Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker

[Kelanen]

Hi Kelanen. You can't use AF to re-roll fire damage. That happens in upkeep and AF only works with attacks.

Agreed, but I didn't say this, or anything close to it.

I agree the cards are not 100% clear. With AT one could say the wording is: "Whenever a burn condition on this creature rolls a zero...". It says "rolls" not "has rolled".

But then again AF says "Once per round if this creature makes a melee or...".

Using the same argumentation one could say the attack has already started.

AF should perhaps say: "Once per round while this creature is in the process of making a melee or...".

Again, none of this has a relevance to my point, I think we're talking completely across purposes...

[Donovan]

Ah see what you mean. When you said "you can roll 0 damage" I thought you meant 0 damage on the burn.

Misunderstanding.

Also, I thought you said "sloppy wording", because the card texts of Akiro's Favor and Adramelech's Touch were sloppy.

Misunderstanding.

My point was, you can't reveal AT to correct a 0 on burn, because the card text says "rolls" not "has rolled". "Rolls" indicates a future roll. Although I think "the next time this creature rolls" would have been clearer.

But if you use that argument, AF should not say "makes a Melee or Ranged attack", because "makes" would indicate a future attack. Better would be "has just rolled damage for a Melee or Ranged attack".

Sometimes I think the wording could be changed a little to make the rules clear in the text.

On the other hand we just witnessed how difficult it is to write a text so there is just 1 interpretation. 

[DaveW]

My point was, you can't reveal AT to correct a 0 on burn, because the card text says "rolls" not "has rolled". "Rolls" indicates a future roll. Although I think "the next time this creature rolls" would have been clearer.

But if you use that argument, AF should not say "makes a Melee or Ranged attack", because "makes" would indicate a future attack. Better would be "has just rolled damage for a Melee or Ranged attack".

The difference between these cases is that the attack is continuing... from declaration to applying damage and effects... so in the case of AF, you are still in the process of making that same Melee or Ranged attack.

With AT, the only action is the roll for the burn. Once the roll has been made, there is no continuation of the same action, so no time to reveal after the roll that could let you use AT for that same roll.

[exid]

one point i'm not sure on: between the first roll and AF's roll, is it possible to reveal a bear's strength (or other modifier on the roll)?

[Halewijn]

one point i'm not sure on: between the first roll and AF's roll, is it possible to reveal a bear's strength (or other modifier on the roll)?

No, you have to make the exact same roll. Once the roll dice step has happened you cannot change your dice pool anymore by revealing enchantments. (Same for divine protection or agony or something like that)

[Donovan]

The difference between these cases is that the attack is continuing... from declaration to applying damage and effects... so in the case of AF, you are still in the process of making that same Melee or Ranged attack.

With AT, the only action is the roll for the burn. Once the roll has been made, there is no continuation of the same action, so no time to reveal after the roll that could let you use AT for that same roll.

Ahh! That makes sense. Thanks!

[Laddinfance]

one point i'm not sure on: between the first roll and AF's roll, is it possible to reveal a bear's strength (or other modifier on the roll)?

No, you have to make the exact same roll. Once the roll dice step has happened you cannot change your dice pool anymore by revealing enchantments. (Same for divine protection or agony or something like that)

This is correct. You cannot reveal a Bear Strength after the Roll Dice Step and have the extra 2 dice.

[Kelanen]

Ah see what you mean. When you said "you can roll 0 damage" I thought you meant 0 damage on the burn.

I did mean that.

My point was, you can't reveal AT to correct a 0 on burn, because the card text says "rolls" not "has rolled". "Rolls" indicates a future roll. Although I think "the next time this creature rolls" would have been clearer.

No, the tense isn't what prohibits this, it's the fact that the AF scenario occurs in an attack sequence with steps in between generating and applying damage, whereas the AT scenario occurs within the upkeep step, where all damage is both generated and applied within that step - there is no opportunity for non-triggered enchantment reveals mid-step.

[Donovan]

I realized that restriction during upkeep only a few days ago when reading the post on Enchantment Transfusion.