Shard of Power + Victor's Ability + Hunters Gambit

[GreyMouser]

I know that Hunter's gambit is not able to kill a creature with shard of power on the field, to avoid that I activated Victor's ability first on a creature before using Hunter's gambit onto it but it seems that is not working either.

Greymouser vs Slionhart

[Misanthropic]

Shard vs gambit was a bad ruling and this is blowback from that.

Here is my guess.

Ally is 3/3
Shard makes 3/1 (2 health still exists but is floating since if sop is removed ally is 3/3 again)
Victor makes 3/1 (2 health still floating, since shard stripped it, victor doesnt touch it.)
Gambit apllies (floating 2 reapplies for 3/3, then gambit for 3/2, then shard for 3/1 (1 float hp still floating)

Tl;dr
You didnt directly deal damage and the ruling as I understand it on shard means you have to deal damage.
I would be willing to bet that if you had destroyed shard after using your ability, the hp would bounce back to full since victor doesnt deal damage but reduces life to 1hp.

[Jo3yb0i]

I feel this is definitely a bug. And we all know shard of power is confusing as heck. They should just make it down to 1 instead of the "INVISIBLE actual health bullcrap"

[Misanthropic]

I feel this is definitely a bug. And we all know shard of power is confusing as heck. They should just make it down to 1 instead of the "INVISIBLE actual health bullcrap"

Agreed 100%

However be prepared for the ruling on gambit vs shard to blowback and make this cute little bug an 'unintended feature'

[trevorJacobs]

Hunter's Gambit vs. Shard of Power ruling was really, really bad. There's no way of seeing this from the cards - it's such an unintuitive outcome. I think that ruling should be revisited...

[Gondorian]

I'm really sorry to those of you who still don't understand or just don't like the Hunter's Gambit vs Shard of Power ruling, but that's the ruling. It makes sense. Any other ruling would not make sense due to the different handling of continuous effects and one-shot effects within the game.

With that out of the way ...

This issue with Victor, Shard of Power and Hunter's Gambit does sound like a bug, but I will need to investigate.

[trevorJacobs]

I'm really sorry to those of you who still don't understand or just don't like the Hunter's Gambit vs Shard of Power ruling, but that's the ruling. It makes sense. Any other ruling would not make sense due to the different handling of continuous effects and one-shot effects within the game.

It does make sense - a agree with you. It's unfortunate that the outcome is so unintuitive, one that you cannot derive from the rulebook, and one that you would probably not get to if the game were card-only (i.e. if you didn't have to code the rules).

[Jo3yb0i]

I'm really sorry to those of you who still don't understand or just don't like the Hunter's Gambit vs Shard of Power ruling, but that's the ruling. It makes sense. Any other ruling would not make sense due to the different handling of continuous effects and one-shot effects within the game.

With that out of the way ...

This issue with Victor and Hunter's Gambit does sound like a bug, but I will need to investigate.

I understand the rules. But I feel that every player who will encounter gambit + shard of power will always ask and question this ruling. I hope there is just a better way of actually addressing this interaction in game to make it easy for players to be aware of it

[Gondorian]

It does make sense - a agree with you. It's unfortunate that the outcome is so unintuitive, one that you cannot derive from the rulebook, and one that you would probably not get to if the game were card-only (i.e. if you didn't have to code the rules).

I understand the rules. But I feel that every player who will encounter gambit + shard of power will always ask and question this ruling. I hope there is just a better way of actually addressing this interaction in game to make it easy for players to be aware of it

Ideally, the card would be worded differently to make it clearer, so you don't need to have read the rules and understood SRO to understand why it works how it works. We still have the option to revise CotC wordings in the future, but it's a lot lower on the list than some other things.

With regards this bug, I've confirmed it is behaving incorrectly and have actually got my hands on the code to see what's going on under the hood!

[Gondorian]

UPDATE: I've looked at the code now. I'm now in search of Obi-Wan Kenobi ...