Hi there. I was playing a DE deck with bladewind in my hand. Opponent was empire with only one card in his hand. He decides to play it (it is demoralize). Question: can I play bladewind 'in response' and force him to discard it?
If the answer is yes, does he has to pay for the cost of the card (not relevant in this particular case but useful to know).
1) I am not sure if you can force to discard it as a response, as tactic being played is no longer "in hand", I think. Thus, I would say you can't cancel Demoralise this way, and you could not cast Bladewind after Demoralise was cast, since opponent has no cards "in hand".
In addition, if you cast Bladewind first, opponent could play Demoralise in response, and Bladewind should fizzle then.
However, I'm not 100% about this.
2) As a general rule, all cost must be paid upfront, so every effect must be paid, even if in the end it fizzles.
Paradoks' answer is correct, except that theoretically you could play Bladewind in response. But Demoralize is indeed not in the hand anymore, therefore playing Bladewind accomplishes nothing. He can't discard a card, and if he doesn't discard one, you don't get to draw one.
As a general rule, you can use a discard effect on an opponent who has no cards in hand, it just won't do anything and he won't be considered to have discarded a card.
Thanks guys.
That makes it nearly impossible to discard 0 cost tactics if they are all that is there in the opponent's hand. But I guess you force him to play it at an inconvenient time.
Mallumo said:
As a general rule, you can use a discard effect on an opponent who has no cards in hand, it just won't do anything and he won't be considered to have discarded a card.
Ok, thanks for clarification here. It looks like it is a little bit confusing for me to judge if I can use a card, even if it's action could not be triggered, or I can't. Luckily, in most cases using this card would do anything, anyway, so it doesn't matter so much.
In this case I can force opponent to discard, even if he cant' do this. In similar situation, I can cast Chillwind, even if there is no valid target to corrupt?
And I was wondering if I can use Action of Mountain Brigands "Target opponent must give you 1 resource" if opponent has no resources in his pool, but he has means on table to gain resources - by some action, for example. Is Brigands action forcing him to use actions to earn resources, and then give it to me? Or if he has resource tokens on Master Alchemist, Temple of Verena, Sack/Defend Tor Aendris?
You should check out the unofficial rules summary at http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=232, a lot is covered there already.
You can play Chillwind if there are only corrupted units in play, but it won't do anything at all.
A card that lets you take resources from an opponent only lets you take them from his pool, not from cards, even if the tokens on the card can be used as if they were in the pool (Temple of Verena). If he doesn't have any, you don't get any, you can't force him to use an effect to get tokens in his pool.
Mallumo said:
A card that lets you take resources from an opponent only lets you take them from his pool, not from cards, even if the tokens on the card can be used as if they were in the pool (Temple of Verena). If he doesn't have any, you don't get any, you can't force him to use an effect to get tokens in his pool.
Yup, that is clear, when the wording is something like "take resource from opponent". However, Mountain Brigand wording is unusual, ant it says " player must give you 1 resource ", while it doesn't mention resource pool at all! So I would say - if he must give me, then he should use whatever he has on table to do this (but he is not forced to use tactics or smth like this, per analogie to enough-to-kill damage, taking into account only effects currently in play).
I'd chalk this up as a wording inconsistency, not a different kind of effect from Hate et al.