Well I have two questions.
1. Can an attack go below 0 damage? Like -5 damage? Or does it just hit 0?
2. If for some reason my opponent plays Rejection while my attack is at 1 damage or below 1 damage, would I be able to use Distractible to negate it?
R Commit: After your opponent plays an enhance ability that reduces the damage of your attack, negate that enhance.
1) Yes attacks damage and speed can go into the negatives, they just reset after the attack resolves *after the damage step is over* durring the damage step any negative damage is returned to 0 and will not deal damage or heal damage to you.
2) No, rejection says REDUCE this attack to 1, if it's at 1 or 0 or negatives, it cannot REDUCE, mathmatically you can NEVER reduce UPWARD, so it'll not work, if you were at 2+ damage though, yes it works. *still waiting on an overturning of the FoF ruling hopefully*
N.J.
As far as the whole "reduce/increase" thing, this is currently a rare case in UFS where an ability will actually "look ahead" to see what will happen when the ability resolves, so you can only negate Rejection if it would actually cause a reduction.
The "FoF ruling" is a different situation because FoF is clear that the attack may not receive any more damage bonuses , which means "+X damage". Abilities that increase the damage without granting a bonus or penalty will not be restricted by FoF - likewise ***Adon*** wouldn't be able to respond to them (so ***Adon*** also can't respond to Tae Kwon Do Zephyr returning an attack to its printed damage).
Tagrineth said:
As far as the whole "reduce/increase" thing, this is currently a rare case in UFS where an ability will actually "look ahead" to see what will happen when the ability resolves, so you can only negate Rejection if it would actually cause a reduction.
I don't see what makes this situation different from the rulings stemming from Constant Training -- Rejection is definitely an ability that reduces damage, and Distractible definitely reacts to abilities that reduce damage.
I agree that there is no actual reduction taking place if Rejection is played on a 1-or-less damage attack, and for example one couldn't trigger Arrogant and Insolent, but Distractible is a trigger to an ability being played, and it's been ruled so many times that the game state is very naive in these cases.
waffle makes a good point. distractable reads: R Commit: After your opponent plays an enhance ability that reduces the damage of your attack, negate that enhance.
it doesn't say
R Commit: After your opponent plays an enhance ability that will reduce the damage of your attack, negate that enhance.
its just like the amy's assistance/red lotus ruling. If a card has the ability to do something and a card can negate it it can even if the first card doesn't do what the second card is expecting. Rejection has the ability to do something which means that distractable can negate it.
The problem comes from this guy.
With his response, he can, for example, only negate Holding Ground if his attack's damage is above its printed - not below.
At least, that's how I remember that being ruled some time ago. I'll talk to Brian and Omar..
Tagrineth said:
The problem comes from this guy.
With his response, he can, for example, only negate Holding Ground if his attack's damage is above its printed - not below.
At least, that's how I remember that being ruled some time ago. I'll talk to Brian and Omar..
the problem with this retort is the fact that yang's ability includes this little word, "would", Meaning that for the effect to work it has to look forward to see if it happens. I again reference the Amy's/Red lotus ruling. You don't have to ask your opponent if they are commiting something with amy's to have red lotus negate it. Point is that rejection is an ability that reduces damage. Distractible says to negate an ability that reduces damage.
dragoku said:
Tagrineth said:
The problem comes from this guy.
With his response, he can, for example, only negate Holding Ground if his attack's damage is above its printed - not below.
At least, that's how I remember that being ruled some time ago. I'll talk to Brian and Omar..
the problem with this retort is the fact that yang's ability includes this little word, "would", Meaning that for the effect to work it has to look forward to see if it happens. I again reference the Amy's/Red lotus ruling. You don't have to ask your opponent if they are commiting something with amy's to have red lotus negate it. Point is that rejection is an ability that reduces damage. Distractible says to negate an ability that reduces damage.
Oh i see what your saying. (i never knew the red lotus/amy thing) so your saying with Distracible if the card even has the option of gaining life it would stop the effect dead in its tracks. like if they make a card that says R commit: Negate an ability that discards card(s) from a players hand it would shut up bitter rivals even if they just wanted to change the zone right?
Yes, Magumo, that's correct.
Hey all. still not home yet, but wanted to pop in here.
i'm of the opinion that Distractible will negate Rejection no matter the situation .
i agree that yang is the only one [that i can think of] who 'looks ahead' to see if the ability will actually cause a reduction.
hope that helps.
GouHadou said:
Hey all. still not home yet, but wanted to pop in here.
i'm of the opinion that Distractible will negate Rejection no matter the situation .
i agree that yang is the only one [that i can think of] who 'looks ahead' to see if the ability will actually cause a reduction.
hope that helps.
i would think this to be correct. Yang says "would reduce". Distractable says "an ability that reduces dmg". Rejection reduces dmg. If your attack is 1 or below it would not cause a reduction, but by definition rejection is an enhance that reduces dmg.