Hey all. I've been around the usual places looking for an answer to this in hopes of resolving it. I've had no success with my local store and they have requested a ruling on this for clarity. We're at the point where we all agree to disagree, but they're going to have to make a ruling in the store championship.

2 scenarios.

1:Hero has force illusion and 2 shields. Villian has a 2 damage die and applies it to hero. Hero elects to play Force illusion. Can he play it and discard 2 and keep his shields?

2: Hero has force illusion and 2 shields. Villain has a 3 damage die and applies it to hero. Hero elects to play force illusion. Can he play it and discard 3 to keep his shields?

I honestly cannot recall what the local ruling will be for scenario 1, but I have been told that the local ruling for scenario 2 will definitely be that you can play illusion and discard 3 to keep the shields because damage will be taken, therefore force illusion applies.

It makes a pretty significant difference in a lot of decks. With riposte and quigon's ability, it could fundamentally change a game to strip him of shields. The store owners are in agreement that shields will stay and are supported by many players. Other players are in total disagreement. We have all agreed to remain calm until any sort of ruling, but until that time, shields stay in that store.

Help me FFG, you're my only hope.

Sunny

Shields block damage. Each shield blocks 1 damage that would be dealt to the character. After blocking damage, the shield token is removed. • It is not optional to use a shield. Shields must be used to block damage, if possible.

from the rules pdf

Yes.

I'm not sure people are going to understand the point of confusion, so let me re-frame it: shields don't merely prevent damage, they are removed in place of the damage as if it were never dealt. It's a framework replacement effect, so anything that triggers upon damage being dealt should not, RAW, affect a character with enough shields to block it. And, because shields have to be used (as per the RRG), a player cannot choose to ignore them and allow the damage to be dealt so that they can benefit from aforesaid triggers. The major issue is that we have a contradictory clause which states "damage not taken is still dealt," so the whole thing might be a wash anyways.

1) No.

2) No, but you could remove the shields and then use Force Illusion to prevent one damage.

After a quick look at the RRG, pretty sure shields must be used first.

Force Illusion is a 'before' ability that triggers off damage being *taken*. The usual framework order is damage dealt -> shields block damage -> remaining damage is taken by the character. Force Illusion is a 'before' ability that would trigger to interrupt step 3, but at that point the shields have already been used (as they aren't optional).

As evidence, contrast Force Illusion with Count Dooku, who can gain a shield before damage is *dealt* to him.

5 minutes ago, Abyss said:

After a quick look at the RRG, pretty sure shields must be used first.

Force Illusion is a 'before' ability that triggers off damage being *taken*. The usual framework order is damage dealt -> shields block damage -> remaining damage is taken by the character. Force Illusion is a 'before' ability that would trigger to interrupt step 3, but at that point the shields have already been used (as they aren't optional).

As evidence, contrast Force Illusion with Count Dooku, who can gain a shield before damage is *dealt* to him.

It would actually be: resolve damage die -> remove shields instead of dealing damage -> place any damage tokens in excess of shields.

The issue i have with this is people treating it like the damage gets applied 1 point at time. In scenario 2 the 3 damage is applied simultaneously. The player would be dealt 3 damage and would be taking 1. This satisfies the before condition which then jumps the queue.

I can't find any reference to in the rules to damage being dealt then progressing to taken and shields are merely a replacement effect you must use as damage is applied. Since the before ability blocks the hit the shield replacement effect never has to to be applied.

I hope for a ruling on it too, because even though i feel my logic is sound it might not be what FFG intended. I'm more concerned with playing it right than being right.

Force illusion resolves to "Damage Taken" (before character takes it, actually)

Per the RRG (page 21): "Damage is taken only when one or more damage tokens are placed on the character".

As said before, using shields is not optional, and shields acts to block damage "dealt", not allowing it to be damage "taken".

So, that said, the answer to your scenarios is:

1) no, because the character is not going to take any damage (since it will be blocked by the shields), so Force Illusion never triggers.

2) Force Illusion does trigger here, but only to damage taken. So, you would lose both shields and block the remaining damage with FI.

There seems to be confusion about "damage dealt" and "damage taken". Per RRG page 21:

TAKING DAMAGE

Damage is taken only when one or more damage tokens are placed on the character. If all damage dealt was blocked by shields or some other ability, then no damage was taken. • Damage not taken is still dealt.

Example: Hunker Down (r164) says “After this character takes melee damage, discard this upgrade.” If two melee damage is dealt to the character but is blocked by 2 shields, then no damage was taken by the character and Hunker Down is not discarded.

