Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BlackOrc

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Budapest, Budapest, Hungary
  1. Maik, assign-wise your "please note" is correct, but action-chain-wise I think it is not. To deal non-combat damage you have to take an action. With that action you started an action-chain. In the action-chain I use the Catapults Action. As it is last in, it comes first out, so I sacfifice the unit targeted by your non-combat damage dealing action and deal 2 dmgs to capital. Then your action would come, but its target became illegal, so your action is just gone for good. Sure, if I do not respond in the action-chain, then the Catapult cannot be used after assigning - before applying. All in all, different mechanism with same result: sacrifice instead of destroying. Anything mistaken?
  2. The Greater Heal part I can see the point. It makes me clear also that only cards that target must have a legal target to be played. The other part I could not yet settle. If it was about being healed and not about healing, then the sentence "In order to heal a unit, that unit must have damage on it to be removed" shouldnt read "In order to have a unit being healed, that unit must have had damage on it to be removed."? Well, I am not sure this is the correct wording, but I am quite sure the original sentence is about the healing effect itself, not about the unit. However, if it was clarified by devs, I stop it. I guess there is no chance to clarify this in FAQ as there is no more support...
  3. But then what does it mean: "Healing is a game term for removing damage tokens from a unit. In order to heal a unit, that unit must have damage on it to be removed." How can I heal an undamaged unit (in general), if the condition to heal a unit is that it must have damage on it to be removed? In general I could say that I heal someone from 0 damage to 0 damage, but in game terms healing is when you remove damage tokens. From the context it seems to me that removing 0 token is not removing.
  4. I play Orcs. They get quite a benefit to have damaged units. I put Possess Mind on a 1-2 P unit of MINE. This way I can just power up my boyz turn by turn with damage triggered powers. And if I dont want, I just skip it, as it is not forced. I guess YOU would discard a few of your cards to stop me doing this.
  5. Situation: I have 1 unit damaged and two healing tactic cards in hand both able to heal that unit to full health. I start an action chain and play a healing card. (Opponent plays whatever action or passes, not really important.) I have a card that triggers every time I play a tactic from my hand, so for the trigger I intend to play the other healing card (even if pointless heal-wise). Am I allowed to play that second healing card? At first I would say no, as I have already healed my only damaged unit to full health meaning that there is no valid target for the heal. But according to the action chain I have only played a healing card, which not yet resolved (it will resolve last as the last step of the resolve chain), so that the damage tokens are not yet removed from the to be healed unit. This meaning that even tho I healed the unit, I still have that unit with damage tokens on it, so I still have a valid target for my second heal card. Second question: Next, my opponent plays a tactic dealing enough non-combat damage to this damaged unit of mine to bring it down to 0 HP. Nothing more to add, the action chain resolves. My damaged unit is destroyed as the first resolution, and my two healing cards are futile without any valid target. Is that logic correct? And just a last one I promise: if there was another damaged unit, can the healing be redirected on that one if the original target is destroyed (or if I simply change my mind)? Or is it target locked when the effect was triggered? Or does it depend on the wording of the heal, whether it heals "target unit" or "any unit"? Or "any unit" only means I can choose freely, but once the choice is made, it is locked?
  6. Not sure if it has to be discussed more, maybe from FAQ it is already clear for all of us, but the conclusion here doesnt seem right (and it was not that long ago). If opponent "didn't have any damaged units to heal", then he cannot heal. In FAQ: "In order to heal a unit, that unit must have damage on it to be removed." If there is no damaged unit, then there is no valid target for that Greater Heal, and cards only can be played if there is valid target(s).
  7. Just to make sure I get it correctly: there is no point in playing the second "destroy target ally" card on the same target, because the first will destroy the ally, and the effect of the ally will trigger even if the ally is destroyed, as the effect is independent of its source once it is played. (Of course, if this "destroy" was a Spell, and Player A has a card in play which triggers when a Spell is played, then there is a point in playing it - my question is narrowed on the situation in question.) I guess Player A played the second "destroy" in order to prevent the ally to deal that damage. But its just aint the way. Only effect cancelling cards would help. Do I get it correctly?
  8. Ah, missed that Troll Vomit shouldnt be targeted anymore, hehe. But my answer was general, not specific, same stands for the Hydra. Toxic Hydra reads: Action: When this unit enters play, each unit in any corresponding zone gets -2 hit points until the end of the turn. If intention was that the Hydra targets, we would see some text like this: Action: When this unit enters play, target each unit in any corresponding zone. Targeted units get -2 hit points each until the end of the turn. The keyword is in your personal opinion: "Does not use the target wording but it targets cards." If it does not use it, it is not targeting in game terms. Of course, in general talk, I would also use the expression "target" to describe what the Hydra does. But it doesnt matter. The text matters. It is just not the same: "assign 1 damage to any unit in opponents battlefield" or "assign 1 damage to one target unit in opponents battlefield". In both case you choose a unit. But in the latter case you cannot choose a unit which cannot be targeted. In common language the chosen unit will be the target of the card also in the first case. But game-wise the cannot-be-targeted effect triggers in the second case and does not trigger in the first case.
