Merris Lacroix Gremlin Cunning

[DeleteAccount]

It states that she draws 2 cards and places 3 on top of her deck. Question, can she do it if she has no cards in her hand? meaning, she would pick 2, but would not be able to put 3 on the deck.

 

One of my players is asking if the put 3 back is part of the requirement of the spell and though my gut tells me there should be no problem with only having 2 cards to place back, I don't really have a way to give him an "absolute truth" and frankly, nothing tells me he isn't right either.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

[rgarbonzo]

nothing definite either way...

[Omenbringer]

Rather interested to hear how this one goes...wonder if Tara's Temporal Shift ruling will have any precedent.

[The Godlyness]

I suggest letting your player use all the Gremlin cunning he wants. But if he has 3 or more cards he better be placing 3 back lol. If for some reason they think they can draw two cards and not put them back since they don't have three. Question their thought process. Then delicately rearrange those thoughts with words. Preferably in a hard back book.

[DeleteAccount]

I suggest letting your player use all the Gremlin cunning he wants. But if he has 3 or more cards he better be placing 3 back lol. If for some reason they think they can draw two cards and not put them back since they don't have three. Question their thought process. Then delicately rearrange those thoughts with words. Preferably in a hard back book.

I think the doubt was more if he can even do the action, not that he keeps the cards, or at least I hope it is...

[The Godlyness]

So the real question would be. Does the player need 1 or more cards to take this action. As rgarbonzo said it's Not definitive either way.

On one hand can if you have no cards and can only put back 2 cards since you only drew 2 can you take the action.

And the other is I put back as many cards as I had which is 2.

Most people I think would lean towards option one that they need at least one card. But no wording says you can't take the action if you don't have any cards in hand. So play it as you want.

[Omenbringer]

I would say that Tara's Temporal Shift sort of set the precedence for that particular question.

[zFiend]

I would say that Tara's Temporal Shift sort of set the precedence for that particular question.

I would be inclined to think that way as well.

[The Godlyness]

But that is a trap thinking. We have been told many times not to use a faq for a different question. Not arguing either way just pointing out simple fact.

[Seregon]

I would likely rule that you are allowed to use the action even if you don't have any cards in your hand if the situation came up in a tournament of mine.

[zFiend]

But that is a trap thinking. We have been told many times not to use a faq for a different question. Not arguing either way just pointing out simple fact.

Correct you are.

[Myyrä]

I believe nothing in the rules forbids you from taking actions that you can't complete to their fullest extent. All the actions that have some sort of cost involved with the are usually worded like "do something to gain something" or "if you do something you can do some other stuff". You can declare a flurry action and not discard a card. You just won't recieve those three attacks either. The only real exception would be targeting. You need target for actions that require one.

[Omenbringer]

But that is a trap thinking. We have been told many times not to use a faq for a different question. Not arguing either way just pointing out simple fact.

Not sure I agree with that thinking. Precedent is important to intuitive play and continuity, especially while under deliberation.

 

Without it we are left with having to consult a lengthening Faq for every variation of the question to verify that this particular ability works one way while another similar one might work differently.

[The Godlyness]

Well if you can't complete a charge action you can not take it. Should we base this on that. We can't complete the action since you can't put back cards? Even though one has to do with premeasuring and the other has nothing to with with measuring?

Does temporal shift have anything to do with putting back cards? Or are you trying to say putting back the cards is an effect not the cost. Which then if I don't have 3 cards why can't I keep the 2 I drew? It doesn't say to put back 3 cards or your whole hand. And since I can't put back 3 I keep 2? Can I even take the action? If I can't put back 3. (Which only means you need one or more cards to do the action, not terribly game breaking)

Or do I draw 2 and put back 2 even though the ability nor any rule says to put back 2 cards.

So to be honest you have convinced me to say the action can't be taken unless you can put back 3 cards.

But I would not even care to mention it if my opponent used the action to look at the top two cards of his deck and rearranged them.

[Rhonlore]

The rules forbid a charge action from taking place if you cannot complete it. This ability is just like Tara discarding her hand. Fulfill the abilities effects as much as possible.

[The Godlyness]

I wish to know where I can find the rule saying, "do as much of an ability as you can." For to my knowledge if you can't fulfill the action how are you taking it. When making an attack you check range and los. If the target is out of range or los. Do you tell your opponent "ha you wasted your ap." Or let them do a different course of action since they are not allowed to complete the action. I am betting the latter. My point is temporal shifts faq entry has no bearing on this. Completely unrelated action. With completely different wording and effects.

[Omenbringer]

The Godlyness, your opinion is no more valid than any other. Until an "official" ruling either interpretation could be correct.

 

Tara's Temporal Shift action set the precedent that things like this are not a "cost" but an "effect" of the action. Tara's controller is able to discard 0 cards from the control hand if that is what they have and still provide Fast to all models in the 6.

 

Merris' Gremlin Cunning is a similar interaction where the card draw and replace is an "effect" of the action not a "cost". If you dont have 3 cards to place back on top of the deck then you place the 2 you drew and call it a day. You may not get any cards out of it however you do get a look at the next 2 cards that will be drawn.

[Bengt]

I don't really see how Temporal Shift is a precedence for this (or even need a FAQ) since its card discard feature has two versions (i.e. three cards or everything) and therefore can't possibly fail. Temporal Shift and Gremlin Cunning also have a different sentence structure making them harder to compare (not that we really should compare wording across talents in the first place ).

[Hateful Darkblack]

Yeah, it doesn't say either way.

[The Godlyness]

The Godlyness, your opinion is no more valid than any other. Until an "official" ruling either interpretation could be correct.

I completely understand. But I would just like an interpretation that does not involve a completely unrelated action. With one of the rules forum rules clearly stating: Beware the 'each situation' trap Remember each FAQ entry is about an "individual situation, and may not necessarily apply to other situations

I have stated before in the thread play it as you want since its not definitive in either way. In my humble humble opinion. I would play it as you need one card in hand to use the action. And in doing so you complete the action.