The difference is that in the Red Star case, Tim Drake is choosing someone. Tim Drake attempts to stun Red Star as per his effect. That Red Star cannot be stunned is not related to Tim Drake's effect. What matters is that Tim Drake made the attempt to stun *another* team attacker.

If there is no other team attacker, there is no one to 'shift' the stun to. There isn't another team attacker, so Tim Drake's effect will not apply in this case. The replacement just doesn't happen.

So Tim Drake replaces one event with another right? "Stun another team attacker you control" replaces "A team attacker you control would be stunned". If there are no other attackers the new event fizzles but it still tried to resolve.
On the other thread people were pretty adamant that Tim Drake doesn't target so choosing shouldn't be an issue.
If certain conditions outside the original event are required for tim drake to replace that event what are the criteria? In other words why is targeting another team attacker a requirement to replacing the original event but not actually stunning an attacker?

Tim Drake <> Robin, Young Detective
Character, Teen Titans, 2
2/3
If a team attacker you control would become stunned, you may stun another team attacker you control instead.
Boost 2: When Tim Drake comes into play, Teen Titans characters you control cannot be stunned while attacking this turn.

As others have mentioned on this thread, you will see that Tim Drake/2 is actually a replacement modifier.

So, for example, if my Tim Drake & my powered up Red Star are team attacking, and at attack conclusion, you choose to compare ATK/DEF values with Tim Drake, and Tim Drake was going to stun; I can choose to replace the 'stun Tim Drake' modifier with 'stun <insert another Team Attackers Name here>' instead.

Just because there is another continous modifier that says "Red Star cannot be stunned while attacking this turn" doesn't mean I'm not allowed to replace the original stun with a modifier that says 'Stun Red Star'.

At no point does Tim Drake's power restrict me to only choosing 'a character that can actually be stunned...'. The only restriction I have is the character I choose *must* be another team attacker that I control.

So, I choose Red Star, which is a legal choice because Red Star is a team attacker that I control. The replacement modifier ('Stun Red Star') then resolves doing nothing, because my powered-up Red Star cannot be stunned while attacking this turn.

As stated, you aren't targeting. Also, a replacement doesn't go on the chain, so you do need to actually replace the event at the time the replacement occurs. In the case of the single team attacker (the others got removed from the attack in some fashion), you MUST choose *another* team attacker if you are going to use Tim Drake's effect. If you don't/can't, then you aren't replacing the event.

I spent last night looking at the comprehensive rule book and I’ve come to the conclusion that Tim Drake doesn’t work the way he has been ruled to work.

Consider this text from Tim Drake:
If a team attacker you control would be stunned, you may stun another team attacker you control instead.

Now consider this text from Hulk: Gamma Rage
If Hulk would become stunned, instead, you may pay 7 endurance.

Looking at these two pieces of texts, it is clear they share the same archetype and syntax. I can be assumed that they behave in the same way. Clearly “pay 7 endurance” is a cost on resolution. Since “stun another team attacker” occupies the same space in the archetype as “pay 7 endurance”, “stun another team attacker” should be a cost as well. If Tim Drakes controller is unable to stun another team attacker then the cost is not paid so the replacement modifier doesn’t happen. Most people arguing for the Tim Drake-Red Star combo seem to intuitively know that this is a cost on resolution since they recognize the need for another team attacker to be present.

The flaw in the “Stun <somebody>” is replaced with “Stun Red Star” argument is that Replacement modifiers replace and event with another event, not an effect with an effect. The Stun event is “an event that gives a character the stunned characteristic. This event consists of tuning a character face down and giving it the exhausted characteristic. As this occurs, the character’s controller also loses endurance equal to the character’s recruit cost”. Since Red Star can not gain the stunned characteristic the event doesn’t occur. Since the event doesn’t occur it does not replace the initial event. Most people seem to be assuming that Tim Drake generates an effect that tries to resolve against Red Star.

I feel this analysis is accurate since no other text that with the archtype “If <character> would be stunned, instead you may <something>” works the way that Tim Drake’s has been ruled to work. In fact they all work the way that Hulk:Gamma Rage does. Therefore we should try to get the ruling changed.

portermj, you are being frustrated by a rule that frustrates me, as the only justification for it is PRECEDENT, not AN ACTUAL RULE.

If an effect says "exhaust a character you control" and you control an exhausted character and a ready character, you can choose your exhausted character to recieve the modifier even though it will not do anything, and you are considered to have completed the action.

