#Widowmaker with no defending cards

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

wise thunder
#

Does Widowmaker gain the buff if there are no defending cards?

pulsar breach
#

Yes. 0 is less than 2

wise thunder
#

But 0 is not defended. That is the question. Does "is defended" mean at least 1 card?

#

I understand that that effect falls in:
1.8.3d If an effect is conditional on the properties of an object changing within a time-frame, the condition is only met if the change occurs to that object from one game state to another, and the change occurs within the specified time-frame. Changes that occur as an object becomes public, satisfy the condition of the change occurring

And RAI meant to specify the condition as "0-1 card defending". But I have a player in my community with doubts, and I want to explain the case with the rules in hand.

drifting yew
#

1.8.3d isn't relevant to Widowmaker

wise thunder
#

@drifting yew then it's just:
6.2.3d If a static-continuous effect is conditional on being generated (see 1.8.3), its condition is
evaluated at all times. The effect is generated when the condition is met and ceases to exist when the
condition is not met

drifting yew
#

Widowmaker doesn't care about the properties of objects changing, it cares about the quantity of cards defending it

#

Specifically, that there's fewer than two, and zero is fewer than two

wise thunder
#

But it's a continuous effect with a condition, isn't it?

#

Yes, obviously, 0 is fewer than 2. But the condition is specified as "is defended by fewer than 2 cards". And 0 cards means it is not defended.

#

I'm with all of you, I also think 0 fewer than 2, and it gains the buff, heheh. I'm just looking for something to gather in my conversation with the player 🙂

drifting yew
#

The states "not defended at all" and "defended by fewer than two cards" are not mutually exclusive

#

Beyond that I'm not sure how to rephrase a clear grammatical and mathematical statement

wise thunder
#

It depends if "defended" meant to put at least 1 card. But I think I can get it. Also, going back to the rules defining the effect. It is a static-continuous effect with a condition (6.2.3d), right?

#

Thanks, @drifting yew, @pulsar breach and @ember umbra 😉

drifting yew
#

It's a fixation on the wrong thing

#

Widowmaker doesn't ask if it's defended, yes/no

#

It asks if it's defended by fewer than 2 cards

#

Asking if zero defending cards doesn't count as defending is a false premise

ember umbra
#

It's the same wording as Barraging Beatdown, Stony wootonhog, etc. Just check if you're player thinks they all are inactive if left unlocked

drifting yew
#

And yes, it's a static continuous effect with a condition; no duration is specified, and it's functional when Widowmaker is functional and in the arena

wise thunder
#

Great