Hi everyone!

Knight's shield slam card says that It allows you to pay 1 surge to stun an adjacent enemy whenever you attack (only if you have a shield equipped).

I know that you need to deal at least 1 damage to put condition, but wording on this card makes me think that you can do this even if attack is a miss, and also you can stun different figure not necessarily a target. Am I correct here?

Also can hero restore 1 fatigue via surge if attack is a miss or failed to damage monster?

Thank you

You cannot spend any surges when an attack misses (i.e. you roll an X, there is insufficient range, etc.). If you can change a miss into a hit by some means, then you can spend the surges. For example, if a surge can add additional range, that turns a range attack miss into a hit, then you can spend the other surges.

In addition, and as another example, if you hit but do not deal any damage because the number of shields rolled exceeds the number of hearts, you can still spend surges, because the attack hit. Not dealing damage is not considered a miss.

As for shield slam, as long as the targeted figure was hit, you can use shield slam on any adjacent figure. Shield slam does not require you to deal damage to the target - you just need to hit.

Thank you for comprehensive answer

I beleive you do need to inflict damage to impose a condition, though. In this case, if no damage is inflicted by the shield slam, the stun woul;d not be applied.

You do not need to deal damage to spend the surge on shield slam. In fact, the monster that you stun doesn't even have to be the target of your attack. You must hit, however, as that is a requirement of spending surges.

The ability says the text of the surge is "choose an adjacent monster, it is stunned." This is different than an attack having "surge: stun," which every time it appears on a monster card is described as "if the attack deals at least 1, the target is stunned."

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but I think the premise, that an attack always needs to deal damage to inflict a condition via surge is wrong. Instead I think, it is explicitly stated, if a surge effect needs to deal damage, before it can be applied.

Here is one example for each case:

Zombie:

Surge: Disease: If this attack deals at least 1 wound (after the defense roll), the target is Diseased.

Prophet starting weapon "Iron Flail" :

Surge: Weaken

So, to apply disease in case of the zombie, the attack needs to deal damage. To apply weaken in the second case, the attack only needs to hit and have a surge to spend on the effect, regardless of it causing damage or not.

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but I think the premise, that an attack always needs to deal damage to inflict a condition via surge is wrong. Instead I think, it is explicitly stated, if a surge effect needs to deal damage, before it can be applied.

Here is one example for each case:

Zombie:

Surge: Disease: If this attack deals at least 1 wound (after the defense roll), the target is Diseased.

Prophet starting weapon "Iron Flail" :

Surge: Weaken

So, to apply disease in case of the zombie, the attack needs to deal damage. To apply weaken in the second case, the attack only needs to hit and have a surge to spend on the effect, regardless of it causing damage or not.

It's written in the base rulebook that conditions can only be applied via surge if damage is dealt on the attack. The text on these cards is redundant.

Saying the text is redundant is a dangerous thing to assume, since the same rulesbook specifically states that cards and abilities on them take precedence over both rules and quest rules.

But Whitewing is correct. Conditions stated on item cards only refer to their key name. The complete condition description is the one stated on monster cards for instance: Condition X: If this attack deals at least 1 wound (after the defense roll), the target is X".

Item cards just lack physical space to fit this text in, but you should assume that's what's implied, as highlighted by the rules book.

Saying the text is redundant is a dangerous thing to assume, since the same rulesbook specifically states that cards and abilities on them take precedence over both rules and quest rules.

But Whitewing is correct. Conditions stated on item cards only refer to their key name. The complete condition description is the one stated on monster cards for instance: Condition X: If this attack deals at least 1 wound (after the defense roll), the target is X".

Item cards just lack physical space to fit this text in, but you should assume that's what's implied, as highlighted by the rules book.

They only take precedence when there is a contradiction. When there is no contradiction in place, the rules as written in the core rulebook function as normally in conjuction with the text in question. In this case, there is no contradiction: all surges spent to apply conditions to the target of the attack only take effect if the attack deals damage. Cards which mention "if this attack deals damage" have redundant text, because that's already always true. It would only be a contradiction if the card says "the target does not need to be dealt damage for this condition to apply" or something like that. If that were to happen, then yes, the card would take precedence.

Thanks for the insight, then I played the part with items wrong all the time

I was of the impression, that the card effects always take preference before the base rules and specifically state what is needed and what not.

But you are right that conditions only being applied when taking damage is implied by the rulebook.

it is always suprising for me when topic with some 'silly' questions of mine suddenly develops into conversation with several participants. Thank you, guys, glad this topic was usefull not for me only =)

The reason i'm arguing that "shield slam" doesn't need to deal damage is because the effect of the surge it's necessarily even related to the attack target. I would agree that for clarity, it would be better if the text was followed with "even if you didn't deal any wound" such as on "serpent's dagger".

The reason i'm arguing that "shield slam" doesn't need to deal damage is because the effect of the surge it's necessarily even related to the attack target. I would agree that for clarity, it would be better if the text was followed with "even if you didn't deal any wound" such as on "serpent's dagger".

You are correct. FFG has ruled similarly when asked directly. (I don't see it in the FAQ, but I believe it's in the unofficial FAQ over on BGG.)

Saying the text is redundant is a dangerous thing to assume, since the same rulesbook specifically states that cards and abilities on them take precedence over both rules and quest rules.

FFG is pretty well known for writing redundant rules text on some cards and not on others. It's one of the primary reasons why the rules for their games are so inconsistent and confusing. It's not always a space issue, either; I've seen redundant text omitted on cards that had more than enough room to include it.