Dust of Invisibility

[Keith Katsikas]

105
Dust of Invisibility
Item
Dust

HIDDEN
Dust of Invisibility works on both Characters and Creatures.
Sacrifice Dust of Invisibility: Character or Creature is invisible until end of turn.

9
Chris Seaman
C

[cadrac]

Is an Attack Targeted? (That is if the Dust is on a Character and is Sacrificed in response to the Declaration of an Attack Action, does it prevent the Character from being Attacked, or is the Dust only good for preventing other Actions that directly Target the Bearer?)

Is dealing Combat Damage Targeted? (Could a Character or Creature that was Disengaged and Invisible Block an Attack, thus remaining Disengaged and Invisible, and not take Damage?)

[Keith Katsikas]

Attacking and Defending require targeting. However blocking does not. So if you sacrifice the dust in responce to your character attacking my character, I will not be able to defend against that attack, however, I can have a creature block it.

[cadrac]

What about this half of my query?

cadrac said:

Is dealing Combat Damage Targeted? (Could a Character or Creature that was Disengaged and Invisible Block an Attack, thus remaining Disengaged and Invisible, and not take Damage?)

[synergy]

hrmm thats odd and ive never though bout tat

[Keith Katsikas]

Yes, this works.

[Deleted]

Ok, I have issues with 2 things resolved here...

1. I thought the whole point to the new errata was to eliminate the possibility of ever having Invisible Attackers, meaning that Attacking Creatures are Targetable while in the Combat Event, i.e. that if you sac the DoI after the attack, it still becomes Targetable until the Combat is over. What happened?

2. The Invisible Blocker scenario had occured to me, but I just want to be clear about something else. If I have an Invisible Defender, that creature can absorb the attack damage and still return fire, correct?

[Keith Katsikas]

"Q", we desided to do away with that the moment we ruled that blocking does not require targeting.

[Keith Katsikas]

queue said:

2. The Invisible Blocker scenario had occured to me, but I just want to be clear about something else. If I have an Invisible Defender, that creature can absorb the attack damage and still return fire, correct?

Yes

[spiller]

GRRRRRR! I completely disagree. Attacking requires you to target the character. If the defending player chooses to invisible a blocker/defender and block/defend the damage dealt to that blocker/defender would still take place. ONLY the attack against the character is requiring targeting. I even brought this specificly in the Judges Forum when I argued to leave the errata as is. Now we have another debate...back to Judges Quarters.

[tirus]

ugh.. I hope this is all cleared up by Mega. And I think it would be best to annouce any new erratas from now until then at Mega (maybe the regionals too).

And when the new erratas/clear up issue thing happens can someone post here or pm me?