E: if this attack deals damage, take 1 character card from your discard pile and add it to you hand. Each multiple copy of this attack also gains this enhance ability.

If the first attack deals no damage, does the multiple still get the enhance ability?

yes the second part of the enhance is unconditional on if the attack deals dmg

Actually, I believe there was a previous ruling that said anything that follows "If" does not happen if the condition is not met. Even if there is a period seperating effects. I don't know what the ruling was on, but I remember it effected Jaguar Tooth which said something to the effect of "If you completely block with this attack it does not clear during the End Phase. While this is in your card pool your attacks get +1 damage and any attack that deals damage is immediately added to your momentum". If you played the Jaguar Tooth as an attack no part of the effect happened because it triggered off you completely blocking with it. Unless I am mistaken or there was a change I would assume it would effect Spinning Demon the same way.

Yes the multiple would still get it, since the 2 parts of the ability are seperated by a full stop. Which means it goes a) if it deals damage get a character card, and b) each multiple copy gets the enhance.

The "If" portion of the ability only inhibits the next part if the next part starts with "Then".

-Mr. Tinman

Wrong, If applies to the whole ability. D'oh.

Whoops. Tag is right. I was mixing 2.13.2 and 2.13.5. My bad.

Relevant text:

2.13.5 Played abilities that state a condition preceded by “if ”, “after”, “when”, the entire effect
following “if ”, “after”, “when” must resolve and then the condition can be fulfilled. For
example, for the game text “If this attack deals damage, reveal the top card of your deck.
Gain X vitality.” The vitality gain is fulfilled once the attack deals damage and you reveal the
top card of your deck.

-Mr. Tinman

Wow, so if Spinning Demon doesn't deal damage, its multiple doesn't get the enhancement? Pretty awesome if you ask me.

guitalex2008 said:

Makes sense, or rather slightly tones down this 'still pretty darn good' card. Although, I would argue the card could have read a bit better, only really astute players and people like Tag would know the 'if... (period) more information' rulings.

- dut

If this completely stops it with one block that would make no sense. I would understand it if there was an and instead of a period but there is not. The Second part of the effect doesn't have anything to with the first other than being bunched together in the same text.

Sol Badguy said:

You wanna know how much people argued the opposite before the "If rule" was instated? "it's part of the same ability, so the if should matter"

Tagrineth said:

Well those people are morons. Like I said if the card was worded like this:

If this attack deals damage ________ AND all multiple copies of this attack gain this enhance. that would make perfect sense.

It's like people want text to not make sense to make even more ruling that makes no sense to average players(and experienced alike) just to turn away new players. I know for a fact I will probably lose a player or 2 if this ruling is right as it will effect 2 players decks and I can't exactly explain why it is so because the ruling is so stupid and doesn't make sense.

Dead for 1000 Years at least made some bit of sense due to the card not actually saying negate but this ruling just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

That's quite bold of you to make such a sweeping statement about so many people being morons. At the time we had far more absurd situations. Go read Standing Round House for one example:

"If this attack deals damage, choose a number. Discard all cards in all card pools. Players cannot play cards with controls that match the chosen number for the rest of this turn."

Purpose:

"E: If this attack deals damage, discard this card from your card pool. Before the control check for your next attack this turn, either your control check to play that attack gets +X or if that attack is played it gets Stun: X (your choice). X equals the number of cards in your card pool."

So Standing Round House can never deal damage because it discards itself from your card pool right away, and Purpose doesn't care if your attack deals damage except to discard itself from your card pool.

There's a BUNCH of other If...etc cards that are affected by this situation very badly.

Just had a stupid/great thought that might be related to this. Because the "Each multiple copy of this attack also gains this Enhance ability" is part of the granted enhance ability, would the multiple copies be able to grant additional iterations of the enhance ability?

It would play out something like:

Play Spinning Demon

React with Need to Destroy

Multiple 3

Enhance with the 1st (Original) Spinning Demon, it deals damage.

Enhance with the 2nd Spinning Demon, it deals damage.

Would the 3rd Spinning Demon now have 2 Enhances to use? Would a 4th have 4?

The logic is this: Each Spinning Demon using the Enhance is using a separate Enhance. Each of the enhances creates a copy of "this Enhance ability." So for each separate Demon, there is a new "this" for the ability to pass on to the other copies. I see no reason the ability would lose the last part of the E, or that the Es would somehow overwrite each other.

