Jump to content

Minute

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Also, if an investigator is defeated, they drop their clues at their current location.
  2. This thing costs twice as much as a deluxe expansion ($60) while not adding more cards than a traditional deluxe. In addition, it's a Legacy style game, so you can only play the campaign once and the cards are all tournament legal so if you're a serious player, you're forced to buy it. Seems like a massive cash grab to me.
  3. Seems to me that card boxes for level 0 and card sleeves for higher level could make it a lot easier to level up between scenarios. Particularly if you're providing decks for another player.
  4. From KennedyHawk at cardgamedb. Zogwart is a 1/6 when bloodied, he keeps his forced reaction to destroy all snotlings on his bloodied side . Space Marines Blood Claw Pack Unit 3 Cost 1 Command 2 Attack 2 Health Traits: Soldier Space Wolves. Reaction: After an enemy warlord commits to this planet exhaust this unit to put a Space Wolves unit into play from your hand at this planet. Rally the Charge - Event 2 Cost 1 Shield Traits: Tactic Action: Until the end of the phase, a target space marines unit you control at a planet with your warlord gets +2 attack for each command icon it has. Secluded Apothecarion - Support Cost 1 Location Reaction: After a space marines unit you control is destroyed exhaust this support to gain 1 resource. Chaos Gleeful Plague Beast - Unit 5 Cost 1 Command 3 Attack 5 Health Traits: Daemon. Nurgle. Elite. No wargear attachments. Force Reaction: After the combat phase begins deal 1 damage to each unit at this planet. Doombolt - Event 1 Cost 1 Shield Trati: Power Deploy Action: Deal X damage to target enemy army unit. X is the amount of damage on that unit. Blight Grenades - Attachment 1 Cost 1 Shield Traits: Nurgle. Wargear. Attach to a Nurgle army unit. Combat Action: Sacrifice this attachment to give attached unit Area Efffect (2) until the end of the combat round. Eldar Vectored Vyper Squad - Unit 4 cost 1 Command 3 Attack 3 Health Traits. Vehicle Alaitoc No wargear attachments. This unit gains Mobile while it is undamaged. Guardian Mesh Armor - Attachment 1 Cost 1 Shield Traits: Wargear. Armor Attach to a Eldar army unit. Interrupt: When you use a shield card to prevent damage to attached unit, exhaust this attachment to double the number of shields on that card.
  5. Killax, maybe time to update the first page given that Ethereals and Scourge are both fully spoiled on cardgamedb?
  6. One thing to keep in mind is that if you are already playing Dark Eldar choke and your opponent doesn't have 2 cards in their hand, they have to take the damage.
  7. You're right about Squadron Redeployment as well. Any time the wording of something is in the vein of "do X to do Y", the first part is considered a cost and you can only pay the cost with your own stuff. If it could be used on your opponent's cards like that it would say something like "exhaust the unit AND move it to a planet of your choice".
  8. Sorry for the hijack all, I made the mistake of trying to be helpful without having the prior knowledge of the Ku'Gath's Nurglins thread in the rules forum (I hadn't even realized there was a rules forum here). I've requested that a mod come in and clean up this thread (including my posts) to get it back on track. I don't think there's a point in this discussion any more.
  9. So every other word in the RRG should be "always" or "100% of the time"? I only commented in the first place to help you (and anyone reading your post) out since it sounded like you were unknowingly playing the card incorrectly. I should've saved my breath because it's pretty obvious at this point that you are only interested in drastically misinterpreting otherwise clear rules just to give yourself a competitive advantage.
