46
Rules Discussion / Re: upkeep timing paradox - My brain hurts please help me
« on: May 31, 2017, 01:28:53 PM »Death Link:Good list!
Always causes timing conflict.
Lullaby:
When the last dissipate token on Lullaby is removed there is a timing conflict. The owner of Lullaby must have initiative in order for the creature to be affected a final time.
Whirlpool:
See Lullaby. The owner of Whirlpool must have initiative when the last token is removed for the enemy to take damage a final time. If the owner of Whirlpool has creatures himself that are effected he can 'save them' by resolving dissipate before damage on his creatures AFTER the opponent has received damage from Whirlpool (final dissipate token only).
Creatures with a death effect (goblin bomber, rot zombie, Unstable Imp) + something that kills them in the upkeep (burn, rot, bleed, idol of pestilence, Pillar of Light):
Just imagine a 1 health Goblin bomber in a zone with a 1 health Idol of Pestilence that can die to the explosion.
Pillar of Righteous flame:
Owner (if he he/she has initiative) can choose to resolve the 'remove dissipate token' before the opponent gets to regenerate his low HP unicorn and get the attack in.
Or if the unicorn is full HP he can choose to delay the 'remove dissipate token' and ask the owner of unicorn to do his upkeeps first so regen will have no effect as its full HP at the time.
So besides death link, the timing issues appear whenever a dissipate-triggered effect would take place at an enemy controlled creature, when the owner of the dissipate card has initiative, right?
Now we have a fiddly solution how to handle those, but I would love to see upkeep phase divided into more steps that are just clean and easy to use.