27 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Firstly, determining someone is "wrong" in a debate is not overly helpful.

secondly the rules text on Shadow Self is flat out poor.

I reiterate, for you to answer, Does a creature dealt damage immediately have damage markers put on it?

if you answer anything but yes, well this discussion is pointless.

Page 7 from the rules:

"When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature"

So assuming you said yes, is a creature with the same or more damage markers on it as it power immediately destroyed? Yes, again the rules are quite clear on this.

Page 7, straight after the sentence posted above:

"If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile"

so because Shadow Self actually requires damage to be dealt to the neighboring creature to actually trigger its ability, it somehow magically heals that creature and is then dealt the damage itself. Also somehow preventing a creature from being destroyed in the process even though it may have had lethal damage on it.

Poor templating at its finest, but at least now we can at least extrapolate from Brads email that damage is dealt in this order:

1) Shields absorb x damage where x is the remaining shield value.

then

2) damage redirection effects redirect any remaining or specified amounts of damage to a new creature.

then

3) any remaining damage not absorbed or redirected is assigned to the targeted creature.

It’s a rules question, not a philosophical debate. Right and wrong are relevant, there’s no need to get bent out of shape over it, your point was wrong.

Shadow Self speaks for itself:

”Damage dealt to non-Spectre neighbors is dealt to Shadow Self instead.”

As a practical matter the answer is, no.

Creatures fight, power would be dealt to each other (and therefore is reduced by each other’s armor, if any), but Shadow Selfs game text means the damage dealt to the friendly is instead dealt to the shadow self.

2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

but Shadow Selfs game text means the damage dealt to the friendly is instead dealt to the shadow self.

Ive bolded the part where you are inferring what you believe the card is intended to do. and to this point we agree that is what the card is MEANT to do.

but that's not how it is worded, AT ALL, and that's the basis of my point. the cards need better formatting so that inferring is not a required part of understanding what a card does.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

Creatures fight, power would be dealt to each other (and therefore is reduced by each other’s armor, if any), but Shadow Selfs game text means the damage dealt to the friendly is instead dealt to the shadow self.

If I have it right: You have incoming damage, being the power of the creature, then you have damage dealt being the incoming damage less the armour.

The rules have explained this is a very bad poorly.

In the context of the OP's question I think this part of the rules can be redone and improved. To the extent that we don't need a FAQ for Shadow Self, but rather have a better understanding of the rules.

I think another area of the rules that may be in need of a good work over would be the "do as much as you can" because that is probably the second biggest area where we are having problems.

6 hours ago, Mace Windu said:

Ive bolded the part where you are inferring what you believe the card is intended to do. and to this point we agree that is what the card is MEANT to do.

but that's not how it is worded, AT ALL, and that's the basis of my point. the cards need better formatting so that inferring is not a required part of understanding what a card does.

It literally says that it’s dealt to the shadow self instead.

Take a moment and write down the actual card text, then write down how you’d restate that. What’s the difference?

3 hours ago, Amanal said:

If I have it right: You have incoming damage, being the power of the creature, then you have damage dealt being the incoming damage less the armour.

The rules have explained this is a very bad poorly.

In the context of the OP's question I think this part of the rules can be redone and improved. To the extent that we don't need a FAQ for Shadow Self, but rather have a better understanding of the rules.

I think another area of the rules that may be in need of a good work over would be the "do as much as you can" because that is probably the second biggest area where we are having problems.

You’re overthinking it, creating categories where none really exist.

It doesn’t matter how the creature is being dealt damaged, armor prevents up to the armor value per turn.

Then, after that is prevented, the Shadow Self effect would happen, because it only triggers off damage dealt. Damaged prevented due to armor was never dealt .

My FLGS is patiently waiting for a ruling on Neutron Shark’s ability. Specifically, does it end if it destroys itself or if it can’t destroy both an enemy and a friendly creature.

I’ve given my thoughts but I see both sides of it.

So yes I think there are still actual rules issues. I mean it’s nice that Andres is actively reply to questions somewhere but get those answers into either the faq or an updated rulebook.

