Rip Dere 'Eads Off! Action: Turn one target development faceup. If it is a unit, leave it in play and sacrifice it at the end of the turn. Otherwise, sacrifice it immediately. What is the purpose behind Rip Dere 'Eads Off!? Do you play the tactic on one of your own developments? Do you control the opposing development after playing Rip Dere 'Eads Off!? I ask because you are only allowed to sacrifice your own cards.

I have not yet understood the practical advantage of the Repeater BT over the Reaper BT? In both cases I usually have to "clear" the table first by cards like Flames or Troll Vomit. After that I am allowed to trigger the action as often as I want, Am I not?

From the FAQ: Sacrifice Sacrifice means to put a card that you control into its owner’s discard pile. It cannot be cancelled or prevented by other effects.

Please post James answer when you ask him at the rules' section.

The winning deck was probably illegal. It uses 4 cards with the title "Alliance". Therefore it violates the rule that only 3 copies of a card by title are allowed.

Edit: Thanks for your kind explanation.

I'm a bloody newbie, so please be patient with me. I have not quite understand Jame's ruling: Clamatius said: So, for your example. You can first trigger the clan rat's action to give a power to a rat ogre. Then, once that action has resolved. You may in the same window then trigger the rat ogre's action. (restore all corrupted skaven units) Once that has resolved. You may trigger the clan rat's action again to give a power to a rat ogre. Once that has resolved. You may trigger the second rat ogre's action. (Restore all corrupted skaven units). Once that has resolved. You may trigger the clan rat's action again to give a power to a rat ogre. So, you can trigger the clan rats 3 times in that action window. Why is it allowed to play the clan rat's action again but not the rat ogre's action again? Why do I have to use the second rat ogre for another uncorrupting action?

@Clamatius: Thanks for big help and useful ideas. There is one thing I do not understand: What do you mean by the combo with Walking Sacrifice and Har Ganeth?

First of all I want to reduce my deck to 50. Throwing out Vile Sorceress and Har Garneth could be a way, But what to do then with the free three cards? (53 cards, 18 distinct) Unit (27) 3 Clan Moulder's Elite 3 Clan Rats 3 Gutter Runners 3 Shades 3 Vile Sorceress 3 Greyseer Thanquol 3 Poison Wind Globadiers 3 Deathmaster Sniktch 3 Rat Ogres Tactic (12) 3 Chillwind 3 Chittering Horde 3 Dark Visions 3 We Need Your Blood Support (14) 3 Warpstone Excavation 3 Contested Village 3 Har Ganeth 2 Scout Camp 3 Greyseer's Lair

I forgot to post my questions: 1) Dealing damage to a burning zone When Boar Attack is played by my opponent and I have one burning zone and no developments in any zone: Do I have to deal damage to another zone of mine? Or am I allowed to let the damage "go up in smoke" by dealing it to the already burning zone? 2) Using Scout after attacking a burning zone After an attack against an already burning zone without the possibility to assign and apply damage am I allowed to use the Scout ability?

From James: 1) You cannot deal damage to a burned zone. So, in this scenario you will have to deal 3 damage either of the other two undeveloped zones. 2) Yes. You can scout after attacking a burning zone. Entropy, please add Jame's ruling to your wonderful FAQ over at Deckbox. I love that thread. It's the most helpful document about W:I I know about.

What are the consequences? If Boar Attack is played do I have to deal damage to another zone of mine (under the premise that I do not have any developments)? Or am I allowed to let the damage "go up in smoke" by dealing it to the already burning zone? I believe in the first alternative. What do you say?

Yesterday my opponent wanted to play Boar Attack Action: Choose an opponent. That opponent must either deal 3 damage to an undeveloped section of his capital, or sacrifice a unit or support card in any developed zone. than decided to not play the card because he thought I would be able to deal the damage to my already burning zone. Is it true that I'm allowed to deal damage to an already burning zone? To ask differently: Is "dealing" damage handled the same as "assigning" damage? In the FAQ I found the following: Q. Can I still use units abilities/draw cards/get resources if the relevant zone is burning? A. Yes. A zone that is burning still functions normally except that it cannot be assigned damage.

Periculum, thanks a lot for your plain reply. Your examples help a lot.

What does the word target stands for? First of all I thought it means opponent's units, but than I read the effect of Daemonsword. Now I'm confused. Should I cancel the word target on the cards?

Hi qwerty, thanks for your reply. Maybe my opening posting was not exactly enough: I do not look for cheap ways to buy sets or expansion packs but for budget decks, which are competitive for home games and games at the dealer's shop.

Hi Community, I'm a beginner in the game and only own the core set and the AoU expansion (one time each). I haven't found a deck buildung thread for low budget decks yet in the forums. I hope there are semi-competitive decks out there from only a few sets/battle packs. They should be listed in this thread. In my case I have absolutely no idea which cards are worth buying a second core set or a certain battle pack two or three times. Do you have ideas for good starting decks/budget decks out of the Core set/AoU expansion (and maybe one or two battle packs if necessary)?

Is there a 2nd print of the core set with errata on the way?

Are there any news about this topic? Like an official statement?