Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Wonder Girl: Barbed Lasso

  1. #1

    Wonder Girl: Barbed Lasso

    While Wonder Girl is active, the first time each turn a Sidekick is KO'd by an opponent, deal 1 damage to your opponent.

    * Deal 2 damage instead.
    How does this character work. Obviously if my opponent has her fielded and I magic missile a side kick she goes off (up to once per turn).

    If my opponent magic missiles my side kick during her turn does it proc Cassie? I can see it being interpreted both ways (and have seen it go both ways) but wanted to know if anyone has a ruling or good explanation for it.

  2. #2
    No, effects are worded relative to their controller. This means that as your opponent controls Wonder Girl, her ability would proc the first time each turn that an enemy of your opponent knocked out a sidekick. Accordingly, if your opponent knocks out one of your sidekicks, even though that sidekick was knocked out by its controller's opponent, Wonder Girl would not trigger and no damage would be dealt. This wording only matters when you are playing a three player match where you attack to one side or the other. It would be triggered by either of your opponent's KO'ing any sidekicks and then deal damage to whichever one in specific was your opponent.

  3. #3
    Thanks is there an official Wizkids ruling on this. I just want to make sure I can sway minds to the right, otherwise she's be on every magic missile bolts team ever.

  4. #4
    There is no official WizKids ruling on this. It's simply a meta rule that card text is relative to the controller. If that isn't the case, then any effect that mentions "an opponent" could be reversed since you are technically the opponent of your opponent and so would qualify for the "an opponent" text.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
    There is no official WizKids ruling on this. It's simply a meta rule that card text is relative to the controller. If that isn't the case, then any effect that mentions "an opponent" could be reversed since you are technically the opponent of your opponent and so would qualify for the "an opponent" text.
    Is there a good example of a character that would be weird worded this way? I'm struggling to find one.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by KennedyHawk View Post
    Is there a good example of a character that would be weird worded this way? I'm struggling to find one.
    You would be able to use Venom's global to spin your own characters down.
    You could use Mystique to copy your own cards and effectively get a discount on effects and stats.
    Doomcaliber Knight would be a horrible double edged sword.
    Wonder Girl's common would be able to redirect your opponent's buffs to their own characters to your characters instead.
    etc.

    Just search "an opponent" in http://dm.retrobox.eu/ for more examples.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
    You would be able to use Venom's global to spin your own characters down.
    You could use Mystique to copy your own cards and effectively get a discount on effects and stats.
    Doomcaliber Knight would be a horrible double edged sword.
    Wonder Girl's common would be able to redirect your opponent's buffs to their own characters to your characters instead.
    etc.

    Just search "an opponent" in http://dm.retrobox.eu/ for more examples.
    Venom text says "an opponent"

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by VastSpartan View Post
    Venom text says "an opponent"
    Context, mate. The argument here is that card text is relative to the controller. If text is not relative to the controller, then you could use the Venom global on your own characters which we know is wrong, proving that text is in fact relative to the controller.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
    Context, mate. The argument here is that card text is relative to the controller. If text is not relative to the controller, then you could use the Venom global on your own characters which we know is wrong, proving that text is in fact relative to the controller.
    The *Global* is relative to the person reading it. Character text would be relative to the owner of the character.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by pk2317 View Post
    The *Global* is relative to the person reading it. Character text would be relative to the owner of the character.
    Correct to an extent, every effect is relative to the controller. The controller of the global, the controller of the character, the controller of the effect.

    Control of a character can be changed and globals can be controlled by either player, so all effects are relative to their current controller, not the target or the owner.

  11. #11
    Ok I'm pretty sure we are saying the same thing then

  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
  •