In the same way, if an effect tells you to "stun another team attacker you control" and you choose a character that will not actually be stunned, you are considered to have completed the action.

There is actually nothing in the rulebook that leads to this conclusion in a logically sound way. There are ways to interpret rules that you can make a strong argument to support these rulings, but there is no logical argument of
A-->B, B-->C, C-->D that makes it inarguable.

It is solely based on the precedent set by the original official ruling on Tim Drake.

If anyone can present me a logically sound argument (that is, inarguable by logical processes) using only the comprehensive rules document (our axioms) that says that these cards work this way, then be my guest. I can present a logically sound argument for any other case, except for this ruling which I have ALWAYS thought was ridiculously unclear.

Cool, I'm not the only one.

Just to be clear though. "stun another team attacker you control" isn't an effect. It is part of an effect that is "If a team attacker you control would be stunned, you may stun another team attacker you control instead." That effect is a "trigger effect" from a "Conditional trigger power". The effect creates a replacement modifier. A replacement modifier replaces and event with an event. For this whole effect to resolve a stun event has to replace a stun event.

Yeah, thats why the ruling is:
"if an effect tells you to "stun another team attacker you control" and you choose a character that will not actually be stunned, you are considered to have completed the action."

So you did indeed replace the original stun with the completed action of stunning Red Start, which didnt actually result in a stun.

I just feel that it should not qualify as completing the action of stunning a character, just as exhausting an already exhausted character should not qualify as completing the action of exhausting a character.

Effects only exist on the chain. continious powers don't use the chain and don't generate effects. This is a continious power that generates a replacement modifier and has nothing to do with effects.

Uh, no. You are not considered to have completed the action, you only attempted the action. The rules say you try to resolve an effect as much as possible. There is nothing in the rules that say an effect has to resolve the way you intended.

Lets try a different take on this. Effects are very self centered and ignore all other effects they only look at the here and now (which makes time stamping and dependancy so important to understand).

So let's look at replacement effects:
Keep in mind the opponent can select ANY team attacker to try to stun. If the opponent didn't read Red Star's effect they could select Red Star and it would still not Stun because Red Star can not be stunned (103.1 If card text contradicts rules outlined in the comprehensive rules, the card text supersedes the comprehensive rules. Card text only overrides rules when it directly states so.). So the Stunning a team attacker is not a guaranteed event. The actual event being replaced is the attempt to stun a team attacker.

So with Tim Drake it is replacing the attempt to stun one team attacker with the attempt to stun another. When the game tries to stun the selected team attacker, Tim drake says "No you want to stun this guy over here" The game goes. "Ok I will" and procedes to follow rule 602.5c (If the defender's ATK is greater than or equal to the attacker's DEF (or the chosen attacker's DEF for team attacks), the defending character stuns that attacking character.). However that rule is immediately contradicted by Red Star's effect (See 103.1 quoted above) and nothing happens.


Also Just to clarify something else, replacement effects do not have costs because they don't use the chain. The only reason they used PAY for hulk is to distinquish it from takign damage. You can take damage below 0. You can not pay below zero. It is still not a cost because it is a replacement effect.

Spot's Knight

Actually, Hulk's 7 endurance is technically a cost, but it's because of a not-oft used bit of the Comp. Rules:On the note of combat stunning, it's important that the defending player's decision is only of which team attacker's DEF to compare his defender's ATK against. He is not choosing a character to stun, or to try to stun; his is purely a matter of ATK and DEF. Tim Drake, on the other hand, is purely a matter of stunning, and has nothing to do with ATK and DEF comparisons.

And as a general note on comparisons involving Tim Drake, remember that a lot of other replacement effects use "if you do" text. To make an unbreakable comparison between different replacements, you'll need another effect like Tim Drake's that doesn't specify "if you do," as otherwise any difference could be argued using that phrase.

First, Tim Drakes power isn't a continous power. It is a Condition trigger power. From the Comprehensive rules 502.4 "Conditional triggers are identified by the presence of an 'if' clause, set off by commas, immediately after the triggering event or state. Continuous powers create continuous modifiers and do not use the chain [503.1]. Tim drake creates a replacement modifier, not a continuous modifier, so it is not a continuous power.

Second, there are no replacement effects, only replacement modifiers. Modifiers are created by effects that do not create an object and resolves off the chain [511.1]. So modifiers are created by effects they are not effects themselves. "Modifiers that use 'instead' are replacement modifiers. A replacement modifier replaces an event with an event" [513.5].

