Considered a card effect? I know it's a keyword, but are all keywords, or at least keywords that actually do stuff (like protect and targeted strike) considered card effects? I was digging through the rule book and the FAQ, and I couldn't quite nail this down to my satisfaction.
Micah
Considered a card effect? I know it's a keyword, but are all keywords, or at least keywords that actually do stuff (like protect and targeted strike) considered card effects? I was digging through the rule book and the FAQ, and I couldn't quite nail this down to my satisfaction.
Micah
I can't think of any situation where that matters, but I'd lean towards "yes."
Just wondering if Luke can hit an undamaged Executor with Targeted Strike.
Just wondering if Luke can hit an undamaged Executor with Targeted Strike.
Ah, well in that case it's actually a little more complicated. An undamaged Executor cannot be targeted by card effects, true. However, combat icons are explicitly defined as framework game effects and not card effects and, despite its name, Targeted Strike does not target. So yes, Luke can hit an undamaged Executor via Targeted Strike.
Ah, well in that case it's actually a little more complicated. An undamaged Executor cannot be targeted by card effects, true. However, combat icons are explicitly defined as framework game effects and not card effects and, despite its name, Targeted Strike does not target. So yes, Luke can hit an undamaged Executor via Targeted Strike.
Here's the text defining Targeted Strike in the rule book:
"When a card with the “Targeted Strike” keyword strikes
during an engagement as an attacker, damage from its æ
icon type may be assigned to one target enemy unit card,
even if that unit is not participating in the engagement."
So now my question is, does the word "target" in that sentence specifically indicate that Targeted Strike is a targeted game effect?
Micah
There is an argument here.
One may say that targeted strike doesn't target your enemy, but your own unit, giving it the ability to strike with it's unit damage a target outside the engagement.
I'd come down on the side of no. Compare the wording in the rules of trait and keyword. They're both card abilities. A trait has "no inherent effect, it grants the card an attribute". Similarly, a keyword is said to grant the card an attribute, which is said to convey a specific rule to its card. Similar to how the rules say what to do with combat icons, the rules say what to do with keywords. Unless there's something from FFG otherwise, I'd rule them as rules implementations therefore, not card effects.
Hmm, I misread targeted strike when I pulled it up on my phone last night, my bad. In that case, yeah, the Executor should be immune to Targeted Strike until it becomes damaged.
It'll be interesting to see if there's a ruling for FFG.
I totally see the argument, but I think that the "targeted" part of "targeted strike" is a red herring in this situation. I just think that Luke is targeting Executor through combat resolution.
I have a ruling from FFG:
Targeted Strike is a card effect, but it is a card effect that is affecting the card that has the keyword. The resolution of the icons themselves is a game effect and the "targeting" in the description is to keep you from being able to targeted strike nothing. So yes, Luke can hit the Executor. Full text:
Targeted Strike is a card effect, but it only affects the card that has the keyword, by altering the way that the unit with targeted strike can resolve its combat icons. When resolving those combat icons, they are still treated as a game effect, and resolve as per a normal strike, now with an expanded "scope" as to what they can hit.
Glad to know the official ruling, thanks dbmeboy!