I know this has must have been covered before, but I can't find it. I've read the FAQ addressing this, but I think it could have been more clear. It says that he can absorb up to his damage capacity and then that a shield doesn't change his ability to protect up to damage capacity. So does this mean that he can never absorb 3 damage? If there is a strike of 3, he cannot use the shield to absorb one and then have 2 damage capacity left to absorb 2 more?

videinfra said:

An unenhanced Guardian can never use protect to redirect more than 2 damage to itself, even if it has a shield. It can only redirect up to its remaining damage capacity (which is 2 when undamaged). If you want to redirect more damage, you'll need to find a way to raise the damage capacity.

After you redirect only 2 damage due to capacity, can the shield absorb 1 and the guardian not die?

So what happens in this scenerio to the damage:

Luke (full health of 3)

Guardian (full health of 2)

1) Stormtrooper Elite shoots Luke with 3 unit icons. 1 Damage goes to Luke and 2 to the Guardian, correct?

2) If Luke has a shield, 1 damage is absorbed, 2 damage to the guardian. Correct?

3) If Luke takes no damage, the guardian has a shield, one is absorbed and the remaining 2 damage kills the guardian, correct?

If there is another scenerio, please give it. I want to make sure it is a little more laid out for new players to see. Thanks

JS

Rogue 4 said:

Your assumptions are correct on the first 2. A character can only protect up to it's remaining damage capacity which in this scenario is 2. You do not count shields in calculating remaining damage capacity. What would happen for #3 is that the Guardian will protect 2 of that damage. One goes to Luke, one goes on the Guardian, and one gets absorbed by the Guardian's shield.

dbmeboy said:

Chrony: How is this different than my #3?

I hate the keyword Protect…….

I have a problem and help me understand. Here is the Core rulebook's direct wording.

In other words, if a friendly card in play with the trait specified by a “Protect” effect would take damage, the controller may instead place any amount of that damage on the card with the “Protect” keyword. (Damage beyond a protecting unit’s remaining damage capacity may not be re-assigned to the protecting unit.)

So with what I have underlined and bolded, how is that not beyond the 2 damage capacity for the protect character?

I know the FAQ says this:

If my unit with the protect keyword has a shield, how much damage am I allowed to transfer to it?

Up to the protecting unit’s remaining damage capacity, as per the normal rules for the protect keyword. The presence of the shield does not change the amount of damage you can transfer via the protect keyword.

What the heck does that mean? It doesn't say in the core rulebook that it can only take damage up to its capacity, it says any amount of damage.

I hate the keyword Protect………..

Dude, read the parenthetical statement immediately after the section you highlighted. It pretty clearly states that you can't redirect more than the remaining damage capacity.

First off, don't "Dude" me. If you don't have anything constructive to say in a reply then shut it. No one made you rules master or a voice for the rules. You havea blog, congrats, you are on here all the time, congrats. Keep it nice, simple as that.

The problem with this whole thing is (to me) the English used. In one entry it says the protect keyword can take any amount of damage, then the FAQ says up to its damage capacity then referring back to the protector keyword in the normal rules which debunks the FAQ entry. It's like a snake eating it's own tail, doesn't make sense.

I understand if the ruling is that they can only take up to the damage capacity, that is how we have ruled and played for some time, but it still is poorly worded for newbies.

Rogue 4 said:

What effect, if any, do you think the parenthetical sentence in the rulebook has? You seem to be not including it in your analysis. If it's not meant to place a restriction on the earlier use of "any", then what is the point of that sentence?

Rogue 4 said:

Rogue 4 said:

That you didn't understand or simply missread the rule, does not mean that it is worded poorly. It is written rather clearly with an FAQ entry further clarifying any ambiguity. You continue to miss the statement dmeboy " duded" you on, in the orginal rulebook entry. I will qoute it for you, "Damage beyond a protecting unit’s remaining damage capacity may not be re-assigned to the protecting unit.". That is the exactly clause the FAQ is mentioning. The FAQ is not clarifying anything in regards to how protect itself works, only in coonjunction with a shield (which just prevents damage and doesn't augment capacity). His post was certainly constructive as it pointed out the exact clause you continue to miss and claim does not exist.

Why you were so offended by "Dude" I'm not sure, but how about you calm down a bit because he showed you exactly what you were missing. Your rant was not needed or justified in any manner, and frankly is just hypocritical.

Rogue 4 said:

I'm sorry if my wording offended you before, no offense was meant. If you'll look back in the section you quoted from the core rulebook, I've highlighted the sentence I was attempting to refer you to that should clear up your confusion.