I think you are searching a bit too deep in the rulebook for your answer.

103.2 If a modifier or rule instructs that <something> can't (or cannot) happen, and another modifier or rule attempts to make that same <something> happen, the "can't" modifier or rule will always overwrite the "can" modifier or rule, regardless of timestamps or dependencies. "Can't" modifiers and rules are not replacement modifiers. An event that can't happen never happens and can't be replaced.

Red Star has a modifier saying he can't be stunned. Tim Drake creates a modifier that tries to do something to Red Star that can't be done. The text/rules don't have to explicitly say "try" because of this rule. Red Star's "can't" modifier doesn't stop Tim Drake from creating a "stun Red Star" modifier, it simply overwrites it when it attempts to apply to Red Star.

You didn't read the rule I quoted. It says if more that one event WOULD STUN a character at the same time. So the EVENT is the effect resolving not the actual stun.

Spot's Knight

OK, I think this is the end of this argument. We finally come to a consensus that there is clarification needed to make Tim Drake work the way that it has been ruled in that past. As long as we all agree that it is unclear, and that we submit to UDE for a clarification rule so that there can be logically sound reasoning for the ruling, I am satisfied, as should portermj be too.

I'll refrase something cdaniel posted:

I replaced TRY with ATTEMPT.

Now I will modify something portermj typed:

Once again I changed TRY to ATTEMPT. You can look up TRY and ATTEMPT in the dictionary, you will find they have the almost exact same definition.

508.2c specifically says all you have to do it ATTEMPT to resolve a effect. If any part of the resolution of the effect can't resolve as part of that effect, it[the part of the effect] "will not apply to those targets or have those targets perform any actions (via 508.2c)"

Dirty

Dan, you kinda missed the point of the last 2 pages of posts...
The main point of contention is that the rule you cited is for resolving EFFECTS.
Tim Drake does not produce an EFFECT. He produces a REPLACEMENT MODIFIER.

That is why the rules need to specifically say that replacement modifiers function the same way that effects do.

How replacement modifiers work is very clearly stated, and has been quoted on this thread several times before.As I had posted earlier on this thread, at attack conclusion, the 'stun <whoever> modifier' is replaced with a 'stun <another team attacker' modifier'.

At no point does Tim Drake's power restrict to only choosing 'a character that can actually be stunned...'. The only restriction is the character choosen *must* be another team attacker the player controls.

To the people who dont believe that the Tim & Red Star combo works:

1/ The number 1 fact that makes all your typing usless. Judges, and UDE staff that have money and time invested in the game have said that this combo is legit ever since DOR came out.

2/ People are answering your questions with comprehensive rule book quoted answers and your telling them that they are wrong???????????????????????????????? WTF.

Its so simple, Tim's effect lets you choose to stun a different team attacker from the one your opponent wants to choose (a team atk must have 2+ characters). If you choose to stun Red Star (powerd up) he doesnt stun because his effect says he doesnt.

SAYING "THATS NOT FAIR" DOESNT MAKE RED STARS NON STUNNING ABILITY GO AWAY!!

Also, you must choose to stun another character. i.e. If you choose to pass the stun to Garth when Garth+Tim team atk Nightcrawler, then Garth will stun becuase you passed the stun to him (not the atk and defence of Nightcrawler).

Neither me nor portermj ever used the justification of "that's not fair".
Also, the point here is not to say that the Tim Drake/Red Star ruling is WRONG, it is to say that the rules do not COMPLETELY support it.
Every other ruling in this game can be explained using a LOGICALLY SOUND (look it up) argument, from the rules in the comprehensive rules. This cannot.

Slowmail, for the 20th time, the argument that portermj is that the rules say that you replace "stun character X" EVENT with a "stun character Y" EVENT. 513.5a A replacement modifier replaces an event with another event.

And, the rules say that the Stun event is "This is an event that gives the character the stunned characteristic. This event consists of turning the 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."

So, if you do not replace the Stun with a STUN EVENT, it is not 100% clear that you can actually replace the original event.

