| Author |
|
Aramax
Exalted
Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 01 October 2006 at 3:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
With Orgons card damage,do you have to use it in 'groups' or can you break it up one point at a time?We have allways played it as 0ne point at a time but this makes Orgons VERY powerful.I was woundering if anyone knew the rules on this.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 01 October 2006 at 5:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This would depend on whether card damage is counted as a volley or not; I
don't remember. If so, then just doing 1 pt. to a unit over and over again
isn't legal. A given unit can only be the target of damage once per player
turn if I remember correctly.
Frankly, since it's card damage, it can't be negated by things like most of
the common luck and equipment cards, so I don't see any advantage to
doing 1 pt. to a target five times instead of 5 pts. one time.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 01 October 2006 at 7:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think he was more asking if you could split the card damage between multiple targets. The damage done by the Orgons Card Damage is not a weapons volley, and is done during either of the Play Cards phases as a card action. The rules don't say whether or not you can split the damage, but I would assume that you may not, as any card which actually does Card Damage to multiple targets explicetly says so, both in the text and in the corner with a notation something like "6xXX" for 2 damage to 6 different targets.
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 02 October 2006 at 6:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
No you can not split it up.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bignea
Exalted
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 15 October 2006 at 7:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
i agree with gek thats how i play them. have another interesting question. our group plays the promo terrain with shields that we don't use the shields to make them a little less powerfull, except when using psy or like the dragon terrain the shields protect the dragon. in the forum here we agreed that orgons can use space dragon cards like abilities and terrain to support them because they are a D card. well heres the situation i have a D8 orgon on a T6 dragon promo that the shields protect the dragon and i also have C9 admiral on the terrain, would i be able to use the function of the admiral for the shields of the terrain because one of our players thinks since the crew can't be played to dragons and the shields protect the dragon ( being part of the dragon ) the admiral only functions for the strength of the terrain or the admiral is at the terrain location not the dragon location. i think the dragon is the location since it's played to the terrain even though the admiral is played to the terrain. what do you think? also speeking of locations we had a marauder attack a crew that was played to the terrain and a generic ship played there, would you be able to cause 2 points of damage to the ship also?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 15 October 2006 at 2:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Okay, this is kind of a sticky issue... just as an aside, if you could
separate your questions into individual paragraphs next time, that would
make it easier to read your posts and separate out the individual
questions you're asking.
Anyway... It seems to me that you're confusing the Dragon's location and
the Terrain's location. Both the Dragon and the terrain are each a
location, in other words, each is a stack. It's just that both the Dragon
and the admiral are each a 'sub-stack' on the planet.
Because the admiral and the Dragon are both played to a common
location (the planet), the admiral's damage modifier will work for the
planet's location, which includes the Dragon. In other words, because the
Dragon is also at the location of the planet, it would benefit from the
damage modifier of the admiral, even though the admiral and the Dragon
are different sub-stacks, but they are both at the location of the planet.
For the admiral to be played to the Dragon, the admiral would need an A6
Dragon Rider played to it, or the Dragon would need an E3 Dragon Saddle
played to it, respectively. They don't have to be one stack together for
the admiral to give its benefit to the Dragon, because they are both at the
same parent location; the planet.
As for the Marauder question, the way to figure it out is the same; if the
ship is played to the planet, and the Marauder attacks the planet's
location, then I'd say yes, the Marauder could damage the ship as well as
kill a crew on the planet. If the ship were not played to the planet, then
I'd say no, the Marauder could not damage the ship, because it would be
at a separate location, somewhere other than the planet, which where the
Marauder is.
The deeper issue is what is a stack, and what stack is where. Each stack
is it's own location, even if that stack is at another location. Another
example would be when a base is played to a planet. Unless the card text
on the base says it can be played independently, or it's a special base like
a Vektrean base, the base is a location itself, as is the planet, but the base
is also at the planet's location.
This is just how I understand it, and I hope it makes sense... :P
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bignea
Exalted
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 15 October 2006 at 4:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
sorry, iguess writing is not my strong point. yes i agree with what you said. my friend didn't think so, so i posted this to clear things up. thanks.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 16 October 2006 at 7:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
No, unfortunately the Admiral only provides protection to HIS location. If i shot at the Dragon, the admiral on the terrain would have no impact on the volley, even if the shields on the terrain are protecting the Dragon. This would be intercepting damage.
Same for the Marauder... He would have to do a TNB mission to the ship to damage the ship. And a TNB mission to the planet to kill the crew. Even if the crew and the ship were both in play on the planet. The Marauder can only effect HIS location.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 16 October 2006 at 8:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wait a minute, in each of these examples, for instance, the Admiral and the
Dragon, are both in play on the planet, which is the same location. So how
is it that the Admiral modifier won't affect the Dragon?
