Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 16:49:00 -
[1]
Does the ability at the bottom of the card come into effect even if they didn't use the activated power? The activated power states you spend some ISK to divert some damage from one of your own ships at that region to the Guardian. Then, below this, separated by a double space so its on it's own paragraph, the text states that any other damage by ships is ignored.
So, does that separate paragraph indicate that it cannot be damaged by ships directly, ever? For example:
Lets say you have a Guardian out and you warp him to a region. You then sit this Guardian at this region with no other ships. Someone warps in a Feerox, obviously able to crush the Guardian without help. But, during combat is all damage taken to the Guardian is then ignored.. causing the Feerox to warp out after the battle as all defending ships survived combat. Is this the case, or does the Feerox melt the Guardian into slag?
Anyone have thoughts on this?
|
Qual
Gallente XanCom
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 17:46:00 -
[2]
Due to the text beein split into two paragraphs I would assume that the two statements are seperate. So the Ferox would be sent home after first battle phase unless you hit it with some nasty news or something...
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
Xaltin X'Thall
Amarr Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 17:58:00 -
[3]
Ya, here's the text exactly:
Quote:
0: The next 1 damage that would be dealt to target friendly ship is dealt to Guardian instead, as long as they are in the same region.
All other damage dealt to Guardian by ships is prevented.
Looks like ships can't damage it, other than that ability. So, news, structures, etc, would have to be played. *adds a couple more Crokite to his deck*
*sneaks in a couple more guardians* I love being Amarr. :)
-xal
|
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 18:06:00 -
[4]
I agree with you that the paragraphs would indicate that they are not connected, but the wording of the second paragraph also implies that they are connected. It states that, "All other damage dealt to Guardian by ships is prevented." In this it does state other damage, which links the phrase to the first paragraph. This is where my confusion lies. If this were magic it'd state something more like, "All damage dealt by ships to Guardian other than Guardian is prevented." It'd probably be worded a little better than that, but you get the idea.. it would clearly let the ship's power still work, but also make it immune to all other ships.
I guess I need to start beefing up my amarr deck w/ these guys. If it really is immune to other ships when not playing it's activated ability, it's the best location holder ever. Also need to beef up my news to counter the same tactic ;)
|
Qual
Gallente XanCom
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 19:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Popsikle
I may be wrong, because i am wrong alot, but at least explain to me why please ;)
Ok, number one you just start out with something completly of the map. Never did read it to finish. You DO actually get to the right answer. My bad.
As for number three, you have to realise the there is a clear destinction between 'playing a card' which equals the action of 'play' and "putting a card into play' which means moving a card to the play area. So moving the card from you scrapheap to the playing area does not count as a 'play'. Get it? (Think verbs and nouns. If 'play' works as a verb its the play rules, if it works a a noun its not.)
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 19:43:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Qual
Originally by: Popsikle
I may be wrong, because i am wrong alot, but at least explain to me why please ;)
Ok, number one you just start out with something completly of the map. Never did read it to finish. You DO actually get to the right answer. My bad.
As for number three, you have to realise the there is a clear destinction between 'playing a card' which equals the action of 'play' and "putting a card into play' which means moving a card to the play area. So moving the card from you scrapheap to the playing area does not count as a 'play'. Get it? (Think verbs and nouns. If 'play' works as a verb its the play rules, if it works a a noun its not.)
Psst. Wrong thread, bud ;)
|
Hunters Presence
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 23:58:00 -
[7]
A quote from the Oneiros:
"As long as there are one or more friendly ships in this region, prevent all damage dealt to Oneiros"
Maybe the same text was intended for the Guardian. -----
Me! |
|
Kaemonn
Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2006.08.10 00:37:00 -
[8]
Guardian: Damage delt to it by redirecting damage to it is still damage delt to the ship.
Now any other damage delt to Guardian is null and void, except for ships with the Kamakazie abilty.
