The Netreps have already stated that if a target is ilegal, the effect is negated, which is the same way MTG handels it.

In MTG, if your spell's target becomes ilegal or is removed, the spell is considered counterd.

The reason why I asked the question, is in the future, there may be powers that trigger off of somehting being negated.

I can see it both ways. The closest comparison I can think of is a continous power with a condition. If the condition is not met, the power is still "there" it just does not have any effect.

On the other hand, he did compare it to a target, which in that case, it would be negated.

Hmm... that's why we need NetRep intervention here as they have been incorrect once (but only once) before.

I have been under the impression that once an effect is on the chain it will resolve unless negated. So even if the targets are illegal or condtions aren't met... the effect will just resolve and do nothing.

I though 'negate' was reservered for abilities and effects that actualy specify 'negate'.

In MtG, I thought 'counter' was only used when playing cards like 'Counterspell' or abilities of creatures that said 'counter'. I've never had anyone remove a target and told me that my spell has been countered... it just fizzles.

Fizzle is a outdated term. I assure you, a spell in MTG is countered if the target is no longer legal. The main reason for that is it will trigger effects, like Multani's Presence

Multani's Presence
Color= Green Type= Enchantment Cost= G UL(U)
Text (UL+errata): Whenever a spell you played is countered, draw a card. [Oracle 2000/10/24]

Will trigger when a spell is countered due to all of its targets being illegal.[D'Angelo 1999/05/01]

VS System is the same way except they use the term negate.

Is *that* an assumption?

I understand your MtG 'counter' terminology now... thanks for clearing that up.

I'll wait to see what UDE says because this has happened before with attacks where we thought they were canceled after exhaustion and it was changed to 'ends and does nothing'.

I know of no effects that can "resolve without effect." Effects where their condition/target is checked and found illegal upon resolution are negated in the place of resolution.

Note: Just because a result isn't apparent doesn't mean it "resolved without effect". That just isn't possible.

My vote (although it doesn't carry any weight) would be that the effect would be 'negated'.

Why? because you must examine the conditons for generation and resolution.

In this case "If there are no stunned characters in play" is a requirement in order for this effect to not only Trigger, but to resolve as well. Also note that the discard happens at resolution as well, and in NOT a generation cost. If the effect were to be 'negated', in such a manner, you would not discard.

This is different from a case such as Prime Sentinels, where the condition for generation and resolution is "Whenever an opponent plays a plot twist from his resource row". This erick would definately be a case of "resolving without effect", as "non-stunned Sentinel character(s)" are not even a requirement for generation OR resolution. In fact, in a case such as this, Prime Sentinels would Trigger and resolve regardless if you even had a single character on the field, as long as the Plot Twist was played from the Resource Row.

I know i went off, but just throwing in my 2-cents ;).

Hmm... maybe I'm confusing my terms... among other things.

Locke said:

"Effects where their condition/target is checked and found illegal upon resolution are negated in the place of resolution"

So I see that as the effect resolving... but I guess that it should be the chain link that is resolving... not the actual effect.

So... does the *chain link* resolve without effect?

And ANY effect whose conditions are not met or targets are not illegal are negated?

Like if I Dazzler a support row character and the controller exhausts it to activate it's ability in response... then her effect was negated?

I really have to thank cdaniel for bringing this up because it seem like the term 'resolve without effect' has been thrown around a lot on other threads.

You got it...thats exactly the idea. A target for Dazzler's effect must be in [ready] position, when you first activate and target, and when the effect goes to resolve.

An effect CAN resolve with no apparent effect, such as Puppet Master's, but it IS still infact resolving, just with no effect on characters in the game.

A 'negated' effect is one that cannot legally resolve.

No. In fact, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Dazzler's effect resolves just fine. The result isn't apparent because the state it is attempting to introduce is already there. This is what people are saying resolves without effect. Really the end results are the same. But technically, "resolve without effect" is not correct.

(In fact, effects only exist on the chain. When an effect resolves off the chain it creates a modifier.)

Actually, Dazzler doesn't specify ready. You could legally target an already exhausted support-row character if you wished. Why would you want to? Maybe to discard an X-men card to pump Colossus...

Really? so what you are syaing is that the target(s) must actually be removed from the field altogether? I don't think this is correct. The target in Dazzler's case is the "target character".

My understanding has been, that if a target must be legal in order for you to activate, then it must still be legal in order to resolve. In this case, Dazzler could could not even attempt to target an already [exhausted] character, so how does it resolve if the character is [exhasted] at resolution?

I realize its a small point, but an interesting one.

Wow, thats an intersting point, i never looked at it that way. The wording is VERY specific in this game, good to hear.

I thought it was assumed that the target must be [ready]. If the wording stated "Exhaust target Ready character" then it would be negated?

Now that you put it that, it makes 100% sense. I have to read the wording a lot more carefully next time.

Thanks Locke.

Dazzler

Activate, discard an X-Men character card from your hand >>> Exhaust target support row character. Use this power only during the combat phase.


The only requirements for Dazzler's target are:

It must be a character.
It must be in the support row.

The effect generated will create a modifier that will attempt to give the target the exhausted status.

So there are only 2 conditions for 'negation'

- The character is KO'd
- The character must be moved to the Front Row

Correct?

I'm not going to slap a number on it, no. There are a number of reasons/ways a target or condition could become illegal. If the target becomes illegal for any reason, the effect would be negated.