Relevant rules (that were quoted above):

A. " If a card effect causes a creature to be used while it is stunned, the creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally."

B. "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. The creature does not reap or fight  "

C. "While resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore any parts of the ability that cannot be resolved."

D. "When a creature is used to fight, the creature exhausts and its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled by the opponent as the target of the attack"

1. Card effect causes a creature to be used to fight, through the text "Ready and fight with a neigboring creature."

2. That creature is stunned, the opponents board is empty.

3. According to rule A - The creature is exhausted and the stun status card is removed, just as if the creature had been used normally.

4. According to rule B - The next time the creature is used, it does not actually fight

5. According to rule C - Resolve as much of the ability as we can. It cannot fight for many reasons - namely it was stunned, secondarily the opposing board has no targets, thirdly, it is already exhasted due to rule B.

6. Rule D doesn't come into play because the creature did not fight.

7. Other cards that may trigger based on things fighting don't trigger because of 6.

There are different ways to interpret the rules as written. Various rulings guide you how it is meant to be interpreted. Hopefully future rule updates spell this out more clearly, especially with regards to the priority between different sometimes interacting processes.

2 hours ago, Tinathir said:

That's what the rules say .

Kind of. That’s what the rules for “fight” say. However if we pop on over to the rules for stun they say:

“The next time a 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. The creature does not fight or reap...”

And then a second part of the use rules say:

”If a card causes a creature to be used while it is stunned” (anger does) “the creature is exhausted and the stun card removed”

So the rules actually do cover the video interpretation in that we:

1. Have a stunned creature

2. Play a card that causes the creature to be used (fight)

3. And then the stun rules say when the creature is used the creature exhausts, removes stun, and doesn’t fight. Since it doesn’t fight it doesn’t need to meet the requirements for fighting (ie a target).

Granted it’s a little complicated and if you only examine the fight rules and don’t examine the stun rules then it doesn’t make sense. But the stun rules actually do cover this which I never would have known if not for this thread/video.

1 minute ago, TwitchyBait said:

Kind of. That’s what the rules for “fight” say. However if we pop on over to the rules for stun they say:

“The next time a 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. The creature does not fight or reap...”

And then a second part of the use rules say:

”If a card causes a creature to be used while it is stunned” (anger does) “the creature is exhausted and the stun card removed”

So the rules actually do cover the video interpretation in that we:

1. Have a stunned creature

2. Play a card that causes the creature to be used (fight)

3. And then the stun rules say when the creature is used the creature is exhausts, removes stun, and doesn’t fight.

Granted it’s a little complicated and if you only examine the fight rules and don’t examine the stun rules then it doesn’t make sense. But the stun rules actually do cover this which I never would have known if not for this thread/video.

No, but you've correctly spotted where the issue is.

”If a card causes a creature to be used while it is stunned” (anger does) “the creature is exhausted and the stun card removed”

For that to work, fight would have to cause use, even when the instruction to fight is "ignored".

35 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

No, but you've correctly spotted where the issue is.

”If a card causes a creature to be used while it is stunned” (anger does) “the creature is exhausted and the stun card removed”

For that to work, fight would have to cause use, even when the instruction to fight is "ignored".

Nope. You’re assuming the order is fight, then use. Not so.

page 7, using creatures:

“When using a creature that player must exhaust the creature” (this is where stun is removed and you don’t follow the rest of the use rules which continue as:

”...and the player has the option to reap, fight, trigger the creatures action ability or trigger the creatures Omni ability.”

Thus anger is effectively saying you ready and use a creature but limits the use choices to just fight. Stunned creatures skip that choice and simply remove stun. The only way it would not allow for stun to remove is if you choose fight and the used, but as pointed out in the use rules you use then must make a choice unless it’s stunned (as per the stun rules which interrupt this choice segment.)

TLDR version: Fight is a subset option of use. You first choose to use a creature and then must make a valid choice. Anger only allows the fight choice but stun resolves first as per the stun rules and overides any choice when used.

