Jump to content

KFMixer

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KFMixer

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The difference comes when they've put out rules changes before the official OP rule book version release. Aside from making excuses why this was overlooked, I see this as a huge disservice to tournament player base. If they want to call it organized play, then they should be organized on their side. If they aren't organized, then they will be causing player drama for zero reason. Also, we pay money to enter these tournaments. Some people wouldn't think a rule set is too important, but it is when we are paying for the games. In my opinion, there is no excuse as to why they don't have complete rules listed. Someone is being lazy or forgetful with OP rules book. If that's the type of activity people want to support, then that's fine.....but it should be simple to see why someone desires FFG to take things seriously, I mean they want OP to be serious. Is it really a good start for OP, where they just don't think of putting applicable rules in the OP rule book? Does that help player confidence? Maybe understand why a player would want FFG to take accountability, say sorry, and it the problems? OP deserves better, period. How dare I expect that OP be organized. Is that so ridiculous? Is it so foreign that important rules not just be shared in the news section of the distributor website (aka not even the game website), or on YouTube videos. Sorry for putting precedence in official rule sets.
  2. If your Dis house choice has allowed you to use Nexus, then yes you can use any readied artifact. You don't need to consider the house of the artifact, just use it and exhaust it. Even if you're not using the artifact's effect, you are still making it to where the opponent can't use it. I agree with the fact that most will not declare logos just to use a Spangler. There's very few situations where an artifact use is worth an entire lost turn.
  3. In my opinion, the armor would only apply once damage per armor point per round. If the armor is bypassed with shadow self, then you would just resolve a single punch card at a time. If the armor should be calculated, then you would hit the 1 armor for champion, and then 2 damage points to shadow. The subsequent 2 punches would each hit for 3 damage to shadow self each for a total damage of 8 (down 1 from the single armor point from champion). Of course, this gets muddied when you throw a bulwark into the equation. Here's how I feel that one works out. Let's say the same situation exists Champion Shadow Self and then Bulwark on shadow self's other side. If the armor is bypassed on champion, then you would hit shadow self for 1 damage because 2 absorbed by shadow self's armor with subsequent 2 punches dealing a total of 7 damage counters on shadow self. If the armor should be calculated (as I believe is correct), then you'd hit the 1 armor from champion and the 2 armor on shadow self with the first punch for 0 damage. Then the other 2 punches would each tally 3 damage for a total of 6 damage counters on shadow self. The two scenarios aren't "that" different, but when someone is trying to skirt the edge of keeping their mob alive, that incoming armor point makes all of the difference. I wonder how tournament officials have been calling it.
  4. They did not say "Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature IS DEALT each turn", notice how they say "would take". To me, that talks about a middle ground between damage being attributed to the creature, and before damage is allocated to the creature. I know that it's splitting hairs, but I also think that the intent of the rule is that armor would take off first. Here again, I have no grounds of which to claim that I know the intent of what they meant the card to do ..... but, I "feel" that the intent was that the card was not meant to super-cede armor, but I'm saying that from an admittedly biased viewpoint.
  5. This is a good question. I haven't given this any thought at all. I will review my 14 decks for a pattern. I am hoping that this is random, and that the color doesn't give clues as to what's powerful in a deck.
  6. I'm not the one at fault, that is FFG. If you don't see that, then you're just a fanboy.
  7. Obviously you aren't that heavy of an OP gamer, or you don't give leeway to people who are. There's zero reason that FFG puts out rules clarifications 6 days before a new OP rulebook, and they don't include those rules in the rulebook..... ZERO You suggesting that I am just an entitled player shows that you have no understanding of how tournament rules should be handled. I've shown exactly how they were ignorant with their rules, and yet you want to attack me. You have no right to attack me, for showing that they have not done their due diligence.
  8. If the damage was prevented, then how is it there for Shadow Soul to redirect? Yep, I can see where both interpretations come from, but I feel the "prevented" definition is more powerful and hard standing than reasons. If the rules state that something is prevented, then why should any mechanics down the line affect it? The damage didn't happen, it was prevented right in the beginning.
  9. No, that's absolutely incorrect. The damage was prevented by the armor. Or, are you just ignoring what the term prevented means? Prevented doesn't mean that the damage still goes through, and we act as though it happens as usual.
  10. Here's also where I see the flaw in that logic "When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature." Here they are clearly saying that "dealt damage" is the end damage that goes onto the creature. They really need a separate term to mean damage that was assigned to a creature, because that is what we are discussing. Is shadow self responsible for all damage assigned to a creature, or just the damage that the creature received? If you look at this little quote that I pulled from your reply, then you could make the argument that damage dealt to a creature wouldn't happen until damage tokens would need to be placed onto the creature. This would allow for armor and constant abilities to mitigate that damage first. "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 an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn." So, by the rulebook, the amount of damage dealt to the creature is the amount of damage tokens that you put onto it, but armor PREVENTS this incoming damage. If the damage was prevented, and no damage tokens would be put onto the creature, then how is there damage that shadow self redirects? This is why I think this is a bug, and a misunderstanding of the rules and terminology by many people. If something is prevented, then it NEVER HAPPENED. Such is the definition of prevented, it was stopped.
  11. The rulebook states that armor prevents damage. This means that it stops it from happening. So, are we suggesting that the Shadow Self's ability then trumps armor? I personally don't think so, but I could see where someone gets that interpretation. As for me, I feel that the damage never happens, because the armor prevents that damage from ever happening (written at the top of page 7).
  12. Don't use the word absorb, because that is an armor word, where shadow self is dealt the damage that the creature takes. Of course we know the question, does shadow self take the damage that the attacked creature sustains, or all damage that it's attacked with. There's a big difference between those two, and I can see arguments for both in the way the cards are written. Something like this needs an official ruling, in my opinion.... because too many stores will interpret it differently. I still hold fast that shadow self would only redirect damage that a creature has taken. This is because the rules state "If a creature has an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn." The fact that that damage is PREVENTED, tells me that it never even hits the creature. You see, even when looking at how the rulebook talks about it, it says it two different ways. The first, it says that it is prevented (quoted above). That is the explanation when it's talking about character cards and what things are. The second comes from the glossary of Armor, "that damage is absorbed by the armor," So, we see this listed as both "the armor prevents that much incoming damage" and "that damage is absorbed by the armor". Of course, I put a ton of value into the term PREVENTED, because that means that it didn't even happen. That's the difference of the terminology. To me, prevented speaks about happening before damage is dealt because it's prevented from even happening, when the terminology of absorbed is a bit unclear if that is before damage or not. Of course, people will have different opinions and you changed your opinion in the span of several replies to this thread 😃 To me, it doesn't matter WHO is right or not, but I just want to know the rulings so that we can play that way across the board. If I was a tournament director or marshall, I would rule in favor of the term "prevented", because that is clear vernacular. The definition of prevent or prevented tells the tale (imho). This means that something is stopped or kept from happening. Using this exact terminology from the rulebook, then the armor stops that 1 damage from happening, or the armor kept the 1 damage from happening.
  13. First off, the crucible is not the place to discuss official interactions and mechanics. Period. Second, I saw a huge misunderstanding of how this works, in several different outlets online. The important thing here is the rules, and how the rules works. Who gives two craps about crucible? I don't at all... it's not official and it doesn't matter at all. What does matter is the rule and the mechanics that happens. That is the important part. Crucible matters none, but tournament play and the rules are much more important.
  14. The big caveat is in the rulebook where it says that "Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn" That damage was prevented before the champion even took the damage. There was no damage dealt to the creature at all
×
×
  • Create New...