| Author |
|
Blacklassie
Adept
Joined: 19 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: 27 May 2013 at 12:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
On the card it states that the fire from its location cannot be reduced or negated.
Will a Lucky Manuever work or is that reducing or negating?
If the location of the entity fires 9 heavies against a target that is 3 for one damage, does that mean a reduction since 9 fired and only produced 3 damage. Is this a reduction?
Will an admiral that causes 4 less damage be a reduction?
Getting dizzy dealing with this card.
Dan
< =text/ src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< =text/>
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 27 May 2013 at 2:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lucky Maneuver will not work as that negates damage.
1/3 damage might work...is this a function of terrain or some type of
card action? If it were a function of terrain I would say the reduction
works...if it were to due to technology or some other outside factor...I
would say it does not work.
Admiral does not work as that is reducing damage. (strategic decisions
that reduce damage, tactics...etc).
The card is basically representing a sentient computer with demonic
powers....you are not going to fool it with quick reactions or strategic
decisions. Plus...it has the ability to calculate weakness in armour and
technology and thus the immunity to being reduced/negated.
About the only other card that would stop Dark Circuitry would be a War
Prophet choosing to ignore a volley (he sees the attack before it is
executed)....basically another entity class card might be able to stop the
Dark Circuitry depending on the circumstances.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Aramax
Exalted
Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 9:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What he said
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 3:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
-I disagree with the above.
Lucky Maneuver plays on my ship. It allows me to avoid a volley by being a positive modifier to my ship. It does not negate damage (herein described as placing a negative modifier on my opponent).
Dark Circuitry plays on my opponent's ship. It prevents the weapons fire from being reduced or negated. To put another way, it prevents me from applying negative modifiers on my opponent, but does not prevent me from applying positive modifiers on myself.
To my understanding, that roughly translates into making my opponent's ship immune to any card or effect that i play against the ship which would affect the ship's weapons.
Example: Dark Circuitry prevents an L2 Phaser Malfunction from affecting the ship it is on.
As the L6 does not have anything to do with the ship the E10 is on, but instead is a positive modifier on my ship against a volley from any and all sources, i think the L6 should work.
By this logic, the War Prophet mentioned above also works. However, for one to argue that the War Prophet works but the L6 does not is both hypocritical and illogical. It's darn near the same wording on the cards, thus should produce the same result.
Lobo
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
Edited by Lobo on 28 May 2013 at 3:43pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 4:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"To put another way, it prevents me from applying negative modifiers on
my opponent, but does not prevent me from applying positive modifiers
on myself."
Well...not actually....now you are interpreting the card language to fit your
specific need. No where does the Dark Circuitry card imply that negative
modifiers to it's location are the only cards affected by it's card power.
The actual wording is:
-Damage from the weapons at location may not be reduced or negated.
-This unit may damage targets that are immune to weapons fire.
So clearly....your lucky maneuver would reduce or negate the damage
from this unit....so the L6 does not work.
The War Prophet is different from the L6 because it is an ENTITY class
card....and thus has the ability to affect the other ENTITY class
card...otherwise it would not work either...for the same reason the L6
does not work. If the War Prophet was a C9....it would not would not work
either for the same reason the L6 does not work.
There is nothing hypocritical or illogical about this argument. The E10
Dark Circuitry card is very powerful...that's why it's a PERSONA class card.
Even with all it's power...a C4 Marine can still take out this card....and so
can a host of other cards....
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 4:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"The War Prophet is different from the L6 because it is an ENTITY class
card....and thus has the ability to affect the other ENTITY class
card...otherwise it would not work either...for the same reason the L6
does not work. If the War Prophet was a C9....it would not would not work
either for the same reason the L6 does not work."
-You and i will never agree on this point. I don't care what the strength of the card is. The text of the card, however, i care about very much. And the text on both the War Prophet and the Lucky Maneuver are near identical. Either they both work or they both don't. The number at the top of the card does not give it fiat rights.
I'm comfortable with the L6 not working against the E10 if that is a correct rule interpretation, but then the War Prophet shouldn't work, either. Persona or no, it's the same damn card rule.
Lobo
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
Edited by Lobo on 28 May 2013 at 4:28pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 5:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wrong again. The R/L6 states:
-Allows the ship on which it is played to ignore an entire opponent volley.
-Discarded after use.
The C10 War Prophet states:
-Cards may not be played against the fleet during the Weapons Fire
Phase.
-As a reaction, each turn ignore one opponent volley against the fleet.