Edited: Spelling

4 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Nope. You’re assuming the order is fight, then use. Not so.

page 7, using creatures:

“When using a creature that player must exhaust the creature” (this is where stun is removed and you don’t follow the rest of the use rules which continue as:

”...and the player has the option to reap, fight, trigger the creatures action ability or trigger the creatures Omni ability.”

Thus anger is effectively saying you ready and use a creature but limits the use choices to just fight. Stunned creatures skip that choice and simply remove stun.

TLDR version: Fight is a subset option of use. You first choose to use a creature and then must make a valid choice. Anger only allows the fight choice but stun resolves first as per the stun rules and overides any choice when used.

I was also hoping I could make the rules agree with that interpretation: it's clearly — given the rational of the ruling — the close to the intent. But it's not present in the rules. The core problem with the rules as written remains: Anger says "fight with" (which expands to "permission use to fight with") but since you can't fight, the "fight with" part of the instruction is ignored, so you can't use, and never get to "when using". I'm not saying your logic is wrong (I expect it will be confirmed), I'm just saying that the rules as written don't get you to the justification provided in the ruling. (Also note that "fight is a subset of use" (from the video) is part of what gets in the way of using the rules to justify the ruling, since, if that's true, ignoring fight means you don't use.)

A better stab at making the rules work to explain the ruling is the interpret "use to fight" to mean (as you suggest) "use, with your options restricted to fight" which lets you use, ignoring fight (but that's not the justification given in the video).

13 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

I was also hoping I could make the rules agree with that interpretation: it's clearly — given the rational of the ruling — the close to the intent. But it's not present in the rules. The core problem with the rules as written remains: Anger says "fight with" (which expands to "permission use to fight with") but since you can't fight, the "fight with" part of the instruction is ignored, so you can't use, and never get to "when using". I'm not saying your logic is wrong (I expect it will be confirmed), I'm just saying that the rules as written don't get you to the justification provided in the ruling. (Also note that "fight is a subset of use" (from the video) is part of what gets in the way of using the rules to justify the ruling, since, if that's true, ignoring fight means you don't use.)

A better stab at making the rules work to explain the ruling is the interpret "use to fight" to mean (as you suggest) "use, with your options restricted to fight" which lets you use, ignoring fight (but that's not the justification given in the video).

I think this is a case of “do as much as you can”

can the creature be used? Yes, can it fight? No. Use the creature, the unstun as a result of stun rules then ignore fight including any qualifications of fight as a result.

The only thing with RAW that makes this work is that

1. Use is explicitly stated to be a choice before you choose “how” you’re using it. Anger merely forces that choice and stun stops that choice before it occurs.

Thus the order is use, unstun, ignore fight.

Without stun there is nothing stopping the forced choice and thus you’d get the instance of use, fight, can’t complete. The fact that stun however explicitly states the creature ignores any of the following choices and just unstuns it instead means it checks out as RAW.

We may have to simply agree to disagree as I can see how the rules do cover this if not in a complicated not to obvious at first glance way.

6 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

I think this is a case of “do as much as you can”

can the creature be used? Yes, can it fight? No. Use the creature, the unstun as a result of stun rules then ignore fight including any qualifications of fight as a result.

The only thing with RAW that makes this work is that

1. Use is explicitly stated to be a choice before you choose “how” you’re using it. Anger merely forces that choice and stun stops that choice before it occurs.

Thus the order is use, unstun, ignore fight.

Without stun there is nothing stopping the forced choice and thus you’d get the instance of use, fight, can’t complete. The fact that stun however explicitly states the creature ignores any of the following choices and just unstuns it instead means it checks out as RAW.

We may have to simply agree to disagree as I can see how the rules do cover this if not in a complicated not to obvious at first glance way.

That's pretty much exactly the reasoning I used when I first heard the ruling, and it's exactly what I meant above by interpreting "use to fight" to mean "use, with your options restricted to fight" . It's the justification of the ruling that doesn't match. (Also, this interpretation does open up a bit of a problem: if the creature isn't stunned, then this reasoning means you must still use it: do as much as you can, but to no effect other than to exhaust it.)

There's no question the rules, in light of this ruling, need some reworking and clarification, and the concept of use as something that can happen distant from any of the options of which it is a "superset" is new.