4 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

My FLGS is patiently waiting for a ruling on Neutron Shark’s ability. Specifically, does it end if it destroys itself or if it can’t destroy both an enemy and a friendly creature.

I’ve given my thoughts but I see both sides of it.

So yes I think there are still actual rules issues. I mean it’s nice that Andres is actively reply to questions somewhere but get those answers into either the faq or an updated rulebook.

It does not end if it cannot destroy an enemy creature - do as much as you can. Brad ruled on facebook that the shark's effect cant be repeated when it eats itself (as it must eventually, unless the flip fails). It was a bit unclear as to whether the effect ends immediately (not supported by rulebook or existence of artifacts that read "sac x. Do y."), or if you still flip a card. (Which would be supported by the rulebook glossary on repeating effects not being able to continue when their card leaves play, although the shark says "trigger" rather than "repeat")

Issue 1) If one card says I can't do something, and another card tells me to do that something, which one wins? I think most people play assuming can't wins, but I can't find a rule that specifically says this.

Example: Fogbank vs Anger

Fogbank: Play: Your opponent cannot use creatures to fight on their next turn.

Anger: Play: Ready and fight with a friendly creature.

The only rule I can find that relates to this is "do as much as you can", but both options require you to ignore some text.

Issue 2) Related to "do as much as you can". If a card gives me a choice, am I required to choose the option that enables me to do the highest percentage of that option's text?

Example: Knowledge is Power with no cards in hand

Knowledge is Power: Play: Choose one: Archive a card, or, for each archived card you have, gain 1.

If I have no cards in my hand, can I still choose to archive a card?

7 minutes ago, Revert said:

Issue 1) If one card says I can't do something, and another card tells me to do that something, which one wins? I think most people play assuming can't wins, but I can't find a rule that specifically says this.

Example: Fogbank vs Anger

Fogbank: Play: Your opponent cannot use creatures to fight on their next turn.

Anger: Play: Ready and fight with a friendly creature.

The only rule I can find that relates to this is "do as much as you can", but both options require you to ignore some text.

Issue 2) Related to "do as much as you can". If a card gives me a choice, am I required to choose the option that enables me to do the highest percentage of that option's text?

Example: Knowledge is Power with no cards in hand

Knowledge is Power: Play: Choose one: Archive a card, or, for each archived card you have, gain 1.

If I have no cards in my hand, can I still choose to archive a card?

1. Per the rules, "When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest."

So, your opponent plays Fogbank. He resolves the card fully. You're now not able to use creatures to fight on your turn. You play Anger. You'd ready the character, but then ignore the part about fighting as that part can't be resolved due to the restriction in place from Fogbank. "Can't" abilities usually win because they make "Do X" abilities unable to resolve, which causes them to be ignored.

2. If a card gives you a choice, you make the choice and then resolve as much of the ability as possible, ignoring the part that can't be resolved. If you play Knowledge is Power, you first resolve making the choice. "I choose to archive a card." You'd then resolve the choice. "I attempt to archive a card, but am unable to do so, so I will ignore this part of the card's ability."

Same rule in both cases, really.

I'm waiting on a few questions to be answered:
1) What happens if Overlord Greking kills Dextre?
2) What happens if Overlord Greking kills a creature while Annihilation Ritual is in play?

3) What happens if a creature with upgrades is killed by Overlord Greking?

4) What happens if Dust Imp is destroyed with a Biomatrix Backup in it?

13 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

1. Per the rules, "When resolving  a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest."

So, your opponent plays Fogbank. He resolves the card fully. You're now not able to use creatures to fight on your turn. You play Anger. You'd ready the character, but then ignore the part about fighting as that part can't be resolved due to the restriction in place from Fogbank. "Can't" abilities usually win because they make "Do X" abilities unable to resolve  , which causes them to be ignored.

2. If a card gives you a choice, you make the choice and then resolve as much of the ability as possible, ignoring the part that can't be resolved. If you play Knowledge is Power, you first resolve making the choice. "I choose to archive a card." You'd then resolve the choice. "I attempt to archive a card, but am unable to do so, so I will ignore this part of the card's ability."

Same rule in both cases, really.

