1 minute ago, TwitchyBait said:

Yes I believe it can...

Well we certainly see that differently, both as a fundamental point of logic, and as clearly stated in the rules' discussion of the relationship between "use" and fight, etc.:

1. "When a player uses a creature, that player must exhaust the creature, and the player has the option to ..." (Not relevant, only "fight" is mentioned on Anger).
2. "Any card effect that causes a creature to fight... is causing that creature to be used." (Anger fails to cause the creature to fight, that part of the instruction is "ignored", so it does not cause it to be used).
3. "There are two types of abilities that enable a player to use an artifact..." (Corroborating evidence: it is the performance of an ability that causes use, not the other way around.)

It certainly could be the case that "whenever a card has permission to be used for an action, it has permission to be used even if the card cannot take that action"; but if that's the case, the rules just need to say so.

29 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

Well we certainly see that differently, both as a fundamental point of logic, and as clearly stated in the rules' discussion of the relationship between "use" and fight, etc.:

1. "When a player uses a creature, that player must exhaust the creature, and the player has the option to ..." (Not relevant, only "fight" is mentioned on Anger).
2. "Any card effect that causes a creature to fight... is causing that creature to be used." (Anger fails to cause the creature to fight, that part of the instruction is "ignored", so it does not cause it to be used).
3. "There are two types of abilities that enable a player to use an artifact..." (Corroborating evidence: it is the performance of an ability that causes use, not the other way around.)

It certainly could be the case that "whenever a card has permission to be used for an action, it has permission to be used even if the card cannot take that action"; but if that's the case, the rules just need to say so.

2. Is where we disagree what the rules say. The card causes the creature to be used, the creature is being used and therefor doesn’t fight but unstuns which is word for word what stun rules say so “fight” restrictions become irrelevant at this point as stun rules are checked before fight rules since “use” restrictions would be checked before fight restrictions and as soon as use is cleared fight becomes irrelwbamt do to stun. Nothing is restricting the “use” of the creature, just the ability to fight which it’s not doing anyways because as stun says the creature doesn’t fight.

14 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

2. Is where we disagree what the rules say. The card causes the creature to be used...

The card causes the creature to fight; actually, gives it permission to fight, while failing to cause it to fight. Where we disagree is whether that also causes it to be used. It may, but that either requires an unconventional definition of the word "cause", or a new rule saying so — specifically either (a) that being given permission to fight alone, while ignoring fight itself, is sufficient to nonetheless cause use , or (b) that whenever a stunned card has permission to do something, it also gets permission to unstun .

I allow you to use the hammer to hammer some nails. But there are no nails. Even so, you've still used the hammer?

There is no such thing as a card letting you fight, without also letting you use the card, and using takes precedence over fighting because it's the more general action. It is not consistent, but several times in the rulebook and on some cards, they use the term "use to fight". Normally, "fight" and "use to fight" are synonymous, because use on it's own does not do anything. A card is used to fight, which means it will fight, which then let's it exhaust and carry out the fight instructions.

Ready and fight in the glossary does use this term: "If an ability instructs a player to “fight with” or “ready and fight with” a creature, the ability is granting the player permission to use the designated creature to fight. "

Cards or situations that restrict fighting don't restrict using. They are restricting the more specific case of the use. Foggify for example says that "Your opponent cannot use creatures to fight on their next turn." This does not mean that your creatures cannot be used to do something else.

There are no effects in the game that trigger on the base use of a creature that I know of, except for stun, which says "The next time that creature is used, the only effect of it being used is the creature exhausts and the stun status card is removed instead of anything else happening." So it intercedes after a use, but before the type of use has been resolved. Theoretically new cards could introduce things that also trigger on a card use in this same way. These would have to happen even if a specific type of use is specified under this interpretation of the rules. Which, yes, is weird.

Skippy Timehog notably prevents cards from being used, which is a more general condition that prevents removing stuns under all current conditions.

7 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

The card causes the creature to fight; actually, gives it permission to fight, while failing to cause it to fight. Where we disagree is whether that also causes it to be used. It may, but that either requires an unconventional definition of the word "cause", or a new rule saying so — specifically either (a) that being given permission to fight alone, while ignoring fight itself, is sufficient to nonetheless cause use , or (b) that whenever a stunned card has permission to do something, it also gets permission to unstun .

I allow you to use the hammer to hammer some nails. But there are no nails. Even so, you've still used the hammer?

Right but fight is a “subset” of use, fight is not it’s own independent entity with no connection to use. When you’re looking at using a creature you first need to see if it can even be used ie is it exhausted or has a card been played saying the creature can not be used. If no then there’s not bing stopping the use.

Your hammer example is missing the unstun rules which again give alternate instructions explicitly stating you do not fight period making the nails irrelevant to the new use of the hammer which might be just toss it aside or hit the board.

All anger is doing is saying you may use a creature but only to fight. Stun over rules that saying whenever a creature would be used (haven’t gotten to the forced subset) any choice is ignored and it unstuns instead. Again that instead is very important it signifies that anger now effectively says “use and unstun a creature”.

