Hey there,

There are a few HE cards that say this (This unit takes 1 uncancelable damage) and then follow it by "If it does, destroy one target attachment" etc..

Am i correct in assuming that you are not required to destroy an attachment to take this damage? It seems like they deliberately separated the statement for this purpose.

Thanks.

I assume the damage taken is some kind of cost to destroy the development, right?

No, it does appear mandatory. The reason it is spelled this way is probably Teclis and his ilk - you cannot do the second part if you somehow got around applying that point of damage, either through redirection or voodoo magic.

It's not a cost in my opinion. But first part of an action. It can get this one point of damage without targeting any attachment. Reason for such a action is simple. It's really old card when rules werent sharp enough Today you wont meet this kind of trext rule in new cards.

I know Rzarectz in real life and we talked about this without any real resolution. The wording on this specific HE card is kinda odd, check out this newer card:

Beleaguered Scout: Action: Sacrifice a development to deal 1 damage to target attacking unit.

I can see the ability to sacrifice developments at will being handy if I have Reclaiming the Fallen in my hand and I have developed a bunch of units. I could just be like "Well, there are no attacking units. Knowing this, I will sacrifice a bunch of developments (that happen to be units) and say 'oops, I guess there were no units attacking, what a waste' then play Reclaiming the Fallen." When I put it like that it is a silly counter-example. I think the idea with paying these costs is that the target must exist, right? So in the HE example above if you do take the uncancelable damage you destroy the attachment, if you don't take the damage you don't destroy anything. If there is no target attachment then you don't take the damage since there is no target for that spell. That makes intuitive sense to me, but since we are sometimes in fantasy-card-logic-land with these games I'm not sure what the real ruling would be.

Here's another example on targets needing to exist: Let's pretend my opponent is going to play Hate and I only have one resource left. I can't play a random 1-cost tactic in response if I don't have a target for it in order to deny my opponent the one resource.

So, ya, that's my reasoning about the "needing to have a target" thing.

You can't activate the ability without a target (this is just a general rule of Actions). So if there is no attachment to target, then you can't take the damage. The phrasing "if it does, then do X" is used to keep you from using the ability when it would kill the unit. If the unit dies from the damage, the second part doesn't go off. It also allows your opponent to kill the unit in response to stop the 2nd effect from occuring.

Contrast that wording with "Action: This unit 1 uncancellable damage to itself to destroy target attachment." In that case, its a cost, and can just be paid regardless of whether or not the unit survives the damage. And even if the unit is destroyed by a reactionary effect, the effect still exists and will destroy the attachment.

Entropy42 said:

This blows my mind every time I run into it. I read the rulings and think "O ya, that makes sense in bizzaro-card-land" then I forget it immediately after. Especially since we are supposed to be "taking turns" taking actions. In my playgroup we rarely follow the action rules as closely as we should, so if often goes down like this: Player 1 takes a shitload of actions fast because they were thinking about what they were going to do during Player 2's turn. Player 2 has some card to destroy the unit that will eventually be taking the damage to destroy the attachment. Since Player 1 is working so quickly Player 2 needs to interrupt to take their action to say "I meant to do this", which leaves a bad taste in both player's mouths since it kinda of looks like Player 2 was taking advantage of the knowledge of Player 1's plans as Player 1 was going too fast. I understand that the effect exists independently of the card, and maybe Player 1 shouldn't get so **** excited that they do a million things at once, but Player 2

Stupid rules.

Same in my group, this actually ruins the flow quite a bit. We now have a custom where the active or passive player say "I pass" when he is not playing an action although entitled, before the game continues. Was a bit tedious in the beginning, but now works very well.

Yeah, same thing happens in our group. Usually we just say that any knowledge gained by Player 2 because Player 1 didn't give them an opportunity to respond is just P1s loss for going so fast But we're pretty liberal with take-backs and stuff like that as well.

Anyone in our group that ask's for a take back gets a punch in the face.

****! Doc9's group keeps it so **** real! I might institute that rule.

HappyDD said:

HappyDD is a god damned masochist to be sure. Why just the other day he tried to call back his troops mid battle after I dragged a Sigmar's Blessed into the defending zone. He then "realized" it was impossible, and subsequently punched himself in the teeth..

Thanks for clearing this question up! I always wondered why they worded it that way if you did in fact need a target.

Entropy42 said:

I just wanted to update this thread because I talked to Lukas (post FAQ 1.6) to clarify how "if it does" and "Then" work on Actions. They are *nearly identical. And I was wrong in the paragraph here that I quoted. "If it does" doesn't prevent you from using the second part if the unit is killed by the first part, nor does "Then". In either case, if the effect in the first part of the action happens, then the effect in the 2nd part of the action happens, regardless of whether or not the first part kills the unit.

Examples:

A. "Action: This unit takes 1 damage, if it does, draw a card."

1. If the unit takes the damage and doesn't die, you draw a card.
2. If the unit kills itself by dealing this damage, you draw a card.
3. If this damage is redirected, you don't draw a card.
4. If this damage is cancelled by toughness, you don't draw a card.
5. If, in response, your opponent plays another action that kills this unit before the effect resolves, you don't draw a card.

B. "Action: This unit takes 1 damage. Then, draw a card."

1. All scenarios resolves exactly the same as example A.

C. "Action: This unit takes 1 uncancellable damage, if it does, destroy target unit."

1. If there is no valid target in play, you CAN still trigger this action, the 2nd part just fizzles. (*This is the current ruling from Lukas, and the only way in which "if it does" behaves differently from "Then". I think there is a strong possibility this will be changed in the future for simplicity, as it essentially makes 3 cards in the whole game have very slightly different targeting rules than the rest of the cards)

D. "Action: This unit takes 1 uncancellable damage. Then, destroy target unit."

1. If there are no valid targets in play, you CAN'T attempt to trigger this action.