Vitamin T said: mathulus said: Martin_fr said: A dragonmage with gomril armour is invunreble. That irks me a bit... Are you sure about this? Should all the damage reduction take place at the same time? If he is taking two damage his toughness would stop one and his text would only allow him to take one, so wouldnt he still take one point? Gomril Armour would still be good on him, you wouldnt be able to shoot him down for one with things like dwarf ranger. I would assume the controller would get to choose the order of the damage prevention effects. You are basically just saying the the toughness would trigger first, but it could very well happen in any order.

I think right now Indirect Damage needs to be a subtheme of a greater denial deck. Run a deck that denies resources and use the indirect damage to deal with the limited number of units the opponent can play. Eventually they will have to start spreading it to the capitol.

Dywnarc said: Very good, looks a lot like mine with out the new cards! Judgement deck was already good. I would usally tell a deck liek this they do not have enough units, but thats ok for a tuned judgement deck. I do not think the little temples are nessary, I would them for demolition. Also fit in some of the warrior priests, the ones that make units return to hand if they leave play. The warriors priests ability scares me a bit, If I am going for the win by decking the opponent, I don't want them killing the priest forcing me to bounce one of their quest zone units. I will probably do the demolition change though. I am still having a hard time evaluating cards that are out of faction at their expensive cost.

I would say that Iron Discipline can be used in response. It would be really really bad if not as an opponent could just respond to Iron Discipline, or just let the unit be for the turn. As an aside, I still think you are over exaggerating about this card. It has a very narrow scope and I think in most cases, it would be better as another card in the deck, atleast for now.

So it seems its been awhile since there has been a Judgement deck posted here, if at all, and I wanted to see what could be done with the new cards. I threw together a list here; Units: 24 3 Reiksguard Swordsmen 3 Reiksguard Knights 3 The Greatswords 3 Pistoliers 3 *Johannes Broheim 3 Bright Wizard Apprentice 3 Talabheim Detachment 3 Errant Wolf -or- Huntsmen Support: 11 3 Church of Sigmar 3 Shrine to Taal 3 Contested Fortress 2 Gate of Sigmar Tactics: 12 3 Will of the Electors 3 Twin-Tailed Comet 3 Forced March 3 Judgement of Verena Quests: 3 3 *Infiltrate! The idea is pretty basic. Lots of counterstrike for defense. Things to move the opponents stuff for an effective Judgement. Infiltrate! to combo with Forced March moving the opponents units into his/her quest zone. Extra copies of Johannes, Infiltrate!, and Errant Wolf are good to put down as developments. Huntsmen may be better than Errant Wolf just so you can get a turn 1 Infiltrate! going. Anything that should change here?

Martin_fr said: Problem will arise with "forced" that cancel damage. In BP#3, the Dark Elf Hydra has such a forced effect . So, before damaging the Capital, do you have to assign 6 damages to it (since its ability may trigger up to 5 times to cancel the 5 damages), or only 1 damage (since it has only 1 hp and no toughness)... I would think wording would matter here. If the cancellation effect on the hydra was a "may", then the opponent would only have to assign hp worth of damage. It will most likely be a forced effect though to avoid confusion.

dormouse said: The Elf set was set for printing and packaging before the announcement. All sets being developed from the date of the announcement forward will contain 3 of every card. They specifically said except for the large box sets, like the core set and the elf box. BP's will have 60 cards, thats the only thing changing.

dormouse said: The thing though is that damage cancel does not cancel the effect it cancels the damage (as the cards read). If it were intended to cancel the effect it should read closer to 'Cancel Target damage dealing effect.' The key I believe is really in the wording, Gate of Sigmar and Contested Fortress both read "Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn." As constant effects they will initiate the moment one damage is assigned. Master Rune of Valaya and Steel's Bane, both actions read in a fashion that would allow for them to cancel damage that is assigned/applied after they have resolved so could be played in response, resolve first, and have no logical inconsistency. Steel's Bane reads, "Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn." The important word there is next, what ever damage it is played in response to would get 10 of it canceled. I'm curious if it creates a lasting effect. IOW if the damage effect it was played in response to did four points, would that unit still be under the effects of Steel's Bane for another six points of damage or the turn ends, whichever happened first? Master Rune of Valaya reads, "Action: Cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase this turn." I have a similar question here, does it create a lasting effect that continues to cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase that turn or does it just cancel all damage that is assigned in the action chain following it's resolution? I may have to send these off to James. What does everyone else think? The way that Master Rune of Valaya and Steel's Bane read, they would indeed have lasting effect. In Steel's Bane though, a player could respond to the Steel's Bane by hitting the targeted unit with something before the bane would resolve. Like if a player could snipe the targeted unit in response to the Steel's Bane, if the snipe damage was enough to kill the unit, it would die.

Dam said: vermillian said: Where was this clarified? www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp Second to last post on page 2 (link should take you to page 2). That would be great and all, but you misunderstood what I said. When I said "or get clarified to mean what I think it really is", I was refering to a reverse in the current rule. It seems like this should have been obvious within the context of my post. I know how the rule currently stands and I dislike it for reasons stated in this thread.

It is not hard to understand. You are responding to the card and not the effect. Someone is using a card, in response, I will use my steels bane (Which says the "next" damage). If it were the other way around, the card would be almost pointless. If it were not this way, there would be no way to stop half of the effects in this game and you would basically be playing solitair and seeing who "got there" first. The "LIFO" thing adds interaction. For those who don't know what LIFO is, it stands for Last In, First Out. MtG went to just calling it "the stack". Basically, you play an effect/card, it goes on the stack, someone else can play an effect/card in response and it goes onto the stack on top of the other cards, thus it is a stack of effects/cards. You resolve them from top to bottom. Its very easy. I will note that for clarification, the rules should have made the exception for the combat window being opened and not the other way around. It is confusing to a lot of players when the non-combat damage is described rather than combat damage opening a window before it is actually dealt.

Dywnarc said: Does playing this way bother me? No not at all, the change itself is simple and clear, and if it was always that way, we would not have noticed, its still a great game, my issue is with a change to a printed core rule set. Now I have to justify the new play style to anyplayer that was playing it the other way. Do Ipack arround a printed copy of the FAQ, or just tell them, to look it up? My concern with the rules change is how it affects cards that were printed with the previous rule in mind. Will this end up forcing errata to more cards and just making it more complicated to pack an errata paper with you everywhere?

It would be interesting to see what happened in the case of a draw though. Being that there are 3 zones, maybe in the case that zone 2 of both players was burned at the same time, whoever's zone 3 burned first would lose.

I think the rule change makes High Elves too powerful. Dragonmage with Archmage of Saphery is amazing. It really only has a couple weaknesses, Corruption (solved easily by Blessing of Isha, another High Elf card), and being moved away by an Empire deck. Steeles Bane and Greater Heal make them even more powerful. If this rule doesn't change (or get clarified to mean what I think it really is), the game will be messed up when the High Elf board comes out. Right now it is held in check only by the necessity to splash the High Elves, with their high loyalty cost, in another factions deck.

I would say it would redirect the damage. You may not be able to respond to the damage being assigned, but you could respond to a tactic being played that damages something. The part on the priest is where it says "the first damage" is what makes me think this. "Forced effects always occur immediately whenever their trigger is met, and they cannot be cancelled or interrupted by other actions." (rulebook, p.15) was quoted by Hurdoc, but the forced effect on the priest would trigger as soon as the damage was assigned meeting the triggers requirement. This is only my interpretation, but it sounds most logical to me.

Martin_fr said: oh, and why this card says "attach to a unit you control", could you attach support card onto unit you don't control Yes, you can attach a Warp Lightning Cannon to an opposing unit to corrupt it if you wanted.

Wytefang said: Unifiedshoe said: Just because this game isnt MTG doesnt mean we shouldnt observe and use information about what makes a fantasy card game work from the longest lasting, most successful fantasy card game that exists. People that get offended by those that mention MTG in the same breath as another game make me think they are playing that game specifically because it's not MTG and not just because they happen to enjoy it. I absolutely disagree. There's every reason to NOT try and borrow what you might thinked "worked" for some other CCG, regardless of how successful (and over-hyped) it might be. This is an entirely DIFFERENT game. Bringing pre-conceived ideas over to this game is only going to lead to disappointment and confusion. It's like going to see the latest Star Trek film (the revamp by JJ Abrams) and then discussing how it fits into the Star Wars mythos and film series. It's entirely different. Yeah, it's a film and yep, it's a sci-fi setting, but that's where the similarities end. Same with Warhammer: Invasion and M:TG. Different games, different mechanics, different setting as well. That's part of the issue with today's card game market in the first place - too many people trying to either recreate Magic or thrusting their unrealistic expectations onto some other poor game. Yeah, you can look at the strengths and failings of the top games in the industry, sure...it can't hurt. But that's something for the developer himself (Eric) to have done. At our stage in the process, as fans, it does little to no good to proclaim, "But that's not how MAGIC did it." OR "But that IS how Magic did it." No one really cares. Different game. If I wanted to discuss Magic, I'd be in the Magic forums. If I wanted to play Magic, I'd be playing it instead of Warhammer: Invasion. But I'm not. /Rant Off. The similarities to M:tG are undeniable. Just because it isn't the same game doesn't mean that it isn't similar in play. If you want something that really IS NOT M:tG, play Shadowfist or something. I also don't understand what you mean when you say M:tG is "Over-Hyped". Its as if you are just willfully denying how popular the game is. To contribute to the real discussion, Iron Discipline is extremely situational and that makes it not really worth the spot in a deck currently. Maybe in the future when there are more viable Unit targeting tactics, but as of now, its kinda meh. The card I find to be a little overpowered is Dragonmage. According to the new FAQ, you must assign enough damage to him to destroy him before you can assign any to the capitol where he is defending. That means that you must assign an infinite amount to him, thus not being able to assign any to the capitol. So if you happen to get 1 of these out in 2 of your zones, and you have an Archmage of Saphery in play, your capitol is pretty much immune unless they can corrupt your Dragonmage. Even then, you could potentially be holding another card to prevent damage for that turn.