  9. "A card effect is considered to be targeting as long as it says “target” in the card text." (from FAQ) So if "targeting" is not written, then it is not because of limited space, but because they dont want that card effect to be considered targeting. Just like Troll Vomit. It is on purpose when they dont put "targeting" in the text. And the purpose is rule-wise, not space saving-wise.
  10. Hi Srgnt! That very FAQ describes a lot about TARGETING in a whole section on it. And it just gives the Troll Vomit as an example. Same conclusion as Maik.   Target (v1.3) Targeting is checked when the card is played and again when the card effect resolves. A card effect is considered to be targeting as long as it says “target” in the card text. For example: Troll Vomit (CS 80) reads “Action: Destroy all units in play.” This effect does not target the units it destroys, so a card like King Kazador (CS 7) which reads “Opponents cannot target this unit with card effects unless they pay an additional 3 resources per effect” would not interact with Troll Vomit.
  11. Thanks all. Think it's clear now. My only concern is that it doesnt fit well with what I thought "Against all odds" was about. The card made me think that I am against the odds if at the beginning of the attack I have fewer cards in hand than my opponent has, as in this case it is likely that I will not win the edge battle (of course it is not quantity but quality what counts, but still...) - so I wont be able to use the [ ] symbols, but instead of them, I get the blast damages. Now I understand that for the "real attack" i.e. for the strike the condition (card minority) is checked at the moment of strike. Unfortunately by that time my opponent most probably has already used their more cards from their hand in the edge battle, most probably winning it and at the same time disabling my objective's power to gain the blast damages. Unless of course if they are ignorant enough to keep more cards in hand during the edge battle than me, granting me a load of bonus Blast damages. In turn it means, that this objective is not for gaining Blast damages (as the text suggests) or at least not at the strike when it would be important, but to make my opponent to lower their hand size, maybe getting rid of a few otherwise "good" cards in edge battle at best...
  12. Thanks for many answers. I figured out something with your help, let's see if it proves correct. "While attacking" refers to that there should be an attack in order to check the condition at all - but during the attack the condition should be checked at the specific point of usage. Eg. if there was a card saying that "after you refresh, your opponent must discard as many cards as many Blast damages your units have", then dispite I have the objective Against all odds, I don't get the extra Blast damages on my units, as I am not attacking yet. Later on, during attack, if there was an event card eg. Sneak Attack, which would allow a unit not in the engagement to use its symbols, then MTV-7 aint get the extra Blast damage, as it is not attacking. On the other hand, during the attack phase, the bonus applies in all cases: eg. if there was a card saying that "Your attacking unit's Blast damages are added to your edge value", then if the attacked objective is already damaged, an attacking MTV-7 gets the extra Blast and in turn the edge value is also increased, as it is already attacking a damaged objective (even if not yet striking). If there was a card played against me saying "your opponent cannot declare units as attacker with more printed total cost than Blast damages their units have" then the objective Against all odds would give the bonus Blast damages (and thus increasing the total cost allowance), as it is already an attack, so "while attacking" already stands. Of course only if I have less cards than my opponent. Then, during edge my opponent depletes their hand, me not - so when striking, I don't get the bonus. Althought it is still "while attacking", I do not have card-minority anymore. So, that's how I see now. Is that correct? (Sorry for the many made-up card examples, but I dont know many cards, and these fitted my explanatory purposes well.)
  13. Some cards have "while attacking" in their text, as for the timing of a condition. Like MTV-7 'gains [blast Damage] while it is attacking a damaged objective' and like the objective: Against all odds: 'Each unit you control gains [blast Damage] while attacking an opponent who has more cards in hand than you'. (But also others.) It is not clear, when should we check for the condition. Is it when the attackers are announced? Is it when the actual attack is made? i.e. when striking? At any point during the whole attacking i.e. during the whole engagement - at the most convenient point for the attacker? In case of MTV-7 an objective can be undamaged when announcing attackers, but later on, still "while attacking" it can become damaged either by fate cards or by a co-attacker who strikes before MTV-7. In case of Against all odds, when attackers are announced, I may have more/less cards than my opponent, but after the edge battle (or via action windows using event cards) when actually striking (still "while attacking") the situation can change to the opposit. So the qustion is: when is "while attacking"?
  • Create New...