1) You are assuming that resolved text takes precedence over resolving text. There is nothing that specifies that either. The closest you get is: "If the text of a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text of the card takes precedence.", but that actually causes you to use the opposite answer.

2) The rule you quoted does not say that it applies at every part of the card's text independently, only that it applies to the card's text as a whole. What you specified is how I am currently playing it.

1 minute ago, DacoTrilar said:

I'm waiting  on a few questions to be answered:
1) What happens if Overlord Greking kills Dextre?
2) What happens if Overlord Greking kills a creature while Annihilation Ritual is in play?

3) What happens if a creature  with upgrades is killed by Overlord Greking?

4) What happens if Dust Imp is destroyed with a Biomatrix Backup in it?

I think the answer to all of your questions is that the active player decides, as all of these seem to be timing conflicts.

"The active player makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn."

30 minutes ago, Revert said:

I think the answer to all of your questions is that the active player decides  , as all of these seem to be timing conflicts  .

"The active player  makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn."

Except, we know that Overlord Greking's ability triggers after "Destroyed" because of the ruling on Greking killing Bad Penny. So, I'm pretty sure if he kills Dextre, then Dextre will end up on the top of the deck. That's a big problem with Keyforge at the moment, there isn't a well defined timing structure. Also, I really hope that Biomatrix Backup can prevent Dust Imp from providing 2 aember, cause that'd be a nice buff to that card.

1 hour ago, Revert said:

1) You are assuming that resolved text takes precedence over resolving text. There is nothing that specifies that either. The closest you get is: "If the text of a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text of the card takes precedence.", but that actually causes you to use the opposite answer.

2) The rule you quoted does not say that it applies at every part of the card's text independently, only that it applies to the card's text as a whole. What you specified is how I am currently playing it.

1. I don't see how you could possibly assume otherwise. If I play Fogbank, you're not allowed to use creatures to fight on your turn. That's a thing that has happened and is now in effect. If you then play Anger, you resolve as much of the card's ability as you can? Can you ready the creature? If it's exhausted, yes. If it's not exhausted, no. Can you fight with the creature? No, you can't because you're not allowed to fight with any creatures this turn. Where does my assumption come into play?

2. It actually doesn't say it applies to the card's text as a whole. "When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest.  " I don't see any reading of this where you think you'd do everything or nothing. You do whichever parts you can do and ignore whichever parts you can't do. In your example, can you choose one of the two options? Yes, so you make the choice. If choosing the archive option, can you archive a card? No, so ignore that part. If just like Anger where you Ready and Fight. You can use Anger on a readied creature because you'd just ignore the part that says to ready the creature. In fact, you can play Anger even if there are zero creatures in play. You'd gain the bonus aember and then ignore both the ready and fight parts of the card ability as they can't be resolved.

1 minute ago, KrisWall said:

1. I don't see how you could possibly assume otherwise. If I play Fogbank, you're not allowed to use creatures to fight on your turn. That's a thing that has happened and is now in effect. If you then play Anger, you resolve as much of the card's ability as you can? Can you ready the creature? If it's exhausted, yes. If it's not exhausted, no. Can you fight with the creature? No, you can't because you're not allowed to fight with any creatures this turn. Where does my assumption come into play?

2. It actually doesn't say it applies to the card's text as a whole. "When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest.  " I don't see any reading of this where you think you'd do everything or nothing. You do whichever parts you can do and ignore whichever parts you can't do. In your example, can you choose one of the two options? Yes, so you make the choice. If choosing the archive option, can you archive a card? No, so ignore that part. If just like Anger where you Ready and Fight. You can use Anger on a readied creature because you'd just ignore the part that says to ready the creature. In fact, you can play Anger even if there are zero creatures in play. You'd gain the bonus aember and then ignore both the ready and fight parts of the card ability as they can't be resolved.

This is easier. While there isn't a blanket rule that covers all such situations, on pg 7 the section "using cards via other abilities" limits the power to ONLY letting you ignore the house, and not granting you to bypass any other restrictions in place:

"When using a card via a card ability, any other requirements of using
the card (such as exhausting to reap, fight, or resolve its “Action:”
ability) must be observed, or the card cannot be used.
Players can only use cards they control, unless a card ability
specifically states otherwise."

