There was recent discussion on the Discord about how Curse of Failure and Consecration interact. There, it was mentioned that you can use Consecration on a dude who has been hit by Curse of Failure, as the modifiers have attempted to be modified (they just can’t be), and thus the requirement has been met.
Further discussion led to determining that the tether to that was that attempting-but-failing on modifiers was okay, but anything that affects the persistent board state (booting cards, discarding from hand, paying ghost rock, etc.) was not.
This could be fine, but I’m not sure it aligns with precedent (nor an intuitive reading of first line requirements rule; unsure how I would differentiate modifiers from persistent state, based on whats in the rules)? Consider this ancient post by mplain:
In there, he claims:
Zhu’s Ferocity cannot be played at all if the only dude in the opposing posse is Quaterman.
Pagliaccio, Corporeal Twist, and Zhu’s Ferocity also cannot target a dude equipped with a Peacemaker.
It’s ultimately an odd post, as far as the Rules Questions forums go, as it’s not really a question but more a meandering of consciousness through hypothetical ramifications of removing the first sentence rule. The wild west of the Rules Questions forums, I wager.
But nonetheless, the thoughts there aligned with my previous understanding; the first sentence is a firm requirement, and being unable to perform any part of it, regardless of if modifiers, or persistent board state, means you can’t do it.
So, if nothing else, if that isn’t the case, good to have that explicitly called out clearly here; can I use Consecration on a dude who has been hit by Curse of Failure? Can I use Zhu’s Ferocity, if the only opposing dude is a QUATERMAN?
Thanks as always.