Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Larfleeze: Avarice.

  1. #1

    Larfleeze: Avarice.

    When Larfleeze would attack, you may change a Sidekick's A and D to match Larfleeze's. If you do Larfleeze can't attack this turn.
    So, considered posting this in General, rather than here in Rules, because I'm not so much interested in how this works, as what it might imply.

    Is this evidence that "would" is becoming keyworded?

    And if so, what does it mean?

  2. #2
    I think it's similar to the errata-ed Spider-Man. When you attack, you can either use the ability or swing for the fences (but not both).

  3. #3
    I think "would" implies you have to declare the play the way it was originally intended prior to the ability triggering. So for Larfleeze, you have to declare him as an attacker (along with everyone else you plan on attacking with) before his ability is triggered. Then you would go ahead and decide if you want to change a sidekick's stats to Larfleeze's A and D, and then move Larfleeze back to the field. I feel your opponent wouldn't be able to respond to the "would" unless it's a very specific response like damage prevention/redirect.

  4. #4
    Agreed. I think this is the way Larfleeze is supposed to work (I just like saying Larfleeze...if I owned a pet Kangaroo, I would name him Larfleeze)

    Quote Originally Posted by irwaffles View Post
    I think "would" implies you have to declare the play the way it was originally intended prior to the ability triggering. So for Larfleeze, you have to declare him as an attacker (along with everyone else you plan on attacking with) before his ability is triggered. Then you would go ahead and decide if you want to change a sidekick's stats to Larfleeze's A and D, and then move Larfleeze back to the field. I feel your opponent wouldn't be able to respond to the "would" unless it's a very specific response like damage prevention/redirect.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by irwaffles View Post
    I think "would" implies you have to declare the play the way it was originally intended prior to the ability triggering. So for Larfleeze, you have to declare him as an attacker (along with everyone else you plan on attacking with) before his ability is triggered. Then you would go ahead and decide if you want to change a sidekick's stats to Larfleeze's A and D, and then move Larfleeze back to the field. I feel your opponent wouldn't be able to respond to the "would" unless it's a very specific response like damage prevention/redirect.
    If he's in the attack zone, then he's already been declared an attacker - the card make no mention of moving him. This ability replaces his attack - instead of moving him into the attack zone, you're moving his stats onto a SK. Very useful for unblockable SK teams.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by IgwanaRob View Post
    If he's in the attack zone, then he's already been declared an attacker - the card make no mention of moving him. This ability replaces his attack - instead of moving him into the attack zone, you're moving his stats onto a SK. Very useful for unblockable SK teams.
    Yes, Larfleeze never actually is assigned to attack, that is an important distinction just in case there is some other character in the field that has a "when you assign a character to attack...do X". Larfleeze himself wouldn't trigger this.

    Perhaps a better way of wording that card would be "When Larfleeze has an opportunity to attack, you may instead choose to change a Sidekick's A and D to match Larfleeze's. If you do, Larfleeze can't attack this turn."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by IgwanaRob View Post
    If he's in the attack zone, then he's already been declared an attacker - the card make no mention of moving him. This ability replaces his attack - instead of moving him into the attack zone, you're moving his stats onto a SK. Very useful for unblockable SK teams.
    Makes sense. So in this case, I feel the "would" implies - "when you could" then, right?

    So Larfleeze can be interpreted as - "When Larfleeze could attack, you can trigger his ability. If you do, he cannot attack this turn". So when you first enter your attack step, you have to communicate to your opponent whether or not you are intending on using his ability, because if you do trigger it, then Larfleeze cannot declare himself as an attacker and your opponent can adjust based on that information.

    EDIT: looks like Meatman beat me to the punch, but it seems we are in agreement!

  8. #8
    I interpret this effect as working just the same as Saggi the Dark Clown - Dark Slayer.

    Triggering the ability demands that you enter the attack step and that Larfleeze is unable to participate.

    The one question is whether or not this would allow you to trigger the attack step without declaring an attack the way Saggi can. It's unlikely to come up, but it may be useful to have some extra time to mess with your opponent's globals and decision making.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Yeah...so I guess to answer the original question from @Scorpion0x17 , yes it does seem "would" is somewhat of a keyword of sorts.

    Would = "Has an oppourtunity to"

  11. #11

  12. #12

Posting Permissions

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