In Tim Drake's case the event to be replaced is a stun event. The event replacing the event is a stun event. If Red Star is the only other team attacker the replacement event can not happen so the original event is not replaced. An event is not an effect. Refer to the definition of "Stun" in the glossery. A character receiving the stunned characteristic is part of the event. If a character does not receive the stunned characteristic the stun event does not occur.

Third, stunning a team attacker is not a guarenteed event. However there stun another team attacker event must occur for the replacement modifier to replace the original stun event.

Fourth, Tim Drake is not attempting to replace the attempt to stun a team attacker with another attempt to stun a team attacker. It is replacing an event where a team attacker would be stunned. Tim Drake's power is a conditional trigger (see above). "Conditional triggers only trigger if their conditions are true" [502.4]. If a defender selected a powered-up Red Star, Tim Drake's ability would not activate because it would check to see if Red Star would be stunned and since Red Star wouldn't be stunned Tim Drake's ability would not trigger.

Fifth, As I have said there are no replacement effects, only replacement modifiers. Pay 7 endurance is a cost in resolution for Hulk: Gamma Rage because the power "If Hulk would be stunned, instead, you may pay 7 endurance" says to pay endurance [203.7a]. Since Tim Drake's text and Hulk's text have the same template it stands to reason that "stun another team attacker you control" is a cost in resolution as well.

In conclusion, the current ruling seems to be based on the assumption that tim is replacing an event with the effect "Stun <Somebody>". The reality is that Tim Drake gives you the option to replace an event with an event.

Edit: I have to disagree with the "if you do" issue. Anything from "If you do" on is in addition to the replacement modifier. The replacement modifier still requires you to replace one event with another, regardless of whether or not there is an "if you do" clause.

I am one of the offenders who accidentally referred to a replacement effect; it's one of those things that slips out occastionally, despite attempts to be precise. But as long as we're being precise, you may not want to refer to Tim Drake's power activating or Hulk's resolving. :)

As for Tim Drake having a conditional trigger, you're mistaken; its not hard to wrongly equate replacements and triggers due to the fact that replacements look for particular events to occur, but it's not correct. Triggered powers can be identified by the words "when," "whenever," and "at the start of." Tim Drake has none of these, and is not a triggered power. Nor does he fit in the the description of conditional triggers which you quoted above, as his text does not match the given template.

On the issue of costs, Hulk's 7 endurance must be a cost due to a very specific note in the Comp. Rules---203.7a, as pointed out. But that same rule which makes Hulk's endurance a cost doesn't apply to Tim Drake's stunning another team attacker, so I disagree on exactly what stands to reason. In fact, the need for specific mention of resource and endurance points in the Comp. Rules implies to me that only those things are meant to be costs for replacement modifiers.

Frankly, I've always found replacement to be a distressingly vague area of the rules; as was already said, I've never seen an ultimately unbreakable argument on neither side of the aisle.

Actually the 'event' being replaced is the execution of rule 602.5c. It is being replaced with Tim Drake's effect.

Tim Drake's effect does not say anything about the team attacker must be able to be stunned Just that you have to stun it. Since 602.5c was replaced it is no longer the event that is stunning the character.

So let's look at Tim Drake's effect in regard to the CRD.
There are no targets so the only part of this rule that applies is that if some of the effect is impossible only perform as much as is possible.

As far is it being a COST, the only rules we have about costs during resolution is the above quoted 203.7a. that specifically states that if the word PAY is used it is a cost. Since it does not specify any other terms as indicators of a cost, then stunning another team attacker is not a cost. It is just the effect resolving.

Taking that one from yet another angle Pure logic. IF it were a cost then what would the resolution of that cost be? In the hulk example above the paying the 7 endurance is a cost to get the rest of his effect. ("If you do, exhaust Hulk and put a +1 ATK / +1 DEF counter on him.") What would be the rest of Tim Drake's effect? Don't stun the original character? That is what it is replacing so that can't be it.

Spot's Knight

The event is laid out in the card text, "Stun a team attacker you control". You are not replacing a 602.5c with a 602.5c. You are replacing an event where a character "would" be stunned with a "Stun another team attacker you control". Nothing in 602.5c or 702 says that you target or choose a character to stun. Meanwhile the definition of Stun is clearly worded in the glossary. Since Red Star can not gain the stunned characteristic, you can not have a Stun Red Star event.

The if you do part of Hulk's text is a separate power that is triggered of his first power.


508.2c does not allow you to circumvent the replacement modifier because you are replacing an event with an event not an event with an effect, so the rules for effects aren't applicable to the "Stun another team attacker you control" event.