PDA

View Full Version : Reginald Lancanshire VS Immortality



Lefto
09-09-2014, 12:41 PM
Long story short, Reginald DESTROYS YOU even if you (successfully) cast Immortality while his ability is in the chain.
If it's working as intended, please find a good explanation for me! :)

Yoss
09-09-2014, 12:44 PM
I'd say Immortality should save you. Seems like this is exactly the kind of situation that card is meant for.

Xexist
09-09-2014, 01:31 PM
I'd say Immortality should save you. Seems like this is exactly the kind of situation that card is meant for.

Agree

ossuary
09-09-2014, 01:38 PM
We definitely could use some CZE clarification on this one; we've always wondered, but never managed to produce the effect before. Immortality, as worded, should prevent you from losing the game in ALL scenarios, whether you're taking damage or not. It's a replacement effect. If it is not intended to stop you from dying due to mill (card draw) or alternate effects like Reggie, then it should specifically say "if your life total would be come 0 or less this turn..." instead of "if you would lose the game this turn..."

Rules as written, this is a bug.

mach
09-09-2014, 01:39 PM
We definitely could use some CZE clarification on this one; we've always wondered, but never managed to produce the effect before. Immortality, as worded, should prevent you from losing the game in ALL scenarios, whether you're taking damage or not. It's a replacement effect. If it is not intended to stop you from dying due to mill (card draw) or alternate effects like Reggie, then it should specifically say "if your life total would be come 0 or less this turn..." instead of "if you would lose the game this turn..."

Rules as written, this is a bug.

But he shouldn't stop your champion from being destroyed. So you should play on, but without a champion.

That would be fun.

N3rd4Christ
09-09-2014, 02:24 PM
Reginald is just that elite

Lefto
09-09-2014, 02:36 PM
As a note to Ossuary's comment, I have tested immortality against mill in the past and it does in fact save you from mill-loss. That's why I was uber-confused when it failed to save me against Reginald.

Yoss
09-09-2014, 02:49 PM
But he shouldn't stop your champion from being destroyed. So you should play on, but without a champion.

That would be fun.

That would be funny. Not sure if it would be fun. ;)

MythicFishmom
09-10-2014, 07:36 AM
This is working as intended. Immortality only prevents you from losing the game through damage. Reginald's ability is similar to attempting to draw a card with none in you deck, you just lose. Immortality does not prevent you from losing in that scenario. Though the wording should be better on Immortality.

meetthefuture
09-10-2014, 07:45 AM
This is working as intended. Immortality only prevents you from losing the game through damage. Reginald's ability is similar to attempting to draw a card with none in you deck, you just lose. Immortality does not prevent you from losing in that scenario. Though the wording should be better on Immortality.
Not really

Immortality prevents you fromlosing the game in any possible way.

I.E. if you cast if before draw step when you have 0 cards in hand - you will stay alive and your health will become 10.

And it is how it's worded - which means it is how it should work

MythicFishmom
09-10-2014, 08:22 AM
Not really

Immortality prevents you fromlosing the game in any possible way.

I.E. if you cast if before draw step when you have 0 cards in hand - you will stay alive and your health will become 10.

And it is how it's worded - which means it is how it should work

I am almost 100% certain it is just a bad wording problem. But I guess they'll have to tell us one day if it is supposed to work that way

ossuary
09-10-2014, 09:29 AM
Either it's worded wrong, or it's bugged. There is no scenario in which it is correct.