yeah
Do Ku'Gaths Nurglings damage themselves when they deploy to a planet?



Panic...

Yes. This and other situations for this card are answered more fully at cardgamedb here:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17886-card-kugaths-nurglings-are-all-units-committing-to-its-planet-dealt-damage/

Yes. This and other situations for this card are answered more fully at cardgamedb here:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17886-card-kugaths-nurglings-are-all-units-committing-to-its-planet-dealt-damage/

I thought deployment wad not counted as moving? He's asking about deployment, not committing.

Yes. This and other situations for this card are answered more fully at cardgamedb here:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17886-card-kugaths-nurglings-are-all-units-committing-to-its-planet-dealt-damage/

I thought deployment wad not counted as moving? He's asking about deployment , not committing.

This.

Panic,

No not when they are deployed as that is not moving. If units are committed to the planet then yes. And if multiple Nurglings are there they all will do damage to the units moving to the planet friendly and enemy alike.

Not only that, but in the quoted section, RRG 2.4 page 20, my RRG states: "Each player simultaneously COMMITS his warlord and all units in his HQ to the planet that corresponds with the number revealed in his dial."

The word "moves" is never used. The Learn To Play Guide also uses "commits." Is commitment considered a form of movement? If so, can someone show me where it says so?

RRG, p.24:

"2.4 Commit to Planets

Thank you. I always find it confusing and dislike when particular terminology such as "commits" falls under the umbrella of something more generalized like "moves". If you are clearly trying to make a distinction between going from planet to planet and bringing in your warlord/units from HQ, I find that it should just stay separate. Perhaps I just prefer to see things very black and white.

Just an aside: This card, the Ku'Gath' Nurglings, is quite powerful for a cost of 2 resources, no?

Not meaning to start an argument/brawl here, but this card/Unit does come across as one of the strangest and most effective Unit cards that I have read for Conquest, yet.

Thoughts?

They are quite powerful for a 2 cost unit, but they do damage themselves. 2 nurglings kill themselves. DE has that unigue wytch 3 cost, exhausts any enemy that deploys, that's pretty powerful too. Overall I find chaos to be very tough, possessed, 9 att for 5 cost, soul grinders, everytime i think i have chaos beat, they drop another monster.

It'll be interesting if the plaguefather is better than zarathur or not. I'm thinking i'll stick with zarathur but we'll see.

It's a mixed bag, I think. It will discourage things like mobility. Since it hits the warlord, it may also discourage cautious players from committing there. But it hits your units too, so it's a double edge sword. It is also a solid 2/2 with a hammer and being a daemon, Chaos cultists can make it cheaper or even free.

Looks like it would pair well with Orks that have the brutal keyword. Doesn't seem to play too well with Dark Eldar, as they are more fragile and don't use brutal. The flip side is that if your opponent runs Orks, he will benefit too. All in all, I think it may be somewhat limiting as to what type of decks it can be best played in. Ok, but I'm not so sure it is great.

Thank you. I always find it confusing and dislike when particular terminology such as "commits" falls under the umbrella of something more generalized like "moves". If you are clearly trying to make a distinction between going from planet to planet and bringing in your warlord/units from HQ, I find that it should just stay separate. Perhaps I just prefer to see things very black and white.

All commits involve move but not all moves involve committing.

Thank you. I always find it confusing and dislike when particular terminology such as "commits" falls under the umbrella of something more generalized like "moves". If you are clearly trying to make a distinction between going from planet to planet and bringing in your warlord/units from HQ, I find that it should just stay separate. Perhaps I just prefer to see things very black and white.

All commits involve move but not all moves involve committing.

This sort of thing happens a lot in this game, as well as other LCGs and CCGs, really. All attacks are damage, but not all damage is an attack. All Deployment puts a card into play, but not all methods of putting cards into play are deployment. Would it really be more black-and-white if we had separate rules and methodologies to learn depending on whether the damage counters were being placed on the unit because of an attack or because of a card effect?

I actually find the 'ruling' quite confusing/contradictory... i assume from PBrennen's title of Conquest Rules Arbitrator that he has come clout, and knows what he is talking about... but hear me out.

For simplicity ill quote his response here: RRG 2.4, pg 20, defines that when a player commits his units (from HQ to a planet) that:

"Each player moves his warlord and all other units that are currently at his HQ to the planet that corresponds with the number selected on his dial."

Each unit moves separately. If a warlord and 3 other units moved to KN's planet, then that's 4 separate moves. Each move satisfies KN's forced reaction, meaning it will automatically be triggered for each move, and each unit, including the enemy warlord, will be dealt 1 damage.

Note that if you commit your own units to KN's planet, your units will also take 1 damage each. Further, after KN commits to a planet, that's also considered a move, and it'll deal itself 1 damage.

What you don't want to be doing is committing 2 KN's together to the same planet, because they'll both trigger, resulting in 2 damage to each, destroying both if you don't apply shields.

If you commit 3 KN's together with some other units, the first two will deal their damage to each unit, but at least the third will have died off before its reaction triggers so the other units end up with just 2 damage, not 3.

First he claims each movement is separate when committing, which it doesnt say anywhere but whatever i dont care either way.

In his second example he claims that committing 2 nurglings would apply 2 damage to each, which is directly contradictory: unless movement is simultaneous (which he just stated it wasnt), committing 2 nurglings would only kill the 2nd one... due to the fact that the 2nd nurgling wasnt at the planet at the time that the first completed its move, and therefor wouldnt apply its forced reaction to the first's movement.

Additionally, his last example is directly contradictory to his 2nd example...other than nurgling units themselves, there is no way, without using shields, that any subsequent units would take 2 damage: this first nurgling would do one damage to itself, the second would take the first's damage and his own (killing it), the third would take the first's damage and his own (killing it) and any remaining troops would take 1 damage each... (assuming that you didnt move them prior to the nurglings and avoid the damage delt)

Not saying that the overall concept is wrong, and honestly i dont care... but if you are gonna have someone clarify a rule, he should at least be consistent in his own explanation of the ruling...

I have fixed his examples in his post on CGDB to make them accurate.

This sort of thing happens a lot in this game, as well as other LCGs and CCGs, really. All attacks are damage, but not all damage is an attack. All Deployment puts a card into play, but not all methods of putting cards into play are deployment. Would it really be more black-and-white if we had separate rules and methodologies to learn depending on whether the damage counters were being placed on the unit because of an attack or because of a card effect?

Let me see if I can explain a little better. My issue is the use of terminology. You come up with the term commitment to show that this a very unique thing, but then lump it under movement. That's a bit nonsensical to me. And then, if you are going to lump everything under movement, then don't use movement to describe the actions on a bunch of cards that can go from one planet to another( I. E. mobile, Wildrider Squadron's ability). I find it misleading because it suggests that that's what movement means in exclusivity. Instead, it is also intended as a catch all. Transport, relocate, other terms could have been used to describe going from planet to planet. That would have made it, to me, a bit more black and white as far as what movement really means.

Is it possible that we are reading 'too much' into some of these cards? (sincere question here)

Yeah,

Thanks so 1 K nurlings damages itself And any other units that arrive at the planet when it moves.

However Deploying doesn't count as moving so it doesn't damage itself when first played. Easy.

But.

I had assumed all HQ movement was simultaneous and the effects stacked.

If I moved three KNs they all trigger, I would have though that ment three damage to everything.

But the link, as quoted by kiwidru says only two resolve. The third dies.

so all units arrive at the planet but effects trigger in a stacked order?

Alternating between players triggered effects? Starting with initiative?

This explains how third one dies before triggering?

Very complicated.

But the link now seems to indicate that all units move from the HQ one at a time?

Best Answer PBrennan 03 October 2014 - 02:41 PM

RRG 2.4, pg 20, defines that when a player commits his units (from HQ to a planet) that:

"Each player moves his warlord and all other units that are currently at his HQ to the planet that corresponds with the number selected on his dial."