Force Illusion cannot be used by a character if damage could be (and by rule MUST BE) blocked by shields. Remember, individual die (except for modifiers) are resolved 1 at a time.

3 hours ago, Stranglebat said:

The issue i have with this is people treating it like the damage gets applied 1 point at time. In scenario 2 the 3 damage is applied simultaneously. The player would be dealt 3 damage and would be taking 1. This satisfies the before condition which then jumps the queue.

While I'd agree it does make sense that it could trigger there, Force Illusion only blocks the damage the character would take. So, even if you're interpretation of the timing is correct, the character is being DEALT 3 damage, but is still only TAKING 1 damage and therefore Force Illusion could only prevent that 1 damage.

3 minutes ago, netherspirit1982 said:

While I'd agree it does make sense that it could trigger there, Force Illusion only blocks the damage the character would take. So, even if you're interpretation of the timing is correct, the character is being DEALT 3 damage, but is still only TAKING 1 damage and therefore Force Illusion could only prevent that 1 damage.

Correct. Example: The opponent resolves a melee die worth 3. The affected character has 2 shields and the Force Illusion upgrade. The first two damage are blocked by the shields. The final point of damage may be blocked by Force Illusion.

Well, like I said, that's not going to be the way it's ruled around here until FFG provides some clarity. I submitted it to the rules section of customer service.

5 hours ago, sunny ravencourt said:

Well, like I said, that's not going to be the way it's ruled around here until FFG provides some clarity. I submitted it to the rules section of customer service.

I don't se how much more clarity you need. There is a reference to Hunker Down example two posts above that says everything you need about "taking damage" - damage prevented (and it's prevented by obligatory effect) is not taken.

51 minutes ago, player996970 said:

I don't se how much more clarity you need. There is a reference to Hunker Down example two posts above that says everything you need about "taking damage" - damage prevented (and it's prevented by obligatory effect) is not taken.

I've grown use to this sower milk response on the forums. Most of those who ask for help are very thankful when the rules are broken down and explained (as they have been here). A few only want to hear they are right. They wait for 4+ weeks to get a response to their rules inquiry only to be told the exact same thing experienced players have told them. I'm the first to say FFG should be contacted about an apparent gap in the rules. This is not one of those cases.

Look, I get it. I get the rules reference. I get the examples. I presented them to my LGS. They disagree. I put this post up before I realized that I could submit it to the customer service line and simply wait it out. The clarity I need is from FFG even if its clear to you/me. Until then, I'll be playing Qui-Gon to keep those shields locally.

30 minutes ago, Stone37 said:

I've grown use to this sower milk response on the forums. Most of those who ask for help are very thankful when the rules are broken down and explained (as they have been here). A few only want to hear they are right. They wait for 4+ weeks to get a response to their rules inquiry only to be told the exact same thing experienced players have told them. I'm the first to say FFG should be contacted about an apparent gap in the rules. This is not one of those cases.

I like option C, which is where we all sit around and commiserate over just how bad FFG continues to be at writing rules.

I guess if you are dealing with a complete knucklehead at your LGS, maybe contacting FFG for an official ruling is the only option. Luckily I've never needed to do that, but I can see how it happens.

46 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I like option C, which is where we all sit around and commiserate over just how bad FFG continues to be at writing rules.

Because you have written plenty of rules and they were all completely bug-free?

I do wish clarity, but if that means breaking down a turn to 800+ sections with multiple paragraphs because there will always be that guy asking for more... I'd study law.

sunny, your LGS is obviously beyon reasoning, sorry to hear that..

3 minutes ago, player996970 said:

Because you have written plenty of rules and they were all completely bug-free?

I do wish clarity, but if that means breaking down a turn to 800+ sections with multiple paragraphs because there will always be that guy asking for more... I'd study law.

sunny, your LGS is obviously beyon reasoning, sorry to hear that..

Do I need to be a master chef to know when a pizza tastes like crap?

Magic has a comprehensive rule book that most people will never read, nor ever need to. The game functions just fine until you snag on one of those corner cases - usually at an event - and then you're damned glad you don't have to wait 3-4 weeks for the developers to issue an unofficial ruling that they just might reverse in the next FAQ. Seriously, what's the stigma with having a complete, functional rule set?

Try a game of EDH, corner cases everywhere. What keeps corner cases under control is the Standard format with limited sets.

