Energy Extraction vs Lightning Hunter

[Shadow Mann]

Both Energy Extraction and Lightning Hunter say "your hero loses 1 shadow energy"...however, Lightning Hunter can be played even if your hero has 0 SE, while Energy Extraction can not be played when you have 0 SE. Is this intentional or a bug? If it is intentional, Energy Extraction needs to be reworded to say that it "costs" 1 SE to play?

[kentuequi]

Edit: nvm

[FDL]

Costs that come before a ":" are mandatory.

So you need to kill a friendly ally and pay 1 SE in order to play Energy Extraction.

[Shadow Mann]

Costs that come before a ":" are mandatory.

So you need to kill a friendly ally and pay 1 SE in order to play Energy Extraction.

thanks for the reply..."loses 1 SE" and "costs 1 SE" are not the same thing, because I can play cards that "lose" SE even when I don't have any SE. I am not against EE costing 1 SE, but the wording needs to say that...or maybe just say this-

1 SE and target friendly ally is killed: Target opposing hero or ally takes damage equal to the cost of the killed ally.

[lentan]

Both Energy Extraction and Lightning Hunter say "your hero loses 1 shadow energy"...however, Lightning Hunter can be played even if your hero has 0 SE, while Energy Extraction can not be played when you have 0 SE. Is this intentional or a bug? If it is intentional, Energy Extraction needs to be reworded to say that it "costs" 1 SE to play?

If I am not wrong, if the card is worded as

"Do something and something else: And something will happen"

You need to make sure that the conditions before the semicolon ( : ) are satisfied before you can play this card. This is also the case for Transmogrification Curse

[Shadow Mann]

If I am not wrong, if the card is worded as

"Do something and something else: And something will happen"

You need to make sure that the conditions before the semicolon ( : ) are satisfied before you can play this card. This is also the case for Transmogrification Curse

because you can technically "lose" 1 SE without having any SE, this is a poor way to word it (we can see this with LH that I can "lose" 1 SE when I don't have any)...so technically as it's worded, the SE "loss" on both EE and TC should be able to happen even if I have 0 SE...I'm just asking that this wording be improved.

[Gondorian]

because you can technically "lose" 1 SE without having any SE

You can't FULLY lose 1SE if you don't have 1SE to lose. And the ruling is that anything before a ":" must be paid in full to get the effect that follows. Without the updated rulebook, I don't blame you for raising this. In fact, I thank you.

[Shadow Mann]

You can't FULLY lose 1SE if you don't have 1SE to lose. And the ruling is that anything before a ":" must be paid in full to get the effect that follows. Without the updated rulebook, I don't blame you for raising this. In fact, I thank you.

So, difference is the paid IN FULL part if before the : (whereas LH doesn't have to pay IN FULL)...I get it, but still seemed could be worded better (to say "cost" or just say "1 SE")...thanks.

[Demnchi]

So, difference is the paid IN FULL part if before the : (whereas LH doesn't have to pay IN FULL)...I get it, but still seemed could be worded better (to say "cost" or just say "1 SE")...thanks.

The problem isn't really the wording just your misinterpretation of the structure of the ability text according to the rules (note that the websites rulebook may not yet be updated). Anything before ":" is an extra cost that must be payed in order to play the card, but not part of the ability. The difference is that losing 1 SE is a part of Lightning Hunter's ability, not a part of his cost. Just like you have to exhaust the hero to play intimidate because its a part of the card's cost.

Energy Extraction/Intimidate (I'm sure there are other examples too)
Extra cost: effect
(the presence of ":" denotes that what is on left side of the ":" is a mandatory cost in addition to the card's resource cost)

Lightning Hunter
Ability
(There is no ":" noting that the loss of SE is not mandatory for the effect/card)

Try treating it like you would a new keyword for "extra cost."

[Shadow Mann]

The problem isn't really the wording just your misinterpretation of the structure of the ability text according to the rules (note that the websites rulebook may not yet be updated). Anything before ":" is an extra cost that must be payed in order to play the card, but not part of the ability. The difference is that losing 1 SE is a part of Lightning Hunter's ability, not a part of his cost. Just like you have to exhaust the hero to play intimidate because its a part of the card's cost.

Energy Extraction/Intimidate (I'm sure there are other examples too)
Extra cost: effect
(the presence of ":" denotes that what is on left side of the ":" is a mandatory cost in addition to the card's resource cost)

Lightning Hunter
Ability
(There is no ":" noting that the loss of SE is not mandatory for the effect/card)

Try treating it like you would a new keyword for "extra cost."

Thanks for this explanation...others have said it too, but this clicked better for me...hope this thread helps others who were misinterpreting the rule...again, thanks!