You said I told you not to go when I only suggested you not go. There is a huge distinction.

I disagree, but that's well and truly beside the point. What does any of that matter right now? Did it hurt your feelings, or are you grasping at straws in an effort to undermine my point? If it's the former, then I apologize. If it's the latter, then perhaps I'm the one owed an apology.

More demonstrating your ability to only see what you want.

I will stop posting now and let you handle my next response, since that is what you will be responding to anyway.

The blind leading the blind, eh? I might be insulted, if anything you said had even the slightest bearing on the topic at hand.

---

I hope the petty niggling of some posters won't prevent others from continuing the conversation where we left off, in post #173. Please feel free to ignore the intervening commentary.

The difference is that we have a ruling from the design team. That's as official as you CAN get without an FAQ. You can it an 'alleged ruling', implying that all of the people who have independently obtained this ruling (one of whom is the game's rules editor) are somehow lying or conspiring together, yet you make no attempt to get a ruling from the design team yourself, as you seem to believe your reading of the rules is more valid.

For the sake of your attendees,I hope the FAQ is released before you run any events. All you're doing by ruling against the established interaction is contributing further to the confusion.

XD

It's as official as you can get, without it being official at all. I don't suppose I have to tell you what "almost" is worth in real life. Frankly, I think you're quite mistaken about just which of our interpretations actually causes confusion. It certainly isn't mine.

So assuming the FAQ confirms that it works in the manner that the design team have already confirmed it does, will you finally relent? Or will you still insist that the design team is wrong?

I think it's actually pretty awful as a TO to rule against the confirmed correct interpretation of a card simply because the FAQ isn't printed yet. Why on earth would you be arrogant enough to think that your interpretation of a card is more valid than theirs?

I'm not sure "relent" is the appropriate word here. Will I play by the rules? Absolutely, I always have with FFG games. Can't say I won't be disappointed, but it wouldn't be the first time. I stand by my assertion that this ruling is bad for the game, however legitimate it may be.

I want you to consider the number of people posting in this thread, or over at the other site. It's easy to get tunnel vision when you're posting on internet forums, to believe that your opinions (however correct or incorrect they may be) represent the gaming community at large. The truth is that every one of us here is part of a vocal minority, each with a distinct passion for the games we're drawn to discuss. How many people have argued with me on this particular point? Maybe shy of a dozen? Now consider how many players, in how many shops, in how many states or countries all over the world, are actually playing this game. How many of those people do you imagine have either come to the same conclusions as you, or have visited the relevant sites where the rulings have been posted? You see me telling you that I'm going to rule a certain way at my own events, and you call me arrogant. Maybe you're right, but then I would say you're naive if you think other people won't be doing the very same thing.

I'm not sure "relent" is the appropriate word here. Will I play by the rules? Absolutely, I always have with FFG games. Can't say I won't be disappointed, but it wouldn't be the first time. I stand by my assertion that this ruling is bad for the game, however legitimate it may be.

I want you to consider the number of people posting in this thread, or over at the other site. It's easy to get tunnel vision when you're posting on internet forums, to believe that your opinions (however correct or incorrect they may be) represent the gaming community at large. The truth is that every one of us here is part of a vocal minority, each with a distinct passion for the games we're drawn to discuss. How many people have argued with me on this particular point? Maybe shy of a dozen? Now consider how many players, in how many shops, in how many states or countries all over the world, are actually playing this game. How many of those people do you imagine have either come to the same conclusions as you, or have visited the relevant sites where the rulings have been posted? You see me telling you that I'm going to rule a certain way at my own events, and you call me arrogant. Maybe you're right, but then I would say you're naive if you think other people won't be doing the very same thing.

Well, I'll another voice siding with CommissarFeesh. Using the RRG, page 5 concerning Costs: Paying and Costs: The word "To" sections. Do X is the cost and an opponent's game elements pay not be used to pay for costs. While I agree that other sections need clarification, I don't believe that this one does.

Edited to add that this response is posted in the wrong thread.

Well, I'll another voice siding with CommissarFeesh. Using the RRG, page 5 concerning Costs: Paying and Costs: The word "To" sections. Do X is the cost and an opponent's game elements pay not be used to pay for costs. While I agree that other sections need clarification, I don't believe that this one does.

Sorry. I must have missed something. Has the "do X to do Y" cost template come up in relation to the Nurglings?

It came up with fenresian wolf in another thread. I think that conversation was moved to here since another question asked by the same poster was posted in both of those threads?

This way, we have only derailed one thread, rather than two.

It came up with fenresian wolf in another thread. I think that conversation was moved to here since another question asked by the same poster was posted in both of those threads?

This way, we have only derailed one thread, rather than two.

I posted my comment in the wrong derailed thread. Oops!

It came up with fenresian wolf in another thread. I think that conversation was moved to here since another question asked by the same poster was posted in both of those threads?

This way, we have only derailed one thread, rather than two.

I posted my comment in the wrong derailed thread. Oops!

Perhaps, but that other thread was re-railed, so posting here, while continues the derailing of this thread, doesn't start a new derailing line. So, it could be worse.

WonderWAAAGH, on 29 Jan 2015 - 1:01 PM, said:

DigitalEccentric, on 29 Jan 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

That Shining Blade attachment is redoinkulous. Love it.

I can't wait to attach it to my opponent's units.

Looks like he is trying to derail the rumors thread again. Hopefully no one takes the troll bait

WonderWAAAGH, on 29 Jan 2015 - 1:01 PM, said:

DigitalEccentric, on 29 Jan 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

That Shining Blade attachment is redoinkulous. Love it.

I can't wait to attach it to my opponent's units.

Looks like he is trying to derail the rumors thread again. Hopefully no one takes the troll bait

In all honesty, there is little to not do so, but I would love to read about how that works out.

Little question here: What happens when you attach The Shining Blade to an opposing Mobile unit?

To put the question more clear:

- Who gets to control The Shining Blade attachment?

- Who gets to control The Shining Blade's ability (the Interrupt)?

- Who is the "enemy unit" once The Shining Blade is attached to an opposing unit?

The answer to all those questions are pretty straightforward, although it creates some weird outcomes with this card.

- Cards are always controlled by their owners (unless a card effect specifically says otherwise).

- The triggered effects on cards can only be used by the card's controller (unless a card effect specifically says otherwise).

- Card text is always read from the point of view of the card's controller/effect's user (unless a card effect specifically says otherwise).

So, since there is on "specifically says otherwise" on Shining Blade, you can:

1. Attach it to an opponent's Mobile unit.

2. Trigger it's effect when the controller of the unit uses it to attack.

3. The controller of the unit will have to attack a unit he controls (the enemy of the attachment) at the adjacent planet.

Personally, I'd expect errata, but you never know.

There are some further discussions and arguments that could be had regarding the wording "declare that attack against an enemy unit..." on the attachment. Someone could argue that the Interrupt makes the controller of the attachment "declare" an attack with the attached character, and you cannot "declare" an attack with a unit you do not control, so the Interrupt would have any effect. I don't really go for that argument myself, though, because either it is just changing the unit against whom the already declared attack will be directed, or it is one of those "specifically says otherwise" effects that would allow you to "declare" the attack.

That is... Odd. If I understand the rules as written, then:

As the controlling player you get to choose to trigger the interrupt or not (it's non-forced).

The instructions on the card are to the controlling player. That seems to imply the controlling player can declare the attack somewhere else.

However, the RRG also states that when declaring an attack, the attacking player chooses a ready unit he controls and declares it as the attacker. The player controlling the attachment clearly can't do this if the attachment is attached to an enemy unit.

Interesting card, much like the wolf it is going to be a technicality that ends up stopping it from being misused.

Must be a pretty awesome sword when it allows you to stab people on another planet (perhaps even get enemies to do it for you)...

The instructions on the card are to the controlling player. That seems to imply the controlling player can declare the attack somewhere else.

However, the RRG also states that when declaring an attack, the attacking player chooses a ready unit he controls and declares it as the attacker. The player controlling the attachment clearly can't do this if the attachment is attached to an enemy unit.

Ah, sorry. I should clarify.

- The controller of the unit decides whether to attack or not.

- The controller of the attachment decides whether to trigger the interrupt or not.

- If the attachment is triggered, the attack must be declared against a unit at an adjacent planet controlled by the enemy of the controller of the attachment.

- The attacking player will choose the actual unit attacked (that meets those criteria) - because, as you say, the attacking player chooses the target of the attack.

That said, I agree the wording on the attachment seems to heavily imply an assumption that the unit and the attachment are controlled by the same player. But that is not actually required by the attachment. This is why I personally think we are likely to eventually see an errata for the card restricting it to a Mobile unit "you control".

But until then...

WonderWAAAGH, on 29 Jan 2015 - 1:01 PM, said:

DigitalEccentric, on 29 Jan 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

That Shining Blade attachment is redoinkulous. Love it.

I can't wait to attach it to my opponent's units.

Looks like he is trying to derail the rumors thread again. Hopefully no one takes the troll bait

You can't derail a thread about new cards by talking about new cards. Hopefully people will be more tolerant of my capacity to think outside the box this time around.

You can't derail a thread about new cards by talking about new cards.

Sure you can!, Just depends on what cards...

For example: "Wow those new dragon cards from Fate Reforged (MtG) sure are awesome!"

Those new dragons are most certainly not awesome, though I am pleased that a Dimir card does something (anything!) besides mill.

Those new dragons are most certainly not awesome, though I am pleased that a Dimir card does something (anything!) besides mill.

actualy Dimir also copy stuff...

This card - and its ruling - makes me think that FFG should use more time on playtesting the cards before they put them on the market and less time on how to maximise their profits (by "making" us buy the 3rd core set and throw away most of the Cards).

I'm sure it did get playtested, would be fun to find out what its developmental incarnations were...