, granted you are saying the golden rule means as much as the effect as possible needs to finish...

Here are the text in question:

Akuma:

First E Commit, commit X foundations: Commit X of your opponent's foundations.

Torn Hero reads:

R Discard 1 momentum: After you opponent plays an ability that commits a card in your staging area, they commit this card instead.

The way this works... After Akuma plays his ability (i.e. pays the cost, choosing how many foundations to commit) Torn Hero has the opportunity to respond. Granted, an ability has been played that commits a card in the staging area. The instead in this case says 'forget what is after Akuma's colon', for all intents and purposes Torn Hero is commited instead .

This works for the same reason Torn Hero can respond to stun 2, committing only itself, granted stun 2 is -> E: your opponent commits two foundations. Once the stun enhance has been played, Torn Hero can respond saying, 'this is what happens instead' .

If anything, the golden rule applies in this case in favor or torn hero. Torn hero says 'after an ability is played that does x, it does y instead' .

- dut

Could we have a rules arbiter over here? Because that's a very good question which really asks for an answer '^^

Nekuro said:

Seconded, I'm 99% sure based on my understanding of 'ability that does x' -> 'do y instead' but I would like it stamped becuase limiting Torn Hero to solving a 1 of many foundation commital is kind of silly for it's cost that involves momentum... And obviously there is some confusion around the 'instead' wording.

Note I agree with the Darkness Blade Ruling, the response i after an enhance ability is played subsequent to the use of the Blade's enhance, but the Akuma thing is a specific ability that commits, not a floating that applies itself to every e: after.

- dut

Seriously guys. Need an official ruling. Have SoCal regionals this weekend and this card makes or breaks my game against Akuma.

I've ruled this elsewhere... and just to be clear "Torn Hero Vs Death" doesn't indicate that I'm making a ruling for Akuma Vs. Torn Hero.

If you're going to change the subject of a thread and "expect" the rules arbiter to answer in a timely fashion... you may want to start a new thread.

So based on the last few post, I'm seeing the current question is: What happens if Torn Hero is used against Akuma's first E?

So... Torn hero:

First and foremost - note that the ability says "One card". Then it says, commit this card instead.

Akuma's Ability - commits one or many:

If more then 1 is targeted, select the ONE you want to protect, and throw Torn Hero in the way.

So... to be absolutely clear - Akuma First E's committing 10 Foundations.

Select the ONE foundation from the 10 that you want to protect - throw Torn Hero in the way, and Akuma cannot commit that ONE foundation with his ability.

The following statement is not intended to be rude, but is anticipating a normal response to this ruling:

rebuttal I've frequently seen: "But it says instead, it should be instead of all the cards."

My answer to that: "Correct, but if we're being that literal, it also says one card, so since more then one card is being committed, it shouldn't work at all."

Antigoth said:

Actually, it doesn't. It say "a card". That's not literally what it says, but the number 1 is a subset of what it implies.

Regardless, this seems to be a reversal of the old rulings on things like canceling Friends and Rivals.

How does this interact with Amy's Assistance?

First off...I just looked, and any ruling you made on Torn Hero is more than 20 pages back or buried somewhere in another thread.

Now, Torn Hero says "a card" not "one card". If you want to use your "literal" interpretation as an argument you also imply that Red Lotus should not work if more than one card would be targeted. Given the trigger for Torn Hero's effect, "After your opponent plays an ability..." , your ruling is ignoring how the word "instead" is being used. According to the card itself, taken directly from the card text it should generate an effect that says "when your opponent plays an ability that would do something, that ability does this instead." The word "instead" as it is used implies a replacement effect that overrides the ability completely.

In order for the card to work as ruled, the text would have to be changed to say "R Discard 1 momentum: When your opponent would commit a card in your staging area, they commit this card instead." in order to have it effect only a single card. As it is ruled now you make it the rough equivalent to Journey of Repentance. Which leaves the question of why, if two cards are so similar in effect, are they worded so differently.

The other issue as it is ruled, is when you respond to Akuma's ability Torn Hero's effect happens after the ability is played but before the ability begins to resolve, which is before targets are declared. This makes it almost worthless in the sense that you can choose something to protect, and they should be able to choose 10 other things to commit and get around the effect completely. Since targets are not declared until resolution you would not be able to know which foundation you need to protect until after Torn Hero's effect resolves.

Antigoth said:

Thank you Antigoth and thank you for starting up the omni-rule thread.

My only qualm with Torn Hero with that ruling is that it doesn't read very well at all, especailly in the context of other cards released (and in the same set as it).

Namely, if the 'do this instead' wasn't replacing the ability that commits a foundation, then why even reference an ability being played at all?

Why isn't it worded similar to the other card Journey of Repentance that states -> R: Before your opponent commits one of your foundations, commit this card instead. ?

And also, other cards that use the word instead. See Miserable Existence -> R commit: Before your opponent adds cards to their momentum... is a clear case where an ability is not referenced and, oddly enough, one that says 'cards' plural, despite the fact that we all know this can respond to the addition of 'one' card to the momentum.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm fine with the ruling, I'm just indicating that without your ruling in front of me there is really no way I would have been equipped to figure it out that way on my own. The biggest reason, I think, being that the response mentions an entire ability, not necessarily only a piece of an ability that can be redirected. More importantly, thank you for including it in your faq. (said faq should be stickied)

I also have a more specific question further to your ruling becuase it doesn't jump out at me.

Your ruling indicates that if Torn Hero responds to Akuma then it is replacing one of the X he can commit. What happens though when Akuma commits more than what is in your staging area?

Example:

I have Torn Hero and 'other foundation' in my staging area. Akuma commits himself and X foundations, X being 2 (or even 3). Akuma then says, commit your only two foundations, can Torn Hero respond to say 'commit me instead of the 'other foundation'? I would think yes... But then, and if it does, can the Akuma player continue to commit the 'other foundation' that was just protected by Torn Hero with it's 2nd/3rd/whatever picks of foundations? Or is that foundation now off limits becuase Torn Hero was committed instead as one of the many X's?

I think it is off limits from your explanation, hence protected, but I just want to be sure.

Thank you again,

- dut

An aside. The way we originally played Torn Hero was against Zi Mei's stun 3 kick. At which point we would start hating multi-stun because, for all intents and purposes, Torn Hero did a **** good job of saying - 'just stun me!'

I guess, from this ruling, and your explanation in the omnifaq that we were playing it all wrong, and that our PotM experience was slightly tainted becuase of it. At the time we didn't have any arguments, i.e. it was very clear that the instead replaced the ability. We will have to be careful to examine cards more sincerely when they first come out, especially when in proximity to major events. I trust the steps that you, and the community via an omni-faq, will greatly do this - and for that, I am truly grateful.