Jump to content

Shindulus

Members
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shindulus

  1. There some examples in ccg where rulings have been reverted.
  2. Outpost of Tiranoc Q. If a card says "takes" damage, like Loremaster of Hoeth, does the Outpost still add 1 to the indirect damage it deals? A. Yes. If a unit or player "takes" damage, the source of that damage is still considered to have dealt damage. Often this wording is used when a player or unit is damaging themselves. James' Ruling According to this ruling, I am still not convinced, that the infinite loop is "ok". Cause for me the problem is not if the source is the loremaster of hoeth but if the source is me. (you in the card text) On many cards it is written you (dealt X indirect damage). In this case we have a card Loremaster of Hoeth And a ruling that specify that this card is considered to be the source of the damage Nice, but it still does not mean that you have dealt damage only that loremaster does it. Moreover there were allready rulling about similar card : Arrer Boyz Q. Why does it say "takes damage" on Arrer Boyz instead of "is dealt damage"? A. Because the source of the effect is itself. James's ruling Thyrus Gorman Q. Why does it say "takes damage" on Thyrus Gorman instead of "is dealt damage"? A. Because the source of the effect is itself. James's ruling Ok a card using a wording "takes damage" is considered to be the source of the damage. So that's ok for me, I play with the same rules that others players do, but this ruling is the only one, since the beginning of the game, that seems unlogical to me, with an explanation of the rulling that did not at all conviced me of the rightness of this ruling. This ruling is the only thing that allow the infinite loop, I really don't think that Lelansi should be revised, and I would be really more convinced by a revision of this clarification. More generally this ruling mean that a player is considered to be the source of any damage dealt by a card he is controlling, this should be clarified somewhere if it is the case. The card text of outpost & Loremaster. Outpost of Tiranoc Whenever you deal indirect damage, deal 1 aditional indirect damage. Loremaster of Hoeth Forced: After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage. (Players assign their own indirect damage.)
  3. Q1 : Yes Q2 : No (I thought it was written with the savage ability description).
  4. chaosvt said: you can use it against a verena with an action that kills or sacrifices your unit. Blessing of Tzeetch or offering of blood or cull the weak would all work. heck even do direct dmg to yourself if you have to. these actions will allow you to trigger the temples before the verena hits if you time them right. Be carefull with that because this is not really correct for those two cards, sacrifice is not a part of the cost but it result in the action resolution, cause of the wording : Cards in witch sacrifice result in the action resolution : Blessing of tzeench: Action: Sacrifice a unit. If you do, you may search the top 5 cards of your deck for any number of units and put one of them into play at random (you choose which zone). Then, shuffle the other cards back into your deck. Offering blood : Action: Sacrifice a unit. If you do, deal 1 damage to each section of each opponent's capital. For those cards sacrifice is a part of the cost ( Sacrifice xxx to ) Grandfather's call : Action: Sacrifice a unit to search the top five cards of your deck for any number of DISEASE cards, reveal them, and add them to your hand. Shuffle the remaining cards into your deck. Culling the weak : Action: Sacrifice a unit to have all units in your battlefield gain l until the end of the turn. Lobber crew Kingdom. Action: Sacrifice this unit to force an opponent to sacrifice a unit he controls, if able. So you can not play desacrated temple action in response to Blessing of tzeench (during a current action pile) but you can do it in response to Grandfather's call or Culling the weak
  5. Shindulus said: If you have no unit with printed cost 3 or less, when you solve the action, you do nothing. Too late for editing. And this sentences may be confusing. If you have no unit with printed cost 3 or less, when you solve the action, you resolve only what your are able to resolve.
  6. FAQ specifies that "target" must be checked when playing and resolving an action. (and only targets must be checked) But abviously in this case : Action: Return target unit you control to its owner's hand. Then put into play from your hand a unit with printed cost 3 or less. The only target that you have to check is the unit you control (the one in your hand is not a target of this action). So if you have a unit with printed cost 3 or less in hand, when you solve the action, you MUST put it in play. If you have no unit with printed cost 3 or less, when you solve the action, you do nothing. And you can play this card, whether or not, you have a unit with printed cost 3 or less in hand. It's an "automatic call" to the referee in a tournament context if your opponent says that he has no such cards in hands, when it's time to solve the action.
