I really don't think this ruling has as much effect on Threat from the East as it does on reviewing how several other cards work. This is an example of a player being forced to deconstruct card text as if they were Vulcan in order to play the game correctly. It is clear that not everything is obvious on some of these cards.
See the Stay of Execution plot. That text is even worse because it's not literal. Kings and Queens are still actually killed before being returned to their hands.
Bomb said:
I really don't think this ruling has as much effect on Threat from the East as it does on reviewing how several other cards work. This is an example of a player being forced to deconstruct card text as if they were Vulcan in order to play the game correctly. It is clear that not everything is obvious on some of these cards.
See the Stay of Execution plot. That text is even worse because it's not literal. Kings and Queens are still actually killed before being returned to their hands.
If that is true then my mind is blown. If they are actually killed then the word INSTEAD should be removed from the card in future printings. I am always confused about cards with WOULD BE on them though.
Ratatoskr
The old ruling: you flip TftE and you get a 4-6-1 that says "you draw three cards." Thats what you do, every time, in and out. They draw 3 and discard 3, so they get milled a bit, but you net three cards. (You chose the draw then discard option)
The new ruling: you flip TftE and you get a 4-6-1 that says "your opponent discards three cards at random." You discard none, and you draw none, and they don't draw any either. But your staring the game at a 9-6 post draw phase, thats a lot different than a 12-9 post draw phase. (You chose the discard then draw option)
It makes it less awesome now because the card damage isn't the same.
Ratatoskr said:
I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose. I just don't get it.
Rat, I am with you in thinking that this ruling makes the combo more awesome. It also just makes the card really counter-intuitive and powerful. If you have two cards in your hand at the start of a turn, you can now flip this and knock three cards out of your opponent's hand without losing any cards yourself. It's hard to believe that that was the way the designers thought this card would work.
What text do you think this card have to that would make it affect each player independently? If able? "Do X, if able. Then do Y."
it makes it more powerful, but less awesome because of the storm of hate that follws in its wake, compounded by the fact that its linked in any way whatsoever to TLS.
@schrecklich you would still have to discard from 2 down to zero... you just wouldnt draw back up to 3, since you only discarded 2 card and didnt meet the "discard" criteria to then draw. so you lose 2 they lose (up to) 3. then nobody draws.
Mathias Fricot said:
it makes it more powerful, but less awesome because of the storm of hate that follws in its wake, compounded by the fact that its linked in any way whatsoever to TLS.
@schrecklich you would still have to discard from 2 down to zero... you just wouldnt draw back up to 3, since you only discarded 2 card and didnt meet the "discard" criteria to then draw. so you lose 2 they lose (up to) 3. then nobody draws.
Ah, right, I got a little carried away there....
So to summary because I'm completely lost.
If we choose draw and someone can't draw 3 cards then there is no discard. If we choose discard and someone can't discard 3 cards there is no draw.
If all players discard 3 cards, but some of them can't draw 3 they draw so many they can.
Did I understand this correctly?
@berto : yes this is correct
Bolzano said:
#1 The "pre-then" effect is a single effect so both players must resolve it sucessfully so that both of them must proceed with "post-then" effect.
.............
Apply this to Game of Cyvasse.
"Player A must choose and kneel a char with an INT icon he controls, then the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to it's owner's hand"
AND
"Player B must choose and kneel a char with an INT icon he controls, then the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to it's owner's hand"
That would mean two characters may be returned to their owner's hand because the effect applies for each player individually. So this explanation is not consistent which leaves #1.
My worldview is shattered. Since my understanding of Threat from the East has been shaken up, and you're saying it's analogous to Game of Cyvasse, i need to double check my understanding of that event as well, on two points in particular: 1) The "if able" in Cyvasse's wording allows me to successfully resolve it even if my opponent knelt nothing, and 2) no one is restricted to choosing a standing character with an Intrigue icon, i.e. you can choose a knelt character, leaving the kneeling unsuccessful and not having anything in the strength comparison. is this still correct?
thejibboo said:
The parallel between Game of Cyvasse and Threat of the East just meant to put forward these card do not create separate effects for each player but instead a single effect applying to each player.