1 hour ago, DacoTrilar said:

I'm waiting on a few questions to be answered:
1) What happens if Overlord Greking kills Dextre?
2) What happens if Overlord Greking kills a creature while Annihilation Ritual is in play?

3) What happens if a creature with upgrades is killed by Overlord Greking?

4) What happens if Dust Imp is destroyed with a Biomatrix Backup in it?

1. Dextre is on the top of the deck, greking presumably can't find him. This infers from bad penny + bolter ruling, which could be inferred from the rule about out of play areas, but timing is not well defined.

2. Good question. Following the above timing, the creature is probably purged first.

3. The creature definitely dies and leaves play, so upgrades are discarded.

4. Active player chooses the order of multiple destroyed triggers (inferred from other rulings and the active player ruling). Once in the archives, I assume dust imp is not active anymore. But I'm not certain.

Why is it that Greking cannot find Dextre, which goes to an out of play area, but can find any other creature (who also go to an out of play area, the discard pile)

I do believe that is the intent, but, I’m not quite sure why that should work within the rules we have.

Can anyone explain that?

(and before you say he takes control before the creature leaves play, why doesn’t he take control of Dextre before he leaves play?)

10 minutes ago, Palpster said:

Why is it that Greking cannot find Dextre  , which goes to an out of play area  , but can find any other creature (who also go to an out of play area, the discard pile)

I do believe that is the intent, but, I’m not quite sure why that should work within the rules we have.

Can anyone explain that?

(and before you say he takes control before the creature leaves play, why doesn’t he take control of Dextre before he leaves play?)

That's why I'd like an FAQ to clarify it. The best explanation I've heard is that there's a timing window between when a card leaves play and when that card hits the discard pile. That's why Overlord Greking would trigger. Of course, that's not defined any place, so we really need a FAQ on it.

2 hours ago, KrisWall said:

1. I don't see how you could possibly assume otherwise. If I play Fogbank, you're not allowed to use creatures to fight on your turn. That's a thing that has happened and is now in effect. If you then play Anger, you resolve as much of the card's ability as you can? Can you ready the creature? If it's exhausted  , yes. If it's  not exhausted, no. Can you fight with the creature? No, you can't because you're not allowed to fight with any creatures this turn. Where does my assumption come into play?

2. It actually doesn't say it applies to the card's text as a whole. "When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest.  " I don't see any reading of this where you think you'd do everything or nothing. You do whichever parts you can do and ignore whichever parts you can't do. In your example, can you choose one of the two options? Yes, so you make the choice. If choosing the archive option, can you archive a card? No, so ignore that part. If just like Anger where you Ready and Fight. You can use Anger on a readied creature because you'd just ignore the part that says to ready the creature. In fact, you can play Anger even if there are zero creatures in play. You'd gain the bonus aember and then ignore both the ready and fight parts of the card ability as they can't be resolved.

1. There is plenty of precedence outside of this game for the most recent commands to take priority over older ones. I think you are making the most logical assumption based off of how games usually work, but I still see your view as an assumption. To me that is a rules issue.

2. I didn't mean to imply that it was everything or nothing. Here is a real world example that might better convey my meaning. If you were buying supplies for someone, and they told you to do as much as you can. They hand you the list; a chair, an apple, and an orange, but stores are closing soon so you only have time to go to 1 store. Do you go to the furniture store because the chair is listed first, or do you go to the grocery store because it lets you complete a higher percentage of the list?

The rule again is "When resolving  a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest.". I am playing this the way you described because I believe that is what is intended. But if I was to read this literally, the phrase "When resolving a card ability" makes me read the card as a whole, and not as a list of steps. The phrase "resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved" means that I need to aim for the highest percentage of resolution. These phrases together makes an easy argument for the rules to be interpreted in the opposite manner. The card is still resolved as an ordered list of steps, but determining which parts of the card can be ignored is not.

