| Author |
|
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 12:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi all;
There's been a "debate" in our group about what happens when an O10
Planetary Destruction is played against a Vektrean T/B unit.
I know there was a thread about this here some time ago but I can't seem
to find it, so I am posing the question again to try and get a resolution.
Now, the rulebook specifically and clearly states that T/B's are "played
and damaged as terrain", but, "are considered a base for ALL OTHER
PURPOSES" (my own emphasis added).
The card-text of the O10 is as follows:
"The terrain on which this card is played is destroyed."
"All ships and bases played on that terrain card are also destroyed."
My fellow players have argued the O10 destroys a T/B for two reasons:
1) T/B's are "damaged as terrain"; in other words, because their structure
can only be damaged by heavy weapons (or card damage), they are
susceptible to the O10.
2) Because they have a "T" in their card type, they are susceptible to the
O10.
I disagree with both of these points for five reasons.
1) The O10 does not damage the card it's played against. Even though
the card says the card on which it's played is destroyed, there are no
damage point symbols on the O10, and the text does not say the terrain
is damaged, rather it says simply "destroyed". As a result, my claim is
that the O10 is poorly worded; rather than saying "destroyed" it should
say "discarded". A T/B card must take heavy weapons or card damage to
be destroyed and the O10 does niether.
2) Since T/B's "are bases for all other purposes", as specified by the rule
book, they are NOT terrain, even though they have a T in their type.
Since they are not terrain, the O10 does not affect them.
3) While the O10 does say bases played to the terrain the O10 is played
to are also destroyed, the T/B is not played to another card, it is a stand
alone unit. In essence, every T/B has an E10 Subspace Stabilizers
(without the benefit of the double strength) built into it. Therefore, the
O10 does not affect a T/B because it's not played to a terrain. There's
nothing being destroyed that the T/B is being taken along with so the
T/B is destroyed.
4) It has been ruled here by Geko in a previous thread (that unfortunately
I also cannot find) that an A10 Artificial Landmass cannot be played to a
T/B because a T/B is not a terrain card. Rather, it is a base. By the logic
of my other group members, an Artificial Landmass would work on a
T/B, but it doesn't. (At least as far as I understand it, it's not supposed
to.) Therefore, because the A10 doesn't affect a T/B because a T/B is
not terrain, the O10 does not affect a T/B either.
5) The rulebook specifically states that cards with two type designations
must have a type chosen when they are stocked in the deck. Thus, the
owning player must choose whether T/B's are T's or B's when they are
put into a deck. This allows T/B's to be put in a deck as T's when there
are no other bases in the deck. This is the only case where I would
consider the O10 to affect a T/B because for purposes of determining
their card type, the T/B was specifically stocked as a T. Otherwise, if a
T/B is stocked as a B, then the O10 would have no effect on the T/B.
Any thoughts on any of this? I think I've covered all the relevant and
important aspects of the issue here, but as always, more viewpoints and
perspectives provide a better analysis of the issue. So please let me
know what you all think.
Eric, if you're reading this, I would particularly appreciate comments from
you, as you have one of the best commands of the rule book of all the
members here.
-Paul.
Edited by MogwaiSC on 15 November 2008 at 12:41pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think you have all the points laid out. I would probably rule the O10 could destroy a T/B, I see no reason to neuter an entity. Most of the good terrain are immune to occurrences anyways, if you take T/B's away it's hardly worth running.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 16 November 2008 at 7:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point. That the O10 is an entity is irrelevant.
The point is the logic of the argument.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 16 November 2008 at 7:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
-The plain meaning of the cards is easy to reconcile: the O10 doesn't deal "damage" so the player playing the O10 would be playing it against a base, which is not a legal play.
If the O10 said "deals sufficient damage to the terrain to destroy it" the O10 wins. But if it says anything else other than damage, then the text of the t/b10 would require the O10 to destroy a base, not a terrain, to affect it.
We've had this same discussion with regards to the Primordial Warrior wording regarding crew card attacks i believe.
Also, the point of making that card 'hardly worth running' is kinda humorous. The same terrain mentioned in the above post that are immune to occurrences also knocked a whole boxfull of 'regular' terrain out of use from previous sets, making them irrelevant to competitive play.
Bottom line: The T/B10 is a terrain for purposes of playing the card and being the recipient of 'damage'. Since destruction does not = damage, and there is no mention of 'damage' on the O10, the O10 fizzles, pick another terrain.....Lobo
Edited by Lobo on 16 November 2008 at 7:37pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 4:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lobo wrote:
...then the text of the t/b10 would require the O10 to destroy a base,
not a terrain, to affect it. |
|
|
This has been exactly my point in the argument I've had with my group
members. Just because a T/B is PLAYED the way a terrain card is played
does not MAKE IT a terrain card. The same thing with damaging one;
just because it is damaged AS a terrain card does not mean it IS a terrain
card. The distinction is treating something like something else,
compared to it actually being that thing. It's two different things.
