Evil Mist

By Ninjazanus, in UFS Rules Q & A

The Enhance on Evil Mist reads E: If this attack is not blocked, your opponent loses 2 vitality.

9.8.1 If the attack has generated a vitality loss of one or more to the opponent during the Damage Step, it may instead be placed in the momentum."

Can I send an evil mist to momentum based only on its ability? Or does the 2 vitality loss miss the timing of damage step?

No you cannot add it to your momentum. The attack itself it not doing damage, the ability is just causing vitality loss.

EDIT: Checking, be right back...

So, they changed it from the old days huh, oh well.

As Hyamachop says, the vitality loss is not caused during the damage step, so it does not qualify. It occurs in the block step instead.

see also: Burning Knuckle

Well, no. previous incarnations of the TR did not specify vitality loss had to be in the Damage

In point of fact Burning Knipple used to go to momentum, but no longer does.

Well, maybe not.

Previous incarnations of the TR didn't specify causing vitality loss in the damage step, so both Burning Knuckle often went to momentum for 'doing damage' outside of the usual which is what would have thrown me if Hayamachop hadn't already quoted the exact current rule. Therefore whilst Burning Knuckle did go to momentum in it's day, it would not now.

Also, referrng to another card without even mentioning the reason or the ruling involved is far too abstract (and, if I'm brutally honest, irresponsible) for the Q&A forum.

EDIT: Beaten to it...**** you Aslum!!!

Inquisitor M said:

Well, maybe not.

Previous incarnations of the TR didn't specify causing vitality loss in the damage step, so both Burning Knuckle often went to momentum for 'doing damage' outside of the usual which is what would have thrown me if Hayamachop hadn't already quoted the exact current rule. Therefore whilst Burning Knuckle did go to momentum in it's day, it would not now.

Also, referrng to another card without even mentioning the reason or the ruling involved is far too abstract (and, if I'm brutally honest, irresponsible) for the Q&A forum.

EDIT: Beaten to it...**** you Aslum!!!

Stamps all around.

It was decided to clarify the change about when attacks deal damage & vitality loss. We received feedback that players were confused that Valkarie Turn did not go to the momentum, while burning knuckle would.

So in an attempt to make it more consistent and easier, attacks will only go to the momentum if they deal damage during the damage dealing step.

If you have the time, take a peruse through the AGR as a whole, you'll probably notice a few things have been cleaned up / fixed / changed to create overall consistency, overall we're trying to get rid of "you'll only be able to figure out the ruling if you've lurked in the Q&A a whole bunch."

I have gone through it, but it's hard to notice changes in a wall of text until they become relevant, so it's just a matter of constant referenceing for now.

Semantics are everything here. The AGR should reflect the current (and hopefully final) ruling. As it stands the enhance would deal vitality loss after not being blocked (the damage step), the attack itself does not deal damage. Perhaps something more along the lines of "if an attack deals damage during it's own damage step".

No ROTBI, not blocking is during the block step, not the damage step.

The semantics are spot on.

Inquisitor M said:

No ROTBI, not blocking is during the block step, not the damage step.

The semantics are spot on.

What step comes directly after the block step? The enhance resolves at said point.

ROTBI said:

Inquisitor M said:

No ROTBI, not blocking is during the block step, not the damage step.

The semantics are spot on.

What step comes directly after the block step? The enhance resolves at said point.

Actually blocks resolve during the block step. Meaning an attack is declared blocked, or unblocked during the block step. Once all effects that revolve around whether or not the attack was successfully blocked, only then do you proceed to the damage step.

Rather then quoting the entire block step of the attack sequence from the AGR, I will kindly ask that you refer to, and read through the block step.

ROTBI said:

What step comes directly after the block step? The enhance resolves at said point.

The point being is that the enhance doen't resolve after the block step, it resolves after the attack is not blocked , which is during the block step, and before the damage step. You assertion that the enhance occurs after the block step (and therefore in the damage step) is erronious, and as far as I can see, illogical.

Antigoth said:

ROTBI said:

Inquisitor M said:

No ROTBI, not blocking is during the block step, not the damage step.

The semantics are spot on.

What step comes directly after the block step? The enhance resolves at said point.

Actually blocks resolve during the block step. Meaning an attack is declared blocked, or unblocked during the block step. Once all effects that revolve around whether or not the attack was successfully blocked, only then do you proceed to the damage step.

Rather then quoting the entire block step of the attack sequence from the AGR, I will kindly ask that you refer to, and read through the block step.

Inquisitor M said:

ROTBI said:
What step comes directly after the block step? The enhance resolves at said point.

The point being is that the enhance doen't resolve after the block step, it resolves after the attack is not blocked, which is during the block step, and before the damage step. You assertion that the enhance occurs after the block step (and therefore in the damage step) is erronious, and as far as I can see, illogical.

Ah, gotta love the Q&A Forum. The place where one should be able to go to get their questions answered without worrying about being ridiculed by those who are supposed to be mature veteran players and judges.

8.3.2 The Block Step (8.3.2.6 Once a block is successfully played, a block effect is generated.)

8.3.3 The Damage Step
The Damage Step is where an attackā€™s damage is finalized and converted into vitality loss.

Straight from the AGR that I read before posting. While there are subnotes under both 8.3.2 and 8.3.3, these numbers indicate sequential steps. As Dark Mist is either blocked or not blocked during the block step, the enhance resolves as a product of said happenstance as per the the text on Dark Mist. Is there another step listed between the Block step and Damage step? If so, the AGR doesn't list it, ergo the next step (by logic) would be where the enhance resolved and converted to vitality loss.

