Huh, it's actually a fair number of heroes. Finally a use for Wrathful Gaze!
Yes, that's definitely better flavor than Sucker Punch. "You think YOU'RE a dread divinity, do you? SHRAAAAK!" (I've found Wrathful Gaze useful in at least one game; it's seldom the best use of your card play on an earlier turn, but once it's out and if it doesn't get destroyed, the ability to nuke heavy-DR minions can be very handy.)
That's one reason Sucker Punch might be a better card. Can stay in hand as a one-shot ready to be deployed and not require a play to get it out for potential use. However, it's trade-off since depending on what is encountered in-hand or on-board might make one or the other place more useful as a soak-off discard. And there are also the ever annoying "can not play cards" situations.
On an entirely irrelevant tangent, every time someone mentions Tachyon's card Sucker Punch, I think of the movie by that name from a year or two ago. Which was not precisely "good", but I really really liked it. So the card always makes me smile for a number of different reasons, even though its game utility is limited.
A and B are basically the same thing. It attempts to take out any and all of its targets once, even ones that appear during its resolution. Even if Lady Luck survives, EoD will still attempt to destroy any cards brought out by it until all possible targets have had an attempt.
Let me re-phrase it then. Is it possible for the Lady Luck card to survive the playing of End of Days? And if so, why?
All the additional complications essentially chain from that.
By the official ruling on End of Days it cannot. No matter how many times it saves itself from destruction End of Days will keep trying to destroy it until it is gone.
End of days will continue to destroy until all that are left are Character cards, Relics and itself. Then it will destroy itself. It will continue attempting to destroy any non-Character, non-relic card that is not itself until it is successful.
Presumably it has the capacity to ignore Indestructible cards in the process, else it would never be able to complete if one was on the field.
Yes it would have to ignore the Safehouse and cards underneath it for example, but if fixed point were out it would destroy fixed point then everything else.
The one ruling I know of regarding End of Days is how it interacts with Forced Deployment. And that is a different case since the sub-processing on Forced Deployment is bringing out extra cards which End of Days is subsequently also allowed to destroy as part of the End of Days instructions.
In this case (Lady Luck) the check upon destruction of a villain is whether the next villain deck card is a Lucky card or not.
If it is a Lucky card the Lucky card comes into play and the targeted villain card is destroyed. The new card coming into play is obviously eligible for destruction by End of Days per the ruling regarding End of Days and Forced Deployment. It is essentially the same case.
However, if it is not a Lucky card the drawn non-Lucky card is discarded and the villain card that was targeted for destruction remains in play. This is the edge case I am curious what the proper resolution is. End of Days attempted to destroy a card - and the Lady Luck effect prevented it (by draw of a non-Lucky card.) A new target has not come into play - but a current target has survived the attempt to destroy it. Does End of Days get to attempt to destroy it again, or not?
The wording we are talking about is from that ruling, the wording is:
Consequently, when End of Days is destroyed, it immediately begins destroying all cards in play in the order of the players' choosing. This effect continues until there are no more cards in play.If there are cards in play that are not Relics, or character cards or indestructible than End of Days keeps trying to destroy them. That's the best we have right now.
I assume that should read "When End of Days is triggered" or somesuch, as destroying it immediately would not work out especially well.
End of Days destroys itself last. Meaning there are no more viable targets for it.
Fixed Point sets a better precedent, since I believe you're not able to try to destroy an indestructible card then destroy Fixed Point without then going back and destroying the card you've already tried.
I would like to bring up the fact that this exact question was raised without an official answer by dypaca during playtesting for Shattered Timelines, a total of 5 posts in an 85 post topic about Kismet in general. It generally consisted of dypaca asking the question, me stating that each card only gets a single destruction attempt, lynkfox stating the previous ruling about destroying all cards, me defending my position by stating how they are different situations, and finally lynkfox seeing that what I said makes sense, and that he doesn't disagree. It was completely forgotten after that point.
Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes you say that EoD should only give each card one destruction attempt? I think the break line in the EoD text gives a good clue. It says "Then, Destroy this card", as in "Then, after all cards in play have been destroyed (except for relics ect.), destroy this card".
If there are still cards in play other than relics and character cards, then I would argue that EoD never moves on to the "Then," part of the text (as the first part of the card effect is not complete).
The misinterpretation I mention would be that of the official ruling between End of Days and Forced Deployment. At the time the ruling was made, there was no such thing as destruction prevention (which is a different concept than indestructible), and thus everything would end up destroyed anyway, except for indestructible cards, thus there was no need to make such a distinction. Now that a few cards to introduce the concept of destruction prevention, the question is if the rather general ruling still applies as is, or if it needs to be 'reworded' to fit new concepts.
The only thing I was trying to point out is that it was brought up before and discussed (however brief it may have been) by different people and had not been answered.
Fair enough. I could see the rational behind having EoD only apply the destruction tag once per card, if thats the way it gets ruled.
But for me, I see the intent of EoD to be pretty much innescapable. If Fanatic brings about the End of Days, for better or worse there won't be anything saving cards except for those being indestructable.
The wording that "there is no way the players can order it so that any cards survive with forced deployment" is key to me.
I will say this is worth an official ruling question.
However, the only official ruling we have clearly states that End of Days does not stop destroying until there are no valid targets for it to attempt to destroy.
You can disagree with applying that wording if you want, but that is the ruling we have, and it is not stated conditionally.
I think we have to go with it until we get a different ruling.
It was given in response to a specific question but that sentence was solely about the effect of End of Days. The game has changed and the verdict may change, but as of now we need to go with what we have, rather than overturn official rulings based on what we think the ruling might be now.
And yet that very ruling still doesn't grant more than one destruction attempt per target. It actually is more preoccupied by the fact that new targets that pop up while end of days is in effect do not escape its wrath. I've always assumed that end of days only gets one attempt and actually is never affected by fixed point since both trigger at the start of the environment turn. Since logically fixed was in play before a end of days for both of em to be in play at the same time it will self destruct before end of days attempts to destroy anything. I've always played end of days as one destruction attempt per card or target but it never changed anything since only kismet could allegedly put herself in the eye of the tornado with lady luck.