So, Together Again reads...

R Commit: Before you play a block, that card's block modifier gets -2.

Assuming I try to play a block with a +0 block modifier... Does it become a -2 block modifier (making the difficulty to block = speed + progressive difficulty + -2) or are there positive limits to the value of the block modifiers?

- dut

The only thing that can't go negative is your maximum vitality (because the game ends when it does, lol).

So yes.

Tagrineth said:

Thanks Tag, I thought as much (seemed to recall a previous question in another set/block of legal cards) but wanted to be sure.

- dut

its more like the only value on a card that can't resolve negatively is damage. i dont recall a way of making your max vitality close to negative.

Ziephnir said:

and i think technically damage can "resolve" negative, but vitality loss cannot.

"Damage" does not directly lower your opponents vitality. It causes a vitality loss to happen.

I might be completely wrong but i think it was changed to the above in recent AGR

it resolves as vitality loss, which cannot be negative. of course you can go into negative damage during the enhance step, but you cannot deal -5 damage

Here is a question then. This is the set up:

Not Human in the staging area, and there are 2 Silent Xia Sheng Stance's in the card pool, played off some attack with a +0 block. These blocks are currently -4, -3, -3, due to the static text on SXSS. Would Not Human give a negative penalty (ie gain) of (-) -10 damage? The minimum 1 is restricting to what damage the attack can go, not the value of X, so I see nothing that would stop this.

-Tinman

Tinman said:

When X is printed on a card it is defined to be a non negative value.

Not sure where this is, but i remember it.

its "when choosing a value for X, it cannot be negative" it's in the rules and has come up in the many discussions for omar and sacrafices for the cause.

the situation mentioned is why makoto got erratad

Makoto got errataed because she straight up didn't work as intended, not because of a power level issue or anything like that. There was text that was meant to be on her and got dropped from the proofs for some reason.

what im saying though is before she got erattad she could damage pump with her E. it created a -(-X).

Yeah. We know. And again, she was errataed to put text back on her that was originally meant to be there and was missing from the proof, similar to the issue with Pavilion.

I guess the bit I am tripping over when relating this to the 'X is positive' rulings is the idea of choice. In the case of Sacrifices and Omar, you are choosing X, and the idea of 'X must be positive' sets a range that is [0, as many cards as you have]. In the case of Not Human, as well as Ultimate Team, now that I think about it, the value X is set by the card itself. The value is whatever the card says it is. I would argue that these cards violate the 'X is positive' rule by virtue that numbers are, by themselves, of a predetermined value, the card requires that those values be used, and the Golden Rule says they can. That is really where I see a difference between things like Not Human and Omar.

-Tinman

Guys... you're hurting my brain.

The minimum 1 on Not Human is referring to the damage of the attack, not the value of the modifier.

Yes, you could use Silent Xia Sheng Stance to create a bunch of negative block modifiers, and then use not human to add damage to the attack.

Lets get the hell away from trying to apply 2.13.8 to a sitatuion where X is not being chosen, but is already defined.

2.13.8 states:

When a player has the option to choose a number for X, X must be a positive number.

Antigoth said:

My head hurts, and it was my topic. The result - Water is playable because multiple uses of an uncommon action card turn a damage reduction card into a damage boost card (a big damage boost card at that, +10 for a commit!).

Might not be practical, but in my mind w/ a 7hs water character this could very well work quite well.

- dut

Lets say you do have a negative block lets say -2 would that mean if the speed of the attack is 6 you would block with a 4 check?

That's correct, Darklogos. 6 + (-2) = 4.

yes, but since "yes" is too short a post i will say that its the same as if sophitia wanted to block a -1 speed attack with a +4 block mod needing a 3 to pass

Antigoth said:

quick conformation on two things, a negative speed attack will go back to 0 before a player attempts to block correct?

secondly, not human won't give damage pump if the total of all the block mod's are negative correct* ?

*hadn't it been previously ruled that cage arena would not pump damage if the attacks speed was negative?

Why would speed reset to 0? Only damage does, because you can't deal negative damage. It doesn't work.

Also, Cage Arena had no such ruling.

The cage arena ruling was that if the damage was negative, it would not reduce the damage, because of the minimum 1.

ah, that's right. good catch. nothing to do with the speed though...