Post by aquajimbo on Feb 15, 2015 5:47:35 GMT -5
Ran into this question tonight in a game with my fiancé:
I was playing a Animal/Crops deck, and she was playing a Elemental/Land deck. I played Landscape Lunacy on one of her cities. The card stipulates that if the card cost for Landscape Lunacy could be paid, then the next city weapon must target that city. The card cost, if I remember correctly, was two green, and one white. I played it on her to avoid an attack on my own city, as well as hope that she may destroy herself. Because she was playing a Elemental/Land deck, she of course would not be able to fulfill the card cost, and render my 'ground zero' play moot.
She had plenty of her own yellow resources saved to 'burn' to make Landscape Lunacy have a feasible card cost. (Which she would not want to do...)
My question is this: is she required to substitute her resources, by burning through them, if or when she reveals a city weapon?
I was playing a Animal/Crops deck, and she was playing a Elemental/Land deck. I played Landscape Lunacy on one of her cities. The card stipulates that if the card cost for Landscape Lunacy could be paid, then the next city weapon must target that city. The card cost, if I remember correctly, was two green, and one white. I played it on her to avoid an attack on my own city, as well as hope that she may destroy herself. Because she was playing a Elemental/Land deck, she of course would not be able to fulfill the card cost, and render my 'ground zero' play moot.
In decks created by players that contain cards with more than one color RESOURCE Card Cost, players may discard (or burn) any color RESOURCE card for a specific color RESOURCE Card Cost.
She had plenty of her own yellow resources saved to 'burn' to make Landscape Lunacy have a feasible card cost. (Which she would not want to do...)
My question is this: is she required to substitute her resources, by burning through them, if or when she reveals a city weapon?