Basilisk forced response

[drone9 0]

Basilisk (F 96) reads: 'Forced Response: At the end of your turn, deal 2 wounds to all other characters you control or sacrifice Basilisk.'

If I control no other characters, do I have to sacrifice Basilisk?

[jhaelen 98]

drone9 said:

f I control no other characters, do I have to sacrifice Basilisk?

I don't think so.

[Ephraim2 0]

I read this card as you have to do the first part (wound characters) or Basilisk will be sacrificed...like the consequence of your actions if you don't wound characters is that Basilisk gets sacrificed.  Its like a penalty each turn to keep the card in play, kinda like cthulhu eatin' everybody.

 

Its not an option like "Do this or that".

[TheProfessor 4]

 I'm really not sure.  It could be read as "either or", couldn't it?  But if you don't have any other characters, can you choose the option to wound all other characters?

I figure style-wise, the basilisk is unruly and wild and the keepers get damaged...

 

[Penfold3 0]

 It is a forced response so it must trigger it and because it is an "or" statement you must do one and if you can't do one you must do the other.

[drone9 0]

Just as I feared... Quite an unruly beast.

Thank you! 

[TheProfessor 4]

 But is it allowable to wound all other characters you control when "all other characters" = null set?  Not sure if this is address in the FAQ or not.

[Ephraim2 0]

TheProfessor said:

 But is it allowable to wound all other characters you control when "all other characters" = null set?  Not sure if this is address in the FAQ or not.

When you can't satisfy  the 1st part and wound other characters, Basilisk is sacrificed.  Its just like the cthulhu card that eats characters and leaves after he ate everyone.  These cards are uber, and eating or wounding characters is an "upkeep cost".  They go away when you can't satisfy it.

[TheProfessor 4]

 Yes, I understand that if you can't satisfy a condition then you must use the other.

My question is can I satisfy the condition.  I'm asked to wound all other characters.  All other characters consists of nothing.  Can I wound nothing?  Or, is it necessary for a wound to be placed on a character to satisfy that condition?  I can see the argument for the latter, but off the top of my head not sure which part of the FAQ requires it.

[AUCodeMonkey 0]

You don't have to sacrifice Basilisk if it's the only character you control. You can choose to wound all other characters you control and satisfy that condition by wounding nothing because you have no other characters. The condition is fully met.

[Penfold3 0]

 I would tend to disagree... but that is mostly because I asked the developer.

If I recall correctly the way he reasoned it out (I have no idea whther or not it is absolutely correct logic based on grammar or what not, but it is more or less how Damon explained it to me). All other characters calls for there to be other characters. IF there are none then you cannot attempt to wound them, if you cannot attempt to wound them then that part of the ability can clearly not resolve. If that part cannot resolve the other part of the effect MUST resolve...

Or it was something close to that. If it is an important bit for Gencon I'd email him.

[TheProfessor 4]

 That is consistent with the ruling on the printed skill of insane characters having no value, therefore being exempt from anything that involves determination of printed skill.

So you can't wound things that aren't there.  Makes sense. I can accept that as a ruling consistent with previous rulings.

[TheProfessor 4]

 Thinking about this a bit more, if you had Basilisk and some characters that are Invulnerable, you would also have to sacrifice Basilisk by this logic because you can't wound an Invulnerable character.

[Penfold3 0]

 Yep.