ok thank you it must been a coincidence. i just thought the chances were too low that it would happend so maybe something was a bug like if they changed some coding recently.
Printable View
ok thank you it must been a coincidence. i just thought the chances were too low that it would happend so maybe something was a bug like if they changed some coding recently.
Ah no. That's not true. There are lots of different ways of getting 55 heads and 45 tails (i.e. 1H, 45T, 54H) each of which is as likely as 100H. Take a smaller sample of 4 tosses. Outcomes are HH, TT, HT, TH. So there is a 50% chance of getting one tail and one head (HT and TH) but only a 1/4 chance of 2 heads.
If you mean that 100H is the same probability of 55H in a row and then 45T in a row, then you are right. But that's not what you said :)
Opponent has Cinderborn Fatebreaker in play, I summon Bobcat, I summon Hunter's Gambit, Cinderborn triggers and Gambit goes to graveyard, Bobcats do not get haste.
disagree - the act of summoning triggers the cinderborn and thus must also trigger bobcat since they are both triggered by an act of summoning. By your description cinderborn would also prevent himself from being triggered which can't happen. Bobcat does not require the ability of the summon to succeed just like cinderborn doesn't require it's ability to succeed as it in fact cancels the ability (it can not however cancel a summon) - the ability of hunters gambit has not effect, but the ability of bobcat is a different story
Let me phrase it differently. Cinderborn cancels the effect of the card. Bobcat gaining haste and ambush when a hunter ability is summoned is an effect. Gambit is a hunter ability that would activate Bobcat's effect therefore for gambit to have no effect it would also not trigger Bobcat otherwise it would have an effect
I agree with jpm. It is the same as having an Enchanted Oak on board. It will return the card to your hand without letting Bobcat gain its haste/ambush. Because it is like you never played that card.
Bobcat gaining haste is an effect of bobcat, not the card that triggered it, therefore it's beyond the scope of Cinderborn's ability. Cinderborn's ability is exactly the same as bobcat's. They are both triggered by summoning. The only difference between the two is SRO says that Bobcat should trigger first. If Cinderborn could cancel Bobcat's ability, then it would have to cancel its own ability as well.
Incidentally this bug was already addressed fairly recently with regards to how it affects Confluence of Fate, which has been fixed so that it now correctly triggers and draws cards even if an attachment was nullified by Cinderborn.
Also regarding enchcanted oak - I haven't noticed since I never see anyone playing that card, but if it prevents other cards like CoF, incense of atonement, or Bobcat from triggering in response to a summon, then I would argue that it is also bugged.
I think what's happened here is that people have gotten used to the way that the card works in the game, and didn't realize that it's not consistent with the wording of the card or rules of SRO.
Based on wording alone, I have to agree with bobrossw. If they shouldn't interact as he's suggesting, the wording on one or more cards needs to be changed.