Minute
-
Content Count
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Minute
-
-
-
Also, if an investigator is defeated, they drop their clues at their current location.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Killax and Silverhelm reacted to this -
Killax, maybe time to update the first page given that Ethereals and Scourge are both fully spoiled on cardgamedb?
-
yup those are the cards I was thinking of. Crazy. 6 damage unpreventable + recursion for 6 times in a game. That is just crazy talk. Even though the attachment is hard to find, 3 recurring damage is still pretty crazy at 2 cost. So that means you can cast it 6 times if you pilot your deck correctly and with 3 Colosseum Fighters you are not going to have a hard time pulling this card back out.
Though that attachment dose require a warlord tap, so I would still prefer to not use it and just have a shield.
The real problem with this card is that it is in actuality a 2 card discard. While the 3 damage is very strong, exactly how often will that effect go though? I think if you rely on this card as a damage effect and not a discard effect then you are going to be sorry. Like if you are expecting to decimate some fat unit, then you are probably looking at a 2 card discard. Even more so if your attachment is out.
Still 2 drop 2 card discard is a strong card, and it is the discard that people should be looking at for this card. Or is it? The discard isn't random right? So this card is basically, "Discard your two worst cards"... Hmm..
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.
-
Not as enthused by the SM/AM cards in the upcoming pack, but I'm getting it for the Warlord anyway. Looking forward to completely re-building my Tau deck around him.
Correction: Honorifica Imperalis looks pretty bad-ass. Needs an enemy warlord to work but it's a card I can definitely get behind.
Also, I cracked. I bought a second Core Set off someone second hand. I hate you all
Man, just read all of the Fenrisian Wolf and the Nurgling stuff... Having read all the arguments, I know where I sit, but I guess FFG do need to hurry up with that FAQ.
Have to say never occurred to me to use the Fenrisian Wolf like WW suggested, but then I'm convinced by the evidence people have presented for not being able to use opponent's game elements for effects like that, so it's not a tactic I'll be using.
Although now I'm thinking that time I used Squadron Redeployment on an enemy unit was an illegal move?
Another question: Is it not time for 'The Scourge' entry to be removed now? Like you did with Ragnar?
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".
-
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.
-
You're creating that distinction. If the rules are not 100% explicit, it's an incomplete (and here, misleading) rule
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.
-
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.All costs use the word "to," but are all uses of the word "to" automatically a cost? Is being able to exhaust my opponent's units a cost, or an intended benefit? Where does the RRG define "element"?
It strikes me that if the designers intended it to be used as you say, it would be restricted to friendly units only.
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.
-
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.All costs use the word "to," but are all uses of the word "to" automatically a cost? Is being able to exhaust my opponent's units a cost, or an intended benefit? Where does the RRG define "element"?
It strikes me that if the designers intended it to be used as you say, it would be restricted to friendly units only.
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.
-
Why would your oponent have acces to fenrisian wolves? flavorwise it makes no sense! They are clearly meant to be put on your own unit. But then again this is the game that let's you slap a dozer blade on a valkyrie! (What was wrong with calling it "extra armor", FFG?!)
I gotta agree with Minute. Page 5 of the RRG is quite clear. "the "do X" aspect, preceding the word "to" is concidered a cost." and "an oponent's game elements can't be used to pay a cost."
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?"
-
FAQ is to late, these are things that should have been (easily) fixed in development. (Srsly! Nobody said: "hey guys, you made it so you can put a dozer blade on a flyer unit, maybe we should change something here?")
What happened here is why you can't have an author proofread his own work. People to familiar with a subject/project will tend to unconsiously overlook things, because they know how that card is supposed to work.
They said: "Oh card X, that is meant to do A" but forgot to have somebody read it and ask "What do you think it does? does it do A?" because i'm sure they would have said: it does B" And then they could have tried to figure out why that person tought it B and change the wording on the card before going to print.
Same thing happened with Timewalk from MtG: Original test card text read "opponent looses next turn." The designer meant "Looses his or hers next turn" but the playtester interpreted it as "opponent looses the game next turn." Quite a diffrence, so in the end they changed it so you took another turn after your current turn ended.
Keeping a balance between natural language and unambigous interpretation is often a case of well defined terms (and i'd dare say "move" is a bit confusing in 40C) and boundaries.