-Tinman

I'm not going to say one way or another, I would like very much this to be ruled though as the card is commonly played and from fairly limited card pool so I expect more play of it in the next little while.

Not undermining tag's additions to this thread, would just prefer to see an official stamp to stop the back and forth.

- dut

Tinman said:

The multiple copy that uses the enhance will not affect later multiples because later copies do not refer to the first copy but rather the original attack. For your idea to work the multiple copy would have to have a multiple enhance on it, but even then the AGR states that any multiple made from a multiple gets discarded instead, so this situation will likely never happen.

Tagrineth said:

Hmm I suppose I see your point. Well then I guess I will just have to use those examples when explaining to my players. The situation with this card however is a bit different because these are 2 stand alone effects. But if it is ruled one way or another it will make sense.

a suggestion, for clarity, it should be worded with an "and" replacing the period (if this attack deals dmg grab a char card AND each mult copy gets this enhance) or maybe be worded like "E: If this attack deals dmg grab a char card. After playing this ability, multiple copies gain this enhance."

the whole "a period is now a conjunction" thing is just sort of..."strange".

Not saying the text, ruling, or AGR is "wrong" but just throwing out a suggestion for future card templating to maybe make it a bit more clear.

BTW i think my first example is pretty good...my 2nd one could use some help lol. But you get the idea.

Or it could just be: Static Text: "Multiple Copies of this attack gain all printed enhances on this card." Or you could put the "All multiples copies gain" part first, so that happens, then the whole dealing damage thing goes into effect.

I would rather have the multiples gain the ability, damage or not, but I understand if this was how it was meant to be played. Would be nice to get a weigh in from Antigoth, just for a thumbs up/down.

-Tinman

Zero Cross said:

You dont have to give the extra multiple to another multiple copy. If you give the multiple rating +1 then you now can make 2 copies of the attack:

It would play out just like in the first quoted post here.

From what i remember the mulitple copies get the enhance but dont retain the clause at the end....i remember it being ruled like this before but i cant remember what card it was ruled for. Maybe itll come back to me....idk

Smazzurco said:

A period isn't a conjunction. The "if" condition simply governs the whole effect, not just part of it.

The question with the enhance, if you were to give it a second multiple copy somehow, is simple enough - the Enhance says "multiple copies of THIS attack". You can't make a multiple copy of a multiple copy, so the copies can't possibly further give the Enhance to anything else. QED.

I don't see what the huge issue is with this affecting Spinning Demon, anyway. Good card is good. It's still an excellent attack regardless, just now it has a little more of a weakness.

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

There was Menuett Dance which had the same issue. I don't remember if the multiple copies retained the last sentence. However, the result was that you could not stack the speed bonuses together becaue multiple copies do not refer to each other. The only relevant part here is that a 2nd multiple copy doesn't refer to a first multiple copy since the 2nd didn't originate from the first.

Zero Cross said:

Yeah i believe thats the card i was thinking of and by that ruling then the mulitple copies here dont get the enhance again

Multiple copies dont give further multiple copies an enhance simply because multiple copies can never have multiple copies. Also i believe the intention of spinning demon was that the multiple copies getting the enhance was a seperate thing to the character generation, other cards that do this in the set do not have the same problem (Double Face Kick for example). Personally i believe it should be played like this:

E: This attacks multiple copies get this enhance. If this attack deals damage, add one character card from your discard pile to your hand.

But until this is officially changed (which it may never be), it plays how Tag says.

Tagrineth said:

If you were reading lets say rules for a board game, they may be something like this.

"Roll the dice. If you roll doubles you get a bonus card. Your turn ends" (simplified and dumb example)

Now, your turn will end even if you don't roll doubles.

I understand that the reason the card works the way it does is because the AGR says so, but i am just stating that it is counter-intuitive to the way the english language is commonly interpreted.

I am not looking for an overturn to the ruling, saying the card should work one way or the other, or stating anything about the power of the card, i am just expressing that maybe in the future the AGR and card text of future cards should be alterered to be more "clear". I have a feeling most "casual" gamers who "make up" their rulings (as opposed to posting here or looking at the forums) will be ruling the card incorrectly.