I'm fine with the fact that you're saying that's not how it happens. I'm just going by how I interpreted what I read. Could you two please be mature enough to 1) Not assume that I didn't read the AGR and 2) Not infer that my perception of the rules that I thoroughly read through before posting is illogical.

I've been playing this game since the first set and correctly about a month or two after that. Until the point where rulings started getting reversed and changed. I'm just trying to be the most informed scout I can be, so I may properly judge for my playgroup. That way they may enjoy the game and hopefully be clear enough on the rules to be able to participate in major tournaments out of town. I don't flame people on here, and I've treated everyone with due respect. I don't think it's too much to ask for the same from people who should be "pillars of the community".

Seriously, dude. I don't care if you hate my guts or want to flame we or whatever in General Chat, but next time I post something in Q&A please, just give me a stamp or a simple link/excerpt of a rule to let me know I'm right or wrong. All I want to know is the answer, so spare me your assumptions, please.

WHY would Evil Mist's Enhance wait until the NEXT step after the Block Step to resolve? Why would it not resolve during the block step itself? That's the completely illogical basis you're using for what you're saying. The block is determined during the block step, not at the end of it or after it, so the Enhance knows whether it will be successful or not prior to the damage step starting - and it will resolve before you get to the damage step.

Also, nobody said you outright didn't read the AGR. Yes, I read both the quotes in your post ROTBI. All there is, is a suggestion to (re-)read the process that shows the block step and damage step being separate entities, so an ability that involves blocking won't happen during the damage step, it'll happen during the block step.

While I agree with Tag's logic, allow me to voice an issue I see:

As it has been stated, Evil Mist states: E: If this attack is not blocked, your opponent loses 2 vitality.

In the AGR, it states:

8.3.3.3 If the defender decided not to block, or failed to generate a block effect, the
attack will attempt to deal damage.

Because this sentence is past tense, it offers the ability to be interpreted in a few ways. Does it mean:

A. That an attack which is not blocked moves immediately on the the damage step?

B. That there is a time period during the block step in which the attack is not going to be blocked (decided not to block), but is still the block step?

C. That the AGR gets ahead of itself, and really should say "After the block step, If the defender..."

If A is true, then the issue is based on which comes first, card effects, or game effects. If card effects, then Mist would deal damage during the block 'limbo' period [NOTE]. If game effects, it could be argued that 'deciding not to block' moves on to the damage step before any card effects can kick in.

If B is true, there is just a bit of unneeded complexity there, but probably works the best. This needs no more discussion.

If C is true, then it is an easy fix.

-Tinman

First of all,

ROBTI,

I apologize, it appears my previous post was entierly misconstrued. While you have viewed it as 8.3.2, and then 8.3.3, and the niggly little bits in between are merely niggly little bits, I view it somewhat differently.

If the attack is not blocked because of the block failing, then I view that the floating effect of Evil Mist is applied at 8.3.2.5

If the defender chooses not to block, then I view that the floating effect of Evil Mist is applied at 8.3.2.1.

Those "subnotes" were written specifically give timing windows where effects like these should be applied.

I will take the feedback provided here by yourself and Tinman, and expand the block section in the next version of the AGR to yet even more specific, and even more wall of text then it currently is.

Tag,

Thanks for correctly interpreting what I was saying, and giving me the additional backup.

Tinman,

C is correct. Essentially I have to add two additional lines of text to the AGR.

8.3.2.1.1 If an effect would resolve when attack is not blocked, once the defender declines to block, any outstanding effects will be resolved prior to moving to the damage step.

8.3.2.5 If an effect would resolve when an attack is not blocked, once the block is failed or cancelled, any outstanding effects will be resolved prior to moving to the damage step.

<Please note, I already see where people would complain because "any outstanding effects" is not specific enough. I'm hastily putting this together, and what I'm typing here will not be the final version of what appears in the AGR>

Similarly there will have to be explicit clauses added covering effects if the attack is blocked.

At the end of the day I had thought I was explicit enough with the AGR and the sub-points to cover a situation like this. ROBTI's response has clearly demonstrated that I am in error. Once more, my apologies.

<Steve is going to be so pissed when there's another 10-15 pages to the AGR this time around, especially since he thought 40 was excessive on the first AGR>

THIS is the kind of response I DO appreciate. I realize you've put a ton of effort into the AGR and therefore (as you've sticky requested) consult it before posting on here. I also realize you're not getting a ton of help, and there's not much one person is able to do by themselves as far as writing all of that and still being able to give immediate contextual feedback of their own work.

I know online everyone wants to avoid the dreaded wall of text, but honestly it is always preferable when the issue of absolute clarity hangs in the balance. As it stands, I feel the bullets you have written are suitably legible and necessary. I can't speak for anyone else, but a complaint you'll probably not ever hear from me is "Antigoth, you were too explicit/thorough/long-winded in clearly explaining that ruling."

Again, thanks for your most recent response.

Antigoth said:

<Steve is going to be so pissed when there's another 10-15 pages to the AGR this time around, especially since he thought 40 was excessive on the first AGR>

The Magic Tournament Floor Rules is over 40 pages and the Magic Comprehensive rules is 169 pages. If he thinks 40 pages is excessive for a card game like this then he's not paying anywhere near enough attention.

Well, this thread developed into something way bigger than I expected. /thread good job everyone.