Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pepper Potts and Toad, Mortimer Toynbee

  1. #1

    Pepper Potts and Toad, Mortimer Toynbee

    What happens when two pieces of card text directly contradict each other?

    For example: you have Toad, Mortimer Toynbee, active ("While Toad is active, when your opponent ends his main step, choose one opposing character who must attack this turn.* That character takes 2 damage.). Your opponent's only active character is Pepper Potts, which in all versions says she "can't attack".

    Would Pepper have to attack? I note that the common version of Toad says opposing characters "must attack (if legal)", but the rare does not state that.

    My feeling in this example would be that Pepper's text would win out, but wondered if anybody knew whether there had been a ruling or if there was a general principle to clear this up?

  2. #2
    She cant attack. It says on the card (if legal) so its neutralized. She stays there to block only.

  3. #3

  4. #4

  5. #5
    While she can't attack, if Toad is burst, she will take damage from this one.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by crambaza View Post
    While she can't attack, if Toad is burst, she will take damage from this one.
    However, tounglashing, would deal no damage to Pepper Potts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •