Jump to content

robohobbit

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About robohobbit

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Where can you find these rules? Edit: here is a link: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/88/71/8871df4e-5647-4a22-a8cc-4e6b0a46a15c/keyforge_rulebook_v10-compressed.pdf Note that the Rulebook link on https://op.keyforgegame.com/en/rules/ has not yet been updated and currently serves up the Version 1.3 - May rulebook.
  2. The wording on Project Z.Y.X. specifies you have to play one of your archived cards. A card you own that is in your opponent's archives is your opponent's archived card. Like in the Sample Collection & Dysania example from the FAQ, Dysania causes your opponent to discard their archived cards (which may be cards that you own). So "your archived cards" specifically means the cards in your own archive, not cards you own that are in an opponent's archive.
  3. Here is the FAQ from page 26 in the rulebook about Dysania: Here's the text on Dysania: And Sample Collection: And Yzphyz Knowdrone: From the FAQ, I think you're right that the card does not get purged and instead goes into the owner's hand. But does the creature targeted by Yzphyz Knowdrone get stunned? The wording is a little different than Dysania, so the ruling might be different as well. For what it's worth, I've been playing it as return the card to owner's hand and stun the creature.
  4. Somewhere there was a list of foods that people found to be related to specific houses. I can't find it here or on Reddit though. For example, "sushi" is found only on decks with house Mars.
  5. The Card that Fights against Cards - The most accurate deck name possible? Oversized “Gordon” of Zia Comics - Gordon, I hope you are a real person and are larger than average.
  6. Thematically, the presence or absence of an opposing creature to fight should not determine whether a creature can unstun itself. My creature becomes Angry. Is there a creature to fight? If yes, my creature can fight or unstun itself. If no, my creature can't fight but it can unstun itself. I'm having trouble coming up with a thematic or narrative explanation where that interaction does not make sense.
  7. That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for the replies.
  8. Warning: boring discussion of rules semantics ahead. 💤 The text on Evasion Sigil is That seems easy to understand, but does it also affect defending creatures? That is, creatures targeted by an attacking creature. The glossary entry under Fight reads: (emphasis mine) So under the rules as written both creatures "are fighting". Does the defending creature trigger Evasion Sigil? Technically I think it does, but I don't think it is supposed to. If the intent was for only the attacking creature to trigger Evasion Sigil then maybe it should read "Before a creature is used to fight..." Am I wrong in my interpretation of the card or the rules?
  9. Just for reference, here are the pertinent rule updates from the 1.2 version of the rules. So the question is does the creature become "used" before we determine if the fight instruction can be resolved. Here is the first step when fighting: That's the point in the process where no opposing creature can be targeted and the fight instruction can't be resolved. Since it can't be resolved at that point the fight instruction on Anger gets ignored. It seems to me that in order for the stun rules to function the way they intend, a creature is considered used as soon as any effect would cause them to be used. Specifically, an attempt to fight with that creature causes the creature to first become used, then become exhausted, then choose a target. If the creature becomes used at any later point then the stun rules would be telling us to exhaust an already exhausted creature. I agree that the rules could be more explicit about this process. If someone has a better theory about how the 1.2 rules as written function I'd be glad to hear it.
  10. Adding new houses would be interesting, but that would change the balance of some existing cards. Some cards interact with specific enemy houses, such as Mating Season. That card reads " Play: Shuffle each Mars creature into its owner’s deck. Each player gains 1 for each creature shuffled into their deck this way. " If there are 31 houses then it is much less likely my opponent is playing a deck with Mars. That would make this specific card more likely to only benefit me. Some cards would get better, and some would get worse. For example, The Common Cold would have fewer opportunities to destroy all Mars creatures. I think that is probably fine in the long run. It kind of fits the design philosophy that some decks are just stronger than others in a given match. I would rather have new sets be free to make fun cards than to have their design be constrained in an attempt to maintain the viability of previous decks.
  11. No translated cards will be provided. However, you can see the translated deck list online. Perhaps judges will allow players to look at translated deck lists on their phone for those two minutes of the Archon format.
×
×
  • Create New...