So...following the rules, rules on cards supersede the rule book. So the
rule on the E10 supersede's the rule on the L6 by power of it's relative
card strength (per the rules). The C10 supersedes the power of the E10
because it is of the same or greater power level. (per the rules...the rules
on the cards are the END ALL and supersede all other printed rules). The
C10 is also a "persistent" card...in other words...it does not "expire" or get
discarded like the R/L6 does. Also...the C10 has the very specific
words..."as a reaction"....making it not only "persistent" but also giving it
the extra power of being a reaction card with persistence....(considered
by convention to be one of the most powerful game effects in the entire
game). For all those reasons.....the C10 DOES work against the E10...and
the R/L 6 does not.
But the most critical reason why the C10 works is because an equal or
lower strength card cannot strip the power or affect of another card. It
either has to be trumped with power....or trumped by the wording of the
contrary card being (all inclusive) in its contrary effects.
For example. C10 Yorl has the ability to KILL ANY CREW CARD. The C10
War Veteran is immune to crew attacks. We ruled that the C10 Yorl does
NOT have the power to strip the C10 War Vet of his immunity....and thus
kill him...because he is not just ANY crew card...he is THE crew card. :)
How would YOU rule it??? :)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 28 May 2013 at 6:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm comfortable if my interpretations are incorrect on the rules and
cards, but i'll try explaining my side of things as directly as
possible:
Galactus1 wrote:
Wrong again. The R/L6 states:
-Allows the ship on which it is played to ignore an entire opponent volley.
-Discarded after use.
The C10 War Prophet states:
-Cards may not be played against the fleet during the Weapons Fire
Phase.
-As a reaction, each turn ignore one opponent volley against the fleet.
|
|
|
-Wrong about what, exactly? i have bolded the language for your review and acceptance that they're saying the same thing.
Galactus1 wrote:
So...following the rules, rules on cards supersede the rule book.
|
|
|
-I'm cool with that.
Galactus1 wrote:
So the
rule on the E10 supersede's the rule on the L6 by power of it's relative
card strength (per the rules). |
|
|
-Please show me where in the 2.1 rules card strength is the determining factor when conflicting language is seen on cards.
Galactus1 wrote:
The C10 supersedes the power of the E10
because it is of the same or greater power level. (per the rules...the rules
on the cards are the END ALL and supersede all other printed rules).
|
|
|
-This doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the E10 supersede the C10 because "it is of the same or greater power level." By your logic (before the irrelevant part in the parenthetical) either interpretation of which wins (C10 or E10) is equally valid.
Galactus1 wrote:
The
C10 is also a "persistent" card...in other words...it does not "expire" or get
discarded like the R/L6 does.
|
|
|
-And what does persistence have to do with the price of tea in the Scorpead Empire? The card rule is the same, the fact that one is a reaction or discard effect has no bearing on the in-game effect of the rule we are talking about.
Galactus1 wrote:
Also...the C10 has the very specific
words..."as a reaction"....making it not only "persistent" but also giving it
the extra power of being a reaction card with persistence....(considered
by convention to be one of the most powerful game effects in the entire
game).
|
|
|
-I fail to see any mention in the rules or my big ass dictionary of common sense what any of the above has to do with resolving a fairly straightforward in-game card resolution. What other people think, and the fact it's a persistent reactionary card, has not one darn thing to do with this particular resolution.
Galactus1 wrote:
For all those reasons.....the C10 DOES work against the E10...and
the R/L 6 does not.
|
|
|
-Uh-huh.
Galactus1 wrote:
But the most critical reason why the C10 works is because an equal or
lower strength card cannot strip the power or affect of another card.
|
|
|
-False. If that above statement were true, Time Skip would be a useless card. And we all know it isn't.
Galactus1 wrote:
It
either has to be trumped with power....or trumped by the wording of the
contrary card being (all inclusive) in its contrary effects.
|
|
|
-I don't know what yer referring to here, so let's see if your example clears it up below.
Galactus1 wrote:
For example. C10 Yorl has the ability to KILL ANY CREW CARD. The C10
War Veteran is immune to crew attacks. We ruled that the C10 Yorl does
NOT have the power to strip the C10 War Vet of his immunity....and thus
kill him...because he is not just ANY crew card...he is THE crew card. :)
|
|
|
-We discussed this with respect to the Primordial Warrior in another post some time ago. I'm open to either one winning, but in light of our previous discussion, I think Yorl Wins. The Vet is immune to crew card attacks. The reason the Vet beat the Warrior was that the Warrior had to be at the location and the rule didn't say "as a card rule".
