| Author |
|
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 07 March 2008 at 8:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
-Howdy all. Some cards say "Can only be destroyed by damage from X source" or "Cannot be destroyed by card damage". Those seem clear enough. However, there are a few cards that say the following :
"Can be damaged by research equal to double the strength of the card" or something like that.
So, by the meaning of the words in that sentence, the card can be destroyed by research. My question is, can it still be destroyed by normal damage means, such as hazard / phaser fire / crew card damage?
There are a few cards that have the word "can" in the ruling without the qualifier "only" but my interest was piqued when viewing the Psy Dragonness as i have only included her once in my dragon deck incarnations. I may do so more often if she can 'only' be destroyed or damaged by her card ruling qualifiers. Thanks in advance, have a good one.....Lobo
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 07 March 2008 at 8:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
There are many definitions of the word, "can". I think they meant this one: Slang: Usually Vulgar. toilet; bathroom.
Nope, that "can" would be in addition to normal means.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 07 March 2008 at 10:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Do 'can' effects overpower 'can't' effects?
For example, if I have a C10 Spiritual Leader in play, can I use phaser damage to destroy phaser eels? Can I apply research or phaser damage to monsters that say 'can only be damaged by heavy weapons fire' or 'cannot be damage by weapons fire.'?
We've usually ruled that the C10 gets priority, since it is an entity. What would be the official stance?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 07 March 2008 at 10:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
well, I would really hate to just give it a blanket statement.
Usually, "can" takes priority, but I'd rather give that blessing on a case by case basis.
And, yes, as I've said in previous threads, I generally side with an entity card.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 29 March 2008 at 6:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wait a min. Is this part of the Bill and Monica investigation? I mean when is is is? What is your Deffinition of the word Confused? I was under the impression that the card rule always takes presidence. If I say Can I go to the Can? Then I Aught to be able to go to the can if the card says I can.Now on the other hand...........(Help their dragging ....me awa (Bump)
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 29 March 2008 at 10:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, what if I have a card that says it can't be hurt by something, and another card says it can hurt that card with the same thing?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 29 March 2008 at 5:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Last card played takes Presidence?
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eaglepreacher
IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 30 March 2008 at 5:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Last card taking precidence is for reaction card sequences. But there are two possible solutions. 1) strongest card rules take precidence. or 2)A long winded version....example.. a card is immune to research damage(assumes standard sources)...another card says this cards research may damage any card (unique source). My call would at this time be for the second card. Simuliar to Superman is immune to bullets, but my gun has krypto bullets...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 30 March 2008 at 8:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eagelpreacher Question, If someone plays a card and someone then plays a card to it , Is that not in reaction? Card rule takes presidence? The last card played's Rule would be law for the moment?That is if "Card Rule Takes Presidence?" Now back to Bill and when is is is.?
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 30 March 2008 at 10:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
"card rules take precedence" is usually in regards to the game rules. For example, if I had a card that's ability goes against what the game does, it's rules take precedence.
Normal card plays aren't necessarily reaction plays unless you are "reacting" to a card play before that card has been "resolved" into play.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 30 March 2008 at 3:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My Suggestion and Question is that Card Rule prevail? Therefore if you are playing by Companions Games intent -If a card has a rule that allows it to do something that another card has a rule that says it is inpervious to. That particular card rule would override the former cards general rule as having the ability to superseed the first cards general rule?Now does that make any sence?Ex. (Card one)Can not be destroyed (Card Two) Can Destroy) Then Card Two being the last played would have final say? Unless someone had a reactionary card handy? Does that seem correct? Ex. Can Do. Ex. Can't be Ex.Can and will?
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 6:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
That's the thing though, when two card rules go up against each other, which one is right? I don't think it specifies "last played" anywhere.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 7:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Can you name two cards that actualy go aginst each other? All I can say is that if you look at the (GI's) Companion Games corrected alot of conflicts in them. Some of what they posted would show general intent and their thought as to remedy a givin situation. I would say that would have to be an indivuals group call. Alot of problems can be solved by the rules and updates that are posted in the (Errati) that is shown in those publications. Well I am off to Albany to see what I can find in the Archives.
Edited by Biegel on 31 March 2008 at 8:08am
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 10:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RobPro wrote:
Well, what if I have a card that says it can't be hurt by something, and another card says it can hurt that card with the same thing?
|
|
|
Can you give a specific example?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 2:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
An Astromorph says it is damaged by heavy weapons fire. A C10 Spiritual Leader allows phasers to be used to damage opponent monsters.
Can my phasers hurt him or not?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 2:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Okay, first let's pick a card other than an entity, let's say a C8 Spiritual Leader. I would always side with the entity.
Quote:
| -Allows any opponent monster to be damaged by research points |
|
|
In this case, the C8 would be able to hurt the Astromorph, because the Astromorph does not say it can ONLY be damaged by heavy weapons fire.
But, what if it did? I'm sure there is an example(s) of this situation.
I'd say the more restrictive, can ONLY be damaged rule would win out. No particular reason. It is just a judgment call.
Play it however your group sees fit.