  10. Or it was left open because cards could come in the future that let you do things to your opponent's units that have attachments on them.Suffering for instance can be attached to your own unit, but why would you ever want to? Not all uses of the word "to" imply a cost. However, the RRG specifically has a section (which I quoted above) that says any time you see an ability that reads "do X to do Y", the "do X" portion is the cost. As for game elements from the RRG the Enemy section: Enemy is used to refer to game elements that your opponent controls (e.g. warlord, army units, support cards). Army units are therefore game elements. From the RRG Move section: Some effects allow players to move game elements, such as damage, cards, or tokens. The Planet Cards section also implies that cards are game elements. The Target section says "The term target indicates that a game element (most often a card)". Under the Attachment Cards section, the wording is not quite so clear "card or element" is used. However, the rule for Attachment Cards also says, "An attachment a player controls remains under his control even if the element it is attached to is under his opponent's control". So, if you wanted to make the argument that a card was not a game element (which the other rules above disprove), doing so would imply that attaching to a card put the attachment under your opponent's control (since there is no rule keeping it under your control). Which would mean your opponent would get to use the ability and not you. I think it's fine to call FFG out for bad rules/wordings (like on Ku'Gath's Nurglings which have horrible interactions (see here on how to play: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17886-card-kugaths-nurglings-are-all-units-committing-to-its-planet-dealt-damage/ )). But in this case, the rules are actually quite explicit and clear. It does not, in fact, say any time. The rules are anything but clear, as every person in my playgroup can attest - and we've all been playing cards games for a very long time. When you need to flip back and forth through half a dozen different sections of the rulebook to answer what should be one simple question, you know there's a problem. I won't even get started on the necessity of a separate and comprehensive player-based FAQ on another website, and so soon after release. The website is owned by FFG and most of the information on rules comes from one of the Conquest playtesters with direct feedback from the designers on intent. It doesn't need to say any time. It's a definitive statement. "In such a construct, the "do X" aspect is considered a cost". Absent any additional rules that say "except for sometimes we don't", the presence of this rule is final. "It works like this" and "It always works like this" are the exact same phrase in meaning absent contradictory information. The only difference is that the first phrasing leaves open the possibility that a rule somewhere else could override it. However, if that rule cannot be provided (which you haven't done yet), the first phrasing is just as definitive as the second.
  11. Or it was left open because cards could come in the future that let you do things to your opponent's units that have attachments on them.Suffering for instance can be attached to your own unit, but why would you ever want to? Not all uses of the word "to" imply a cost. However, the RRG specifically has a section (which I quoted above) that says any time you see an ability that reads "do X to do Y", the "do X" portion is the cost. As for game elements from the RRG the Enemy section: Enemy is used to refer to game elements that your opponent controls (e.g. warlord, army units, support cards). Army units are therefore game elements. From the RRG Move section: Some effects allow players to move game elements, such as damage, cards, or tokens. The Planet Cards section also implies that cards are game elements. The Target section says "The term target indicates that a game element (most often a card)". Under the Attachment Cards section, the wording is not quite so clear "card or element" is used. However, the rule for Attachment Cards also says, "An attachment a player controls remains under his control even if the element it is attached to is under his opponent's control". So, if you wanted to make the argument that a card was not a game element (which the other rules above disprove), doing so would imply that attaching to a card put the attachment under your opponent's control (since there is no rule keeping it under your control). Which would mean your opponent would get to use the ability and not you. I think it's fine to call FFG out for bad rules/wordings (like on Ku'Gath's Nurglings which have horrible interactions (see here on how to play: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17886-card-kugaths-nurglings-are-all-units-committing-to-its-planet-dealt-damage/ )). But in this case, the rules are actually quite explicit and clear. It does not, in fact, say any time. The rules are anything but clear, as every person in my playgroup can attest - and we've all been playing cards games for a very long time. When you need to flip back and forth through half a dozen different sections of the rulebook to answer what should be one simple question, you know there's a problem. I won't even get started on the necessity of a separate and comprehensive player-based FAQ on another website, and so soon after release. The website is owned by FFG and most of the information on rules comes from one of the Conquest playtesters with direct feedback from the designers on intent.
  12. I'd actually argue that Orks putting a Dozer Blade on a hijacked Assault Valkyrie is a perfectly fluffy thing for Orks to do. The better question is "Why would AM do that?"
  13. Ku'Gath's Nurglings damaging friendly guys is part of the built in downside of the unit. It is fully intended to work that way (it's even intended for them to damage themselves). If you want to complain about something broken about Ku'Gath's Nurglings, read the thread in the post above this which details some crazy interactions depending on who has initiative.
×
×
  • Create New...