Let ' s not forget about the cum box . <| sep |> That ' s exactly the kind of thing that should be accounted for in the rulebook , not in a card ' s wording . If you do it in a card ' s wording , then you not only have to make the wording airtight for all current card interactions most probably making the wording confusing , but you will also be very likely to have to do fixes for a lot of cards with the release of new cards , because new interactions appear . On the other hand , if you do it in the rulebook . E . g . MTG gets away with doing it like this 609 . 3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible , it does only as much as possible . And they still have to revise a lot of cards with each set . This isn ' t quite as taxing for an onlineonly game , but it would still be absolute mayhem if Gwent didn ' t have a similar rule . As far as I can see from other cards , the presence of such a rule is implied . It ' s not only discard and draws targeting and damage come to mind as well . By your logic , we should also reword cards like Stammelford ' s Tremors and to not remove more strength than a unit actually has . Or to explicitly state you can play a card that does a targetted effect when played when there is no valid target . Or . man , I could go on and on ! Anyway and TLDR . Wordings will be very open to interpretation no matter how you do them until CDPR releases a proper Gwent rulebook P . S . Speaking of MTG , you should be grateful you don ' t lose in Gwent from trying to draw more cards than you actually can