Edited by Gekonauak on 31 March 2008 at 2:37pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 31 March 2008 at 9:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I only ask because a lot of most have a "can ONLY" requirement to be removed, and this would more or less neuter the Spiritual Leader's functionality.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 01 April 2008 at 4:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Haveing multible versions of every printing I see your confusion. I was given the answer in an earlier thread that the most current printing of text was the one to be used. Alot of confusion comes from the fact that many groups probley play a common verson, and Do to interenet trading other versions become advalible. Unfotunately the cards were printed in English and not Latin and beng we have the most basterdized language on earth Bill said it best" It depends on your definition of is"(Or when Can Can Can) I just stuck that in there, Being a democracy though some will dispute this,the (group) being the most common denominator has to make the discision. Pick your refs wisely. Just a crazies opinion
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 01 April 2008 at 9:04am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RobPro wrote:
I only ask because a lot of most have a "can ONLY" requirement to be removed, and this would more or less neuter the Spiritual Leader's functionality.
|
|
|
That is something that we would have had to have an in depth look at. I just gave an answer off the top of my head.
How many are there? "can ONLY be damaged by"
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 01 April 2008 at 10:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's one:
M4 Harvesters
-Consumes all supply generated by the terrain it is played against.
-A
science officer causes the harvesters to move to another terrain card
anywhere in play, selected by the harvesters player.
-Can only be
destroyed if the terrain is destroyed.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 02 April 2008 at 5:11am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I only found 2 monsters that say Can only be destroyed.... Only the Harvesters seems to create a Question in relation to Robpros Question. As Geko stated that the benifit goes to the Entity I think it is self explanary. If alot of cards shared this problem I would say it deserved further study. The other cards that do share (Can) have suffecient diction to elimanate question. This is one Humanbeans opinion. I fail to see how this impacts on the game and could stand further enlightenment Major Tom (Pis Pis Wake up your Que)
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 02 April 2008 at 8:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
there is only TWO monsters with a "can ONLY be destroyed by" clause?!?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 02 April 2008 at 3:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've seen more than two! But I don't have my cards in front of me right now.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 02 April 2008 at 4:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
There are maybe 12 monsters With Can be or Can only be destroyed in them. I think we are looking at the can only be destoyed by's. I count 5 of them the M3 Scandig Blob- Can only be destroyed by hazard damage equal to its strenght,M5 Astromorphs can only be damaged by heavy weopons, M5 Power leech can only be destroyed with research, M5 Symericasas Cloud can only be destroyed by Hazard Card equal to its strenght, M7 Astromorph Can only be damaged by heavy weopons fire.(Excuse Spelling please) Anyways most of them Quify by giving the type of Damage to affect them. RobPro were you asking if you could change the force being used by a specific card and use it aginst a card that stated Can only be destroyed by a different specfic power? I am confused by the way this is bouncing around in discussion.
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eaglepreacher
IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 3:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
phaser eels- can only be damaged non-phaser weapons
But the question is actually broader than the "can" , "can Only" and "can't" wording. Exactly what kills a monster? According to the rule book "Each monster card defines where it is played, how it works, what damage(if any) it causes and how it is killed or negated." Most monster cards have a discard or destroyed clause, some say only and some do not. So a phaser eel say only but a psychotic slugde says "destroyed by psy damage". The only clause isn't there but it doesn't says can be damaged by something else!, but niether does it exclude other things. Some monsters have no clause- M1 party animals, m1 space penguin, r/m2 avian dragon, r/m2 ionized phaser eel, r/m3 jungle moths, r/m3 money hungry weasel, r/m6 ionized phaser eel, and there might be more M6 and above but I am out of time. But the wholepoint of the question is if a cards says what it is damaged by whether it says only or not, while another card says it can kill by... which one should have its rule follwed???
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 7:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think the intent of the spiritual leaders is to circumvent the natural "kill" clause of most monsters, otherwise those abilities are pointless. But I'm just curious in the name of clarity.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 9:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eaglepreacher wrote:
| According to the rule book "Each monster card defines where it is played, how it works, what damage(if any) it causes and how it is killed or negated." |
|
|
Well, it is nice of the rulebook to say that, but in reality that is not the case. Like you said... MOST, but not all of them say how they are killed or negated. Leaving the ones that are not in the gray zone.
Eaglepreacher wrote:
| But the question is actually broader than the "can" , "can Only" and "can't" wording. |
|
|
Eaglepreacher wrote:
| So a phaser eel say only but a psychotic slugde says "destroyed by psy damage". The only clause isn't there but it doesn't says can be damaged by something else!, but niether does it exclude other things. |
|
|
Yes, but the card in question allows you to damage any monster. In the case of the Sludge, it tells you how it can be destroyed. The Spiritual Leader (and any other card granting a similar ability) tells you it can also be destroyed by his method.
So, yes, I do believe it comes down to the "may only be damaged by" clause. Cause that restricts the Spiritual Leader, and says (to me) that he doesn't work.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 9:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey, check out the Phaser Eel, I believe he would be immune to the Spiritual Leader as well.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 9:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok I tryed this once, Lets try agin. In Issue #1 Galactic Intercom on page 5 In a Question and Answer segment this Question and Answer is Stated;"Question: What happens when a Tractor Beam and a Space Dragon(M4 from basic deck)are played aginst the same ship? Can the affected ship still fire? Answer: It depends on which is played first. (The rules state that the last- played card has presidence over earlier played cards. Therefore,if the Tractor Beam is played after the Space Dragon, the affected ship may fire only at the unit which used the Tractor Beam until that unit has been destroyed or the Tractor Beam stops working." The Rule stating that the Last played card has presidence is what I bring your attention to. Does that help?
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Biegel
Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 03 April 2008 at 9:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As I see it if the last played card takes presidence the power of the spirtual leader would override the Can only be destroyed by clause in a monster rule. That is if the current card rule is the rule.
__________________
mostspaceman
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: What is the definition of ’can’?
