Author Topic: Nebby + Horses adding nerg to battle  (Read 5705 times)

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nebby + Horses adding nerg to battle
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2014, 11:31:04 AM »
0
Well I'm just going off the OoO itself which specifies "When a single card has more than one special ability (including gained abilities), perform the abilities in this order:" and the only exception to that is weapons, not any other cards. :P

No, galadgawyn is actually correct, as the quote provided is from the REG's clarifications on Band, and therefore establishes its own additional rules to the OoO.  If you use a card that bands in multiple cards, those cards all complete all abilities except those that add any other characters to battle (same argument as is being had here on what that means), and then the adding of characters happens.  It is not an exception in the OoO, but a clarification in band for this situation, so galadgawyn is absolutely correct.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nebby + Horses adding nerg to battle
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2014, 01:52:22 PM »
0
I've never had anyone disagree when I used a banding Genesis character before a different Genesis character after playing CotW. Are we sure that clarification is correct? I guess it makes sense since it follows the same procedure as the OoO, I've just never seen it played that way.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nebby + Horses adding nerg to battle
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2014, 05:28:21 PM »
+1
Are we sure that clarification is correct?

It is a direct quote from the REG, and I don't see how it could be misinterpreted or added accidentally.  It is certainly the current rule.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nebby + Horses adding nerg to battle
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2014, 06:48:36 PM »
0
Are we sure that clarification is correct?

It is a direct quote from the REG, and I don't see how it could be misinterpreted or added accidentally.  It is certainly the current rule.
Well, it wouldn't be the first thing that was "changed" with the release of the new REG. ::)

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal