Can you Guard Conjurations against Flyers?

[DeckBuilder]

Guarding (p29)

"Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker."

Ignoring Guards (sidebar p29)

"In some cases, guards can be ignored. If an attacking creature can ignore a guard, it may choose to melee attack a different target in the zone, and does not have to attack the ignored guard.

Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."

I contend that the rules as they stand allow Flyers to ignore guards when melee attacking conjurations in that zone. The rules specifically only allow guards to interpose against flyers when they melee-attack non-Flying creatures.

The logical and grammatical syntax of the above is follows:
(a) There are exceptions to the Guard rule
(b) Flyers is one of these exceptions
(c) However Flyers attacking non-Flying creatures is an exception to exception (b)

However,  this interpretation (RAW as the game uses precise terminology) has caused some disagreement.

Can someone please clear this up? Many thanks!

[reddawn]

"Using Guards

Guarding allows you to protect important creatures or conjurations.  Having a few guards in the same zone as your Mage, for example, allows you to direct melee attacks to your guards, instead of your Mage."

This quote, right under the Guarding rules, seems to clear up the intention behind guarding. 

The quote which you point out as ambiguous really isn't.

"Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."

There's no need to make the distinction about non-flying conjurations, because all conjurations up until this point do not fly.  Though it would be a cool idea to make flying conjurations.

[Fentum]

As I read it, DeckBuilder is correct by the letter of the rules.

It FEELS as though the word 'creature' in the flying exceptions should have been 'creature or conjuration', but it may have slipped by. As written, there is a difference between creatures and conjurations in the flying exception. Exactly as DB suggests.

Either the FLUFF is that a conjuration is perhaps TOO BIG for a creature to guard from flying creatures, or it is one that slipped by proof reading.

I guess we will get an official view soon enough.

[Shad0w]

Guarding (p29)

"Protect the Zone: If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker."

Ignoring Guards (sidebar p29)

"In some cases, guards can be ignored. If an attacking creature can ignore a guard, it may choose to melee attack a different target in the zone, and does not have to attack the ignored guard.

Flying Creatures and Guards: Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard's zone."

I contend that the rules as they stand allow Flyers to ignore guards when melee attacking conjurations in that zone. The rules specifically only allow guards to interpose against flyers when they melee-attack non-Flying creatures.

The logical and grammatical syntax of the above is follows:
(a) There are exceptions to the Guard rule
(b) Flyers is one of these exceptions
(c) However Flyers attacking non-Flying creatures is an exception to exception (b)

However,  this interpretation (RAW as the game uses precise terminology) has caused some disagreement.

Can someone please clear this up? Many thanks!

By this wording you are correct. - But if needed I can look it all up.

[reddawn]

Page 19 says that, about flying:

"If a flying creature makes a melee attack against a non-flying creature, it loses the flying trait until the end of the attack..."

So, against conjurations, it doesn't lose the Flying trait?  That seems odd, since many conjurations appear to be small and close to the ground like a Mana Flower, and thus easily guarded, while others appear to be large, like temples or spawnpoints, and thus more difficult to guard, but it's hard to judge just how large conjurations are due to the art.

Seems kind of important to know for sure, since scale isn't clearly defined.

[nitrodavid]

page 23 of rule book says
"remember: if a flying creature attacks a non-flying object it looses flying until end of attack"
note on page 15 it says creature and on page 23 it says object. so this is clearly an error.

assuming object is correct, you loose flying during attack which means you need to obey non flying guard rules

[Tacullu64]

Found this in the official FAQ/Errata. Hope it helps.

Guarding

While a creature has a Guard marker it loses, and cannot gain, the Flying trait.

A Guard cannot prevent a creature from attacking itself or an object attached to itself.

Under “Protect the Zone”, on page 33 of the original rulebook, replace the current description with: “If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker.” This has the same meaning as before, but may be slightly more clear. Note that similar text is already inserted in the second printing rulebook.

[DeckBuilder]

Thanks, guys. So the general consensus seems to be that the "creature" reference in the flying side bar should be "object" instead. Be good to have an official FAQ on this.

I'm slightly disappointed as I feel some conjurations are perhaps a bit too powerful and you perhaps pay too much of a premium for flying (as Mages are forbidden to fly in the arena so it just gives you very limited Mongoose Agility whilst making you a ranged target that walls can't protect). So my literal interpretation would have solved both of these perceived issues. (Flying archers on the other hand are a different matter!)

In the interim, I shall accept the wisdom of those more experienced and treat this as a rare case of slightly sloppy rules drafting. But it would be great if someone from the design team clarified what is, unlike quite a lot of the other rules queries, a pretty ambiguous rules position. We have gone for RAI instead of RAW. I'm fine with that.

Cheers! 

[Tacullu64]

Thanks, guys. So the general consensus seems to be that the "creature" reference in the flying side bar should be "object" instead. Be good to have an official FAQ on this.


But it would be great if someone from the design team clarified what is, unlike quite a lot of the other rules queries, a pretty ambiguous rules position. We have gone for RAI instead of RAW. I'm fine with that.

Cheers!

I agree. It looks like you have exposed some ambiguous wording in the rules.

[reddawn]

you perhaps pay too much of a premium for flying

Flying is definitely one of the best abilities in the game.  It prevents important creatures from being focused down by grounded creatures and increases mobility in many ways.  It's one of the first enchants I give my large creatures pretty much every game. 

That's a discussion for a different thread though.

[Shad0w]

Sorry all been so busy every good now?