Regardless of what each of us think this is clearly the intent and undoubtedly will be clarified better in the next rulebook update so this is the ruling (at least I) will be using at any future tournoments I’m TOing.

3 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Right but fight is a “subset” of use, fight is not it’s own independent entity with no connection to use.

Right, so if fight is ignored, so is use.

3 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Your hammer example is missing the unstun rules which again give alternate instructions explicitly stating you do not fight period making the nails irrelevant to the new use of the hammer which might be just toss it aside or hit the board.

The unstun rules say what happens when I use the hammer — but without nails I'm not using the hammer.

3 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

Right, so if fight is ignored, so is use.

What rule is preventing Use? The creature isn’t exhausted and nothing is saying it can’t be used.

3 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

The unstun rules say what happens when I use the hammer — but without nails I'm not using the hammer.

Again why? You can use a hammer for any number of things. It’s more like your work says “whenever you have a hammer if there is bent metal hit that instead”, your boss then says “go hammer those nails” there’s no nails but there’s bent metal nearby. You still use the hammer even if you didn’t hammer any nails.

3 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

What rule is preventing Use? The creature isn’t exhausted and nothing is saying it can’t be used.

Again why? You can use a hammer for any number of things. It’s more like your work says “whenever you have a hammer if there is bent metal hit that instead”, your boss then says “go hammer those nails” there’s no nails but there’s bent metal nearby. You still use the hammer even if you didn’t hammer any nails.

Right. If you can always use, independent of having any action to use for, then you're set, but the rules and logic say otherwise .

3 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Again why? You can use a hammer for any number of things. It’s more like your work says “whenever you have a hammer if there is bent metal hit that instead”, your boss then says “go hammer those nails” there’s no nails but there’s bent metal nearby. You still use the hammer even if you didn’t hammer any nails.

If I have some other permitted use for the hammer, then no problem. (We're taking about an off house creature with no valid target to fight: it has no other permitted use.)

6 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

Right. If you can always use, independent of having any action to use for, then you're set, but the rules and logic say otherwise .

If I have some other permitted use for the hammer, then no problem. (We're taking about an off house creature with no valid target to fight: it has no other permitted use.)

I kind of agree with this. I do think this would be a good inclusion into the rules: "whenever a card has permission to be used for an action, it has permission to be used even if the card cannot take that action". Maybe even just "if a card has permission to be used for an action, it is automatically granted permission to be used to unstun, even if it cannot perform the specified action."

I find that some of the rules seem to imply as such (the plethora of places that reference "use to fight" rather than just fight), but it's not spelled out. I also think you've pointed out areas in the rules that seem to imply otherwise.

7 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

Right. If you can always use, independent of having any action to use for, then you're set, but the rules and logic say otherwise .

If I have some other permitted use for the hammer, then no problem. (We're taking about an off house creature with no valid target to fight: it has no other permitted use.)

You can “always use” barring a few restrictions:

-one it belongs to the same house or a card permits it (anger permits it)

-there is a qualified use (unstun is a qualified use)

-the card is ready (it is)

-there is no card preventing creatures for being used (in this scenario there isn’t)

Then unstun replaces fight thus the “instead” in the stun rules, ergo it’s not subject to fight rule restrictions because you’re not fighting.

What you’re suggesting is that fight restrictions must be checked before use restrictions where do the rules even suggest this?

8 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

-there is a qualified use (unstun is a qualified use  )

If the rules said that , we'd be set. (Assuming by "qualified" you mean: a use that is allowed only if there's another permitted use.)

24 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

If the rules said that , we'd be set. (Assuming by "qualified" you mean: a use that is allowed only if there's another permitted use.)

They do say that, I’ve quoted it multiple times. You declare you’re going to use the creature as per anger, you thus are “going to use” and the proceeding fight is replaced by unstun (again thus “instead” in the stun rules) so no fight qualifications matter because the creature isn’t fighting (again as per the stun rules).

Just now, TwitchyBait said:

They do say that, I’ve quoted it multiple times. You declare you’re going to use the creature as per anger, you thus are “going to use” and the proceeding fight is replaced by unstun (again thus “instead” in the stun rules) so no fight qualifications matter because the creature isn’t fighting (again as per the stun rules).

In the ruling, yes, but not in the rules.

I think we're reaching diminish returns here, since we have different views of what rules should do. You've shown that it is possible, once you've been given the ruling, to interpret the rules (with considerable effort, imv) to match the ruling; but what I'm looking for is a rulebook you can play from directly.

This has to be the longest running thread in the history of threads.

13 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

what I'm looking for is a rulebook you can play from directly.

And you thought FFG was the right place to look for that?

10 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

In the ruling, yes, but not in the rules.

I think we're reaching diminish returns here, since we have different views of what rules should do. You've shown that it is possible, once you've been given the ruling, to interpret the rules (with considerable effort, imv) to match the ruling; but what I'm looking for is a rulebook you can play from directly.

The ruling simply made me look at it from a different angle and inspect the rules for using a creature more closely. I had “assumed” that when you fought with a creature you had to check fight qualifications first as if use wasn’t a separate thing (it is as it’s the qualifier for multiple things not just fight) but there is indeed no ruling saying that. The use rules instead say the opposite that use is its own thing and that you choose to use THEN choose what that use is and stun outright just says no matter what you’re choosing you INSTEAD just unstun and it never does the choice.

