Trade Agreement

[Arashi]

Sorry if these have already been asked but I have a few questions reguarding trade agreement.

1. If I trade a creature of mine for my opponent's slavedriver that has two slaves under it, would those slaves follow the slavemaster or would they flee or would nothing happen?

2. If trade agreement is fully engaged and it is removed from play for some reason, does the trade revert or does it remain permanant now?

Thanks to anyone who can help! ;D

[sobrokenjay]

good question, that wood be nice to kno

[Arashi]

Oh, and one more.

OK, let's say that I declare an attack with with a creature and then my opponent choses a blocker/defender. Then in reaction I use trade agreement to trade my attacking creature for his blocking/defending one. Alright, here's where my questions come in.

Does my attack still go off?

If so, does the original blocker/defender still do it's thing? if it doesn't then can they choose a new blocker/defender?

Sojo told me that my attack wouldn't go off because I don't have control over the attacking creature anymore, but I was still questioning it because I had already declared my attack. Sorry if I'm completely wrong on this I just want to make sure. ;D

[Deleted]

arashi said:

Sorry if these have already been asked but I have a few questions reguarding trade agreement.

1. If I trade a creature of mine for my opponent's slavedriver that has two slaves under it, would those slaves follow the slavemaster or would they flee or would nothing happen?

2. If trade agreement is fully engaged and it is removed from play for some reason, does the trade revert or does it remain permanant now?

Thanks to anyone who can help! ;D

1. Under current errata, the slaves follow the Slavemaster. In the above situation, you gain control both slaves simultaneously with their master. (This answer is concrete. You can answer this query directly from the current errata page at ME website.)

2. Under current wording, the trade would remain permanent. It only provides for the trade to be reverted under disengagement.

[sobrokenjay]

that makes me rather happy, plenty of new comboes to follow that with =]

[Deleted]

arashi said:

Oh, and one more.

OK, let's say that I declare an attack with with a creature and then my opponent choses a blocker/defender. Then in reaction I use trade agreement to trade my attacking creature for his blocking/defending one. Alright, here's where my questions come in.

Does my attack still go off?

If so, does the original blocker/defender still do it's thing? if it doesn't then can they choose a new blocker/defender?

Sojo told me that my attack wouldn't go off because I don't have control over the attacking creature anymore, but I was still questioning it because I had already declared my attack. Sorry if I'm completely wrong on this I just want to make sure. ;D

Ok, for this scenario, I believe I am just as sure that I will be right as in the previous scenario (99% sure, always leave 1% to chance): However, the reason I give you might be as unsatisfying as Sojo's. (He's right by the way. )

If you time it the way quoted, the attack would not go off because you create a unique situation where the Defending Player would control an attacking creature. (think about that). That situation is inherently illegal for this game (against the rules). The only way a card can break a rule is if it specifically says on said card that it contradicts a normal state. Trade Agreement does help create an unusual scenario, but doesn't provide for it being legal. Thus, the attacking creature is considered removed from combat. You take control of the defending creature. The Event is complete. Both of you get said creatures engaged.

Sometimes with cards, at least from a judges standpoint (or in my case judge-to-be), you just have to read the card and compare that with the normal rules of the game and ask yourself if a conflict is occurring. That usually helps me answer most of the difficult questions. Hopefully I'll get Sithmaster back-up so that you'd be assured %100.

Unique situation are going to come up all the time where the judge is going to have to make a judgement call. That call is ruled right for the remainder of the tourney or event. The more insanely difficult situations get pondered over constantly by the higher ups. If you were my player in an event, I'd rule you this way. It's up to them now to decide if this is the way it will always work. Some things are "right" for now, but will see an immediate change, usually in the form of rules clarification or errata.

But when push comes to shove, you should rule in favor of exactly what is said on the card over the perceived "intent" or original "concept" of the card itself.

Hope that helps.

[sobrokenjay]

also good to kno

[Arashi]

Thanks for explaining that a bit more. Guess I should just probably stop asking these questions, but I can't help but think about these crazy things. ;D

[Deleted]

No, no. I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't ask at all! You should! I do! Have you seen that ridiculous City Wall question I've got Keith still working on lately? Check it out!

The reason I told you what I did is because I suspect you have a keen understanding of the game. Your knowledge of the rules may be stronger than you give yourself credit for and thus you might have the ability to work yourself through some of your problems. Heck, you could even help mold the game!

But you should always ask...

[Arashi]

Yeah, I read that city wall thing. Man, that would suck if that ever happened. Sojo's explanation made sense to me but I can see where your thoughts come in. But alas, if someone had TWO city walls out I think that would be game nonetheless. ;D

[sobrokenjay]

actually he managed to pull that city wall junk on me the other day =\, quite frankly its a little disapoiting to see te 60 life wall pop up in front off u .....even when swing for 10 damage

[Deleted]

Yea, but we're referring to a scenario of 120 of that life wall crap that possiblly could be untargetable. We're waiting on Keith to side with Sojo or me since we seem to have conflicting opinions on the matter.

[Deleted]

arashi said:

Yeah, I read that city wall thing. Man, that would suck if that ever happened. Sojo's explanation made sense to me but I can see where your thoughts come in. But alas, if someone had TWO city walls out I think that would be game nonetheless. ;D

Oh Arashi, you're breaking my heart dude. Where's the honor among gamers? I see where you're loyalties lie.

No, it's cool. I know sometimes I can talk myself into all the wrong conclusions even having all the right answers. Now you're making me all self-concious about all the things I might have tried to help you answer.

[sobrokenjay]

in the wall case wood curses still take their normal effect?? jw

[Deleted]

jw? I don't get that (sorry!)

But if this was a real question, then yes because Curses target a Resource Pile, one of the few things not under the protection of the infamous City Wall.