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?")

<snip>

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!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but no matter how much review cards go through there will always be silly mistakes that get missed. Released cards will get exponentially more playtesting in the hours after their release than is ever going to be practically possible during development, that's just the way publishing goes.

The wolves probably would benefit from that calcification as it would be pointless to attach it to an enemy unit if the exhausting is to be considered a cost rather than effect.

Ku'Gath's nurglings are not "fixed" by simply adding enemy unit, that just nerfs them (they are probably intended to damage friendly units as part of Ku'Gath's theme (damage reassignment). But then I quite like how annoyingly complex this card is. I can easily see myself killing most of my units and losing several games by accident with this card.

There is nothing wrong with Dozer Blades, but something more generally applicable from a thematic standpoint would have worked too. I suppose they could have had it be attachable to tanks only, but that is beginning to narrow its application a bit much. I'm sure there will be many more weird thematic card interactions made possible as the card pool expands further. Maybe Valkyrie pilots like flying around at ground level and ramming things without getting shot down, just as the tank commanders like hitting things with swords...

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're creating that distinction. If the rules are not 100% explicit, it's an incomplete (and here, misleading) rule.

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.

It should be as specific as possible so as to avoid any questions. Considering the number of needlessly complex rules questions abounding, I'd say they're not doing nearly as good a job as you're making out.

I guess I'll keep on misconstruing rules, and you'll keep on misconstruing the English language. Cheers.

I'm not sure how the 'do X to do Y' section isn't clear.

"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."

How is that not clear?

Guys, not here please...

I believe there is a whole sub-forum dedicated to awnsering questions about Rules.

This however is the News and Rumours topic.

Or shall I call the topic:

Do Ku'Gaths Nurglings damage themselves when they deploy to a planet? 2.0. ?

Wonderwaaagh started in the 1.0 version of Ku'gath's nurglings, so moving it to there shouldn't be difficult.

What can I say? I'm a sucker for common sense.

Seriously, though. Fenrisian Wolves are a great way to exhaust your opponent's units. I highly recommend it.

Minute has this point total nailed. How can someone even argue against it, unless they are just being stubborn.

With the exception that you can't use it to exhaust your opponent's units. You can with Shrouded Harlequin though.

Because a card clearly can't have two separate, positive effects...

Well, it really only has one positive effect.......and one cost.

I haven't seen/heard anything to indicate this might change in the future.

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.

The rules are very clear on the fact that you cannot pay costs using game elements you do not control, and make it very clear that in anything of the form "Exhaust X to do Y" the portion preceeding 'to' (in this case Exhaust X) is definitely the cost.

The rulebook also spells it out for you both ways - you cannot use game elements an opponent controls to pay costs, and you can only use game elements you control to pay costs. Even if you somehow attempted to claim your opponent's card was not a game element, you would need to provide a game element of yours to pay that cost, and control of cards defaults to whoever's deck the card is originally from, per the section on Ownership and Control.

Examples of game elements are also provided in the section under "Enemy"

Unless you want to argue that Fenrisian Wolf's card text is not presented in a "do x to do y" construct, which you have not been able to do yet.

Asking "But is it reaaaaaaaaaaaaaly like that? Cause I want to use it this way" is not digging up some super secret rules ninja interpretation of a card, it's just willful ignorance.

The topic...

Has gone to sheit...

The topic...

Has gone to sheit...

I tried to put a rumory spin on my last post!

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?"

Yeah that was my original response to it to.

But i'm a big fan of cards doing what they represent (like dragons havin firebreathing, and hydra's having Regenrate in Magic the gathering) and the dozer blade doesn't make a vehicle harder to destroy. The closest thing ther even is in the flavor/TT is a demolisher's Siege shield!

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.

Yeah, see that's just bloody mental! Even Stephen Hawkins would go, "yeah it wo-no wait..."

I just read trough the whole thing and in magic the damage goes "on the stack" and get's "locked in": so it resolves as: each unit moving to this planet gets 1 damage and then both nurglings die.*

* I could be wrong about that but i highly doubt it.

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.

There is no stack in LCGs

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.

If you're having a hard time maintaining civility, you should probably avoid the frustration of topics you're unfamiliar with in the first place. It's really not the job of the moderators to go about deleting posts simply because you disagree with someone. I, personally, am not altogether put out, but then you tend to develop a lot of patience about this sort of thing when you've been playing card games for as long as I have.

I'll be honest though, I am very tickled that the solitary distinction between a cost and a benefit in this game is a thoroughly ubiquitous preposition. You guys should hear yourselves: The "to"! The "to"! Remember the "to"! It's like something straight out of Dune . XD

There is no stack in LCGs

And we're all the worse for it. There's a great deal to be said for innovation and originality, certainly, but if you're going to step in the ring with the 800 pound gorilla of card games, you'd be unwise not to take a page or two out of its book. There is so much confusion about rules interactions that could be easily fixed if FFG just stopped being stubborn.

I tend to agree, but that isn't to say there is a very clear and direct logic to how LCGs do things. While it may not be as clear as a stack, it IS clear to experienced players. Noobs do get it wrong, but only for a while unless they are morons.

People keep telling me it's clear, but then I look at the rules sub-forum and the sheer number of questions over at that other site, and I get a very different impression.