OK A GIANT OF A MAN SAYS:

"...YOUR OPPONENT'S ATTACK GET -X DAMAGE (MINIMUM HALF ITS PRINTED DAMAGE)..."

SOMETIMES I GET WORDS/RULES MIXED UP SO I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS MEANS. DOES IT MEAN THAT I CAN ONLY REDUCE IT BY HALF ITS PRINTED DAMAGE OR THAT I CAN REDUCE IT UNTIL ITS DOWN TO HALF ITS PRINTED DAMAGE?

IT MEANS THAT THE ABILITY CAN ONLY REDUCE IT TO HALF ITS PRINTED DAMAGE

and stop with the caps

Ok well thats good, otherwise it wasnt that great. Thanks.

Sorry if the caps offended anyone. Capital letters are like racist comments to people.

STAMP BUT NOT QUITE IN ALL CAPS FOR Ziepnir

All caps is just kinda obnoxious.

Ziephnir said:

Well thats only the minimum, but it can be reduced more...just depends on how many foundations in your staging area.

the lowest value this ability can bring an attack down to is half of its printed damage, that is what (minimum half this attack's printed damage) means. it does .not mean that the minimum the ability can subtract is half of the attacks printed damage.

said case is if when an ability defines X in its text and there is a minimum in there. example being the errata on makoto

But thats not right...I understand that the minimum will take the place if you dont meet certain requirements.

Ex. You are playing hugo and have 3 foundations out. Your opponent plays a NRS. The minimum would kick in due to the fact the printed damage is 10 and you only have 3 foundations, reducing it to 5.

However, lets say you have 30 foundations out and your opponent plays the NRS. Then if you blew up A Giant of a Man the attack would get -30 damage...of course that brings it to 0.

I was just commenting on the first post because the minimum is not the maximum of the potential of the damage reduction depending on the situation.

WhatAboutBob? said:

uh. sorry, but all of this is wrong.

a 10 damage attack will get -3 if you have only 3 foundations out.

a 10 damage attack will get -5 if you have 30 foundations out, because the minumum you can reduce to is half of the printed damage.

the correct answer has already been stamped.

GouHadou said:

Im inclined to agree with the other on this.....it says minimum of half the attack printed damge not maximum wouldnt that mean that the minimum it could be in this senerio would be 5?

in other cards with minimum the minimum refers to the end result. This attack gets -3 dmg (min1) for example says the attack gets a steady minus 3, but cant go lower than 1.

With giant of a man i would think then that the attack gets the minus, but cannot go lower than half the attacks printed dmg.

Actually when reading the card then looking at other "min" cards, it seems pretty clear...

I understand now what everyone was saying. I got all sorts of confused with the minimum being in the middle than at the end. My bad! lol

WhatAboutBob? said:

Thats what this forum is for

Better to ask and be corrected on here than to be in the middle of a game and realize the card works diff than you thought

I get the logic behind why it works that way but when looking at the card you cant tell what the actual intent was i dont think fixing the card is in order but for future references i think that there should be some other way to word that so its more clear

and im pretty sure if it said max. half printed damage it would be alot more clear

again, min/max on cards are referring to the end result, not the amount of the bonus/penalty.

Just so; they changed the text from "to a minimum of [whatever]" to just "minimum [whatever]" to save space and make templating easier and...I dunno, stuff.

Still means and does the same thing; reduce an attack's damage by X, to a minimum of Y.