Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SingularThey

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This makes it seem less likely they're going to have an online play implementation using the mastervault deck database.
  2. Don't think of it as restoring each turn. It always exists, never goes away. Its function is to prevent a certain amount of damage each turn.
  3. The problem is there are reasons to suspect that "a creature fights" is used ambiguously in the rules text. It may sometimes mean "used, where the action chosen is fight" It may sometimes mean "begins to engage in combat" It may sometimes mean "completes an entire combat" IF the sequence to complete an entire fight action is: 1. Choose a creature 2. Use it 3. Choose the fight action 4. Choose a target of the fight action 5. Begin the fight (here stuff like Assault might trigger) 6. Complete the fight (here is where damage is applied from creature power) 7. Kill things and if the process can be halted at any one of these steps, (as it seems clear it can for at least some of the steps, for example between 3 and 4 for the stun removal), then I can see logical space for the possibility that you could do step 3 (steps 1 through three encapsulating "choose a creature to fight") then, if there's some interrupt that happens after step three, _not_ go on to step four (the part referred to when it's stated that to fight you choose a creature.) In other words, there's choosing a creature to fight with, and then there's choosing a creature to fight against, and I believe Rick is suggesting these are two different substeps in the overall fight process, and that it may be possible to interrupt between those two substeps of the fight process. I haven't followed closely his argument for that but it seems, while a bit arcane, not crazy at all, and not at all an unexpected possibility when it comes to games like this (esp. ones designed originally by the designer of Magic...)
  4. I know it seems intuitive that "playing towards the objective" makes a house better, but it doesn't really work that way. The question is how quickly it plays towards the objective and how other houses provide counterplay. A house that simply collects one amber per card plays towards the objective, but would be beat by a house that just has 1-power creatures that capture on reaping (and capturing isn't even "playing towards the objective"!). Shadow is the house where it's _easiest to see_ how to play towards the objective and _hardest to see_ how to counterplay against. But we are in extremely early phases of learning about how to play this game! Very likely, there is much more to discover, and in the end for all we know Shadow will come to be thought of as the _weakest_ house! (MtG has many examples of cards that were thought to be very overpowered early on, but which later were found to be not particularly special.)
  5. But unless reliable counterplay can be found with a very wide variety of decks, decks with this recursion built in will dominate in tournaments, and this will not really reflect player skill.
  6. Hold the phone! Shortly after getting the message back from Dr. Garfield (and I think it's important we pause here to acknowledge: He very specifically and carefully said FFG might end up officially ruling the other way and that would be binding) I got this email from FFG! --- Hi Kris, A creature cannot be healed or fully healed if it has no damage on it. So in the case of Protectrix, you are correct. Your opponent didn’t heal their creature fully (since no damage was actually removed) so the text that follows the “If you do” clause of the Protectrix’s will not happen. you opponent’s creature will not be immune to damage. Hope that helps! ---
  7. I have an answer from Dr. Garfield. It's not the answer I wanted, but its the answer we need. --- The intent is that you can heal a fully healed creature. I can't promise that is how the rules will end up because a change on that would be ok with me if there were some internal consistency issue or clarity issue that pushed it in a different way. In fact, just last night I used a protectrix twice in exactly that way. ---
  8. I am sorry to bump this but this rule question has become a subject of somewhat lively debate at both the Reddit forum and the BGG forum, as well as in more than one game I have now participated in! Is this the right place to ask for an official ruling?
  9. This beginning setup looks different from what I see when I go to super keyforge in TTS. What's happening?
  10. Here was the situation. Opponent had Protectrix ("Reap: Fully heal one friendly creature. If you do, that creature cannot receive damage this turn.") Opponent also had another creature ready. That creature had no damage markers on it. Opponent reaped with Protectrix--then claimed he was healing that other creature, and since after healing it it had no damage, this counted as "fully healing" that creature. He then used that other creature to attack one of my creatures, and did not allow for his creature to take any damage. Opponent's assumption was that you can heal any creature, damaged or not. My assumption instead would be that you can only heal a damaged creature, and that Protectrix could not be used to protect that creature from damage in that situation. What say you!?
  • Create New...