Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Nannymeda and Poison

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gojaejin View Post
    I hope that my uncanny ability to dig up contentious questions of law will be taken under strong consideration during the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. :-D
    You should submit your application.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    I must confess I'm strongly disagreeing here CC, poison markers should work/stay!

    I'll try to come from different angles to justify my decision

    1: wound markers are DEFINITIVELY NOT as card effects, otherwise HK could never be harmed. Poison markers are defined as a special kind of wound marker. The reason HK can't receive poison marker is that the ability that modifies the wound marker is blocked (the attacking card's ability altering the attack is blocked).

    2: just because a poison marker is not defined to be "NOT" a card effect, does not make it a card effect and it has been correctly stated that the link (poison marker -> card that dealt the poison marker is NOT maintained). Otherwise if a hunter dies, the poison marker would turn into a normal one! However, there is NO link to a card.

    3: If poison marker is a card effect, Nanny CAN receive poison markers if not protected and the poison marker would not even count as wound marker once she is in Meda's protection range again! (they are not normal wounds and count as card effect, which Nanny ignores). That is even more confusing than accepting that they introduced a new core game rule with poison markers.

    The fact that a unit can have a poison marker on it, while there is not a single unit that can deal poison markers on the battlefield makes me believe that a poison marker has NO PLAYER OWNERSHIP! As Kburg7 has stated, the poison marker could even be your own marker and therefore would still work on Nanny (friendly card effect) but there is NO LINK to friendly or opponent poison marker.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Another argument for poison markers existing on a more fundamental level of game rule than VWs is that the former are not summoner-restricted. Anybody who can get a hold of a poisoner -- Farrah, Illusionary Warrior, Shifter, Kaeseall, Phantom...) can inflict poison, but not so with a vine generator unit, where you need to have that card existing qua card in a preset resource pile (like Conjurations).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    @Jwalker I believe you missed my second argument. I changed my opinion after that first argument and concluded that poison markers should work. In my second argument, in concluding poison markers are card effects, I address your point and reconcile poison being a card effect with your points.

    At any rate, I’m glad we all agree Nanny-Meda would be treated as if poisoned
    Last edited by commandercool; 07-02-2018 at 08:51 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    At any rate, I’m glad we all agree Nanny-Meda would be treated as if poisoned
    Well, yes, we all agree on that part, so at this point the discussion is more philosophical than practical, but still interesting, though.
    An official voice would be welcome.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •