Didn't see these added yet, spoilers from Gift of the Ethereals.

Thanks! These cards are fantastic!

Source?

Thanks! These cards are fantastic!

Source?

My podcast Facebook page.

Also Ork spoilers from Team Covenant: http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2015/01/21/new-ork-madness-from-gift-of-the-ethereals/

Cool guys! Ill update the page asap.

The Ork cards seem cool but not that competative yet.

However the design is nice.

Just finished putting in the cards in the right place.

I have to say, Gift of the Ethereals seems like another Home-run (much like the Scourge).

- So far the spoiled Eldar cards are 2 hits out of the 3.

- So far the Ork cards look good, but I think the Ammo Depot will see use in AM but less so in Chaos and even less in Orks.

- AM, SM, DE all look very usefull.

More incomming news:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/FirstPlanetPodcast

Not a huge fan of Crushing Blow, want to test Know No Fear however (in Ragnar).

Source: http://instagram.com/p/yMcpRaBkMj/

Total spoiler:

Astra Militarum

Army Mystic Warden Cost: 0 Command: 0 2/2 Forced Reaction: After battle ends sacrifice it.

Event To Arms! Cost: 0 Shield: 2 Action: Ready target support. (Loyal)

Attachment Honorifica Imperalis Cost: 2 Shield 2 Attached unit gets Armorbane and Ranged when on the same planet as an enemy Warlord.

Space Marines

Army White Scars Bikers Cost: 3 Command: 1 2/3 This unit gets +2 ATK when a Warlord is present at the same planet.

Event: Crushing Blow

Event: Know No Fear

Tau

Aun'Shi with signature cards.

Eldar

Army Eldritch Corsair Cost: 3 Command: 1 2/2 This unit gets +2 ATK when a Warlord is present at the same planet.

Army Warlock Destructor

Event Fortell

Dark Eldar

Army Sslyth Mercenary Cost: 1 Command: 2 2/2 Action: Pay 2 RSC to take control of this unit. Any player may use this.

Event Despise Cost: 1 Shield: 1 Combat action: Each player must sacrifice an Ally unit.

Chaos

Army Rotten Plaguebearers Cost: 2 Command: 1 Action: Exhaust this unit to deal 1 damage to a target unit.

Support Nurgling Bomb Cost: 3 Combat Action: Target a planet, for each non-Nurgle unit its controller must deal it 1 damage or rout it

Support Throne of Vainglory

Orks

Army Mekanik Repair Krew

Attachment Goff Big Choppa Cost: 2 Shield: 1 Attach to target Army unit, attached unit gets +2 ATK and Armourbane.

Support Ammo Depot

Source: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17518-gift-of-the-ethereals/?p=148592

Thanks! I was wondering how long it was going to take for some Plaguebearers to show up, considering all the Nurgle love going around. I've also been wondering what the drawback was going to be on the Sslyth Mercenary, as the parts you could see on the preview showed it as massively overpowered for his cost.

The AM card readying a support, Catachan Outpost came to mind inmediately. Clearly, the reason why this was made. The AM, imho, has the best in-combat combos and tricks in this game. Insane what they can pull off in that phase. Honorifica Imperialis is good, too.

I think I agree with your assessment on Crushing Blow. Useful if you need that one point of damage to finish someone off. But do the SM really need it? I don't see anything you would want to take out to put this in.

Yeah on hindsight I fully agree on you considering To Arms! The only downside to it for me remains it's only usefull with Catachan Outpost.

Nontheless probably still less niece as the Honorifica Imperalis, altough putting Honorifica Imperalis on Darring Assault Squad is something else... Guess my 3x Bodyguard will now become 2x To Arms! 1x Honorifica Imperalis or just 3x To Arms! For legit consistancy.

To Arms works as a 2-shield that you can use to fuel Ammo Dump to basically thin your deck by 3 cards or to ready the Catachan outpost (or the black ship when it comes out) - very useful card.

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.

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.

I disagree.

I disagree.

Um, why? What's your counter-argument? The rules seem to be pretty clear here.

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."

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.

It strikes me that if the designers intended it to be used as you say, it would be restricted to friendly units only.

I agree with you on that part. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN! *

I wonder what FFG is doing! Base set of 40C was awesome, but the cards that are comming out in the expansions-god! We got a dozen page thread that almost went flamewar over that horribly worded kurgaths nurglings and now this. Nobody playtests this stuff (playtester= person who isn't on the design team) it seems!

* In MtG terms its "tap target creature to have it deal damage to target creature." While it should be "Enchanted creature gains: T: deal damage equal to it's power to target creature."

Oh, I'm sure they do playtest stuff, but FFG doesn't have the time or resources to establish a Future Future League for each one of their many properties. Nor do I expect them to, but I do expect them to admit when they've made a mistake and either fix the rules or errata the card, rather than issue ad hoc rulings via email or in a FAQ.

I wonder what FFG is doing! Base set of 40C was awesome, but the cards that are comming out in the expansions-god! We got a dozen page thread that almost went flamewar over that horribly worded kurgaths nurglings and now this. Nobody playtests this stuff (playtester= person who isn't on the design team) it seems!

Users will always find bugs in the system, that such bugs exist to varying extents does not mean that the designers or playtesters didn't playtest anything (and we don't even get to see all those versions of cards that existed before the final releases were settled on).

There is a balance to be struck between trying to keep a natural language on the cards and an unambiguous interpretation. It is highly likely a FAQ will be forthcoming and it will be interesting to see what such a document has to say on such issues.

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!

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.