In this case, Yorl can kill (discard) *any* crew card. Mine, yours, anyone's. From any location. Crew card attacks, typically, require that you be at the location of the crew you are attacking. Thus, i think Yorl's ability was meant to be a card rule. And, if a card rule, the ability to "kill any crew" is not a crew attack. Thus making the Vet susceptible to the ability. But i have no clue what that has to do with the previous discussion.
Lobo
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
Edited by Lobo on 28 May 2013 at 9:01pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 29 May 2013 at 1:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"In this case, Yorl can kill (discard) *any* crew card. Mine, yours, anyone's.
From any location. Crew card attacks, typically, require that you be at the
location of the crew you are attacking. Thus, i think Yorl's ability was meant
to be a card rule. And, if a card rule, the ability to "kill any crew" is not a
crew attack. Thus making the Vet susceptible to the ability."
Again...the argument is spurious. The War Vet's card ability is to be immune
from all crew attacks. Yorl has three possible crew actions on his turn (of
which he can do one or all of them in the same turn). The "kill any crew
card" ability is a crew attack....the War Vet is immune to crew attacks....so
Yorl cannot kill the War Vet because Yorl's ability does not give him the
power to nullify the War Vet's ability.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 29 May 2013 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The reason why the R/L6 does not work....first off...it's not an inherent
ability...it requires a card play to deny the damage to the E10 Dark Circuitry
player. The C10 War Prophet on the other hand does NOT require a card
play...it's an ability that can be used IN REACTION. (the War Prophet simply
knows the attack is coming in before it happens and thus avoids the volley).
And I will reiterate that Entity class cards DO HAVE special precedence over
NON entity class cards....as intended by the original designers of the game
(of which I have had personal conversations with at least 3 of them about
this).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 29 May 2013 at 10:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
-To Blacklassie:
As to your original question, i think the Lucky Maneuever should work, but the Admiral will not (as a negative modifier on the opponent). If your group disagrees, the rules state a simple vote of your playing group is kosher to resolve the dispute. If you need a tiebreaker, either ask a neighbor or flip a coin.
To Galactus:
You and i have different viewpoints on GE rule interpretation, always have. I appreciate the dialog, but respectfully disagree. I am okay with your way being the 'correct' way, but i don't (as yet) see anything in the rules or your arguments that sway me. Short answer: agree to disagree.
Have a good night all.
Lobo
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
Edited by Lobo on 29 May 2013 at 10:23pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Blacklassie
Adept
Joined: 19 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: 30 May 2013 at 11:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am not comfortable saying size of card wins. I have found no rule in the rulebook that says that.
Dan
< =text/ src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< =text/>
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 30 May 2013 at 2:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok folks.....I guess we need to have this discussion one more time.
In the absence of an OFFICIAL RULES update by Companion Games....the
process of reviewing conflicting rules on this forum is to try and come to
a consensus. There is no DEFACTO ruling on any such issues. But taking
the various factors into play (existing rules, game flavor, general game
mechanics, spirit of fairness) we try and take all of these factors and come
up with a ruling that makes sense and exudes fairness and a degree of
consistency to the game.
Yes...LOBO & Blacklassie....there is no official printed rule that says Card
strength trumps all. But if you look at the way the game mechanic is
structured...there is a preponderance of evidence that would suggest that
card strength DOES have weight when deciding ambiguously stated rules.
Why? Because it is an intrinsic game mechanic that stronger cards
dominate weaker cards in power and effect. So to make a statement that "I
don't care how strong the card is....it's not printed in the rules" is a
convenient way to say...."I'm not willing to come to a solution to this
problem unless it satisfies my needs".
ANY decision or ruling we come up with in this Forum is a SUGGESTION at
best. Until someone buys the copyright and reissues this game...the best
we can hope to do is craft a series for FORUM decisions that various play
groups can either ignore or incorporate into their understanding of the
rules. I have had several discussions with various official play-testers and
designers of this game....and most all have agreed that ENTITY class cards
are in a class by themselves (the reason why you can only have one for
every 25 cards....that you can't have more than one in your deck....and
that several of the Entities that were introduced into the game after
Persona were designated PERSONA class so that only one could be in play
on the board at any one time.) All of these factors lend credence to the
argument that ENTITY class cards are more powerful than OTHER cards of
strength 9 or lower. That being said....I stand by my earlier arguments
that the C10 has effect over the E10....and the R/L6 does not.
