Obligated to Use Unflinching Persistence?

I'm in combat and use Unflinching Persistence at FOR for a maneuver. Am I obligated to prevent the first point of damage with UP or can I use any other damage prevention in hand to help cycle my cards then use the UP as necessary? Thanks in advance. Jeff Unflinching Persistence Combat for: Prevent 1 damage. FOR: Maneuver and prevent up to 1 damage later this round. Only usable when choosing range.

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1143238889.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > I'm in combat and use Unflinching Persistence at FOR for a maneuver. Am > I obligated to prevent the first point of damage with UP or can I use > any other damage prevention in hand to help cycle my cards then use the > UP as necessary? > > Unflinching Persistence > Combat > for: Prevent 1 damage. > FOR: Maneuver and prevent up to 1 damage later this round. Only usable > when choosing range. What about "prevent up to 1 damage" doesn't sound optional to you? Using it to maneuver and prevent zero damage - even if there's a damage to be prevented - should be just fine. And (IMNLSJ but) I see no reason you couldn't prevent damage by other means, including another Unflinching Persistence card if you like. Fred

jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote: > I'm in combat and use Unflinching Persistence at FOR for a maneuver. Am > I obligated to prevent the first point of damage with UP or can I use > any other damage prevention in hand to help cycle my cards then use the > UP as necessary? Yes. You do not even have to prevent any damage with it.

Fred Scott wrote: > What about "prevent up to 1 damage" doesn't sound optional to you? > Using it to maneuver and prevent zero damage - even if there's a > damage to be prevented - should be just fine. And (IMNLSJ but) I > see no reason you couldn't prevent damage by other means, including > another Unflinching Persistence card if you like. > > Fred Wasn't there actually a ruling a while back that said "Prevent up to X" was supposed to be treated at "Prevent X"?

[ quoted text not captured ] Also, I think I may be recalling the "[LSJ] Playing Resilience and Diversion" thread which didn't quite resolve whether you can play 20 Diversions if you are taking a single point of damage.

In message <1143240089.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, echia...@yahoo.com writes: >Wasn't there actually a ruling a while back that said "Prevent up to X" >was supposed to be treated at "Prevent X"? Effects that prevent "up to X" damage and effects that "prevent X" damage mean the same thing. In both cases, applying the effect prevents X damage. If fewer than X points of (preventable) damage are being resolved, then the effect prevents all of those points. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:ujTESwIj...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1143240089.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > echia...@yahoo.com writes: >>Wasn't there actually a ruling a while back that said "Prevent up to X" >>was supposed to be treated at "Prevent X"? > > Effects that prevent "up to X" damage and effects that "prevent X" > damage mean the same thing. In both cases, applying the effect prevents > X damage. If fewer than X points of (preventable) damage are being > resolved, then the effect prevents all of those points. So, to answer Jeff's question, then: does that mean if a Methuselah plays a card that reads "Maneuver and prevent up to 1 damage later this round" that the first point of damage that occurs to the minion in combat _must_ be prevented by the card's effect? (If so, we're done. But...) If not, why not, in light of this ruling? Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "> So, to answer Jeff's question, then: does that mean if a Methuselah > plays a card that reads "Maneuver and prevent up to 1 damage later > this round" that the first point of damage that occurs to the minion > in combat _must_ be prevented by the card's effect? (If so, we're > done. But...) If not, why not, in light of this ruling? > > Fred The key words in this is "and prevent up to 1 damage" Preventing zero damage is below 1 and therefore perfectly acceptable in this instance. The card text provides an option, not a "must do" effect. You could (theoreticly) play "prevent damage from this strike", wait till your opponent drops a blur and then use the prevent provided from U.P. in their 2nd (theoretical) "one agg" strike as it is still "later this round" Sutekh_23