Dywnarc said: I think you could work with a few less support cards. With innovation in your deck, you should get the hammers you need in kingdom, also units in kingdom do the same job and defend the zone, you want some balance as protection from troll vomit though. As an aside, this deck is almost immmune from empire judgement decks, which appear to be another of the more feared decks. I do not feel you need 3 copies each of demolation or burn it down. Oppenents can only place one dev a turn unless they are like you, So I would rather try to overwhelm there ability to heal, then to fill my deck with a card that just removd one, also oppenent support cards are not that much of a threat to you, each of these cards down to one or two each, this makes room for a few more dwarves. Dwarf miners a nice fit. They jump into a zone, heal a few points of damage, and boost the power in that zone for next turn, also it is annoying, but you can but them out early just for the cheap unit/hammer boost, if yopu have little else wirth playing in the kingdopm on first turn. A wake the mountain and innovation in opening hand could be nice to get some high end units out early. I think you are on the verge of a workable deck, a few less of the more situational tatics, a support or two and get some muntain brigade and dwarf miners in the deck. I could probably cut some of the support cards that don't really have any ability on them like the Armoury and possibly the Alliance. The Demolition! and Burn It Down are there to kill support cards, not developments. Its not that I worry about the abilities on the support cards either, its the hammers that they are providing when in the kingdom zone. I want to keep them choking for resources. They have the added benefit of making Judgement a lot less one sided as well, but like you said, that probably isn't a big deal. If I had to cut one or the other, I would cut all of the Burn it Down before I cut a single Demolition! just because it is so much more efficient resource wise. So I could go -2 Armoury, -1 Burn It Down, +3 Dwarf Miner

Dywnarc said: I get lots of games in, I play 30-50 games a week, will test your deck tomorrow vs a few standard types and pet you know. Like I said, I was thinkabout this deck as well, have not put pen to paper about it yet to see how different it is to yours. That would be great. I am still trying to build up a player base in my area (Terre Haute, IN), which has a large number of Magic players. It is easy to teach them the game and they enjoy the strategic planning involved in unit placement. I also agree with you that more units would be useful. I just don't want to take out cards the fit the theme for cards that don't just because they are unit filler. There is a new High Elf unit that looks like it would be good in here and with the new damage dealing rule, it basically stalls someone from damaging your capital in that zone for 3 turns.

I fail to see how toughness is any better than just having another hit point then. This is a silly rule.

The FAQ says "Note that more damage can be assigned to a unit at the attacker's discretion, in anticipation of damage cancellation effects." You only have to assign enough damage to equal the current HP of a unit. Damage is assigned before it is actually dealt and it doesn't check for things that cancel when you are assigning damage, only when damage is dealt does it check cancellation effects. The way I see it is, you see a unit with toughness 1 and 2 hp left, you assign 2 as that is enough to destroy the unit, after damage is assigned, toughness reduces that by 1, and then the damage is applied. It may need further clarification, but I think it still works the way it did before. They most likely had to change if from "equal to current hit point" to "enough to destroy the unit" because of things with x hp values, as X is typically considered 0 when another card is looking at it. Similar to how Flames of Tzeentch has X=0 when played with Slaanesh's Domination.

The problem with hand denial is that if the opponent doesn't have the resources to play things, discarding them isn't really a drawback. Its just another card in our deck that could be more efficient. I would also argue that, from my experience, the only really fast deck is orcs and I have beaten them. The corruption thing is valid, but those decks are typically not fast enough for me to only have 1 defender when they can burn a zone in one shot. They also tend to spread their units more than the faster orcs. Honestly, I think the deck just needs to be playtested so that some real results can come out instead of theory. The idea that every deck must play more than half the deck as units, some that don't fit at all, bothers me. It makes it sound like the only viable deck concept at this point is rush. There is a new Helf unit in the new BP that looks really good though. He reduces all damage he takes to 1.

