PDA

View Full Version : Bryan Fury Questions



GrandmasterAmon
09-24-2010, 01:42 AM
Bryan's first E says..."E Commit 2 foundations: The damage of this attack may not be reduced by card effects."

1.) Would this work if you had the damaged pumped to rediculous levels and your opponent used Holding Ground or a similar effect that returns it to the printed damage since it would be "reducing" what the damage of the attack is currently at?

2.) Let's say the effect was worded like Fast Food Lover (E Commit: If this attack is blocked, it deals no damage. If this attack is not blocked, it gets +2 damage.) Is this considered reducing the damage?

3.) Lets say they play Reversal (R: After you take damage from an attack, reduce that damage to 0. This card becomes an exact copy of the attack that dealt damage, redirected at your opponent, with all bonuses played on the original attack included) Would it then deal normal damage and then move on to the whole copycat deal?

Shinguyi
09-24-2010, 07:40 AM
1) Holding Ground wouldn't be able to return it back to its printed damage because its going form a high number in damage to a lower number in damage, technically reducing its damage as far as I'm concerned.

2) "Fast Food Lover" isn't reducing the damage, its just saying it deals no damage. Think of it as it makes a partial block into a full block.

3) Your opponent will receive the damage because its clearly stating it reduces the damage. In this case, opponent receives the damage, and then goes resolving "Reversal" just as you said.

Hayamachop
09-24-2010, 07:52 AM
1. returning to printed damage is not a reduction but rather a reset, so it will work,

SMazzurco
09-24-2010, 08:21 AM
1. returning to printed damage is not a reduction but rather a reset, so it will work,

Don't think so.

If you use something like Siren's Call E "you may not increase the damage of this attack" then use healer "return this attack to printed damage" i thought it DIDN'T work.

I thought it was ruled that anything that would "increase" the dmg of the attack, i.e. make it more damaging than it is currently at was considered an "increase".

Then again i don't play legacy/extended so i could very well be incorrect. Just want to at least ask for some more clarification

Tagrineth
09-24-2010, 11:12 AM
Holding Ground won't work because it WILL result in the damage being reduced.

I forget the old case which screwed up with this (where stuff like HG still worked) but that's a more specific case. Compare this to Raging Gnome which is also worded to prevent effects like Holding Ground and Healer from working with it.

Fast Food Lover still works because it isn't altering the damage. As Shin said, it's like blocking.

Reversal would fail to reduce the damage. Other than that it would still get its effects.

Hayamachop
09-24-2010, 12:20 PM
oh i stoopid then.

Cass
09-25-2010, 09:45 PM
Reversal would fail to reduce the damage. Other than that it would still get its effects.

I think you are wrong on this one Tag...

I played Rock*** for a long time, and back then it was officially ruled that his damage reducing ability was reducing the damage you take, NOT the damage of the attack, so the opponent could not use cards like holding ground to make me take damage after his R.

And it is worded exactly the same on REVERSAL as on ROCK3.

Tagrineth
09-26-2010, 01:24 AM
Yeah, and revisions to the rules with the AGR made that distinction irrelevant as far as I can recall.

To wit: 8.3.3 The Damage Step.


8.3.3.4 Determine the amount of damage outstanding. This is where any effects that
state “when a player is taking damage” or “when you are taking damage” may
be played.
8.3.3.5 Phrases such as “When a player is taking damage” or “When you are taking
damage” are both played interchangeably at this step. These are referred to as
Damage Adjusters.
8.3.3.6 The active player may choose to play any Damage Adjuster. His opponent may
then choose to play any applicable damage adjusters.
8.3.3.7 Each player will continue taking turns playing Damage Adjusters until both
players have passed consecutively.
8.3.3.8 Subtract the appropriate amount from the defender’s vitality total. This is
considered vitality loss.

Rock*** and Reversal would now fall under the Damage Adjusters, which essentially have their own step before the conversion to vitality loss happens.

Thus, the bull:):):):) "damage of the attack is not the damage dealt by the attack" situation became nullified.

Nubian God
09-27-2010, 07:43 PM
Lawyer'd!

That's good to know.