[ quoted text not captured ] It sounds to me like the "later in this round" is the key phrase. This allows you to play the card for a maneuver and gives you the option to use the other effect at any time later. Other cards with the "prevent up to" phrase don't say this so they must be used immediately when damage prevention is applicable. Otherwise any "up to" card could be used on a Theft of Vitae or any other non-damaging strike during the damage prevention portion of combat. Jeff

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > > The key words in this is "and prevent up to 1 damage" Preventing zero > > damage is below 1 and therefore perfectly acceptable in this instance. > > The card text provides an option, not a "must do" effect. You could > > (theoreticly) play "prevent damage from this strike", wait till your > > opponent drops a blur and then use the prevent provided from U.P. in > > their 2nd (theoretical) "one agg" strike as it is still "later this > > round" > > It sounds to me like the "later in this round" is the key phrase. This > allows you to play the card for a maneuver and gives you the option to > use the other effect at any time later. Other cards with the "prevent > up to" phrase don't say this so they must be used immediately when > damage prevention is applicable. Otherwise any "up to" card could be > used on a Theft of Vitae or any other non-damaging strike during the > damage prevention portion of combat. Precisely.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure if I missed one of your posts in this thread that would have made it clear to me, Scott, but what is the end-result ruling for Unflinching Persistence here? If you have played Unflinching during the maneuver step, and receive any preventable damage at some point during the round, must you use the floating Unflinching prevention first? thanks! Josh sees several posts from people who do not appear to be certain about how the card should work, but none from anyone really confident

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:48p1m7F...@individual.net... > LSJ wrote: >> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: >>>It sounds to me like the "later in this round" is the key phrase. This >>>allows you to play the card for a maneuver and gives you the option to >>>use the other effect at any time later. Other cards with the "prevent >>>up to" phrase don't say this so they must be used immediately when >>>damage prevention is applicable. Otherwise any "up to" card could be >>>used on a Theft of Vitae or any other non-damaging strike during the >>>damage prevention portion of combat. >> >> Precisely. > > I'm not sure if I missed one of your posts in this thread that would > have made it clear to me, Scott, but what is the end-result ruling for > Unflinching Persistence here? If you have played Unflinching during the > maneuver step, and receive any preventable damage at some point during > the round, must you use the floating Unflinching prevention first? What I got from the above was that because you are instructed to prevent "up to 1 damage later this round", you may make that prevention happen as much later as you like even though you have to damage to prevent - including never. Fred

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > I'm not sure if I missed one of your posts in this thread that would > have made it clear to me, Scott, but what is the end-result ruling for > Unflinching Persistence here? If you have played Unflinching during the > maneuver step, and receive any preventable damage at some point during > the round, must you use the floating Unflinching prevention first? > No you don't josh, see the card: Unflinching Persistence Type: Combat Requires: Fortitude [for] Prevent 1 damage. [FOR] Maneuver, and prevent up to 1 damage later this round. Only usable when choosing range. It specificaly states "and prevent up to one damage later this round" nowhere does it state when this affect is triggered, all it says is "later this round" Nor does it prevent you from playing it to prevent zero damage, as zero is less than one. If you had to use the prevent from U.P. first the card would read: Unflinching Persistance Type: Combat Requires: Fortitude [for] Prevent 1 damage [FOR] Manuver and prevent the first point of damage this round. Only usable when choosing range Hope this helps you Sutekh_23 [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1143432395....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >It specificaly states "and prevent up to one damage later this round" >nowhere does it state when this affect is triggered, all it says is >"later this round" Nor does it prevent you from playing it to prevent >zero damage, as zero is less than one. This last sentence doesn't make sense. At inferior, there has to be damage to prevent or you can't play it. At superior, it's played during choose range. There's no "zero damage" floating round for you to prevent, and by the time you take damage this round the card has already been played. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Correct.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > sees several posts from people who do not appear to be certain about how > the card should work, but none from anyone really confident Hmm, what in my immediate post to your question was not "really confident"?- "Yes. You do not even have to prevent any damage with it." Sounds pretty succinct and confident to me (and correct).