Protectrix reads "Reap: You may fully heal a creature. If you do, that creature cannot be dealt damage for the remainder of the turn."

Can I "fully heal" a creature with no damage on it to protect that creature from damage later in the turn? From the rules:

• If an ability "fully heals" a creature, remove all damage from the creature.
• If an ability includes the phrase “if you do” or “in order to,” the player referenced by the ability must successfully and completely resolve the text that precedes that phrase before they can resolve or perform the text that follows that phrase. In other words, if the first part of the ability is not successfully and completely resolved, that which follows the phrase does not resolve or cannot be performed.

So I think the question is: Do I successfully and completely resolve the "fully heal" ability when I remove 0 damage from an undamaged creature?

No

As a slightly longer response, Richard Garfield originally said he played that an undamaged creature could be fully healed, but also said FFG may rule it another way. Sure enough, Brad Andres later said that, no, in order to fully heal a creature it must have at least one damage token on it. So for now, the answer, as posted above, is no.

1 hour ago, dperello said:

As a slightly longer response.........

Nope?

With feeling!!

7 minutes ago, Amanal said:

With feeling!!

HECK TO THE NAAAAH!

Well, time to invest in a Seeker Needle to ping your guy so that you can heal him!

Incredibly stupid combo question. What is the order of resolving multiple reap effects from both the creature and an upgrade?

Someone plays Silent Dagger on their Protectrix, can they choose to deal 4 damage to their own flank creature before fully healing it?

I presume the active player gets to choose.

2 hours ago, Duciris said:

Someone plays Silent Dagger on their Protectrix, can they choose to deal 4 damage to their own flank creature before fully healing it?

Yes.

On 12/7/2018 at 11:16 PM, dperello said:

As a slightly longer response, Richard Garfield originally said he played that an undamaged creature could be fully healed, but also said FFG may rule it another way. Sure enough, Brad Andres later said that, no, in order to fully heal a creature it must have at least one damage token on it. So for now, the answer, as posted above, is no.

I would be very interested to see that post. do you have a link? It seems weird to me considering the only thing FFG has officially ruled on is:

DAMAGE AND ARMOR
When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature. If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile.

This means that when a creature has 0 power, if it has 0 damage on it, it is destroyed. However, keep in mind that this does not mean that “0 damage” qualifies as an amount of damage for other cards that care about creatures being damaged (Like Save the Pack). Both 0 power and 0 damage are an equivalent amount of nothing.

where they establish that 0 damage is in fact damage for the purpose of determining if something dies. It would also stand to reason that healing of 0 damage is also healing. It is a healing of nothing but it is still healing and the creature ends up at full life so it is full healing.

"If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature."

0 is part of "all". It would be different if it said heal x damage like vigor but it just says full heal.

A character with 0 damage on it is also at full health, so I'm not sure how you get around that you're not healing anything when the card requires you to fully heal something.

9 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

A character with 0 damage on it is also at full health, so I'm not sure how you get around that you're not healing anything when the card requires you to fully heal something.

"If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature."

a card is on full health I remove all damage from that creature. is zero in the set of all? yes.

Just now, Ebucklin said:

"If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature."

a card is on full health I remove all damage from that creature. is zero in the set of all? yes.

Actually, no, you don't.

You have to actually "fully heal" the creature. It doesn't say "if the creature is at full health." There is a difference.

If a creature is already at full health before you use the ability, you have not healed anything. You have not changed the creatures health status. It was already at full heath the begin with, and therefore impossible to "fully heal" it. Is it at full health? Yes. Has it been fully healed? No.

It's already been ruled on, but, feel free to ask again. Maybe the answer has changed.

34 minutes ago, Ebucklin said:

I would be very interested to see that post. do you have a link? It seems weird to me considering the only thing FFG has officially ruled on is:

DAMAGE AND ARMOR
When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature. If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile.

This means that when a creature has 0 power, if it has 0 damage on it, it is destroyed. However, keep in mind that this does not mean that “0 damage” qualifies as an amount of damage for other cards that care about creatures being damaged (Like Save the Pack). Both 0 power and 0 damage are an equivalent amount of nothing.

where they establish that 0 damage is in fact damage for the purpose of determining if something dies. It would also stand to reason that healing of 0 damage is also healing. It is a healing of nothing but it is still healing and the creature ends up at full life so it is full healing.

"If an ability “fully heals” a creature, remove all damage from the creature."

0 is part of "all". It would be different if it said heal x damage like vigor but it just says full heal.

Here is the link to the forum at BGG where Richard and FFGs answers were posted: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2042423/can-you-heal-creature-not-damaged/page/2

So this is another one of Garfield's intent vs FFG's application of the rules.

And as much as everyone dislikes it........ FFG is again consistent with the interpretation of the rules, regardless of the intent.

Ok what's the next intent vs rules snafu we need to deal with?

16 minutes ago, KandyKidZero said:

Here is the link to the forum at BGG where Richard and FFGs answers were posted: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2042423/can-you-heal-creature-not-damaged/page/2

thank you for this link. this is mostly what I was looking for. I find it surprising that he actually heard back from FFG about a ruling as I haven't heard anything and neither has anyone I've talked to. Why hasn't that official ruling been posted to the official rulings on this website? Was there also a post made by Brad as stated above? So does this mean they are officially defining "all" as "at least 1"? Again thank you for the link instead of just arguing with me.

2 minutes ago, Ebucklin said:

thank you for this link. this is mostly what I was looking for. I find it surprising that he actually heard back from FFG about a ruling as I haven't heard anything and neither has anyone I've talked to. Why hasn't that official ruling been posted to the official rulings on this website? Was there also a post made by Brad as stated above? So does this mean they are officially defining "all" as "at least 1"? Again thank you for the link instead of just arguing with me.

Not a problem. I had submitted some questions before as well and have not heard anything back. Hoping that:

• They are planning to do at least monthly revisions to the rules PDF
• There will be something like Magic has with Gatherer/Oracle text so you can look up rulings for individual cards
• There is better templating in future expansions.

Most of the time things get answered with "just do as much as you can", but it is difficult for some people who come from different games and languages when parsing some sentences.

14 minutes ago, Ebucklin said:

Again thank you for the link instead of just arguing with me.

It still takes more than one person to argue, right? I mean unless someone has a link, I'm just going to state my incorrect opinions as facts and then label anyone that disagrees with me as argumentative.

Hooray for the internet!

For future reference, you can find many such answers on KeyForge Compendium. In this case, we even included a direct link to the source:

https://keyforge-compendium.com/cards/254-protectrix

Regarding the impromptu Silent Dagger question, that's in there too:

https://keyforge-compendium.com/cards/318-silent-dagger

I hope this helps.

On 12/13/2018 at 4:33 PM, Ishi Tonu said:

It still takes more than one person to argue, right? I mean unless someone has a link, I'm just going to state my incorrect opinions as facts and then label anyone that disagrees with me as argumentative.

Hooray for the internet!

Are you a troll? I never stated anything as fact. I asked for a link and explained why the ruling doesn't make sense to me due to the exact wording of the rules and the definition of all. Some people chose to argue against my interpretation of the rules by arguing points that dont actually refute my logic but never actually provided the evidence I was asking for which was a link to the ruling. I was thanking the person who actually provided the link. Arguemwnts are necessarily bad things but both parties need to actually listen to the other person and be willing to be rational about the situation or its just people ranting to one another.