help

[allanime01]

Originally Posted by spiritomb

What about if u chain an effect that says "this ninja can not b affected by ur opponents effects, Shino's dad?

I would assume same thing. The Ninja/Jutsu would attempt to resolve and now see your ninja is "Unaffected" and fizzles on it.
However, I believe this also means the DAMAYC rule also kicks in (EG A card says "Give a damage to target ninja and draw a card" - You wouldnt get the damage but still draw.)

....my assumptions anyways. *Patiently waits for SD to give confirmation and/or correction*

[WizKid]

Originally Posted by allanime01

I would assume same thing. The Ninja/Jutsu would attempt to resolve and now see your ninja is "Unaffected" and fizzles on it.
However, I believe this also means the DAMAYC rule also kicks in (EG A card says "Give a damage to target ninja and draw a card" - You wouldnt get the damage but still draw.)

....my assumptions anyways. *Patiently waits for SD to give confirmation and/or correction*

Haha its only if the jutsu is still legal. If the jutsu no longer HSS a legal target, it can't do as much as you can. Now, if the target is in the effect, meaning the jutsu doesn't target, then you would be right.

Shino is right though. Can't be targeted and can't be affected being two different things makes the game a bit confusing.

Example of a card that didn't target, if I remember correctly was the rasengan from broken promise.

[avatar7]

I don't understand what you find so complicated about this. It's simple logic. You define targets before something goes on the chain and define affected cards when it resolves. If a card or effect targets, and what is targeted becomes "cannot be targeted" before resolution, the effect fails. If it becomes "unaffected/cannot be affected", it fails as well.

Example of a jutsu that doesn't target - Rinnegan from set 19.

[WizKid]

Originally Posted by avatar7

I don't understand what you find so complicated about this. It's simple logic. You define targets before something goes on the chain and define affected cards when it resolves. If a card or effect targets, and what is targeted becomes "cannot be targeted" before resolution, the effect fails. If it becomes "unaffected/cannot be affected", it fails as well.

Example of a jutsu that doesn't target - Rinnegan from set 19.

Your not understanding what the ruling changes. Its more along the lines of the two words meaning the same thing now.

I think that is what Nick was pointing out. People get how the chain works, but the wordings are now...odd.

[soundwave187]

they gotta be careful w/ this b/c this could lead to the whole "why doesn't 'can't play jutsus' not stop a jutsu already on the chain?". i can easily see this snowballing

[spiritomb]

Originally Posted by soundwave187

they gotta be careful w/ this b/c this could lead to the whole "why doesn't 'can't play jutsus' not stop a jutsu already on the chain?". i can easily see this snowballing

I'm still not 100% on that either.

[Shino'sDad]

Originally Posted by allanime01

I would assume same thing. The Ninja/Jutsu would attempt to resolve and now see your ninja is "Unaffected" and fizzles on it.
However, I believe this also means the DAMAYC rule also kicks in (EG A card says "Give a damage to target ninja and draw a card" - You wouldnt get the damage but still draw.)

....my assumptions anyways. *Patiently waits for SD to give confirmation and/or correction*

Depends on how the jutsu is worded and also whether you made the Ninja Unaffected or Untargetable. If the Ninja becomes untargetable, then the Jutsu just fails and goes to chakra, so you get none of the effect text at all. If the Ninja is unaffected, then the effect text simply doesn't do anything to him, but if the card did something else like also give the user +3/+3 or something, then you'd still get the part that effects the user.
On the jutsu side of things, it depends on how the jutsu itself is worded. If it is Do X. Then Do Y, the part targeting an unaffected Ninja will fail while still giving you the other part. If the wording is Do X. In that case, Do Y, then since you did not fulfill doing X, you don't get to proceed to doing Y. It isn't a cost:effect situation, it's more a progressive unlock with Justu that are worded like that. If I told you "Give me an orange, and in that case, I'll give you 5 dollars", you're Only getting the money if you give me an orange.

Originally Posted by soundwave187

they gotta be careful w/ this b/c this could lead to the whole "why doesn't 'can't play jutsus' not stop a jutsu already on the chain?". i can easily see this snowballing

A jutsu is considered to be played when you have finished all the required things to put that card onto the chain:

1. Announce and reveal (if hidden) the source of the effect or the Jutsu card.
2. If it's a Jutsu, declare a user that meets all the requirements.
3. If it is modal (ex. "Do one of the following..."), declare the mode(s).
4. If any alternative costs exist, declare if you will be using them.
5. If an optional X exists in the cost that is not determined by the target, declare it now.
6. Select any and all targets.
7. If an X exists that is determined by the target, it is set now.
8. If any distribution exists (ex. "distribute 3 coins among the targets"), declare the distribution now.
9. Calculate final cost by taking into account all increases, then all decreases, finally apply any replacement costs, and the cost is now set.
10. Pay the cost.
11. The effect/jutsu is now on the chain.

So, if an effect would resolve on a Ninja that states that Ninja "Cannot play jutsu" then it is already too late, as the aforementioned actions of placing the jutsu onto the chain doesn't use the chain itself, it's a list of required moves within the game mechanics.

[soundwave187]

Originally Posted by Shino'sDad

So, if an effect would resolve on a Ninja that states that Ninja "Cannot play jutsu" then it is already too late, as the aforementioned actions of placing the jutsu onto the chain doesn't use the chain itself, it's a list of required moves within the game mechanics.

i know this, but look at spiritombs response to what i said. THAT is what i was warning ppl about.

[spiritomb]

Since I'm on a roll, how about this (specifically the last 2 question) click here

[spiritomb]

Since I'm on a roll, how about this (specifically the last 2 question) click here