2 hours ago, KrisWall said:

1. I don't see how you could possibly assume otherwise. If I play Fogbank, you're not allowed to use creatures to fight on your turn. That's a thing that has happened and is now in effect. If you then play Anger, you resolve as much of the card's ability as you can? Can you ready the creature? If it's exhausted, yes. If it's not exhausted, no. Can you fight with the creature? No, you can't because you're not allowed to fight with any creatures this turn. Where does my assumption come into play?

If the orders happened in the opposite order, how would that affect your opinion of what happens? If a card said, "All of your opponent's creatures must fight next turn", and then you played an upgrade that said "This creature cannot fight". The first effect would have already resolved, should you be forced to fight anyways?

11 minutes ago, Revert said:

If the orders happened in the opposite order, how would that affect your opinion of what happens? If a card said, "All of your opponent's creatures must fight next turn", and then you played an upgrade that said "This creature cannot fight". The first effect would have already resolved, should you be forced to fight anyways?

I'll answer by using a similar real world example. I play Control the Weak, telling you that you must pick Brobnar next turn. I then play Restringutus, telling you that you cannot pick Brobar. Control the Weak doesn't let you pick Brobnar because of the word "must". The cannot overrides the must in this case. In your example, I think the cannot Fight would also override the must Fight.

I think you're using an unrelated scenario to try to make your point. This isn't an order of operations thing. It's a cannot will almost always override must thing in this sort of game.

13 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I'll answer by using a similar real world example. I play Control the Weak, telling you that you must pick Brobnar next turn. I then play Restringutus, telling  you that  you cannot pick Brobar. Control the Weak doesn't let you pick Brobnar because of the word "must". The cannot overrides the must in this case. In your example, I think the cannot Fight would also override the must Fight.

Control the Weak only works that way because there is a special section within the Choosing your House section that specifies that Choosing your house works that way. The rule is not written in a way to make you believe that it is meant to apply to all rules.

18 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I think you're using an unrelated scenario to try to make your point. This isn't an order of operations thing. It's a cannot will almost always override must thing in this sort of game.

I am realizing that I misread your initial argument. I thought you were saying that you believed it was an order of operations thing. That is a my bad. But to counter your actual argument, "It's a cannot will almost always override must thing in this sort of game." is an assumption and having the rules written in such a way that you have to make assumptions is bad in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Palpster said:

Why is it that Greking cannot find Dextre, which goes to an out of play area, but can find any other creature (who also go to an out of play area, the discard pile)

I do believe that is the intent, but, I’m not quite sure why that should work within the rules we have.

Can anyone explain that?

(and before you say he takes control before the creature leaves play, why doesn’t he take control of Dextre before he leaves play?)

In my view, it's because Greking says "after a creature is destroyed". After something is destroyed, it's in the discard pile - so Greking is being given the power to look into the discard pile for that creature. It's a shorthand way of writing "After a creature is destroyed and lands in the discard pile, take it out of the discard pile and put it into play under your control". If the card is redirected from where Greking looks for it, then Greking can't see it.

1 hour ago, saluk64007 said:

In my view, it's because Greking says "after a creature is destroyed". After something is destroyed, it's in the discard pile - so Greking is being given the power to look into the discard pile for that creature. It's a shorthand way of writing "After a creature is destroyed and lands in the discard pile, take it out of the discard pile and put it into play under your control". If the card is redirected from where Greking looks for it, then Greking can't see it.

After (like before) should be a keywork can anyone find that in the rulebook or learn to play?

14 hours ago, Derrault said:

You’re overthinking it, creating categories where none really exist.

It doesn’t matter how the creature is being dealt damaged, armor prevents up to the armor value per turn.

Then, after that is prevented, the Shadow Self effect would happen, because it only triggers off damage dealt. Damaged prevented due to armor was never dealt .

Damage (Learn to Play):
If a creature is dealt damage (for any reason), place an amount of damage on the creature equal to the amount of damage dealt.
If a creature has an amount of damage on it equal to or greater than its power total, the creature is destroyed and placed in its owner’s discard pile.
If a creature has an armor value (to the right of a card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn. A “~” symbol indicates that the creature has no armor.

Actually Damage Dealt and Incoming Damage are the exact terms used. I learn the details of rules by getting into these sorts of discussions so the notion of making stuff up is important what term have I incorrectly used?