The Admiral is protected from transporter based TNB crew attacks by the
shield (an oscillating transporter not withstanding), and the Dragon is
protected by the planet's shields. I don't see how this is logical, especially
considering that previous rulings here have stated for example, that
Dragons can be affected by O class cards if the card affects their location,
for example, when played against the location stack the Dragon is on.
This ruling contradicts previous rulings. I don't see how it can be both
ways.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
while the Admiral and the Dragon are both in play on the terrain. I am not firing on the Admiral's location. Which is what he effects.
Again, the Marauder effects his location. If he does a TNB mission to kill the crew on the planet (the Marauder's location), he cannot do damage to the ship. He would need to do a TNB mission to the ship to effect it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Blacklassie
Adept
Joined: 19 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: 17 October 2006 at 2:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The Admiral reduces damage to his location...If any part of his location is taking damage then it should be reduced...Terrain and shields are not two locations...Damage to either should be reduced by the Admiral..Just my view...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bignea
Exalted
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 17 October 2006 at 4:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
just to add to this the ship says it must be played to the terrain and that is where the marauder was trans to.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 17 October 2006 at 5:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree with this concensus... It can't be both ways. Normally I agree with
and abide by most of Geko's rulings, but this not only defies logic, but it
goes against other rulings that have been made here in the past when
there is a location with sub-locations on it. That ruling, as I mentioned
before in the case of when a Dragon is on a terrain and an Occurrence is
played to the terrain, is that what effects the terrain also effects the sub-
locations on the terrain.
This also is in direct conflict with other examples, for instance, two
different crew on the same base. According to Geko's ruling, even
though those two crew are on the same location, separate TNB missions
would be required to kill both crew cards by an attack capable crew, even
if the attacking crew were capable of two attacks per turn, such as a
Marauder with a Battlesuit. However, to the best of my recollection, in
the past here it has been agreed that such a case is that both crew are at
one location.
However, if it's different for a planet, then that gives planets a special
privileged status, different from anything else that constitutes a location
in the game, i. e. a stack. While it is true that each stack constitutes it's
own location, it seems ludicrous to split hairs between planets and bases.
Yes, in real life it could be the case that one crew is on one side of the
planet and the other crew is on the other side (and why wouldn't
something like this be the case on a base), but again, why should this be
differential between planets and bases, and why would we suddenly have
to come up with this special exception to take reality into account in the
game, when so many times in the past we've had to ignore such issues
for the expediency of game play in the past?
I can live with it if it's decided amongst us that two sub-locations have to
be attacked separately, but we can't have it mixed up like this, it can't be
one way for bases and all other locations, but not for terrain. If that's the
case we need to have a logical explanation that also works within the
mechanics of the game to account for such a special case and/or
exception to the normal mechanics of game play.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 18 October 2006 at 7:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I will agree that the Admiral can reduce damage applied to his location. The wording on the cards are fairly general that he should reduce the damage.
even though those two crew are on the same location
They aren't at the same location though. The crew is on the terrain, and the ship is a separate location.
The Occurance in the previous question affected the entire stack. This card does not. It effects his location.
Think of it as a crew on the ship and a crew on the terrain. Can a Marauder do one TNB mission to kill both? No, he cannot.
The ship is at the location of the crew, but the second crew's location is actually the ship, not the terrain.
A ship in play on a terrain (or a base on a terrain) is a separate location then the terrain.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 18 October 2006 at 11:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing that a base on a terrain is its own location. What I'm
disagreeing with is the idea that two different stacks on a terrain are not
at the same location, which is what you are saying.
Yes, each stack is its own location, but each of those locations has a
location in common, they are both at the location of the terrain. Even
though they are separate locations, they each have the same parent
location; the terrain they are played to.
Also, you clearly aren't understanding my example of the two crew on the
same base. This is also no different than any two other stacks that have
the same common parent location, such as the base or the planet they
are played to. My point is that even though the cards are separate stacks,
and that each can be a location, because they are both played to a
location in common, they therefore have the same location in common,
the base of the planet for example. Because of this, I argue that an attack
that affects one of them will affect both of them.
If it is the case, as you again imply, that separate TNB missions must be
done on the same base to attack both those crew cards, then why is there
even any card in the game that lets a card like a Marauder do two crew
attacks in one turn? It would be worthless and pointless, because
according to your interpretation, the Marauder would not be able to
attack more than one card in a turn, even though it had the ability to kill
two crew cards in one turn.
