7 replies to this topic

[jawbone]

I don't understand how damaging cards works as a cost. 

 

On June 25, 2015, we got this ruling for Trust Me: 

 

Q:
I was asking about Trust Me and using protect.
A:
As long as 2 damage (the cost) is dealt successfully (either to Trust Me, a System Patrol Craft, or some combination of both), the event cancel (the effect) of Trust Me will resolve.
--
Erik Dahlman

 

Trust Me says "Interrupt: When an event card is played, deal 2 damage to this objective to cancel that event card's effects."

 

So even if you protect the damage and it never arrives on Trust Me, you are considered to have paid the cost of the interrupt.  

 

But then the new FAQ, Section 4.12 says: 

 

Damage has been successfully ‘dealt’ if it has actually made it onto a card. If dealing damage is the cost of
an ability, all of that damage must be successfully dealt for the cost to be considered successfully paid. Any
ability that references the amount of damage ‘dealt’ to  a card or game element refers to the number of damage tokens physically placed on it. If some effect prevents,reassigns, or moves that damage to another card, the original card has not been ‘dealt damage.’

 

My Questions are:

1. Does this contradict the Trust Me ruling?

  If not, why?  If so, does it overrule it? 

2.  Can I play Battle Fury (Deal 1 damage to a participating Wookiee unit you control to deal 1 damage each to up to 2 target participating enemy units.) on some participating wookiee, then protect onto EOD Chewie to return double that damage to my opponent's unit?  Why or why not? 

3.  What about Dense Wroshyr Forest?  Can I focus it, damage  wookiee A but protect onto wookiee B, and put the shield on wookiee A? 

4.  Can I not do any of this and wookiees really suck now?  Did they always suck? 

 

[dbmeboy]

Best Answer

There are some edge cases of damage dealing changed by the new FAQ, but nothing as major as any of those examples.

 

In general, substitution effects work with paying costs.  So if you use Protect to change where damage is dealt, it still ends up being dealt and the cost is paid (even if it's not dealt to the original location).  If you prevent a cost (eg protect to Qu Rahn and prevent the damage with The Survivors), then the cost has not been paid.

 

1. Trust Me ruling remains intact.  Wording change actually fixes rules to match the ruling.

2. That works.  You have substituted the cost, not prevented it.

3. This doesn't work (and didn't before).  Here, you're not substituting the cost. When there's a "then" in an effect, the first part of the effect must happen for the second part to happen.  In this example, the targeted wookiee is not dealt the 1 damage, so you cannot resolve the 2nd part of the effect placing a shield.

[jawbone]

Thanks! 

 

I can't deduce the agreement between the Trust Me ruling and Sec 4.12  from their wording.  Is there some third thing ruling or supreme principle that harmonizes them? 

[dbmeboy]

There's a few rulings (including the Trust Me ruling you quoted) that talk about substituting costs and that still counting as the cost being paid.

That doesn't actually interact at all with section 4.12. If you protect away the damage, it is true that Trust Me was not dealt damage. But the game/ability sees that the cost was paid by damaging something else instead and the effect occurs.

For a similar example of replacing a cost, Spice Visions *can* be used to replace costs of focusing a unit with damaging the unit instead.

[jawbone]

How does the FAQ change bring the rules into line with the Trust Me ruling? 

[punkeedo]

But, for example, if Unsavory Contracts is on the board and (using its reaction) you go to damage BK, only to protect using Bubo it wouldn't work right?  Specifically because of the language of "Then" and "that unit":

 

Reaction: After an opponent’s turn begins, deal 1 damage to a target Bounty Hunter or Mercenary unit you control. Then, remove 1 focus token from that unit. 

[dbmeboy]

But, for example, if Unsavory Contracts is on the board and (using its reaction) you go to damage BK, only to protect using Bubo it wouldn't work right?  Specifically because of the language of "Then" and "that unit":
 
Reaction[/size]: After an opponent’s turn begins, deal 1 damage to a target [/size]Bounty Hunter[/size] or [/size]Mercenary[/size] unit you control. Then, remove 1 focus token from that unit.[/size] [/size]

Correct. In that case, you'd end up dealing the damage to Bubo, but not removing any focus tokens from anyone.

[dbmeboy]

How does the FAQ change bring the rules into line with the Trust Me ruling?

So the rules previously treated the words "deal" and "dealt" as separate concepts. Specifically, "deal" damage referred to the act of assigning damage (ie before excess damage was ignored) while "dealt" damage referred to the amount of damage that ended up being actually placed (ie after excess damage was ignored).

In the case of Trust Me, the cost for using the ability was to "deal" 2 damage. Per the deal vs dealt rules, that could be done regardless of the remaining damage capacity. However, it was ruled that 2 damage must actually be dealt in order for the cost to have been paid. The ruling wasn't actually supported by the rules or card wording because the cost was to *deal* 2 damage, not to *dealt* 2 damage.

FAQ now worded to remove the deal vs dealt super specific distinction that caused all sorts of problems with the English language.