Lobo wrote:
...the point of making that card 'hardly worth running' is kinda
humorous. The same terrain mentioned in the above post that are
immune to occurrences also knocked a whole boxfull of 'regular' terrain
out of use from previous sets, making them irrelevant to competitive
play. |
|
|
That's a very good point. The ironic thing about this argument I have
about the T/B vs. the O10 is that it's with the player in our group who
has five times as many GE cards as the rest of us combined and he wins
98% of the games.
Lobo wrote:
Bottom line: The T/B10 is a terrain for purposes of playing the card and
being the recipient of 'damage'. Since destruction does not = damage,
and there is no mention of 'damage' on the O10, the O10 fizzles, pick
another terrain.....Lobo
|
|
|
Thanks for your input.
Does anyone else out there have any thoughts to contribute? Something
we may have overlooked?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 6:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
About the only thing I have to add is that I agree with Lobo's previous post in it's entirety. Unless it's being targeted with Damage the T/B are considered bases, and only cards which affect bases can be played to them.
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 9:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just playing devil's advocate:
One could argue that the O10 does damage.
Destroyed - A card that is "destroyed" is discarded. A card is destroyed when it reaches zero points.
They would be wrong, but it could be aregued. ;)
I would say that the O10 could not be played against the T/Bs.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 10:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It's a logical fallacy.
"A car stops running when it has no gas" does not mean "the only way to stop a car from running is to empty if of gas"
Just as "A card is destroyed when it reaches zero points" does not mean "the only way to destroy a card is to damage it to zero points."
The rulebook wording is more saying:
"A car that is broken stops moving. A car that runs out of gas also stops moving."
Edited by ericbsmith on 17 November 2008 at 10:26am
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 12:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Precisely.
Like I said, "they would be wrong."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 17 November 2008 at 10:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks guys. I thought I was right. I just wanted to get confirmation.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 18 November 2008 at 12:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Galactusprime wrote:
The argument that the Planetary Destruction card does not specifically do
damage is the LAMEST argument I can imagine. What does the word
"destroy" mean to most people? |
|
|
"Destroyed" means the card is placed directly into the discard pile. It is not damage. Effects that prevent damage do not protect against effects which "Destroy" a card. Effects that redirect damage cannot redirect the "destruction" of a card. A destroyed card goes directly to jail; it doesn't pass go; it doesn't collect $200. If's a completely different effect than being damaged.
Galactusprime wrote:
What does the graphic on the card
depict? (A PLANET BEING BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS!!! |
|
|
And Card Art has *NO* in game effect. But hey, if you want to play that game... an Asteroid Base is not a Planet. The Planetary Destruction is clearly meant to destroy Planets, not Asteroids!
Galactusprime wrote:
The T/B designation states that the card is played and damaged as a
terrain card....so the one card in the game that is designed to destroy
terrain is no longer able to destroy terrain....that makes PERFECT sense.
NOT!
|
|
|
Once played an Asteroid Base is not a Terrain, it's a Base. If you want to destroy a base pick a card which destroys bases.
Galactusprime wrote:
Also...this card does not affect the numerous promo terrain cards that
are now designed to be immune to Occurrence cards...which I think if the
planetary destruction card were printed today it would most likely have a
caveat that would enable it to destroy ANY terrain...as it was first
designed to do. |
|
|
The promo terrains were some of the most ridiculous things to come out for the game... but that's neither here nor there.
Galactusprime wrote:
A T/B is basically a planet (or small planetoid/moon/whatever) that has
been converted to a base. So how can you have a card that can be played
on turn one as a terrain...that requires heavy weapons damage to destroy
(like a terrain) yet be immune to an ENTITY card that was designed
specifically to kill almost ANY terrain card?
|
|
|
A Planetary Destruction causes a resonance wave in the core of a planet. Since the Asteroid Bases have been hollowed out and armored up they are no longer susceptible to resonance waves... or whatever.
Galactusprime wrote:
I think some people on this site get too caught up on semantics and are
not playing the game with any COMMON SENSE. |
|
|
Games are ultimately about rules. "Why can't the Mesa Pegasus carry the Benalish Hero on it's back and let them both fly?" is one of the oldest examples in Magic. The answer is, simply, because "the card rules don't say it can." Why can't an O10 be played to a T/B? Because the card rules don't allow it to.
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 18 November 2008 at 12:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
-I like semantics. Also known as rules, regulations, guidelines, stipulations, limitations, and compacts. Oh, and laws. Forgot laws...
They keep my opponent from drawing 20 cards in a turn, blowing up my terrain using phasers only or playing a Time Skip to a card still in my hand.
Yep, i like 'em. Of course, if it's fun for you feel free to disregard them. It is only a game.....Lobo
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 18 November 2008 at 3:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
ericbsmith wrote:
Galactusprime wrote:
I think some people on this site get too caught
up on semantics and are
not playing the game with any COMMON SENSE. |
|
|
Games are
ultimately about rules. "Why can't the Mesa Pegasus carry the Benalish
Hero on it's back and let them both fly?" is one of the oldest examples in
Magic. The answer is, simply, because "the card rules don't say it can."