Again, you're not understanding that there is a hierarchical structure to
the locations here. If two separate stacks are in play at a common
location, then those stacks have a location in common. While they are
indeed separate locations themselves, the fact that they are both in the
same place means just that, they are both in the same place. I can't make
it any clearer than that. What you're saying is that even though they're
both at the same location, because they are separate locations
themselves, that is more important than the fact they are at a common
location, and because they are separate locations in themselves, they
cannot both be attacked at the same time, even though they are both at
the same parent location (the location they have in common). I think that
is not only completely illogical, but simply ludicrous as well.
Sorry to be so strident here, but it's pretty much clear as day... in your
interpretation, the two crew cards on the same base are no different that
two crew cards on separate bases, and that's just ridiculous.
Edited by MogwaiSC on 18 October 2006 at 11:54am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 18 October 2006 at 1:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, each stack is its own location, but each of those locations has a location in common, they are both at the location of the terrain. Even though they are separate locations, they each have the same parent location; the terrain they are played to.
This I agree with.
However, ships and bases can only be damaged by crew if the unit is the location.
Also, you clearly aren't understanding my example of the two crew on the same base.
Perhaps I am not. This is what I think we are discussing:
Terrain-->Crew
Same Terrain-->Ship
Marauder visits terrain to kill crew and damage ship.
In this example, he cannot. Even though they are at the same location stack (the terrain).
If you are saying that two Crew are on the same base, then, yes, he can kill both of them with the one TNB mission.
as you again imply, that separate TNB missions must be done on the same base to attack both those crew cards
No, I don't think I implied that. What I was saying is if there was a crew on the ship and a crew on the terrain, that they cannot be killed with the same TNB mission.
because they are separate locations in themselves, they cannot both be attacked at the same time
That is correct.
Take another read through the TNB mission rules (in GF#2 I believe).
I think that is not only completely illogical, but simply ludicrous as well.
Be that as it may. I know the reality of it all is a little warped (it is only a card game after all). But I am telling you how we played it at the time, and how it would be ruled in a tournament.
As always, make a group decision, and stick with it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 21 October 2006 at 11:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Okay, you've reversed yourself here. Before you had stated that because
each crew card is a separate location, even if they were on the same base,
they couldn't both be attacked by one crew card.
My argument is that the same is true if those two crew are on the same
planet as well, which you also seem to be disagreeing with.
Further, I'm saying that if it IS the case that you can attack two crew cards
at the same location with a TNB attack, then clearly the fact that despite
they are separate locations themselves, they can be attacked at the same
time by a single attack. Now in contrast to this, you're saying that two
other kinds of cards, such as a ship played to a planet, and a crew played
to a planet, could NOT both be attacked. As I have said before, you can't
have it both ways. If two crew cards with a common location can be
attacked simultaneously, it is illogical to arbitrarily decide that it's
different for a crew and a ship with a common location. That's what I've
been trying to say all along.
The upshot of this goes back to the whole thing with the admiral on the
planet and the dragon on the planet... It has to be one way or the other,
and yes, for the purposes of simplifying the game-play. While it's
perfectly reasonable to use common sense and assume that when a crew
and a ship are both played to a planet, it's big enough that they couldn't
be attacked with a single attack. However, this could also be true of a
base (Starbases are supposed to be pretty damn gigantic, aren't they?).
Again, it's illogical and unnecessarily complicates the game-play to say
that two cards at a common location can be attacked with one attack only
because they are the same type. If that is the case, then two ships both
in play to a location should also be damaged by a single volley.
I'm just trying to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in the logic of
the ruling here... it needs to be decided that it's one way or the other, and
it must be applied uniformly across all card types; some shouldn't be
especially vulnerable simply because of their type.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 23 October 2006 at 7:54am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Okay, you've reversed yourself here. Before you had stated that because each crew card is a separate location, even if they were on the same base, they couldn't both be attacked by one crew card.
I don't think I have ever said that, but if I did I apologize. Two crew at the same location can be attacked with one TNB mission.
A unit however *IS* different because the unit is itself a location. In order to attack a location, a crew needs to be AT the location. Not at the position of the location. Sorry, that is the way they are played.
requires a shuttle or transporter to reach a target location... May do 2 of the following 1.) 2pts of strength dmg. 2.) Kill any crew card 3.) Destroy an equipment card
The Marauder's location is the terrain, not the ship. The Marauder would attempt to do its functions at his location. Kill a crew while on the terrain? fine. Do structual damage to the ship that is in play on the terrain? Can't because the Marauder is not at the ship. He damages his location. (well he can't damage terrain).
two cards at a common location can be attacked with one attack only because they are the same type.
