It's a nice meta against that silly Kisada that keeps getting Reprieved and Good Omen-ed and Vanguard Warrior-ed...

So if you attach 2 of these to one character, does that get you 2 fate per 1 fate removed?

3 minutes ago, Spawnod said:

So if you attach 2 of these to one character, does that get you 2 fate per 1 fate removed?

No, because the effect is moving the removed fate to your fate pool, rather than giving you a fate for each fate removed. It also specifies "when 1 or more fate is removed" so a single copy would steal all the fate being removed in a single activation. However, multiple copies would allow for activating the ability multiple times, for example if you remove a fate with the Void ring and then another fate is removed during the Fate Phase.

Who doesn't love a fire chicken combo bucket?

Will definitely see some use. Phoenix seem really good at grinding out gradual gains to support their long game, and this definitely helps with that, whether it's on your guys or theirs.

Doesn't directly help you win a conflict though so that might be the killer.

Jade Testubo + this card = shenanigans.

Edit: Hmm...maybe not. Jade Testubo says to "return" the fate to its owner's fate pool. That may bot count as being "removed" for the purposes of Embrace the Void.

6 minutes ago, Fumo said:

Who doesn't love a fire chicken combo bucket?

Will definitely see some use. Phoenix seem really good at grinding out gradual gains to support their long game, and this definitely helps with that, whether it's on your guys or theirs.

Doesn't directly help you win a conflict though so that might be the killer.

Maybe not directly, but funneling some of that fate back to your pool (especially if used in combo with Void ring effect) can really help with the cost on some conflict cards. I would love to attack with Kaede, stick this leech on their back, use Void ring against them, then spend the fate after the conflict for Against the Waves (only costs 1 fate after all) to unbow Kaede and use her in another conflict.

5 hours ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

Jade Testubo + this card = shenanigans.

Edit: Hmm...maybe not. Jade Testubo says to "return" the fate to its owner's fate pool. That may bot count as being "removed" for the purposes of Embrace the Void.

It should work. Given that it is an interrupt, when the fate being removed then placed in to the character's owner's pool, it would get redirected to yours instead. However, if the character and attachment are owned by the same player, it would be pointless. You could do some jank here though.

Question 1: When a character is discarded, is the fate on it 'removed'? (I assume not)

Question 2: Is that the Imperial Cycle symbol? I haven't seen it so large yet. Given it is 16, it would be in the first pack then.

20 minutes ago, Mirith said:

It should work. Given that it is an interrupt, when the fate being removed then placed in to the character's owner's pool, it would get redirected to yours instead. However, if the character and attachment are owned by the same player, it would be pointless. You could do some jank here though.

Question 1: When a character is discarded, is the fate on it 'removed'? (I assume not)

Question 2: Is that the Imperial Cycle symbol? I haven't seen it so large yet. Given it is 16, it would be in the first pack then.

Question 1: No, I don't believe it is considered to be 'removed'.

Question 2: Yes, I think it is the Imperial Cycle symbol. Card 16 would place it as the second Phoenix card in the first pack (the first being Isawa Kaede, probably).

As for jankiness with Jade Testubo and Embrace the Void: If you place Embrace of the void on an opponent's character, you still own Embrace of the Void, and you are the one that can use its Interrupt. So, if Jade Tesubo's action does count as being 'removed' (which I stil somewhat doubt, but we'll see), you can slap Embrace the void on an opposing enemy character, smash it in the head with a Testubo, and take all the fate you removed for yourself.

Even if that doesn't work, there will be times when putting this spell on an opponent's character will be worth it.

3 minutes ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

Question 1: No, I don't believe it is considered to be 'removed'.

Question 2: Yes, I think it is the Imperial Cycle symbol. Card 16 would place it as the second Phoenix card in the first pack (the first being Isawa Kaede, probably).

