The definition of indestructible in the Rook City manual is that the card cannot be destroyed or removed from play.
How about:
- Does 'can not deal damage' mean that an attack can not be initiated or that no matter what attack is attempted, no damage can result?
- Can an indestructible card be chosen for destruction?
- If a choice is given between either dealing damage or destroying a card and one of those is impossible ('damage can not be dealt' or the card is indestructible) does that mean that there really isn't a choice?
- What if neither is possible?
I also want to provide scenarios for #3 as well as for #4 (if such a scenario can be constructed), but am out of time at the moment.
Sounds good. The first scenario for 3 is simple: Tachyon has Pushing the Limit in play and Akash'Bhuta's Ensnaring Brambles says that she cannot deal damage until the start of the next villain turn. Can she keep Pushing the Limit in play at the start of her turn?
The reverse scenario for 3 and for 4 are just hypothetical at this point. We would need some card which renders hero cards like Pushing the Limit indestructible and currently there isn't one.
[Redacted] does that in Shattered Timelines.
Maybe clarify 1) to any actions that directly result in dealing damage. Nightmist's ability and spells jumps out in mind.
I just talked to Christopher today, and you can NOT keep Pushing the Limits if you can't deal damage.
After rereading everything, I am no longer planning to ask Christopher for a ruling. Please let me know if you disagree with that decision.
For reference, here were the four questions I was going to ask:
- Does 'can not deal damage' mean that an attack can not be initiated or that no matter what attack is attempted, no damage can result?
- Can an indestructible card be chosen for destruction?
- If a choice is given between either dealing damage or destroying a card and one of those is impossible ('damage can not be dealt' or the card is indestructible) does that mean that there really isn't a choice?
- What if neither is possible?
From what McBehrer wrote, above, I infer that the inability of a hero to deal damage means that the hero can not initiate an attack, not just that any attack initiated by the hero would have to result in no damage. That answers my question #1.
I am swayed by what TheJayMan has argued about indestructible cards. They are like immunity – they keep an effect from occuring, not an action. Attempt to destroy all you want, there will be no effect. I admit that I do not have a rule or ruling from >G for this, but it seems clear enough to me that I'd rather not bother them unnecessarily. That answers my question #2.
Because of the answers to questions #1 and #2, I think questions #3 and #4 are no longer relevant.
By the way, I had to look at cards in seven different decks to follow this conversation.
He also mentioned the indestructible card thing -- I just didn't say anything since it wasn't relevant -- but everything you just said is correct, to the best of my knowledge.
To clarify, you mean if a hero Cannot Deal Damage, he cannot initiate any actions (play cards or activate abilities) that deals damage?
That is contary to how most people play though, from what I gather from this thread... Just making sure. :-)
you can play cards that do damage, but if a card gives you a choice between doing damage and something else, if you can't do damage you have to pick the other option.
You can still play cards that do damage, but the damage part is ignored.