Not because they are the same type. For example, a Crew and an Equipment can be attacked at the same location. What is different is if one of the cards in question is in of itself a location. If so, the Marauder (or any Crew combat card) cannot do damage to it. It is another location. And the crew must be at the location to do damage to it. Those are the rules of the Crew cards.
I'm just trying to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in the logic of the ruling here... it needs to be decided that it's one way or the other, and it must be applied uniformly across all card types; some shouldn't be especially vulnerable simply because of their type.
Sorry, logic has nothing to do with it. Different card types *ARE* going to be treated differently. They always are.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 23 October 2006 at 11:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
So crew cards aren't a location themselves? This contradicts your previous
ruling that they are, such as when a crew card with an automaton is floating
in space.
Also, what you're saying here implies that equipment cards aren't a location
either, if that's so, then how is it they can be destroyed by crew attacks, or
be affected by things such as a Cargo Transporter?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 23 October 2006 at 12:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
A location is the card on which other cards are played. So, yes a crew card CAN be a location.
But a combat crew can only damage its location and kill Crew cards at its location and destroy Equipment cards at its location. They cannot damage other card types at its location.
I'm not trying to imply anything. If anything is unclear in my posts, please question it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 23 October 2006 at 2:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Okay, let's get back to the issue here...
We have an admiral and a dragon on a T6 Dragon Lair, whose shields
protect the dragon. (Let's assume the requirements for that protection
are fulfilled.)
Now if the location of the admiral is targeted, his damage modifiers apply
to the shields of the planet, but if the dragon is targeted, the damage
modifiers of the admiral don't modifiy the damage to the shields of the
planet? And, this is because the dragon is its own separate location,
apart from the admiral, even though they're both on the planet?
Since the admiral is a crew, but has no other cards played to it, it isn't a
location then, according to what you state above. If that's the case,
wouldn't the planet as a whole get the benefit of the damage modifier of
the admiral, because the planet has cards played to it so is a location, yet
the admiral is not a location because it doesn't have cards played to it?
Perhaps I'm just dense, but this still doesn't make sense to me.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bignea
Exalted
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 23 October 2006 at 6:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
you guys are fun to read. do'nt get me wrong, i asked a question and wanted your oppinoin and it's greatly appreciated.
now from what you guys said here's what we come up with.
Now the admiral is on the terrrain and so is the dragon and according to our little rules of the shields of a promo terrain, the admiral would only protect the structure of the terrain and if you are shooting at the dragon, the admiral would effect the shields, but not the dragon, since the admiral is not on the dragon itself. what do you think of this scenario.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 24 October 2006 at 7:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
here is what would happen:
You fire at the Dragon that is in play on the Dragon Lair.
- If a second Dragon Lair is in play all dragons in play to or against this lair are protected by its shields.
The shields would protect the Dragon. The Admiral is also in play on the terrain. His location is taking damage, so his rule would take effect. (Yes, I realize this is different than how I originally ruled. You guys changed my mind)
In the original scenario of a D8 on the T6 Dragon's Lair, with the Admiral:
It would take 17 damage to kill the Dragon. 8 points for the Dragon, 6 points for the shields, 3 points for the Admiral.
The shields (and only the shields) would protect the dragon. The Admiral would protect the shields.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bignea
Exalted
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 24 October 2006 at 4:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
good enough. thanks. one more thing. i thought i saw something about it's possible to use the O7 suprise attack with a dragon, since it's not played to a dragon. kind of like 2 seperate card plays. the O7 does'nt say play to a card. what do you think?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 24 October 2006 at 11:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
That particular O7 is played to your fleet, not a particular dragon. So you
can play it to your fleet, then play a dragon as the ship brought into play by
it because Dragons are a subset of ships.
It is also possible to affect a Dragon with an Occurrence in other indirect
ways, such as playing a Time Skip to the Dragon Lair the Dragon is played
to. The Time Skip affects the planet, and since the Dragon is on the planet,
it gets swept up in the effect.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus
IRC
Site Administrator
Joined: 25 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: 29 April 2007 at 3:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This point seems clear to me....The Admiral stops 3 points at location...the
Dragon and the Admiral are at the same location...thus -3 plus - the
shields...then you get to kill the Dragon. This also gets back to the other
thread were Geko says the Pirate Base does not protect the crew on it from
being fired at...I disagree with that for the same reason as is stated here.
The base is one location...the crew is at the same location. The only time a
crew card is its own location is when it is not sitting on either a ship, a
fighter, a planet or a base....then you can treat the crew as it's own location.
Make sense?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 30 April 2007 at 12:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Except when it comes to Psys. Their cosmic projection of their mind is what is being fired upon, so it doesn't matter where their physical body is located.
or whatever such nonsense i can tell you guys to make the rules work.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: Orgon Question