22 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

That's pretty much exactly the reasoning I used when I first heard the ruling, and it's exactly what I meant above by interpreting "use to fight" to mean "use, with your options restricted to fight" . It's the justification of the ruling that doesn't match. (Also, this interpretation does open up a bit of a problem: if the creature isn't stunned, then this reasoning means you must still use it: do as much as you can, but to no effect other than to exhaust it.)

There's no question the rules, in light of this ruling, need some reworking and clarification, and the concept of use as something that can happen distant from any of the options of which it is a "superset" is new.

In the situation of the creature not being stunned and there being no fight target there is no valid use and thus it wouldn’t exhaust. With stun your valid use changes from fight to unstun, so a bit different. In other words you always must choose a “use” according to the use rules but when a creature is stunned that choice is forced to unstun and supersceeds all other choices as per the stun rules.

Thanks for your patience in bearing with me. I think I am finally getting what you are saying. I still think the rules as written do cover this topic adequately, but if you want to say they could clean it up a bit I can support that. As of right now you read the rules for use earlier in the rulebook, then don't read about stuns until the glossary, then in the case of anger don't find out you can play it if your opponent has no creatures in play (on stunned or unstunned creatures) until you get to the FAQ. In all fairness that's pretty fragmented.

I haven't put a lot of thought into how I would do it better but I think this is a good "halfway spot" for us to meet. That counts for something, right?

I mentioned on BGG but I'll repeat it here. There is a thematic and cognitive disconnect for me with the current ruling because it makes it easier to use a stunned creature than an unstunned creature. Why would a creature in a stunned state be usable in a wider range of situations than an unstunned one?

Not only does the ruling create a special case that is counterintuitive, it damages the narrative the gameplay is attempting to create, at least for me, and everyone I've had to explain this edge case to, which so far has been everyone who has had questions about how Anger works...

Thematically, the presence or absence of an opposing creature to fight should not determine whether a creature can unstun itself.

My creature becomes Angry. Is there a creature to fight?

If yes, my creature can fight or unstun itself.

If no, my creature can't fight but it can unstun itself.

I'm having trouble coming up with a thematic or narrative explanation where that interaction does not make sense.

10 hours ago, dperello said:

I mentioned on BGG but I'll repeat it here. There is a thematic and cognitive disconnect for me with the current ruling because it makes it easier to use a stunned creature than an unstunned creature. Why would a creature in a stunned state be usable in a wider range of situations than an unstunned one?

Not only does the ruling create a special case that is counterintuitive, it damages the narrative the gameplay is attempting to create, at least for me, and everyone I've had to explain this edge case to, which so far has been everyone who has had questions about how Anger works...

I mean it’s not that it’s easier it’s that anger is pointless to spending your creature isn’t stunned letting you save it for a later turn if you wish or discard it if you don’t while the “stunned” creature isn’t “easier to use” because it winds up in the same state as the unstunned creature except now you HAD to use anger (in this scenario) to get it there. Thus your options with an unstunned creature are still objectively wider and better.

As a result I don’t get how “using a stunned creature is easier” holds any weight because there’s absolutely no gain from just exhausting your unstunned creature. With the rules as is you have two scenarios when there’s no creature to fight:

1. An unstunned creature readies and then may reap or use an action and ends exhausted.

2. A stunned creature readies and then may unstun and ends exhausted.

The first scenario, in every instance I can think of, is objectively better is it not?

16 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

I still think the rules as written do cover this topic adequately...

A lot hinges on whether you're willing to accept that the rules already contain something that helps you interpret "use to fight" to mean that you can use even if you are prevented from (and thus "ignore" the instructions for) fighting. In the absence of such help from the rules, it has to come from new rules, which we haven't been given. Until then I'm pretty sure that if I have a hammer, and I can't use it to hit nails, or pull out nails, or any of the other options I have for using a hammer, then I haven't used the hammer.

38 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

A lot hinges on whether you're willing to accept that the rules already contain something that helps you interpret "use to fight" to mean that you can use even if you are prevented from (and thus "ignore" the instructions for) fighting. In the absence of such help from the rules, it has to come from new rules, which we haven't been given. Until then I'm pretty sure that if I have a hammer, and I can't use it to hit nails, or pull out nails, or any of the other options I have for using a hammer, then I haven't used the hammer.