  7. Yes you can (and for the same reason alluring chosen get +1 power). Sorry for cross posting.
  8. For those who are in trouble with the semantic of X+[X]Y = Z, you can also see that as X[Y+1]=Z. In the case of Bloodletter we are in trouble because the wording "double" is poor when multiple Bloodletter are in play. It is a litteral formulation, according to a specific case of the previous formula. (it could have been a "constant" Z=2X, Z=X[2^Y], ....) It is possible to word the card with the general semantic of the formula, which could be welcome in future reprint of the card. Something such as : For each Bloodletter in game add once again all damage assigned to units when they are assigned. (sorry for my poor english for such a sentences, this is supposed to be the semantic of X[Y+1]) There are already cards that are checking the number of card in game
  9. @Liouken, In any case you must fulfill the action when you play it, so your case 1, is not legal, chosing 3 different target is not optional, it's mandatory. (cf faq or even maybe in the core rule)
  10. Entropy42 said: "When you resolve the action, you add the token, and then the Sorceror does 1 damage. On what do you put the token as when you resolve the action as SoT is in your hand? And even if there were token on SoT before, there are no more token on it when you resolve it's action, as it is in your hand. Because the correct way of playing the sequence is not the one described by HappyDD, this is not what OP is posting. What's OP is talking about is : - He plays developpement - He triggers SoT - Opponent plays pilgrimage in response to SoT action.
  11. Quest have actually enought weakness it's not needed to add specific quest destruction card. Keeping a unit alive on a quest is already enougth challenging.
  12. Yes Cyberfunk the action is on the stack but as there is 0 token on the sorcerer when resolving the action, so he does 0 damage. This is the same case with Snitch, when you use its action then before resolving you "lose" a skaven card.
  13. But FFG can do something against card that broke the game ~~.
  14. Is it possible to know how many participants were at this event?
  15. Yes, this is working like you say "unless the card specifies otherwise"
  16. servant of the secret fire said: Maniacske said: I wonder if there's going to be some errata on this in the future. I wonder if there's going to be some errata from Frodo cause with only 7 threat cost Frodo is way too good.Frodo can save you from the troll even if you have 0 cards in your hand and only your 3 heroes in play. As for Gandalf don't forget that if he dies(it sounds like a joke but if you use him to block the troll despair's shadow effect can realy do that) you don't get him in your hand if you used sneak attack. At the cost of 6 threat, strong but there is a counter part. It's like each time you use Frodo's ability you increase his cost by the correct amount of threat. Actually many heroes are strong and we can tell all are strong if played in a deck that use their abilities.
  17. Each of your units with necromancy in your discard pile can be played as if it was in your hand.
  18. The rules only prevent a player to declare multiple attack on the same target. There is no other restriction. At least in the actual state.
  19. Thank you. And you have made a great job with your FAQ.
  20. In your QuickRef document you stated that for green zone : Player Actions allowed at any time (before, during, after) Please can you give a source of this "rulling" or is it your interpretation?
  21. You can make a difference between two case of entering a zone with an excavation : - Played from your hand, in this case warpstone or tainted well must be clarified to say that you can do a damage on the unit. If it is the way FFG decide to play those cards. - Moved from another zone, in this case, no matter exactly when but the unit goes from the stated uncorrupted to the state "corrupted" while in game.
  22. A sentence read in the news about tainted well, with the same subject of your thread : Tainted Well allows you to damage your opponents’ units whenever they are corrupted. Coupled with corrupting effects like that of Esli’an or Seduced by Darkness, Tainted Well can be a potent means sniping at enemy units. What’s more, with a Tainted Well on the table, your foes will think twice about employing any cards that corrupt themselves, such as Warpstone Excavation! Game clarification directly in the news :x
  23. f7eleven said: No one is disputing that. For sure you could have a single copy of the quest in play, any creature "questing" on it, and use the ability to return a 0-cost unit to play (NOT ON THE QUEST). Then activate Grudge Thrower, sacrificing the 0-cost unit, rinse and repeat. Note that the initial context of the question is not the one you describe here. And yes some of my post in this thread are crapy :-).
  24. That's not what I have said as you quote ;-). If you could really quote something wrong about what I am saying I would be glad it will help me.
×
×
  • Create New...