I don't believe the 'adventure' is a knight spell so I guess it doesn't work with haakon and also I don't think you can use black from the new knight land 'tournament grounds', to cast the adventure half, for example.
Has to have at least 6 knights in new set coming so fingers crossed for them being good, I get the feeling there will be a powerful few white knights as they are so much at the centre of fairy tales and especially the camalot theme of the set like I expect some mythic knights.
Review C.R. 800.4e: "If combat damage would be assigned to a player who has left the game, that damage isn't assigned." Thus, Puresteel Paladin doesn't assign combat damage to that player (review C.R. 510.1). And since no combat damage has been assigned this way, it isn't dealt either (under C.R. 510.2, only "combat damage that's been assigned is dealt"). And since no combat damage has therefore been dealt to a player, Sword of Feast and Famine's triggered ability doesn't trigger (C.R. 603.2).
Missed the 800.4e rule reference TBH.
Great explanation, thanks.
I was hoping the sword somehow still triggered to punish the unsporting but NVM.
It appears that a Puresteel Paladin is attacking a player, then that player concedes the game. This makes that player leave the game (C.R. 104.3a). However, even though Puresteel Paladin is still attacking that player (C.R. 506.4), it doesn't assign (and thus deal) combat damage to that player (C.R. 800.4e, 510.2); thus, Sword of Feast and Famine's triggered ability (or any other ability of the form "Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a player...") should not have triggered here.
Thanks for the answer Peterupc. I don't mean to sound rude but looking at the rules you reference I cant see the connection you make between 510.2 and the player that isn't there not being 'hit'. Don't get me wrong, I suspect you should be correct as its all very logical... But the evidence of MTGO and no clear rule referenced (imo?) for the situation leaves me with doubt still.
Hi All, need an answer on the rules for this. Obliviously the players attitude is unsporting IMO but i want to know if it genuisly stops the trigger or not. I read most places that if a player scoops before the damage step then the swords cant trigger, HOWEVER.. from the attached you can see that on MTGO it still lets you get the swords trigger even though the player isn't there anymore.
Read the game log for proof that it happened as:
I declared attack,
He scoopes,
I cast 'Eladamri's Call' before the damage step (instant speed in declare blocker step),
Then my 'Sword of Feast and Famine' triggered in the damage step (so untapped my land after trigger resolution).
Is MTGO wrong to do this or is everyone playing paper wrong that doesnt allow sword triggers after scooping after being declared as the attackee??!
Missed the 800.4e rule reference TBH.
Great explanation, thanks.
I was hoping the sword somehow still triggered to punish the unsporting but NVM.
Thanks for the answer Peterupc. I don't mean to sound rude but looking at the rules you reference I cant see the connection you make between 510.2 and the player that isn't there not being 'hit'. Don't get me wrong, I suspect you should be correct as its all very logical... But the evidence of MTGO and no clear rule referenced (imo?) for the situation leaves me with doubt still.
Read the game log for proof that it happened as:
I declared attack,
He scoopes,
I cast 'Eladamri's Call' before the damage step (instant speed in declare blocker step),
Then my 'Sword of Feast and Famine' triggered in the damage step (so untapped my land after trigger resolution).
Is MTGO wrong to do this or is everyone playing paper wrong that doesnt allow sword triggers after scooping after being declared as the attackee??!