The stigma comes from the nature of most common problem - the game is more complex than it appears. And timings. Break a phase on too many subphases and you get too much information. Too much info means less people knowing the rules well. It's one thing to show a game with 4 pages rules, and another to issue some walls of text and diagrams. Just check netrunner, it got funny at some point as they had to deal with more and more interactions. Up until the point they started restricting cards.

Another thing is creation of new problems with each new set. And rules within rules, such as the case we are discussing. There is a clear example showing the correct resolution, yet someone disagrees. Surely he wouldn't do it if there is a specific rule regarding Force Illusion.

For example, there is no "card takes precedence" rule in Magic. I mean there are no exceptions in MtG. Which is unlike every other game out there.

In Infinity miniatures game by Corvus Beelly there is a whole wiki the size of few books, with examples and everything, and for a newcomer it's overwhelming amount of information. For me it's complete disaster as we are running into problems in almost every game. Too many rules. Yet the game is enjoyable and we cope with the slow update of rules and bad decisions regarding corner cases.

This is as close to official as you are going to get right now - but please take it with whatever grain of salt you want as I do not speak for Lukas or FFG.

100% your shields are eaten FIRST...then you can pop Force Illusion.

That is how it works and that is how you should be ruling. Not going to argue with anyone about it...do whatever you wish, but that is how it works. Period.

One thing I will say on this FFG sandbagging... these are SMALL teams working hard on MULTIPLE THINGS. This is not 20+ year old MtG with a corporation of people working solely on the game. So like. lay off. They do their best. Could it be better? Sure. But you know what..we could also end poverty tomorrow...and isn't that more of a crime than some rulings in a freaking game meant to be played for fun? I mean lighten up, sheesh.

1 minute ago, Tierdal said:

One thing I will say on this FFG sandbagging... these are SMALL teams working hard on MULTIPLE THINGS. This is not 20+ year old MtG with a corporation of people working solely on the game. So like. lay off. They do their best. Could it be better? Sure. But you know what..we could also end poverty tomorrow...and isn't that more of a crime than some rulings in a freaking game meant to be played for fun? I mean lighten up, sheesh.

So I guess anyone not working on ending world hunger shouldn't bother to do a good job?

FFG is great at high concepts for games, but they don't dedicate the resources and effort to writing quality rules and properly testing for balance. They could, they're certainly a successful enough company and not some fly-by-night three-person team working on a first project, but they don't. IMHO it comes down largely to their internal culture - they just don't care, and don't consider these things worth the effort.

In Destiny's case, it's made worse by an obvious (and poor, and incorrect) decision that shorter rules are better for a mass-market game. Same thing happened with X-wing. They manage far more detailed rules for other games - I like Arkham Horror as a comparison, since it came out around the same time as Destiny so all the "They're still learning" and "They didn't have time to learn anything" excuses go away.

2 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

So I guess anyone not working on ending world hunger shouldn't bother to do a good job?

FFG is great at high concepts for games, but they don't dedicate the resources and effort to writing quality rules and properly testing for balance. They could, they're certainly a successful enough company and not some fly-by-night three-person team working on a first project, but they don't. IMHO it comes down largely to their internal culture - they just don't care, and don't consider these things worth the effort.

In Destiny's case, it's made worse by an obvious (and poor, and incorrect) decision that shorter rules are better for a mass-market game. Same thing happened with X-wing. They manage far more detailed rules for other games - I like Arkham Horror as a comparison, since it came out around the same time as Destiny so all the "They're still learning" and "They didn't have time to learn anything" excuses go away.

You are ABSOLUTELY right they COULD fix these things. And you are probably correct on the reasons why they are broken. And nobody is saying you can't have an opinion. But really - at this point - are we surprised? If you are going to play an FFG game - these are the things you accept.

You are wrong about the teams though. They do care. They work long nights. They do the best they can with what they have, which unlike your speculation of "not being 3 people teams", is NOT a lot.

FFG and FFG OP are not aiming to be Magic or host Grand Pre's. They are aiming to produce fun games that people enjoy. World's isn't for cash prizes ...its for a rubber mat and some acrylic tokens you could print in your home with a 3d printer.

So like... maybe its the community that needs to evolve their expectations.

I just don't get it. Sure, FFG rules have gaps sometimes, I don't think anyone would dispute that. But relative to this particular question, both the rules and the text on the card are absolutely 100% crystal clear. In other words, FFG got this one right. This mysterious FLGS's ruling notwithstanding, what is all the fuss about?