T Hawk-4 reads, "First E: If this attack deals damage, add 1 Hawk token to this card. You may only play two more Enhances during this attack."

First sentence of the ability is an "If", so the entire ability is contingent on that "If", right? Does this mean we were meant to play Enhances during the Damage Step?

Lynx Tail reads, "E: This attack gets -X damage and +X speed. X may not be greater than 4."

The lovely thing about the wording of this is that it's completely unambiguous. X may not be greater than 4 => X may be any number less than 4 => X may be any number less than zero. Sure, it'll be really slow, but there's rare Raphael, Deceptive Quickness, and good ol' fashioned "no low blocks" to deal with that...

I don't know why this relates to Promo Ken, but a lot of Enhance abilities state "If this attack deals damage..." The effect is still floating until after the damage step, when it would resolve.

As for Lynx Tail, I'm pretty sure X has to be a positive number (i.e. =>0). They forgot to put the minimum 0 part in there.

i have the urge to punch throats.

1) you're completely correct WC, and i'll bring this up with James to have errata issued, if possible.

2) you're completely correct WC, and i'll bring this up with James to have errata issued, if possible.

deja vu?

Guile7
"During your End Phase when you would clear any asset or foundation you played as a block..."

Should this ability say during "an" End Phase? As worded it implies that it is used during the End Phase of the player's own turn.

MegaGeese said:

it could, but during the end of either turn, each player actually has an end phase - beginning with the turn player clearing their pool, then guile clearing his. it's still technically correct.

For #1, it's an additional restriction on the ability. Might need better clarification on the card, but take this example:

"E: If this attack deals damage, draw 1 card. Only playable on your own turn"

it's not like the restriction only applies if your attack deals damage... it's always there.

so T.Hawk's statement that you may only play two more enhances this enhance step acts as a restriction on further abilities, it's not an effect of the ability itself (so by extension, this will still apply if the ability is canceled).

Tagrineth said:

Ummm...

If you cancel T.Hawk's first E....then you cancel all if it. No matter how you slice it that text about only 2 further enhances is tied to that ability. If the ability does not occur (ie. negated)...the text does not come into play. It is not static text so its not "always there" its only there if that ability is played. You are correct tho that say you Spiritual Center the damage boost of Fight or Flight, the restriction of Fight or Flight is still applicable because you did not negate the entire ability. I just dont see where there is any select negation that would apply to this ability. Of course I could be missing something.

As far as the orginal question...they are two different sentences. While both tied to the same ability the second sentence the part in question is not tied to the "if this attack deals damage..." part. The only part that hinges on that would be the hawk token...no real need for an erratta...

WhatAboutBob? said:

"they are two different sentences", however, does not cause the two abilities to become independent. Any ability that begins with "If ...", the entire ability hinges on the satisfaction of that "If...". When the ability starts normally, "Your attack gets +1 damage." and then has an If, "Your attack gets +1 damage. If it deals damage, draw 1 card. Your next attack gets +1 damage." then it starts to go off and ONLY the "If" statement hinges on its satisfaction. So the previous ability would give the attack +1 dmg, your next attack +1 regardless of damage, and you draw a card only if your attack deals damage.

has it come to this..... really.... pulling restrictions into the "IF/Then" ruling...... if you want to fight the fact that a restriction is a restriction no matter what..... and that is always how the game has been played you might as well bring up all the other cards with IF in the effect that has a Only Playable restriction or another restriction. WhatAboutBob? what tag was saying was that the restriction is there as long as the ability is played..... if it gets negated then you are right it doesn't happen at all. The point here is that when you play an ability there is sometimes a string of text at the end that is a restriction or an "un-restriction" (i.e. "any player may play this ability") that is in effect because it is not an ability in itself.

400.11.1 Abilities that state a condition preceded by "if, after, when", the entire effect following "if, after,
when" must resolve and then the condition can be fulfilled.

as i see it "E: IF this attack deals damage draw 1 card. Gain 2 vitality." in this case there is an effect that is after the if being draw 1 card and gain 2.

but when you have "E:If this attack deals damage draw 1 card. Only playable once per turn" Its not like you can use it and then your attack doesn't deal damage so you can use it again. It doesn't work like that.

dragoku said:

Except, according to the rules as writen, it does. Everyone pushed for this addition to the rules. And some of us pointed out this broke as many, if not more, cards than it fixed. It was added anyways.

The thing is nothing is consistent on this front. Restrictions are sometimes canceled...they're certainly part of the ability in 9 out of 10 cases...and other times its said 'no they're not canceled'.