Oh, and yes this was confermed by the Devs that made the game
forum rules | [email protected] You mean to tell me, theres a game that goes with the forums?
|
|
Hunters Presence
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.10 01:23:00 -
[9]
If I wasn't an Amarrian player I'd be seriously calling 'nerf' right about now -----
Me! |
Xaltin X'Thall
Amarr Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.10 05:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kaemonn Guardian: Damage delt to it by redirecting damage to it is still damage delt to the ship.
Now any other damage delt to Guardian is null and void, except for ships with the Kamakazie abilty.
Oh, and yes this was confermed by the Devs that made the game
other than that I don't have anything constructive to add...
-xal
|
|
Qual
Gallente XanCom
|
Posted - 2006.08.10 07:29:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kaemonn Guardian: Damage delt to it by redirecting damage to it is still damage delt to the ship.
Now any other damage delt to Guardian is null and void, except for ships with the Kamakazie abilty.
Oh, and yes this was confermed by the Devs that made the game
..."exept for ships with the Kamakazie ability."
Huh? Say what? How? Why?
If that was the developers intention, they could at least have included just a HINT in the rules about.
Im pretty familliar with the rules by now, but I can see anything that supports that this ability would work against the Guardian.
Ok, that not entirely true. If the Guardians ability does not protect it against damage from ships abilities, but purely Attack Damage, I could see it. But thats really not what the card says.
If that is the intent of the Guarian ability, then reassembling 3 Scythe's (Reassemble Scythe: Scythe deals 2 damage to enemy ship) should do the trick as well.
So three options here:
1) There are special rules for the Kamakaze ability that aint printet anywhere. 2) The Guardian's ability needs to be specified as to only protect agains Attack Damage. 3) The answer is wrong.
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.10 16:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Veelok on 10/08/2006 16:02:14
Originally by: Qual
So three options here:
1) There are special rules for the Kamakaze ability that aint printet anywhere. 2) The Guardian's ability needs to be specified as to only protect agains Attack Damage. 3) The answer is wrong.
I agree with Qual here. The way the card is worded, it would seem that Kamikaze wouldn't work. This is due to the fact that a ship is the source of the ability which damaged the Guardian. As Qual said, if there aren't special rules for Kamikaze, and the intent is to let Kamikaze through, then any other damage that comes from ships would be let in too and that goes against what the card says. So, now we've hit circular logic and need real clarification.
Something tells me I should put my Guardians in a case.. I'm thinking there'll be a reprint that'll cause this version to be worth a lot.
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 09:46:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Testy Mctest on 14/08/2006 09:48:35 Guardian is worded in two seperate paragraphs, hence it is indeed immune to all ship damage.
The way Guardian is worded, it is unaffected by all damage from ships - be it from Kamikaze, Scythe ability, Retaliate, or anything else. If a dev says otherwise and the card is errata'd, that's fine - but the way the card is currently worded, Kamikaze definitely does not affect it.
This should not really be an issue, as it's still affected by news. However, Amarr having more anti-news cards than anyone else in the game can essentially make Guardians invulnerable. As far as I'm concerned, Guardian is a totally broken card.
Guardian + Eve Gate is essentially unstoppable as long as you draw enough cards to keep your Guardian under news cover.
This card needs errata.
Originally by: Serzos Welcome to EVE. Please select a difficulty
Easy Medium Hard Minmatar
Scrapheap Challenge! |
|
Kaemonn
Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 19:48:00 -
[14]
OK now that I just got back from the business that was GenCon, let me explain a bit more.
The Guardian cannot take damage from other ships. The kamakazie ability, does direct damage not from the ship. The only real way to destroy the Guardian, is by dealing direct damage through kamakazie, or other direct damage cards; of course there is the off chance that the owner redirects 6 damage to the Guardian and blows it up. Hope this clear some stuff up for you.
forum rules | [email protected] You mean to tell me, theres a game that goes with the forums? Immy woz Here |
|
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 20:20:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kaemonn The Guardian cannot take damage from other ships. The kamakazie ability, does direct damage not from the ship.
So wait.. then what is the source of the Kamikaze damage? Is there a source? If not, can this damage ever be prevented by cards if there is no source for the damage? If the ship is the source, wouldn't it be prevented by the Guardian's ability as it states, "Prevent all damage from ships" It doesn't specify combat, just damage from ships.