I agree to disagree. :)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Aramax
Exalted
Joined: 14 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: 10 June 2013 at 10:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Im 90% w/ Galacti on this,you must have the card st be a
domininate factor in deciding the final outcome in
disagreements,I disagree that immunity trumps offence in
equal st card interaction.Offence should always supercide
defence due to this decreacing game time.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Blacklassie
Adept
Joined: 19 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: 17 June 2013 at 12:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Can the Dark Circuitry damage Zagoth Guardian?
I think the card should be banned since every card has to be voted on.
Dan
< =text/ src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< =text/>
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Galactus1
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: 17 June 2013 at 1:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok....If ARAMAX had his way on this ruling he would say YES the card can
Damage the Zaggoth Guardian....I would say NO....the Zaggoth immunity to
anything but healing damage to other monsters would protect him from the
Dark Circuitry. You choose. :)
Remember folks....The Zaggoth card is New Empires (a very early
release)...the Dark Circuitry card is Persona....a much later release. Obviously
an official ruling would have been nice....but considering how many MAGIC
cards get banned from one release to another....I think GE has stood the test
of time pretty well...considering 3200+ cards in play.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lobo
IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: 18 June 2013 at 2:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Blacklassie wrote:
Can the Dark Circuitry damage Zagoth Guardian?
I think the card should be banned since every card has to be voted on.
Dan
< =text/ src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< =text/>
|
|
|
-Your play group will have to vote on the ban anyway, so might as well let people us it and just keep track of your rulings. Better yet, every time there is a contradiction just flip a coin. Heads the Circuitry wins, tails the other card wins. Easy to keep track of and just as fair as voting.
If you need a tiebreaker, i say the Monster wins.
Lobo
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 09 May 2014 at 11:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
The L6 is reducing the amount of damage. Therefore, it would not work against Dark Circuitry.
Also, the promo terrains that take 1/3 less damage would not work either.
Basically, any card that would allow you to take less damage then what is being fired, does not work.
Yes, this includes the War Prophet.
RE: Yorl vs. War Veteran... I agree that Yorl would not be able to kill the Vet. Try as he might. That is a Crew Attack.
Lobo wrote:
| -Please show me where in the 2.1 rules card strength is the determining factor when conflicting language is seen on cards. |
|
|
No, the card strength does not have anything to do with the determining factor. In fact, Strength 1 cards are often more powerful than most of the other cards.
However, this 'rule' is bent a bit when dealing with Entity cards. When I used to make decisions for the company on card conflicts, if there was an entity involved, it would win most of the time.
RE: Dark Circuitry vs Zaggoth... I would say that Dark Circuitry would be able to damage Zaggoth. That was the intention of the card when we created it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
werewolflht65
Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 780
|
| Posted: 18 August 2016 at 5:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have a simple solution to end all arguments about the E10:
R/O-1 Time Skip
OR
R/O-8 Cessation of Fire
And Galactus, Strength of the card has no bearing to this argument. The strength number is simply there for the stacking rule. The powers that Be at Companion games, at the time of each card's debut, decided in advance based on a card's relative strength, to assign it a strength number befitting that strength. Obviously, they felt the card abilities of the E-10 warranted it being made an entity, either because they felt having more than one in a deck would be over-powering, or simply they were running out of good ideas for level ten cards.
Time cards rule all. Time Skip is an instant form of Time Warp, taking the card or stack of cards out of play. I'm not negating the stack's weapons fire at all, I'm simply removing it from play for the current player turn.
Remember, GE also uses the "Last in, First out" made famous by MtG. You declare you intention to fire weapons augmented by Dark Circuitry. In response, reaction, whatever, I play Cessation of Fire, thus ending your entire weapons fire phase. I'm not specifically targeting Dark Circuitry's location, I'm targeting your entire weapons fire phase. Dark Circuitry's wording is thus null and void.
Chew on that for awhile. I refuse to accept "Agree to Disagree". I DO however, strongly support the correct use of the English Language. Commas, quotation marks and or examples of punctuation etc have their uses. Learn them and love them, they are there for all's benefit.
< ="text/" src="https://count.carrierzone.com/app/count_/count.js">
< ="text/">
__________________
"Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
marhawkman
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2010
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: 15 October 2016 at 12:47pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
O_O' you have no idea who Galactus is do you?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: More Dark Circuitry