But yes we’re just going in circles so no point continuing.

8 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

This has to be the longest running thread in the history of threads.

Forget about the spindowns being dice thread? Lol

1 hour ago, Tinathir said:

If the rules said that , we'd be set. (Assuming by "qualified" you mean: a use that is allowed only if there's another permitted use.)

And people were wondering why I'm creating the KCR... It's specifically to take these things that some people say are "clearly" in the rules and others say are "clearly not" in the rules and either put them in the rules or remove any hint of misinterpretation of a rule that does not act according to what someone "clearly" thinks it does.

Is it FFG official? Not now, but thanks for the demonstration of why it should be...

I mean I get it, to choose fight you have to have an enemy creature present, but to unstun you just use a creature to remove the stun. Anger gives you a use but it's via a fight which according to the rules you can't do if your opponent has no creatures in play. Ergo you shouldn't be able to do it. I played it like that before this clarification so I get it. I really do. Most of us accepted the new ruling and just started playing with it. Tinathir wants the rules to specifically say "Stunned creatures can be used to fight even if the opponent has no creatures in play." or something to that end.

We are (essentially) arguing that the blurb in the FAQ that says "this can be used like this" is enough, whereas Tinathir disagrees. At this point I think that's fair.

Implicit. There, had to make sure that word got on this page of the thread.

9 hours ago, Poposhka said:

This has to be the longest running thread in the history of threads.

Not even close.

Did the latest rules update (1.4?) provide some basis for this ruling, or are we still just to take the ruling at face value as an exception?

To recall the context, at least as of rules version 1.2:

In the case of an off house stunned creature with no legitimate targets, once made ready (not controversial) by Anger : without an enemy creature to fight, the creature cannot be used to resolve the "and fight" part of Anger's ability ("a creature cannot fight if there is no enemy creature that can be chosen as the target of the attack") so that part of the ability is ignored ("ignore any parts of the ability that cannot be resolved") and thus Anger’s target cannot be used (since "fight with" only allows the player to "use the designated creature to fight"; and Anger has failed to "cause" its target to fight, and has thus failed to "cause" the target "to be used"), and remains ready.

It has been 7 months, I don’t even remember what this argument was about.

Page 14. Stun rules have been clarified. I don’t remember what side of the argument you were on but this should resolve it either way.

4 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

Page 14. Stun rules have been clarified. I don’t remember what side of the argument you were on but this should resolve it either way.

I don't think that says anything new. It just says that stun is removed "if a card effect would cause a stunned creature to fight"; but the question of how Anger circumvents "a creature cannot fight if there is no enemy creature that can be chosen as the target of the attack"remains, unless there are other changes to the rules that I missed.

You will want to read the entire part in red as it does say something new. A stunned creature cannot reap, fight or use an action/Omni ability. It can be used to exhaust and remove the stun. If a card effect would cause a creature to fight, reap or use an action/Omni ability, instead the creature is exhausted and the stun removed. Completely replaces the original intent to use the card before the applicable use resolves. Further clarified and better explained by the FAQ on page 27.

On 10/18/2019 at 3:40 AM, TheSpitfired said:

You will want to read the entire part in red as it does say something new. A stunned creature cannot reap, fight or use an action/Omni ability. It can be used to exhaust and remove the stun. If a card effect would cause a creature to fight, reap or use an action/Omni ability, instead the creature is exhausted and the stun removed. Completely replaces the original intent to use the card before the applicable use resolves. Further clarified and better explained by the FAQ on page 27.

That doesn't say anything new on its own, but you do highlight the critical word: I see 1.4 now (at last) adds rules for "replacement effects" (this is what was missing from earlier rules) where the role of "instead" is defined.

So now it's at least clear in the rules what they're aiming at. Unfortunately the quoted section still doesn't address the crux of the issue. Anger cannot in fact "cause" a stunned creature without targets to fight; but at least what the rules are meant to say is a bit clearer. Maybe in the next version they'll get it right, with something like "if a card effect would cause instructs a creature to fight ....".

3 hours ago, Tinathir said:

That doesn't say anything new on its own, but you do highlight the critical word: I see 1.4 now (at last) adds rules for "replacement effects" (this is what was missing from earlier rules) where the role of "instead" is defined.

So now it's at least clear in the rules what they're aiming at. Unfortunately the quoted section still doesn't address the crux of the issue. Anger cannot in fact "cause" a stunned creature without targets to fight; but at least what the rules are meant to say is a bit clearer. Maybe in the next version they'll get it right, something like "if a card effect would cause instructs a creature to fight ....".

maybe a better way to ask it would be:

If a creature cannot reap (say... Tireless Crocag) or "must fight" (Little Rapscal) and is stunned with no enemy creatures on the board, can it remove it's stun?

(Hmm... Little Rapscal says "if able" on him. If you are prevented from fighting - because of a blank opponent's side, or a foggify effect, can you then reap with your creatures since you're unable to fight?)