Each unit moves separately. If a warlord and 3 other units moved to KN's planet, then that's 4 separate moves. Each move satisfies KN's forced reaction, meaning it will automatically be triggered for each move, and each unit, including the enemy warlord, will be dealt 1 damage.

Note that if you commit your own units to KN's planet, your units will also take 1 damage each. Further, after KN commits to a planet, that's also considered a move, and it'll deal itself 1 damage.

If you moved your Warlord and two KN's to a planet, the first one would take one damage from itself,then the second one would take one damage from itself and another damage from the first KN.

Second damages himself and is killed by the first.

...Third arrives damages himself and is killed by the first.

...Fourth arrive damages himself and is killed by the first.

Can I move the nurglings last so they only damage themselfs?

Does my opponent stack his arrivals with mine?

We both move from HQ I stack my arrivals

warlord nurglings nurglings.

Only those arriving after the nurglings take damage.

This makes no sense at all!

Panic...

Panic...

Was this a signature or a sentiment?

Seriously, though, it isn't that hard once you apply all the appropriate rules. PBrennan's explanation does leave one piece of this a little unclear. So let me walk you through how I read and resolve the situation, then you can tell me if it makes sense:

Rules/Game Concepts to Consider and Apply:

A . When you Commit your warlord (and HQ units) to in the Command Phase, there is only one effect resolving. As a result, all of the units, from both players, leave the respective HQs and arrive at the respective planets at the same time (i.e., the resolution of that one effect). -- RRG, p. 24 .

B . Despite the fact that only one effect resolves, multiple units are moved (i.e., changed status from "at HQ" to "at Planet #X"). Therefore, the a "triggering condition" for "after a unit moves" Reactions is created for each individual unit. -- No specific rules reference, but it's kind of self-evident, right?

C . "Forced Reactions" are triggered when their triggering condition becomes true, whether a player wants them to or not. -- RRG, p.7 .

D . All "Forced Reactions" are triggered and resolved before any normal Reactions can be triggered/resolved. -- RRG, p.7.

E . All reactions to any one triggering condition must be resolved before moving on to the next triggering condition. -- RRG, p. 13.

F . Each individual triggered effect must resolve completely before the next effect, including Reactions, can be triggered. -- RRG, p.3, 13.

When you take all of this into account, the sequence of committing units, either to a planet where there is already a KN or when there are KNs in the HQ that will go along, would be this:

1. Reveal numbers on servo-skull dials and move units from HQ to the appropriate planets.

2. Remembering that Forced Reactions are driven by "triggering conditions" (Part C above) and that each triggering condition needs to have all reactions resolved before moving on to the next triggering condition (Part E above), the person controlling the KN, who has to use the Forced Reaction whether he wants to or not, chooses one of the units that moved as the "triggering condition" he is reacting to for KN #1 and places 1 damage (which can be shielded) on that unit.

3. Now, all other Forced Reactions (i.e., KN #2, KN #3, etc.) for that "triggering condition" (i.e., that particular moved unit) must be resolved, remembering that the unit is removed from play as soon as it takes lethal damage -- even if there are more Forced Reactions lined up to hit it.

4. Now, go to the next unit that moved and repeat the process. Continue this until all Forced Reactions to all moved units are resolved.

The key difference between this explanation and the way that I read PBrennan's earlier explanation is that his explanation seems to imply that KN #1 would damage all units that moved, then KN #2 would, then KN #3, etc. But the way I read the rule that all Reactions to each individual "triggering condition" needs to be resolved before moving on to the next triggering condition says that KN #1-X would all damage Unit #1 before moving on to Unit #2. The implications of that are actually pretty big for the Chaos player.

Anyway, I hope that that helps clarify things for the situation. All units move to the planet, then you apply all damage to each unit in turn (not to each unit from each individual KN in turn), removing any that take lethal damage immediately. That should help clarify why a particular KN could be killed off before dealing damage to some of the other units.

yeah,
Thanks,
If My HQ and 3 Nurglings Moves from the HQ to planet 1
And my opponent also moves to planet 1.

