Hey guys, ive got a short but important question:

Can I use "Long Winter" in response to "Burn it down!"?

Example: My opponent has two developments in his battlefield and plays "burn it down!" to destroy my 2cost support card. Can I play "Long Winter" on his development in response so that my support card would become an illegal target?

There was some discussion at the german nationals about this.

Yes, since Long Winter is resolved before Burn It Down. So when Burn It Down is resolved it can't burn the target 2-cost support as long as there is less than 2 developments in Battlefield. The reason is that developments are part of the cost payed only when Burn It Down is resolved (so it checks for there number of developments at that time). Same with such cards as Master of Earth or Innovation.

For comparison, if a cost to play Pilgrimage is lowered by development, playing Long Winter doesn't do anything since here development is necessary only when the cost is played (Pilgrimage checks for number of developments only when you pay the cost)

The argumentaion of my opponent was that x is only checked when he plays burn it down! and not when it resolves. He refered to the repeater bolt thrower ruling:

Q. If a response to the activation of the Repeater Bolt Thrower destroys a development (e.g. via Demolition), does it change the amount of indirect damage the Bolt Thrower does?
A. No, since the X was already fixed when the Repeater Bolt Thrower activation cost was paid. James's ruling

Does burn it down work the same, fixing x when playing the tactic, or does it check when resolving?

Gardine said:

The rule is that you must check the target requirement (and only target requirement) when targeting and during resolution.

In the case of repeater the requirement is that the target must be an opponent (if your opponent is no longer an opponent during resolution, I hope for him he is still.)

In the case of burn it down you must destroy a support card that as a cost of X or less. Where X is your number of developpement. This requirement must be checked when you chose your target and again when you solve the action.

The target requirement are : support card of a printed cost of X, so during resolution you must check that your target is still a support card and still have a printed cost of X (where X is you number of dev).

This is the same case for snitch action and destruction of skaven before resolution.

Gardine said:

Bolt Thrower sets "X" when you pay its cost, Burn It Down has a normal cost, so its X can change before the tactic resolves (i.e. with Long Winter).

So there is an implicit ruling that X is set when it is part of the cost? And if it is not part of the cost, it is set at resolving?
Or is there any explicit stating on that?

@Jojo/Entropy

Let talk about such an effect :

1- Action: Spend X resources to deal X damage to a target unit with X or less hit point. X is the number of developments in this zone.

2- Action: Spend X resources to deal X damage to a target unit . X is the number of developments in this zone.

What do you do?

1- I would say that as I must check target requirement I always "set" X as my number of developpement in this zone as X is defined by the number of developpement, and I must check my target Hit point according to the number of dev (not the cost)

2- I do X equal to the cost, because I have nothing to check during resolution.

jogo said:

The ruling I quoted in the previous post is the explicit ruling stating that X is set when the effect is played when it is part of the cost.

So in Shindulus' example, 1 and 2 would act exactly the same, since you set X when you pay the cost. On cards like the pre-errata Bolt Thrower, this was important, because otherwise you could trigger it infinite times for 0 if you had 0 developments, then, in response, play a development via some Action, then resolve and deal infinite amounts of 1 dmg.