Problem is it’s not really an interpretation of use to fight letting you ignore fight.

Use rules explicitly state you use then choose what you’re using it for and stun rules explicitly state whenever using a creature for anything if it’s stunned it becomes unstunned instead and doesn’t do the thing you choose to use it for. Ergo a creature “used to fight” while stunned under direct RAW is just used and doesn’t fight. This is the same reason when you “use” a creature to fight or reap and it’s stunned it’s fight, reap, or action/Omni ability doesn’t occur because unstun interrupts and ignores anything it was used for. If stun didn’t ignore fight, reap, actions or Omanis then it would be unstunned and those would still trigger.

in other words whenever using a creature you must make that choice anger forces that choice to be fight, and stun rules dictate unstun supersceeds any other choice even the forced choice from anger.

7 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Use rules explicitly state...

Yes, we've been over that . That's exactly what I thought at first. but

1. it leaves an creature that's not stunned with no targets to fight exhausted, unless you introduce some new concept of cancelling or reverting or whatever, which definitely isn't in the book;
2. still isn't really satisfactory given that "fight" is ignored, and no particular sequence (like the one we're inferring from the "use then choose" interpretation) is provided that would suggest overriding the English meaning of "use to" (especially in light of the way using Artifacts explicitly works: "abilities that enable a player to use an artifact"); and
3. actually isn't true: "when a player uses a creature, that player ... has the option to..." doesn't mean "use then choose an option" any more than "when I use a hammer, I have the option to ..." means "use a hammer, I then have the option to" (use is a consequence of exercising the option).

I'm not saying this isn't how it will turn out to work in the end, but it is simply not possible to honestly get there with the rules as written.

1 hour ago, Tinathir said:

Yes, we've been over that . That's exactly what I thought at first. but

1. it leaves an creature that's not stunned with no targets to fight exhausted, unless you introduce some new concept of cancelling or reverting or whatever, which definitely isn't in the book;
2. still isn't really satisfactory given that "fight" is ignored, and no particular sequence (like the one we're inferring from the "use then choose" interpretation) is provided that would suggest overriding the English meaning of "use to" (especially in light of the way using Artifacts explicitly works: "abilities that enable a player to use an artifact"); and
3. actually isn't true: "when a player uses a creature, that player ... has the option to..." doesn't mean "use then choose an option" any more than "when I use a hammer, I have the option to ..." means "use a hammer, I then have the option to" (use is a consequence of exercising the option).

I'm not saying this isn't how it will turn out to work in the end, but it is simply not possible to honestly get there with the rules as written.

1. Wrong again, I already explained this. When using a creature it does state you must use one of the given choices ie fight, reap, action or Omni action. Stun is the one exception noted under the stun rules where this isn’t the case as unstun isn’t a choice and prevents any such choice from being made.

2. Except that rule is there, I quoted it right from the rule book before but I’ll do it again

(pardon my use of caps on my phone so can’t bold or underline to point out the important bits)

Page 6, using creatures:

”When using a creature a player must exhaust that creature AND HAS THE OPTION to reap, fight, trigger that creatures action:ability, or trigger that creatures Omni ability.”

Then we need to move over to the stun rule, page 12

”The next time a stun creature is used the only effect of it being used is the creature is exhausted and the stun status is removed INSTEAD of anything else happening. The creature DOES NOT reap or fight...”

This shows it replaces the fight use with stun removal and since the creature ISNT fighting it isn’t subject to the requirements of fight anymore than a creature that’s reaping or using an action would be. The sequence thus becomes Declare use, stun replaces any use, use creature, remove stun. If the creature isn’t stunned it would be declare use, check for stun, declare effect of use (fight here) check for target, exhaust and fight.

Again this isn’t an interpretation as the rules show this is possible without further restriction and are reinforced as the proper layout given Brads answers here, but yes I agree that this sequence should be placed into the next iteration of the rule book more blatantly as its scattered all over at the moment.

