Hello,

I don't realy understand this line "place any amount of that damage" in the Protect text rule.

Does that mean that, for example, when one of my unit takes 2 damages, it is possible to redirect only 1 damage on a protecting unit ?

Thanks for your clarifications.

OK thanks. So even with 2 remaining HP, the guardian of peace could take just 1 damage ?

TheFakeCake said:

With 2 remaining damage capacity it could take 1 or 2 damage.

Understood

Thank you

Just to reinforce what's been said, sometimes a player may think that a Protector unit like the Guardian can absorb 3 damage if he's got a shield. This is not the case, because any protector is limited by the amount of remaining health it has. So for an extreme example, even a Guardian of the Peace, who was at full health and had 100 shields, could still only redirect 2 damage to it from a single strike, or single source of damage, at a time. The rest of the damage would have to go to another protector, or the original target of the damage.

Micah

Remembering that a card can only ever have one shield on it though. The only time it can more than one is if an effect says something like place a shield even if it already has one, ie something that specifically allows you to override the max 1 shield rule.

PBrennan said:

True, but there is such a card (Our Most Desperate Hour). It would take some crazy tricks to get to 100 shields still, but it might be possible. There is that one Leia infinite loop after all - I don't remember all of the details of the loop off the top of my head but there might be a way to include sticking 100 shields on something in it.

dbmeboy said:

And in any case, the point I was making was not that 100 shields are a likely or even possible game scenario, it was just an extreme example to drive the point home about how protect works when shields are present on the Protector.

Micah

Yep I figured, but it's one of the easiest rules to miss (that a card can only have 1 shield), and I've seen quite a few posts where people quote instances of multiple shields on a card, so I tend to mention it as a "just in case" each time I see it. Then, if someone later reads the thread and hasn't caught that rule, or forms a belief that they can have multiple shields because of the example given, it's at least rammed the message home that they can't! :-)

I re-read the FAQ after the following situation happened to me, and it looks like my opponent didn't play it correctly, nor did I for not catching/enforcing it.

Combat phase begins:

I declare Devastator as an attacker

He defends with Luke (1 damage from previous turn)

- not in the engagement was a guardian of the peace, with a shield already on, and 1 previous damage.

I action Devastator to add 1 additional unitl damage, (total 3)

I win edge and strike first.

I strike at Luke.

He moves 2 dmg to guardian, 1 shield plus 1 damage (dead)

1 dmg on Luke, (2 out of 3 now).

Luke strikes back.

Turn goes on, but in summary, correct me if I am wrong, that this was not played correctly.

According to this discussion and the FAQ, the remaining damage capacity on guardian was one, therefore only 1 damage could be transferred, even though a shield was in place, meaning Luke would have been forced to take at least 2 damage and be dead.

Is the final statement the correct outcome?

You are correct. Shields do not change a units damage capacity. The Guardians capacity at that point was 1. So all that could be moved is 1.

If Guardian of Peace has two damage capacity and one shield as well - if I use protect to absorb two damage (the maximum I'm allowed to protect with her because of her damage capacity) can I still use the shield to absorb one of the damage and keep Guardian of Peace alive or does the damage being delt via protect bypass any shields?

No, you can use a shield to prevent a redirected Protect damage.