Why can't an O10 be played to a T/B? Because the card rules don't allow
it to.
|
|
|
What Galactus is failing to understand here, and I have already
mentioned to him; "IS" and "AS" have different meanings. However, there
is a tremendous difference between AS and IS.
Saying "AS" has no difference from saying "like". A T/B is played "like" a
terrain card, it is damaged "like" a terrain card, but does that
NECESSARILY mean it "IS" a terrain card? No.
Take the following example; "She gazes upon him as warm summer sun
falls on the flowers."
According to Galactus' logic, there is no difference between "IS" and "AS".
Therefore, in this example, her gaze upon him IS warm summer
sunshine; sunlight is literally streaming from her eyes and falling upon
him. Further, this would be true for ANY example where the word AS is
used. Essentially, Galactus is saying there is no such thing as a simile.
Does that make sense? NOT. Is this a point of semantics? Yes. Is it
irrelevant? No.
As Eric said, games are only played in terms of rules. The dictate
absolutely what can and cannot be done in a game. The T/B clearly
states it is a base. It is played LIKE a terrain even though it IS a base. Its
structure can only be damaged by heavy weapons, LIKE a terrain, yet it IS
still a base.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 18 November 2008 at 3:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
-Instead of letting your argument spill over onto the forums, do what Galaktische and i have started doing...
...grabbing plastic whiffle ball bats and go 5 rounds in the OCTAGON!
Nah, seriously, violence is bad i'm just yankin' ya.....Lobo
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 18 November 2008 at 10:47pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I never said the rules don't support you conclusion, MogwaiSC, I'd probably just say the O10 can blow up T/B's as a house rule. I don't know if Geko can clarify, was the O10's intent to be able to blow up any terrain (including T/B's)? Would that have been legal in a tournament? Seems like something that would have come up.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 19 November 2008 at 8:58am | IP Logged
|
|
|
The O10 was created before we created the T/Bs. Back when Primary was first formed, the T/Bs were merely Ts.
So, in that regard they would have been able to blow up them.
But, times change, and currently I would say that they cannot.
And, since, even if the company still existed, Entity card would never be reprinted, it cannot be changed. Erratta, yes, but not reprinted.
I don't recall it coming up in a tournament, if it did, you would have seen it in the FAQs.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Guests
Guest
Joined: 01 October 2003
Posts: -157
|
| Posted: 26 November 2008 at 2:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The O10 was created before we created the T/Bs. Back when Primary was
first formed, the T/Bs were merely Ts.
So, in that regard they would have been able to blow up them.
My point exactly!!! So to all you guys who just slammed me for the
"semantics" comment....the spirit of this card was to utterly destroy a
planet sized/plane-like object...which obviously the T/B is.....
So fine...the T/B is indestructible and immune to Entity class
cards....fine....I have plenty of other methods I can use to kill it....You win
Paul...end of discussion.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 26 November 2008 at 2:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Let's put it to vote.
Majority rules.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 30 August 2009 at 5:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The argument that the Planetary Destruction card does not specifically do
damage is the LAMEST argument I can imagine. What does the word
"destroy" mean to most people? What does the graphic on the card
depict? (A PLANET BEING BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS!!!
The T/B designation states that the card is played and damaged as a
terrain card....so the one card in the game that is designed to destroy
terrain is no longer able to destroy terrain....that makes PERFECT sense.
NOT!
Also...this card does not affect the numerous promo terrain cards that
are now designed to be immune to Occurrence cards...which I think if the
planetary destruction card were printed today it would most likely have a
caveat that would enable it to destroy ANY terrain...as it was first
designed to do.
A T/B is basically a planet (or small planetoid/moon/whatever) that has
been converted to a base. So how can you have a card that can be played
on turn one as a terrain...that requires heavy weapons damage to destroy
(like a terrain) yet be immune to an ENTITY card that was designed
specifically to kill almost ANY terrain card?
I think some people on this site get too caught up on semantics and are
not playing the game with any COMMON SENSE.
GALACTUSPRIME
Furthermore, All other bases in the game can be damaged by phasers
and/or heavy weapons. The fact that the T/B is only damaged by heavy
weapons means that it takes damage like a terrain card....another reason
why it should be affected by the O10.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 01 September 2009 at 7:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
-Galactus and Mogqai are so cute.
Like that old married couple you see at the local moose lodge eating the steak and shrimp dinner and yelling over whether or not the guy likes cocktail sauce or not.
I think it's just darling...
Lobo
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 01 September 2009 at 8:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Destroyed =/= Takes Damage
Rules-wise the two terms are not equal. They are two different rules terms with different effects.
Effects that damage cards do not destroy them (unless damage taken exceeds strength - in which case the card is "discarded" not "destroyed").
Effects that destroy cards do not cause damage.
Effects that prevent damage do not prevent cards from being destroyed.
Effects that prevent destruction do not prevent cards from taking damage (I'm not sure that there is even a card which "prevents destruction" directly - but if there were one it wouldn't affect damage taken).
Trying to equate the two game terms is a fallacy - rules wise they are two completely different terms.
Edited by ericbsmith on 01 September 2009 at 8:05am
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: T/B vs O10 Planetary Destruction