These issues really need updated in Errata or in a reprint. The rules are very vague and will cause problems if not corrected before the mainstream rules lawyers get ahold of it.
|
|
Kaemonn
Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 21:18:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Veelok
So wait.. then what is the source of the Kamikaze damage? Is there a source? If not, can this damage ever be prevented by cards if there is no source for the damage? If the ship is the source, wouldn't it be prevented by the Guardian's ability as it states, "Prevent all damage from ships" It doesn't specify combat, just damage from ships.
These issues really need updated in Errata or in a reprint. The rules are very vague and will cause problems if not corrected before the mainstream rules lawyers get ahold of it.
There is no source for kamakazie damage. It can be prevented with some creative use of certian news cards though In the official tourny there were many times that it was done, Ill let you figure out how
forum rules | [email protected] You mean to tell me, theres a game that goes with the forums? Immy woz Here |
|
Qual
Gallente XanCom
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 09:34:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kaemonn
Originally by: Veelok
So wait.. then what is the source of the Kamikaze damage? Is there a source? If not, can this damage ever be prevented by cards if there is no source for the damage? If the ship is the source, wouldn't it be prevented by the Guardian's ability as it states, "Prevent all damage from ships" It doesn't specify combat, just damage from ships.
These issues really need updated in Errata or in a reprint. The rules are very vague and will cause problems if not corrected before the mainstream rules lawyers get ahold of it.
There is no source for kamakazie damage. It can be prevented with some creative use of certian news cards though In the official tourny there were many times that it was done, Ill let you figure out how
Ok for the rest of us dumb people out here, who need clear rules: Is damage done by abilities allways without source? Or how else do you recognise this sourceless damage?
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 09:44:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kaemonn In the official tourny there were many times that it was done, Ill let you figure out how
Letting us figure out how rules work isn't exactly good for the game.
There is nothing in the rules that explains damage sources at all, so we're forced to revert to precedent and common sense. Kamikaze damage not having a 'source' is ridiculous, of course it has a source; it comes form the ship. I guarantee this will cause rules issues later down the line if this is an official ruling.
I think the real issue seems to be that distinctions need to be made between normal damage and combat damage.
Originally by: Serzos Welcome to EVE. Please select a difficulty
Easy Medium Hard Minmatar
Scrapheap Challenge! |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 16:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kaemonn Guardian: Damage delt to it by redirecting damage to it is still damage delt to the ship.
Now any other damage delt to Guardian is null and void, except for ships with the Kamakazie abilty.
Oh, and yes this was confermed by the Devs that made the game
So take your guardians, stick em on a nice region, and hope your enemy doesn't play minnie or DD/kill cards.
|
Boda Khan
Gallente Freelance Investigations and Exploration Taskforce Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 11:46:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Boda Khan on 16/08/2006 11:48:08
Originally by: Testy Mctest
There is nothing in the rules that explains damage sources at all, so we're forced to revert to precedent and common sense. Kamikaze damage not having a 'source' is ridiculous, of course it has a source; it comes form the ship. I guarantee this will cause rules issues later down the line if this is an official ruling.
Agreed.
Originally by: Testy Mctest
I think the real issue seems to be that distinctions need to be made between normal damage and combat damage.
Clarity may be achieved by ruling that the Guardian is only immune to damage dealt by ships targeting it in the 'damage-dealing' step of the Battle Phase?
|
|
Ishana
Minmatar Millennium E.R.A
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 13:11:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Ishana on 16/08/2006 13:11:53 On that note,
one of the minmatar upgraded starbases (can't remember the name) states: double all damage ships deal to ships.
So with this "new" interpetation of kamikaze, does that mean this damage is not doubled? (because appearantly it's not ship to ship damage?)
what about the retribution ability then??
/me is confused as hell. _________________________________________________________
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 13:27:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Testy Mctest on 16/08/2006 13:27:19
Originally by: Boda Khan
Clarity may be achieved by ruling that the Guardian is only immune to damage dealt by ships targeting it in the 'damage-dealing' step of the Battle Phase?