As for jankiness with Jade Testubo and Embrace the Void: If you place Embrace of the void on an opponent's character, you still own Embrace of the Void, and you are the one that can use it's Interrupt. So, if Jade Tesubo's action does count as being 'removed' (which I stil somewhat doubt, but we'll see), you can slap Embrace the void on an opposing enemy character, smash it in the head with a Testubo, and take all the fate you removed for yourself.

Even if that doesn't work, there will be times when putting this spell on an opponent's character will be worth it.

Interesting note along these lines, page 16 of the Rules Reference under Token pool:

"When a card with any tokens or counters on it leaves play, those tokens and counters are returned to the token pool."

6 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Interesting note along these lines, page 16 of the Rules Reference under Token pool:

"When a card with any tokens or counters on it leaves play, those tokens and counters are returned to the token pool."

It's a shame neither "return" or "remove" are terms defined in the RR. This bit does lead me to believe they're intended to be distinct functions though, rather than synonymous.

This is an auto-include in my Dragon w/ Phoenix deck. If I have Togashi Kazue (when played as an attachment it gains: " Action: During a conflict in which attached character is participating, choose another participating character – move 1 fate from that character to the attached character.") on a character, this is a near permanent +1 Fate. In addition, most times I put Kazue on a character, he's a beast. They're conflicting Void to remove fate from it.

It can also be put on an opposing character before you duel it with Way of the Dragon-Raitsuge for a quick 1 or 2 fate.

If you have three out, they're netting you +3 fate that turn at least.

I agree with @suburbaknght , this is really powerful in Dragon, but I think it'll be useful for Phoenix to be able to afford bigger spells.

It is impossible to "return" something from one place to another without first "removing" it from the first place.

You cannot "return" fate without the act of "removing" it. This is common English folks.

When you remove fate from a character, the interrupt can activate and move that fate to your pool. There isn't any language that would suggest you don't remove fate from your characters with something like Jade Tetsubo or during the fate phase, because the act of returning fate involves removing it from the personality, other wise your not returning anything.

I don't think I'd waste Let Go on this.

21 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

It's a shame neither "return" or "remove" are terms defined in the RR. This bit does lead me to believe they're intended to be distinct functions though, rather than synonymous.

Now I'm wondering.

Togashi Kazue as an attachment " Action: During a conflict in which attached character is participating, choose another participating character – move 1 fate from that character to the attached character." Does Embrace the Void prevent the fate from reaching Kazue's attached character?

It certainly makes Wandering Ronin more affordable. "Action: During a conflict, remove 1 fate from this character – it gets +2M and +2P until the end of the conflict. (Limit twice per conflict.)"

8 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

It is impossible to "return" something from one place to another without first "removing" it from the first place.

You cannot "return" fate without the act of "removing" it. This is common English folks.

When you remove fate from a character, the interrupt can activate and move that fate to your pool. There isn't any language that would suggest you don't remove fate from your characters with something like Jade Tetsubo or during the fate phase, because the act of returning fate involves removing it from the personality, other wise your not returning anything.

Rules are not common English, though they're not quite up to the level of legalese. Specific words matter.

15 hours ago, Tokhuah said:

If a Character loses Fate they typically die so you MAYBE get 1-2 Fate out of a card that could be replaced with something that effects board position directly. A friend mentioned a combo with I Am Ready, but that is a gimmick that might or might not happen so still not worth it. So far the overall Phoenix spell selection leave alot to be desired from my perspective...

Historically cards like this sleep for a while then erupt as part of a degenerate combo. Which is basically the phoenix clan's schtick.

9 hours ago, psychie said:

I like it as a splash into dragon.

Enlightened Warrior+Emo Stone+this+Togashi Kazue+something to keep EW ready=god mode

Hyperboles are hyperbolic.

Tautologies are tautological.

What the heck is Emo Stone? Seriously, this game is 3 weeks old; can we use the actual card names for a bit?

What's better than a post? Double post!