Everything arrives at planet 1

Nurglings 1-3 all trigger

Nurgling 1 damage resolves and everything at the planet gets 1 damage.
Nurgling 2 damage resolves and everything at the planet gets 1 damage.
All nurglings are now dead (assuming no shields are spent) and Nurgling 3 effect does not resolve as the card is removed?

So if no shields are played it quickly gets summarized as
Everything takes 2 damage and unshielded 2HP cards die and are removed from the board.
the third nurgling dies!

I could shield the third nurgling from KN1or KN2 and his ability trigger will too! and everything gets three damage?

This make sense.
Thanks!


If my opponent also has triggering abilities they triggered intertwined with mine starting with the player with initiative?

Panic...

yeah,

Thanks,

If My HQ and 3 Nurglings Moves from the HQ to planet 1

And my opponent also moves to planet 1.

Everything arrives at planet 1

Nurglings 1-3 all trigger

Nurgling 1 damage resolves and everything at the planet gets 1 damage.

Nurgling 2 damage resolves and everything at the planet gets 1 damage.

All nurglings are now dead (assuming no shields are spent) and Nurgling 3 effect does not resolve as the card is removed?

That's not quite how I read it. Remember that when a Nurgling triggers, it deals 1 damage to 1 unit (not 1 damage each to every unit at the same time). So if 5 units moved, each Nurgling has to initiate 5 separate times. And because reactions for each individual trigger (i.e., each moved unit) need to be completed before moving on to the next trigger, you get more of a "Nurgle Swarm" effect.

The difference between this and how you outlined it above is that you resolve the interaction "moved unit by moved unit" rather than "Nurgling trigger by Nurgling trigger".

So, Everything arrives at planet 1.

Chaos player chooses a unit that moved. Nurglings 1-3 mob it, each dealing 1 damage (3 total to that unit).

Chaos player chooses the next unit. Nurglings 1-3 mob it, dealing 1 damage each (3 total to that unit).

And so on until all units have been mobbed.

Here's where it gets a little tricky: At some point, the Chaos player has to choose a Nurgling unit to be mobbed. If the mobbed Nurgling dies, the mob gets smaller.

That means when you send your 3 Nurglings to planet 1, you can have all 3 of them mob each of your opponent's moved units in turn (dealing a total of 3 damage to each), then have your Nurglings turn on themselves (killing the first and second to receive such treatment), leaving only 1 Nurgling left in the mob to go after your Warlord and any remaining units. Effectively, the units your opponents move from HQ take 3 damage each and you lose 2 Nurglings, but the other units you moved from HQ only take 1 damage each.

If my opponent also has triggering abilities they triggered intertwined with mine starting with the player with initiative?

Yes, but be careful with the timing. When you pick the first unit to be mobbed, you have to resolve all the FORCED reactions to that unit being moved first (so the 3 Nurglings), then any normal, optional reactions to that unit moving, then the Nurgling mob moves on to the next unit.

I know this sounds complicated, but it comes down to this: Deal with all the Reactions aimed at a particular unit before going on to the next. Think of the Nurglings as hunting in a pack. No one member of the pack will move on to the next victim until the whole pack is done with the first.

True, I was a little rushed when I did the first example. Here's a more detailed analysis that I've posted at cardgamedb, and while a little rushed again after a weekend away, hopefully this captures it correctly:

Within a commitment, there isn't a separate reaction window to each unit being committed. This is evidenced when we open the normal reaction window to the framework commitment, where opponents take turns resolving reactions to different units being committed, and they can intermingle. This is explored/explained further in:

http://www.cardgamed...ment-reactions/

As such, there is only one forced reaction window that opens to the framework event of the commitment of units. Within that one forced reaction window, there are multiple triggering conditions that each of the KN's must react to, but there's no requirement that all of one triggering condition to one unit being moved must be resolved within that one reaction window before the triggering condition to the next unit being moved must be resolved. As long as they're all resolved within that reaction window, all's fine.