That would work, but I think for sake of completeness, it would be better to have one all-encapsulating ruling/change to define damage sources, and differentiate combat and ability damage.
Originally by: Ishana Edited by: Ishana on 16/08/2006 13:11:53
one of the minmatar upgraded starbases (can't remember the name) states: double all damage ships deal to ships.
/me is confused as hell.
Frailty Tower states 'ships deal to ships' and not just 'dealt to ships'? I cant remember and I aint got cards here, but Im fairly certain it's the second one. If it's the first, then this ruling would indeed stop Frailty doubling things like Adaster's, Kamikaze, etc. If it's the second, then it wouldnt fall under the same ruling, and everything that deals damage would be doubled.
As for Retaliate, under this ruling, Guardians are not immune to it that either.
Scrapheap Challenge! |
Ishana
Minmatar Millennium E.R.A
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 13:33:00 -
[23]
Frailty Tower
It does state: ships deal to ships.
So does kamikaze only deal single damage? and what about retribution? I would like to know since we had this problem in the very first game we played. And I intend on using frailty tower VERY often. _________________________________________________________
|
|
Tallest
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 13:40:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Tallest on 16/08/2006 13:42:42 First of all, read this: Frequently Asked Questions
Excerpt: "Yes, the Guardian is nigh invulnerable. It doesn't take any damage at all from ships, except the damage you choose to redirect to it. Damage dealt by cards other than ships is treated normally."
As for Kamikaze damage, it defenately has a source and that source is a ship card. So kamikaze damage dealt to ships is indeed doubled with Frailty Tower in play. The same goes for retaliate.
|
|
Ishana
Minmatar Millennium E.R.A
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 14:00:00 -
[25]
OK so it's save to assume that the damage done by kamikaze CAN NOT damage a guardian then? _________________________________________________________
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 14:39:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ishana OK so it's save to assume that the damage done by kamikaze CAN NOT damage a guardian then?
Yes indeedy - it has a source, and Guardians prevents damage from that source. So we're back to where we started; Guardian is total wtfbbqpwn :)
Scrapheap Challenge! |
Veelok
Harbingers of Sarrow
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 15:59:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Veelok on 16/08/2006 15:59:29
Originally by: Testy Mctest Yes indeedy - it has a source, and Guardians prevents damage from that source. So we're back to where we started; Guardian is total wtfbbqpwn :)
You can say that again. Holy crap, I need to start putting more DD in my deck. Wish I had an icy.. and tapping worked ;)
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 16:42:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Veelok Wish I had an icy.. and tapping worked ;)
Lol and lol :)
Scrapheap Challenge! |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.16 17:07:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Hunters Presence If I wasn't an Amarrian player I'd be seriously calling 'nerf' right about now
I'd just play a card that outright removes the ship from play.
|
Qual
Gallente XanCom
|
Posted - 2006.08.17 18:51:00 -
[30]
Ok, eh.
Ok.
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.08.18 09:14:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Originally by: Hunters Presence If I wasn't an Amarrian player I'd be seriously calling 'nerf' right about now
I'd just play a card that outright removes the ship from play.
And Amarr would just play 4x Exiled, 4x Mind Control, 4x Damage Control
What makes Guardian amazing imo is that the deck it's played in has ultimate synergy with it.
Scrapheap Challenge! Liverpool Eve CCG Tournament, 02/09/06!
|
Strykar
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 02:01:00 -
[32]
It sounds like the card is a tad overpowered. At least thats my initial impression. Though maybe not.
I guess it really depends on how many cards there are available that other players can put in their deck to counter what seems like a very powerful card in amarr decks.
|
Qual
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 06:59:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Strykar It sounds like the card is a tad overpowered. At least thats my initial impression. Though maybe not.
I guess it really depends on how many cards there are available that other players can put in their deck to counter what seems like a very powerful card in amarr decks.
Well it kinda has the text: "Target Outer Region cant be invaded while this card is still in play." It has other uses as well, but its really not THAT overpowered. It just get an A+ for versatility.
[TBA]
"The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |