Jump to content



Photo

Moisture Farmer


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Nours

Nours

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:54 PM

I have a question about him : can i protect him with a guardian of the force while the farmer protect a tatooine objectif ?



#2 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:05 PM

Yes you can use a Guardian to protect him when he protects.



#3 MasterJediAdam

MasterJediAdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 665 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 08:27 PM

Concur.


Welcome to the machine!


#4 Nours

Nours

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:50 PM

I have an other question for this card which gain much of my attention through your answers.

 

Can i use my farmer to redirect the token which pay the ability of questonable contacts ?



#5 PBrennan

PBrennan

    Member

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:27 PM

I believe so. The rules say that the protector takes the damage "instead" of the receiver, and it's been established in a previous ruling that if something happens "instead" of a cost, then the cost has still been paid. And there's no stipulation on protect (that I can recall) that protectors can only take damage from an enemy source, like there is with shields.



#6 mischraum.de

mischraum.de

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:10 AM

I believe so. The rules say that the protector takes the damage "instead" of the receiver, and it's been established in a previous ruling that if something happens "instead" of a cost, then the cost has still been paid. And there's no stipulation on protect (that I can recall) that protectors can only take damage from an enemy source, like there is with shields.


Can you give a link to the ruling?
Travelling for LCG tournaments: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Gen Con, Genoa, Göteborg, Liege, Salzburg
Next destination: Make a suggestion!

#7 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,176 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:42 AM


Can you give a link to the ruling?

 

The definition of protect is right in the rulebook on page 25.

 

protect [trait]

A card with the “Protect” keyword may take damage

instead of any friendly card in play with the specified trait.

In other words, if a friendly card in play with the trait

specified by a “Protect” effect would take damage, the

controller may instead place any amount of that damage

on the card with the “Protect” keyword. (Damage

beyond a protecting unit’s remaining damage capacity

may not be re-assigned to the protecting unit.)

For example, the card “Guardian of Peace” has the

keyword “Protect

 

Character.” If a friendly Character

would be damaged, the player who controls these

two cards may instead choose to place the damage

on the “Guardian of Peace.”


Edited by Toqtamish, 09 August 2013 - 05:42 AM.


#8 mischraum.de

mischraum.de

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:15 AM

Can you give a link to the ruling?

The definition of protect is right in the rulebook on page 25. protect [trait]A card with the “Protect” keyword may take damageinstead of any friendly card in play with the specified trait.In other words, if a friendly card in play with the traitspecified by a “Protect” effect would take damage, thecontroller may instead place any amount of that damageon the card with the “Protect” keyword. (Damagebeyond a protecting unit’s remaining damage capacitymay not be re-assigned to the protecting unit.)For example, the card “Guardian of Peace” has thekeyword “Protect  Character.” If a friendly Characterwould be damaged, the player who controls thesetwo cards may instead choose to place the damageon the “Guardian of Peace.”

This was not what I was looking for. The issue in this case is: Has the cost still been paid?
Travelling for LCG tournaments: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Gen Con, Genoa, Göteborg, Liege, Salzburg
Next destination: Make a suggestion!

#9 PBrennan

PBrennan

    Member

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:30 AM

The cost precedent can be found in the "Jabba and Spice Visions" thread (just this week).



#10 Nours

Nours

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:01 AM

The question is :"Is place damage the same as damaged". 

Because the reaction of QC is "place a damage on this objectif to  ..." and not "damaged this objectif to".



#11 mischraum.de

mischraum.de

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:04 AM

The cost precedent can be found in the "Jabba and Spice Visions" thread (just this week).

For convenience sake: http://community.fan...ns/#entry832824


Travelling for LCG tournaments: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Gen Con, Genoa, Göteborg, Liege, Salzburg
Next destination: Make a suggestion!

#12 Caal-FR

Caal-FR

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 03:27 PM

Hi everyone,

Answer from Nate :
Protect only changes where the token is placed, so if you are protecting a card that is being damaged to pay a cost, the cost is still paid.

That grants Questionable Contacts the ability to remove a damage on a Guardian of Peace to put a damage to a DS unit , then, instead of being damaged, to watch the damage it should have received to a Moisture Farmer, and back to the Guardian.

Yeah, free Ping!

Already asked Nate if on the same way, redirecting the damage to an enemy unit via Lightsaber Deflection still fullfil the cost...

#13 Caal-FR

Caal-FR

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:02 PM

Answer from Nate :
Yes, the cost has been paid. The damage has been dealt, and then redirected elsewhere by a series of effects.

#14 AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 01:18 PM

I was following this thread and got a similar answer from Nate. I actually asked more questions that were relevant to Moisture Farmer, so I'll go ahead and add mine in as well.

 

Rule Question:
I have a few questions relevant to the new unit, Moisture Farmer:

 

1) If you use the Reaction on Questionable Contacts ("Reaction: After you refresh, damage this objective to move 1 damage from a target friendly unit to a target enemy unit.") and then have a Moisture Farmer take the damage instead of the objective (due to "Protect Tatooine"), is the cost still considered paid (i.e. may you then move 1 damage from a target friendly unit to a target enemy unit)?

 

2) If you use a Moisture Farmer's protect, may you then use another unit's protect character to take the damage from the Moisture Farmer (i.e. Can you chain protects?)? If yes, I assume this does not affect the proscribed limit on the damage that can be protected (e.g. if a Tatooine objective was about to recieve 2 damage, a Moinsture Farmer could still only take 1 of the damage, due to its damage capactiy of 1, even though that damage is in turn taken by another unit with protect character), yes?

 

1) Yes, the cost is still paid.

 

2) Yes, you can chain protects, but you will be constrained at each step along the chain -- so the Moisture Farmer could take one, and then that one could be transferred elsewhere, but you could not go back and give another damage to the Moisture Farmer.

 

Nate French
Senior LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

 


My code doesn't have bugs, it has undocumented features!


#15 Angus Lee

Angus Lee

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 09:24 PM

Sorry for digging up this thread but I want to ask a follow-up question.

I have Questionable Contact and Moisture Farmer in play, and nothing have any damages.  After I refresh, can I deal one damage to my QC where the damage is placed on MF (who Protects Tatooine), then move the damage on MF to one of my opponent's Unit?

I remembered having read a ruling that since paying the cost for a triggered effect (deal damage here) is done before the effect is executed (as long as the triggered effect can be legally announced with legal target in play (here target is a friendly unit, not necessarily a damaged one), so I think it is legal. 

However, I forget where the ruling is.  What do you think?


Once ... Always ...

My blog (in Simplified Chinese): http://blog.sina.com/b0ardgames

#16 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 06:43 AM

Only if the moisture farmer has something raising his damage capacity. Otherwise it dies as soon as the damage is placed on it and isn't around to have the damage moved.

Even then, this might need clarification as QC does target the friendly unit. The question being, does the card's wording effectively mean "target friendly unit with at least one damage token" in which case this trick wouldn't work even if you did give the moisture farmer a way to survive.

#17 Angus Lee

Angus Lee

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 07:43 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot about the farmer only has one capacity; however, the trick may work with the Guardian in play to Protect the farmer, as stated above.

Rule as written QC only target friendly unit, so it will need official clarification if otherwise.


Once ... Always ...

My blog (in Simplified Chinese): http://blog.sina.com/b0ardgames

#18 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:37 AM

With a guardian, it might work. The question becomes whether "move damage from target friendly unit" implies that the target unit must be damaged. I don't think that it does, so I think the trick works if you have a way to keep the farmer from dying.

#19 PBrennan

PBrennan

    Member

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 10:16 PM

I'd agree. The list of eligible targets are friendly units. The list isn't friendly units with at least 1 damage on them.

 

What's more, you're allowed to pay the cost without executing the benefit ... the 2 are separate ... so the cost can be paid first, and then the benefit executed. Meaning the damage to be moved doesn't have to be in play in order to trigger the QC effect in the first place.


Edited by PBrennan, 24 August 2013 - 10:19 PM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS