Jump to content

Ebucklin

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. They have stated that there will be tournaments that are power restricted. Meaning any deck above a certain power level cant be brought to that tournament. I am not aure at what level they intend this to happen but chain will only apply at lgs level. Power is something determined by tournament play at all levels somehow and is a ceiling amount. Once a deck reaches a certain power level it never drops back down unlike chains. I think this is all we know at this point.
  2. Actually the official rules state that competitive level tournaments dont use chain at all. Chain is used to balance casual and lgs level play. That is its purpose. So if your playing with your friend and find you have won 5 of the last 6 games you should add some chain so you both have a more interesting and balanced game. Remember handicaps are not used competitively according to the rules.
  3. Are you a troll? I never stated anything as fact. I asked for a link and explained why the ruling doesn't make sense to me due to the exact wording of the rules and the definition of all. Some people chose to argue against my interpretation of the rules by arguing points that dont actually refute my logic but never actually provided the evidence I was asking for which was a link to the ruling. I was thanking the person who actually provided the link. Arguemwnts are necessarily bad things but both parties need to actually listen to the other person and be willing to be rational about the situation or its just people ranting to one another.
  4. Hmmm...thats an interesting interpretation. This assumes that you are assigning zero value to player 1's actual first turn. Player 1 still only has 5 cards at the top of their "first full turn" I assume you are assigning value to a turn based on number of cards that can be played and not to number of cards seen when making a play decision. I do think that is debatable but I can now see your logic based on that premise. Thank you.
  5. thank you for this link. this is mostly what I was looking for. I find it surprising that he actually heard back from FFG about a ruling as I haven't heard anything and neither has anyone I've talked to. Why hasn't that official ruling been posted to the official rulings on this website? Was there also a post made by Brad as stated above? So does this mean they are officially defining "all" as "at least 1"? Again thank you for the link instead of just arguing with me.
  6. There are other play effects that create lingering effects like this. Just most of them aren't created by creatures but it shouldn't matter, a play effect is a play effect. For example, library access. It creates a while loop that constantly checks for the variable turn sequence until the variable reads end of turn. That function is not run by the card. The card goes to the discard after the function is created as the card has fully resolved. The function then continues to do its thing separately. P.S. other creatures with similar play abilities: Specifically the horseman's effect doesn't go away if the horseman is killed. the effect has resolved and the function has begun running.
  7. "If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature." a card is on full health I remove all damage from that creature. is zero in the set of all? yes.
  8. Ebucklin

    1-2 Turn Wins

    there is no card called mind control in the game. do you mean mind barb? If so I don't see how this guarantees they have a hand of a single faction on turn 1. how does this lock them down. They just need to remove the creature with the other faction.
  9. Ebucklin

    1-2 Turn Wins

    there are literally 7 decks in the entire world that can do this right now...just sayin'
  10. I would be very interested to see that post. do you have a link? It seems weird to me considering the only thing FFG has officially ruled on is: DAMAGE AND ARMOR When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature. If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile. This means that when a creature has 0 power, if it has 0 damage on it, it is destroyed. However, keep in mind that this does not mean that “0 damage” qualifies as an amount of damage for other cards that care about creatures being damaged (Like Save the Pack). Both 0 power and 0 damage are an equivalent amount of nothing. where they establish that 0 damage is in fact damage for the purpose of determining if something dies. It would also stand to reason that healing of 0 damage is also healing. It is a healing of nothing but it is still healing and the creature ends up at full life so it is full healing. "If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature." 0 is part of "all". It would be different if it said heal x damage like vigor but it just says full heal.
  11. I agree with the logic you have proposed based on your assumptions but I believe your assumptions are in error. "Your opponent cannot choose the house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play" is not a static ability it is part of the play ability. in programming terms, this would be an object creating a function being controlled and run by the player that played the card. It is not attached to the card. This simultaneously running function is pointing at the player's opponent and running a while loop that continuously checks for the presence of the original object in the object space called play. If a person takes control of the object the play effect does not travel with it. If a player played an action that somehow took control of a persistent effect then i agree opponent would change variable but nothing in the wording of the ability says anything about the current opponent of the owner of Restringuntus that would allow the function to check that variable and thus adjust its own. Hope that makes sense as I try to stretch your own analogy to fit the situation more realistically.
  12. SKIRMISH When a creature with the skirmish keyword is used to fight, it takes no damage from the opposing creature when the damage from the fight is dealt. This applies only to damage that would be dealt by the opposing creature’s power, not by damage that is dealt by keywords or other card abilities. the confusion is in the wording of "used to fight" "used" and "fight" are keywords in keyforge. FIGHT Any ready creature of the active house may fight. When a creature is used to fight, its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled by the opponent as the target of the attack. Each of the two creatures deals an amount of damage equal to its power (the value to the left of the card’s title) to the other creature. All of this damage is dealt simultaneously. After the fight resolves, if the creature that is being used to fight survives, all “Fight:” abilities the creature has, if it has any, resolve. A creature cannot fight if there is no enemy creature that can be chosen as the target of the attack. using of a creature is something an active player can do with the creature. when a skirmish creature is attacked by the enemy it is certainly fighting that creature but it was not "used" ,per the game definition of using, to fight. clearly implying a need to activate that function of the card.
  13. I am confused as to how the first player has an advantage. the first player draws opening hand and sheds a chain. then plays 1 card and goes to end turn and sheds a second chain instead of drawing a card. the second player goes. They have also already shed a chain from drawing their opening hand as well. They play cards from their hand and go to end step and also sheds a chain. both players have shed 2 chain at the end of their first turn and the benefits and detriments to going first or second are the same just with smaller hand sizes. How does the first player have an advantage?
  14. The ability to purge must interupt by nature. This is a static replacemnt effect. It replaces the effect of resolving an action with another action. It doesnt say after a creature is sent to discard purge. It says when it is sent purge instead. Instead is the key word here. This requires you to replace the discard effect with purge before it finishes resolving. Further the rules state that the discard piles order must be maintained which means it is on the active player to make a game relevant decision or the ording in which cards go to discard so that is not happening simultaneously. Remember it is not replacing the destroy effect it is replacing the way the card enters the discard pile which does have a player decided order. This definitely needs official clarification as the rules are not clear on how to interpret this. Everything that has been said here makes assumptions about what the rules are implying.
×
×
  • Create New...