That's all we're saying... We're not saying that you are wrong and we are right, we're just saying that rules clarifications need to be made in the comp rules.

Twonban

It seems to me... and to all the judges in the thread... that the HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of ruling form UDE, and other high lvl judges clearify 100% that replacement modifiers function the same way that effects do.

Yes, the rules do not implicitly say such, but one can distictively infer from all the rulings that what is the way the game is ment to be played.

Until they update the rules, you will have to just deal with it.

Wow, OK... perhaps I didn't make this 100% clear every other time I stated it...


ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT WE AGREE THE RULES NEED UPDATED!

I'm NOT saying that it doesn't work the way it says, I'm NOT saying that the rulings were wrong, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE RULES ARE UNCLEAR IN THE RULEBOOK.

So quit telling me that I'm wrong, because I'm right; the rules need to be updated in that area.

I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm not reading the rules well enough, or searching it correctly.

Could you kindly quote where exactly does the rules say what you claim to say it does? Because if it doesn't, then the rest of your post isn't supported by the rules, and doesn't quite work the way you *think* it does...The following, although not directly involved in our discussion, references how a stun event might actually fail to stun; so, a stun event does *not* actually need to stun, as you claim it does...

702.1b If more than one event stuns a character at the same time, the character becomes stunned only once, so stun endurance loss also occurs only once. Each event is still considered to have stunned the character. If an event tries to stun a character that has the stunned characteristic, the character will not become stunned and that event is not considered to have stunned the character. (See rule 502.6.)

... couple that with the following, that says an event that can't happen, never happens....

103.2 If a modifier or rule instructs that <something> can't (or cannot) happen, and another modifier or rule attempts to make that same <something> happen, the "can't" modifier or rule will always overwrite the "can" modifier or rule, regardless of timestamps or dependencies. "Can't" modifiers and rules are not replacement modifiers. An event that can't happen never happens and can't be replaced.

... at no point does it say you cannot replace an event, with another event that cannot happen. Regardless of how the 'cannot happen' event came to be, it will not happen.

There are areas in the rules that need updating; but as it currently is, it is clear on how the Tim Drake/Red Star combo is. If you really have to, perhaps 'event' ought to be defined.

I got the definition of stun from the Glossary at the end of the comp rules.

I like your 702.1b reference, that actually adds alot to the argument, and it is the first time anyone has referenced that on here.

The last part of that rule "if an event tries to stun a character..." is extremely applicable to the situation. Good job, I wish someone would have made that their argument earlier on.

However, now this brings up a different issue to me. If I can replace an event with something that cannot happen, how does Nimrod work?

"If Nimrod would become stunned, remove a repair counter from him instead. If you do, exhaust Nimrod."

Why wouldnt you just keep trying to remove a repair counter from Nimrod every time he would become stunned? (and as a side note, the "if you do" has nothing to do with it, I'm pretty sure.)

Since I'm the one who brought up "if you do" earlier, let me say I was forgetting that they'd just reworked all the cards for which it was relevant. So cards no longer use "if you do...he is not stunned."

I would imagine that the same thing preventing a solo team attacker from abusing Tim Drake would stop a counter-less Nimrod from avoiding the stun. Which is to say that even attempting to remove a repair counter would require that there is a repair counter in the first place.

But like I said, replacement modifiers have always been a little rule-blurring to me, so I'm not taking that as a stand, or anything.

Actually I did meantion 702.1b in one of my posts. I guess I should have copied the entire rule in though. At that point I was trying to point out something else.

And the reason you can't just 'try' to remove Nimrods counter is because there is no effect that prevents you from removing the counter. If there were an effect that said, Characters can not lose counters, then you could try to remove his counter and fail. The only reason that Red Star works is because of the Can not rule over riding all others.

Spot's Knight

Where can a new player find these rulings so that they can infer these things? That's my real beef. I can go to UDE's website an find the rulebook, I can't find a list of rulings.

I don't think combo is unfair. Any 3 card combo that can be wrecked with one card is hardly unfair. I just think I should be able to read the rules, go to PCQ, and not be blindsided by a judge's ruling.