Fixing the fenrisian wolves is literally adding "-you control" to "attach to an army unit-"
Fixing the kurgaths nurglings is simply changing "after a unit moves" to "after an enemy unit moves".
Oh and dozer blade should be called "extra armor" It adds +2 hitpoints and it doesn't do anything dozerblady to begin with!
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.
-
All costs use the word "to," but are all uses of the word "to" automatically a cost? Is being able to exhaust my opponent's units a cost, or an intended benefit? Where does the RRG define "element"?
It strikes me that if the designers intended it to be used as you say, it would be restricted to friendly units only.
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.
-
-
That Fenrisian Wolf opens up some silly possibilities. Since it's not a wargear, it can be attached to things like a landraider or a dreadnought or a valkyrie. The idea of any one of those riding a wolf is downright bizarre.
If you're not putting the wolves on your opponent's units, you're doing it wrong.
Playing it on your opponent's units doesn't work the way you think it does.
From the Rules Reference Guide:
Costs: The word "To" - Many card abilities are presented in a "do X to do Y" construct. In such a construct, the "do X" aspect (preceding the word "to") is considered a cost, and the "do Y" aspect (following the word "to") is considered an effect. If an ability's cost is not paid, its effect cannot be initiated.
Costs: Paying - An opponent's game elements may not be used to pay a cost.
Since exhausting the attached unit precedes the word "to", it is a cost. The effect can therefore not be initiated unless the unit is exhausted. Since you can't use your opponent's game elements to pay the cost, you cannot trigger the effect if you have attached it to your opponent's unit.
Fenrisian Wof - Reaction: After a battle at this planet begins, exhaust attached unit to deal damage equal to its ATK value to a target army unit at the same planet.
Since exhausting the attached unit precedes the word "to", it is a cost. The effect can therefore not be initiated unless the unit is exhausted. Since you can't use your opponent's game elements to pay the cost, you cannot trigger the effect if you have attached it to your opponent's unit.
-
Also Ork spoilers from Team Covenant: http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2015/01/21/new-ork-madness-from-gift-of-the-ethereals/
-
Capitol area warhammer 40k: Conquest .
Also, for those who weren't at the tournament, Canton Games in Baltimore has an lcg night every Thursday which includes Conquest.
Thanks! Found the group.
-
We were at the Dream Wizards Store Championship and someone had mentioned an online group (Facebook I think) for coordinating stuff with gamers in the DC/MD area. Anyone know offhand what the Facebook group was called? We couldn't find it and thought it was Capitol City something.
-
I picked up a Legion deck box the other day that seems pretty nice. Came with a divider inside and easily holds 2 50 card decks.
I know some people are big fans of the broken token and go 7 gaming type inserts.
Also, for just plain card storage, BCW sells some great cardboard boxes.
-
Calamity is sort of a sh*tty card in the current card pool. If your opponent is doing so much better than you that paying 4 to reset his tiny guys is worth it, he's not going to have any problem replaying the tiny guys while you've basically just forfeited your next turn.
-
Per the Rules Reference Guide.
After the combat phase begins (step 3.1 in the RRG flow chart), each unit with the Mobile keyword may move to an adjacent faceup planet. This occurs before any reactions to the beginning of the phase.
So as soon as you hit step 3.1, Mobile triggers.
Ork Kannon is a Combat Action and thus must be used within one of the Action Windows associated with the Combat Phase. This action window occurs after step 3.1 (when Mobile triggers) would have completed.
Therefore, all Mobile moves must be resolved before that first Action Window of the Combat Phase.
-
No.
Per the Rules Reference Guide for Area Effect [X].
This damage is considered to be dealt by a card effect. It is not considered to be dealt by the attacker's attack, but it is being dealt while the unit with Area Effect is attacking. After the Area Effect ability has resolved, the attack is over.
The Fury of Sicarius triggers off of a unit being damaged by an attack. Area Effect damage is not dealt by an attack, it is dealt by a card effect, therefore you cannot even use The Fury of Sicarius in this situation.
Papa Midnight reacted to this
New Scenario Pack preview article from Arkham Nights 2016!
in Arkham Horror: The Card Game
Posted
Mine just arrived. That was crazy fast.