As such, if you moved your Warlord and two KN's to a planet, the forced reaction window opens to the framework commitment event. You may choose KN#1's forced reaction to trigger to the moving of any of those units. After resolution (assigning, shielding, taking), the forced reaction window is still open. After your opponent has had an opportunity to do a forced reaction, you may choose to either do KN#1's trigger to another unit, or do KN#2's forced reaction to one of the unit moves (maybe the same one that KN#1 just hit). Continue doing these forced reactions until each triggering condition has been reacted to (or the KN leaves play so that its forced reaction no longer occurs).

It may be that it's worthwhile that KN#1 hits KN#2 first, and then KN#2 goes next and hits itself, killing itself, to avoid KN#2's forced reactions from triggering against other of your units - a KN can't do its reaction once its left play after all!

yeah,
You've kinda said three different things now!
OK I'm looking forward to playing a nurgle deck so let me get this straight.

If I move My HQ 2 KNs and 2 plague marines to a planet
my opponent moves his HQ and 4 orks to the same planet

So 10 units have moved to the planet.
So both KN trigger 10 time each!
so twenty damage is on the stack. 10 on his guys and 10 on my guys. easy.

But IF I kill the nurglings before their damage is applied the damage vanishes?
I choose the order the damage resolves
I can apply ALL the damage that goes to my opponent.
Then try to kill the nurglings to stem the damage.

I can trigger KN1 on all 5 of his units, then trigger KN2 on all 5 of his units.
Causing him 10 nurgling gurgling damage.
KN2 hits himself in the face, I Then Trigger KN1 on KN2 to kill KN2.
KN2's remaining home damage vanishes?
Finally KN1 is forced to do one damage to himself and my Warlord and 2 plague marines.
I only take 5 damage total!

This is incredibly clunky for what I expect will be a very popular signature card and I can see many opponents complaining that this isn't how it works!
"My guys all got hit twice and yours only get hit once! the card says everything gets damage!!! not just my guys !"

IN another example.
IF I move my HQ, 1KN and 10 cultists with 1hp to a planet.
I can nominate that KN kills himself first and that all my cultists live!
Opponents will cry "the card says every card that moves to the planet gets damaged!"



I do think i have a good grasp on this now, I'm not looking forward to explaining this to every player I play!
I think FFG needs a better way of explaining how HQ's move and trigger during commitment, how abilities can be stacked to your advantage so that they don't all resolve needs to be found so that everyone is on the same page.

Panic...

So 10 units have moved to the planet.

So both KN trigger 10 time each!

so twenty damage is on the stack. 10 on his guys and 10 on my guys. easy.

Well, it's worth noting that the two KNs do not trigger 10 times each all at the same time, creating a pool of 20 damage that needs to be doled out. This game doesn't "stack" in that regard.

Rather, it's a "sequence" rather than a "stack." There are 10 potential opportunities for each KN to trigger. Those 10 potential opportunities must be addressed, in sequence, with each trigger resolving completely before the next is initiated. That's important because there is no "on the way out" in this game. The sequence can therefore be interrupted if the resolution of one trigger prevents the initiation of the next (in this example, by one of the KNs being destroyed and leaving play).

It really only seems "clunky" if you expect the "stacked" resolution that would require each KN to trigger 10 times. But once you get used to the absence of an "on the way out" mechanic, you see that removing one of the KNs before it gets to trigger all 10 times stops any remaining triggers and your expectations change (both for yourself and your opponent).

yeah,
I just think people won't expect the cards damage to work this way!
The idea that I can stack/interrupt my own cards triggers in whatever order I like needs explaining.

This gets even more silly the more nurglings in play.

KN1 hits all your guys for 1 damage and himself for 1
KN2 hits all your guys for 1 damage and himself for 1
KN3 hits all your guys for 1 damage and himself for 1
KN4 hits all your guys for 1 damage and himself for 1
KN4 then hits KN1 KN2 KN3 killing them.
(KN1 KN2 KN3 can't hit my guys now because their dead.)

KN4 then hit my guys for 1

My other units only take 1 nurgling hit each.
While everyone on your side has taken 4 hits each.

Panic...