With the cards available at present, there aren't a whole lot of High Elf cards I would want to play with. Actually, there is only 1, Repeater Bolt Thrower. This only became a desire after the FAQ confirmed that indirect damage cannot be assigned in excess of what was needed to kill/burn something.That led me to look for other cards that dealt indirect damage. I found one in Surprise Assault, a tasty looking tactic. Both of these cards require developments in the battlefield zone to be in the kingdom zone to be useful, and the RBT requires and equal amount of resources. This made me think that the best pairing for this specific strategy would be to fit it into a Dwarf development deck. This strategy is not even close to enough to fill an entire deck so I had to think of a subtheme. I thought, if I am dealing an amount of indirect damage every turn, the opponent isn't going to want to pile it all on his/her capital and just let me win. He/she will most likely spread some among the units in play on their side. So I then questioned myself, how can I limit that? Some type of resource denial so that they can only play a bare minimum of units a turn could be viable, so that is the way I went. After the opponent is only able to play 1 or 2 units a turn, and I am dealing 4 or 5 indirect damage a turn, it will be very hard for the opponent to get back up. If I have units with toughness in play, an/or am healing my capital, it is even harder for the opponent to recover. The one option that I see the opponent having is to play down units in the kingdom zone, but then they are not attacking or keeping pressure on me and that seems like a bad move against dwarves who, in my opinion, shine in the late game. Even then, the indirect damage can force them to kill their units in the kingdom zone, while I am attacking their other 2 zones with my beefed up Troll Slayers. In typical fasion, at least for me, I try to build my deck focusing on 2 of the 3 zones. It seems a bit too hard to try to protect them all when in the end you are spread so thin you really aren't protecting any of them. So the quest zone kinda gets left out here, which is hard because I would like to draw atleast 2 cards a turn. I do have a couple things that can go there in any case, just nothing to defend it a great deal. There are also some hard decisions for card choices and I assume the next BP will make it even more tight. I will now post my initial list for review and then post some cards that I would have liked to play and some flaws that I see in the list. Units: 19 3 Dwarf Cannon Crew 3 Hammerer of Karak Azul 3 Dwarf Masons 3 Troll Slayers 3 Ironbreakers of Ankhor 2 Runesmith 2 King Kazador Support: 16 3 Alliance (Dwarf / High Elf) 3 Keystone Forge 2 Armoury 2 Rune of Fortitude 2 Repeater Bolt Thrower 2 Abandoned Mine 2 Contested Stronghold Tactic: 15 3 Innovation 3 Burn It Down 3 Surprise Assault 3 Demolition! 3 Wake The Mountain The first problem that I see, atleast on paper, is the small number of units. I should still draw into about 2 units every 5 cards but that is low. I rationalize this by saying this is a defensive deck and once I get a couple guys with toughness out and some Keystone Forges, I am typically ok. I would like some more units that fit the one of the themes of the deck, but I couldn't find any. Some of the cards that I liked but had to cut were Gromril Armour (I felt I had too few units for this to be reliable), Master Rune of Valaya, and Master Rune of Dismay (contradicts Dwarf Cannon Crew). None of them are units which was another reason for cutting them. I was really considering Master Rune of Dismay over the Rune of Fortitude, but the 4 cost versus 2 swung me for the fortitude. That still may be the wrong decision however. One option I see is to go for more than 50 cards. I really like keeping my odds of drawing a specific card as good as possible though, and this deck doesn't go crazy with the quest zone drawing cards. I have a couple Runesmiths that I would like to drop in the quest zone and thats about it. So tell me what you think. How can I modify this to make it stronger? Has anyone else tried something like this? Are there any other Dwarf/Helf lists out there that can be shared?

I remember a very long time ago I saw someone playing with warhammer mini's at a local shop. One team was a mass of dwarves or orcs and 1 giant/titan, I still don't know much about warhammer lore, but more than 60 units I would wager. The other team was 5 dragons. The dragons won. I think it would be neat to have large dragons in the game. Maybe a different format of play though. Something similar to raid decks in the WoW tcg if anyone is familiar, would be neat. For those who don't know, you would have one player with the dragons, their capital board would produce maybe 5 or 6 resources and maybe start at 2 quest. That seems unbalanced, but the point is that it is a multiplayer format where 3 or 4 other players team up to try to defeat the dragons (Or any other plot device that is epic enough).

This combo still works. The only situation I can find where toughness would not work is if you are "moving" damage such as the effect of Stubborn Refusal.

I would rather have them make the capital boards as playmats. You could make some really cool art on them and still have the zones sectioned off, but it would add more protection for your cards/sleeves. Someone should print some and make some money.