12 minutes ago, DarwinsDog said:

What the heck is Emo Stone? Seriously, this game is 3 weeks old; can we use the actual card names for a bit?

Emo Stone = the recently revealed seeker only Dragon card, The Stone of Sorrows. Not even released yet, but I can see the appeal of calling it "Emo Stone" for short.

I figure it can't hurt to ask for some clarification, so submitting this:

Quote

The recently revealed attachment "Embrace the Void" has an interrupt ability that triggers "when 1 or more fate would be removed from attached character-". Is fate that is "returned" or "moved" considered removed from the character?

Example 1: Jade Tetsubo's ability effect is to "return" all fate on the targeted character to its owner's fate pool. If I have attached Embrace the Void to the target character before activating Jade Tetsubo, would the target character's fate be considered removed and therefore go to my fate pool instead?

Example 2: Togashi Kazue's ability as an attachment "moves" 1 fate from a targeted character to Kazue's attached character. If my opponent controls a copy of Embrace the Void attached to the target character, does the 1 fate move to the target character's owner's fate pool, or does it move to Kazue's attached character? On a related note, if the player who controls Kazue has attached a copy of Embrace the Void to the target character, does the 1 fate go to Kazue's controller's fate pool, or does it move to Kazue's attached character?

Will repost question(s) with response when received.

I like the card. Never will use it, but I like it

Kudos to Nate French for the prompt response, and it looks like Common Sense wins the day on this one:

Quote

Rules Question:
The recently revealed attachment "Embrace the Void" has an interrupt ability that triggers "when 1 or more fate would be removed from attached character-". Is fate that is "returned" or "moved" considered removed from the character?

Example 1: Jade Tetsubo's ability effect is to "return" all fate on the targeted character to its owner's fate pool. If I have attached Embrace the Void to the target character before activating Jade Tetsubo, would the target character's fate be considered removed and therefore go to my fate pool instead?

Yes — in order to return fate to a fate pool the fate must be removed from the character. This establishes the triggering condition for Embrace the Void to be used.

Example 2: Togashi Kazue's ability as an attachment "moves" 1 fate from a targeted character to Kazue's attached character. If my opponent controls a copy of Embrace the Void attached to the target character, does the 1 fate move to the target character's owner's fate pool, or does it move to Kazue's attached character?

Yes. Using Kazue’s ability moves the fate — in order to do so, it must be removed from the character. This establishes the triggering condition for Embrace the Void to be used, and the resolution of Embrace the Void changes the destination of the fate.

On a related note, if the player who controls Kazue has attached a copy of Embrace the Void to the target character, does the 1 fate go to Kazue's controller's fate pool, or does it move to Kazue's attached character?

If both players have a copy of Embrace the Void on a character that loses fate, the rule for multiple replacement effects being resolved against the same triggering condition is used:

If multiple replacement effects are initiated against the same triggering condition, the most recently initiated replacement effect is the one used for the resolution of the triggering condition.

ADD: Figure I should tag @mplain in case he wants to add this to the database rulings.

Thanks!

And I just removed Jade Tetsubo from my Phoenix deck. If Phoenix gets a keeper role at Worlds I might add it again. It's definitively a nice combo.

I think it sounds really good, personally. So I play my champion with a couple fate on her, and then attach a 0-cost attachment to make back my extra-fate investment (unless my opponent chooses to use one of his own cards to get rid of it, in which case I still have my initial investment, at least)? How in the world is this "a terrible card that will not see play"? If it's simply because of Let it Go or Miya Mystic, then all attachments would have to be declared worthless, and that's clearly not the case currently!

Also, it's both a Spell and Void, so if either of those traits start getting referenced, there may end up being combos to play with it!

So according to Nate French-

It does look like you can use the Interrupt from Embrace the Void to collect fate from the character that is being discarded from an effect (such as assassinate).

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37617-embrace-the-void-jade-tetsubo-togashi-kazue/