My thoughts? If its part of the ability, its part of the ability and if the ability gets negated, the entire ability gets negated, unless otherwise specified (such as spiritual center canceling part of a ability ect ect ect). If thats not how certain things are intended to be we now have precident on how they should be created in shadaloo syndacite "The following ability..." as static text. Lets stop this "the entire ability is negated...but not really because we say so for completely arbitrary reasons" crap. (And yes I realize 'its how it was intended' but that doesn't make the ruling any less arbitrary since it ignores not only the rules but english and whatnot)

I would suggest for future cards that any cards that have restrictions or once per __ abilities should be static text, i.e. Addies Syndicate. It might take up extra space for text, but it's probably the clearest way to get the point across. The only other thing I can think of is to add to the rules which restrictions do not go away if an ability is cancelled.

dragoku said:

First things first. I was commenting on what Tag had put in the ( ) about the restriction is still there if the ability is negated. Which if you had read what I had quoted and what I was responding to. And while it may be a restriction or not it is still part of that ability...therefore an ability. Like was mentioned before Control the Present...is a restriction!!!! But its not an ability right? So then how is it played as an E? And if it is played as a E, then if someone uses say Po8 it doesnt matter right? The restriction would still be there by Tags comment. Just take a second to think about that one...and hopefully you'll understand the point I was trying to make...

As for your examples and citing of the TR you contradicted yourself. The "gain 2 vitality" requires the attack to deal damage, but the "only playable once per turn" does not? If thats the case then that ruling really needs a second look because that says that some cards follow the rules, and then others don't. Sorry thats just a bad call. Apparently I was wrong with my first look at it by the tournament rules and I will admit that, but the only way to fix that would be for that text to be before the if like you said. If that is the case your 2nd example would have to have the "only playable once per turn" in front of the if, otherwise if the attack didnt deal damage the ability would not resolve as the conditions weren't met because the ENTIRE effect did not take place.

Now if ruled the other way, the attack would not have to deal damage to gain the 2 vitality, or only playable once per turn, or (back on topic) the T'Hawk card at hand where you may only play 2 more enhances.

First off i apologize to bob.... i was tired and didn't read the posts completely..... secondly i see all of your points but i think its kinda not possible to fix this so everyone is happy..... i agree with the if/then rulings and i am glad they are in place..... but you are right in that the "restrictions" are then also contingent on the "if" of the effect..... the only way to fix that is to make a new rule that says something like ""Only Playable...." effects are considered seperate from the rest of the ability on a text."... or to erratta every card in the game that has an If ability followed by a restriction to the restriction being static or before the If. But that creates a lot of errattas....

Tagrineth said:

What about Donovan? He also has a restriction after a conditional clause that is only acknowledged after the enhance step (although the restriction works for the rest of the turn, and not only in that enhance step). I think it was ruled that if he used the E and the attack was blocked, he could still discard cards from the card pool.

I think we need a better rules explanation on conditional statements of the type "If X, Y. Z.". Does Z depend on X or not?

All in all it boils down to poor templating.

GouHadou said it best: the OP is correct, and this needs errataing. The simplest errata (in keeping with current rules) would be to reverse the order of the sentences. Restriction happens, then "if" clause happens. As several have noted, this is NOT a restriction on playing the ability (as Tag implied) but rather a restriction on playing further abilities; it is a portion of the effect text limited by the "If" clause under the current If rule.

I agree with Zero Cross: for clarification, proper restrictions should be placed as continuous abilities or pre-ability limiting keywords, for clarity. (Though in this particular case, simply reordering the text would be fine.)

Amano also has a good point about the dangers this leads to.

I would, however, argue that the entire section of the TR about "If," "If, then," "Then," and "and then" is ridiculous. That sort of thing should not be necessary. I hope the entire section gets re-written to something simple and easy to remember in the next TR, and previous cards are errata'd to match.

I remember being one of the only people complaining about the global "If" rule being ridiculous. >_>

I dont understand the complication for the T Hawk thing.

If this attack deals damage, add one hawk token to this card. You may only play 2 more enhance abilities this turn.

I thought that full stops represented the end of an "if" clause? Just reading the ability its obvious how this card is meant to be played. It kinda seems silly to debate the point doesnt it?

Jdub - the problem is this: the ENTIRE ability after the "if" hinges on the "if" being fulfilled. separate sentences don't matter.

can chalk it up to a poor template, but the restriction at the end was meant to take effect no matter what happens, which, unfortunately, is not how the rules dictate it plays out.

this is something [restrictions at the end of abilities] that i spoke about, over an hour, with James in a recent call. in the upcoming TR release, this is something that should be addressed.