3 hours ago, Tinathir said:

A lot hinges on whether you're willing to accept that the rules already contain something that helps you interpret "use to fight" to mean that you can use even if you are prevented from (and thus "ignore" the instructions for) fighting. In the absence of such help from the rules, it has to come from new rules, which we haven't been given. Until then I'm pretty sure that if I have a hammer, and I can't use it to hit nails, or pull out nails, or any of the other options I have for using a hammer, then I haven't used the hammer.

When fighting with an unstunned creature and no creatures to fight:

"Here's a hammer. Go hit a nail that's sticking out."

"But there are no nails sticking out here."

"Well then, just find something to do with this hammer."

"OK, I'll pull this other nail out."

When fighting with a stunned creature and no creatures to fight:

"Here's a hammer. Go hit a nail that sticking out."

"Whoa, boss. I'm too woozy. I'm taking this time to rest. Hammers make great pillows; much better than the rocks we Brobnars normally use."

While I don't know if there will be an official delineation (after this thread, there probably should be , but in my Comprehensive Rulebook, there definitely will be .

So all we need to resolve this is something official that essentially says:

Use a creature:

1 - Exhaust creature for use

2 - Check creature for stun status.

2a - If creature is stunned, remove stun and skip to step 5.

3 - Choose use of creature (reap, fight, action ability)

4 - Resolve Use

5 - Use Complete

I think this covers it, everybody happy?

33 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

So all we need to resolve this is something official that essentially says:

Use a creature:

1 - Exhaust creature for use

2 - Check creature for stun status.

2a - If creature is stunned, remove stun and skip to step 5.

3 - Choose use of creature (reap, fight, action ability)

4 - Resolve Use

5 - Use Complete

I think this covers it, everybody happy?

One note if what Brad said is accurate then exhaust couldn’t occur until before your setups step 4 instead of step one do to using anger to ready and fight nothing then reaping still being valid if there is no fight target and the creature isn’t stunned so more accurately the only way I can see to fit that model would be.

Step 1 declare use

Step 2 Check for stun, if stunned skip to step 4

Step 3 Declare use as fight, reap, action, or Omni action

Step 4 Exhaust creature (remove stun if stunned)

Step 5 resolve use.

49 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

So all we need to resolve this is something official that essentially says:

Use a creature:

1 - Exhaust creature for use

2 - Check creature for stun status.

2a - If creature is stunned, remove stun and skip to step 5.

3 - Choose use of creature (reap, fight, action ability)

4 - Resolve Use

5 - Use Complete

I think this covers it, everybody happy?

Almost:

0. A card is eligible to be used if it falls in one of these categories:

0a. The card is ready and of the active house.

0b. The card is ready, not of the active house, but has an Omni: ability.

0c. The card is ready or becomes ready and is given permission to be used in at least one manner by another ability.

1. Declare intended use of card: fight, reap, A ction: ability, O mni: ability, or remove stun. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0b, the only use available is the Omni: ability. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0c, this choice may be limited by the ability that grants it permission to be used.

2. If card in question is a stunned creature, replace intended use with remove stun

3. Check legality of use:

3a. Fight is legal if there is an enemy creature to fight against. Choose an enemy creature to now fight.

3b. Reap, A ction: abilities, and Omni: abilities are legal unless prohibited by another ability.

3c. Remove stun is legal if the creature is stunned.

4. If the use is legal, exhaust the card and perform the use. Otherwise, the use does not happen.

Did I miss anything?

1 minute ago, Rabbitball said:

Almost:

0. A card is eligible to be used if it falls in one of these categories:

0a. The card is ready and of the active house.

0b. The card is ready, not of the active house, but has an Omni: ability.

0c. The card is ready or becomes ready and is given permission to be used in at least one manner by another ability.

1. Declare intended use of card: fight, reap, A ction: ability, O mni: ability, or remove stun. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0b, the only use available is the Omni: ability. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0c, this choice may be limited by the ability that grants it permission to be used.

2. If card in question is a stunned creature, replace intended use with remove stun

3. Check legality of use:

3a. Fight is legal if there is an enemy creature to fight against. Choose an enemy creature to now fight.

3b. Reap, A ction: abilities, and Omni: abilities are legal unless prohibited by another abilit

3c. Remove stun is legal if the creature is stunned.

4. If the use is legal, exhaust the creature and perform the use. Otherwise, the use does not happen.

Did I miss anything?

That seems perfect to fit the way the card interactions play in the video and still without actually changing but just detailing the rules currently in the rulebook. Now we just need a break down included in the next version for clarification.

On 3/19/2019 at 8:16 PM, Rabbitball said:

1. Declare intended use of card: fight, reap, A ction: ability, O mni: ability, or remove stun. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0b, the only use available is the Omni: ability. If the card is eligible to be used only because of 0c, this choice may be limited by the ability that grants it permission to be used.

2. If card in question is a stunned creature, replace intended use with remove stun

3. Check legality of use:

This is just repeating the disputed step by introducing some new notions of declaring and aborting that aren't in the rules: The issue isn't what happens when a creature that's stunned is used, it's about when a stunned creature can be used in the first place, specifically that it is — apparently — allowed to be used to remove stun if it is allowed to do some other actions, even it doesn't meet the conditions for those actions.

That seems to necessitate a rules change, for example, replacing

"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."

with

"Whenever that creature has permission to be used, that permission is replaced by the option to use to remove the stun status card instead of anything else happening."

Something like that seems a lot simpler and less disruptive of the rules as they are than the new sequencing, checking, attempting and subsequent aborting of actions that has been suggested.

3 hours ago, Tinathir said:

This is just repeating the disputed step by introducing some new notions of declaring and aborting that aren't in the rules: The issue isn't what happens when a creature that's stunned is used, it's about when a stunned creature can be used in the first place, specifically that it is — apparently — allowed to be used to remove stun if it is allowed to do some other actions, even it doesn't meet the conditions for those actions.

That seems to necessitate a rules change, for example, replacing

"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."

with

"Whenever that creature has permission to be used, that permission is replaced by the option to use to remove the stun status card instead of anything else happening."

Something like that seems a lot simpler and less disruptive of the rules as they are than the new sequencing, checking, attempting and subsequent aborting of actions that has been suggested.

There is cancelling in the rules, you even quoted it:

”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”

That “instead” is what matters here. It is made even clearer that checking for fight qualifications is unnecessary when it specifies that the creature doesn’t fight, reap, or use an action.

It seems you’re running into the issue of treating fight and use as the same thing but when checking for qualitications it would proceed.

”Can a creature be used” - yes

(the only time a creature can’t be used to my knowledge is if it’s currently exhausted or if something explicitly states it can’t be used).

”Is the creature stunned” - yes

you stop there, anything that follows (ie fight and checking for a valid target) is irrelevant because as the stun rules say it’s unstunning “instead”, it never even gets to the step of forcing the fight check. Stun rules then say the creature exhausts and removes stun and no other effect occurs. After all it doesn’t say choose fight then use, it’s the other way around.

2 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

There is cancelling in the rules, you even quoted it...

In mentioning "cancelling" I'm referring to the proposed set 4, which is an invention not in the rules. The substitution you cite is not in dispute.

2 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

It seems you’re running into the issue of treating fight and use as the same thing but when checking for qualitications it would proceed.

”Can a creature be used” - yes

”Is the creature stunned” - yes

Can something be used if the only thing allowing its use is prohibited? English and the rules say no. So this sequence is also invented. I'm not saying that's the wrong explanation (we're all left guessing, so it easily could be that the rules will be changed to make it so); but I do think its more complex and hard to accept than the proposed change .

5 minutes ago, Tinathir said:

Can something be used if the only thing allowing its use is prohibited?

Yes I believe it can, this is the very nature of the do as much as you can rule.

1. Can the creature be used? Yes.

2. Can it be used for fighting? No.

3. If it’s stunned does it fight? No.

So why, if it’s not fighting, are fight qualifications relevant?

Do as much as you can works the same way when playing cards whose effects you either can’t fully complete or can’t even partially complete yet the card can still be played typically just for aember gain if nothing else.