Two quick questions:
Shrine of Nurgle corrupts an enemy unit damaged in combat. Does that mean if 3 units were damaged in the same attack all three are corrupted? or just one?

Contested Fortress cancels a damage to the capital each turn. Does that mean it removes damage that is already on the capital every turn, or stops one damage that would be inflicted after all the units are killed?

Sorry I meant "Shrine" not "Forge" ... getting my short green blobs confused with my short hairy blobs.

BrooklynMike said:

1) Shrine to Nurgle is a forced singular effect rather than plural. Following the 1 trigger per response convention from other LCGs, I would say only 1 unit is corrupted if 2 or more are damaged simultaneously. Of course, future instances of damage would continue to trigger this effect within the same turn.

2) Whether damage is inflicted during combat or out of combat, they all follow the first assignment and then application of damage to target (see Non Combat Damage: page 17 of rulebook). Damage cancellation kicks in at the start of application step and does not remove damage already inflicted (see 5. Apply Damage: page 13). Removing damage after it being applied requires healing or removal effects (see Keystone Forge, Stubborn Refusal, Archmage of Saphery, Greater Heal, Urguck, and Valkia the Bloody)

I see 3 different units each getting damaged in a combat. To me thats 3 triggers each tripping the shrine to nurgle and ending them all corupted if they dont die from the said damage.

1- The text on Shrine is pretty "absolute".

Kingdom. Forced: After an opponent's unit is damaged during combat, corrupt that unit.

"Every" damaged "attacking/defending" opponent's unit get corrupted.

Evrery total damage applied to a unit make the effect trigger.

2- The word "Cancel" relies on "applied damage". An effect containing the word "Cancel" kicks in at any time damage is applied.

Contested Fortress lets you cancel one damage per turn...You should read it (Once per turn, after damage is applied to your capital, one is canceled).

Please note that you're not forced to cancel the first damage your capital gets each turn: once per turn, you "choose" when a given damage is canceled.

Hope this made sense. ;-)

Of course I cannot argue for the validity of "one trigger per response" itself since that is the FAQ's job to clear up; however, if this precedent holds true for this incarnation of LCG as well, then it is more than likely that you can only corrupt one unit at a time (in other words, per trigger) simply due to how the text on Shrine to Nurgle is phrased.

First, we can establish that damage being applied at the same time, as we know from how the Battlefield phase work, elicits the trigger from Shrine just once even when multiple units (controled by opponent) are damaged.

Second, if you examine the text printed on the Shrine to Nurgle card:
Kingdom . Forced : After an opponent's unit is damaged during combat, corrupt that unit.

You can notice that it refers to just one damaged unit and corrupting that one unit instead of using words like any, every, each, all, or the pural form of unit. If only a single unit is corrupted per trigger for this card and the trigger only occurs once even when multiple units (controlled by opponent) are damaged, then it stands to reason that only one unit will be corrupted by this card on the occasion when multiple units are damaged.

My entire argument hinges on the "one trigger per response" that the other two LCGs are based on, but if it proves true for Invasion, then in light of the evidences presented above, I believe the Shrine to Nurgle card will only trigger for one damaged unit to be corrupted in face of multiple units being damaged at a single instant.

*NOTE: multiple copies of Shrine will increase the number of damaged opponent's units (in a single instant) affected by corruption proportionally.

I understand your reasoning, but I have to insist.

Your wording interpretation is uncorrect and the reason why I say it is the same reason you mention: other LCGs.

If you think about some other cards with this kind of eccect, you always find a stipulation which involve a "limiting condition" ("limit once per phase" i.e.).

In other cases, you find complete different wording, like: "After damage is applied during combat, choose and corrupt one of opponent just damaged unit", to make a "simple" example. Here the "one response per trigger" stipulation makes sense: apply damage (trigger), corrupt unit (response).

Those are the kind of cards for which "one per trigger" rule have been created, just to avoid some "abuses".

Translating this example with Shrine of Nurgle: "After an oppo's unit is damaged" (trigger) "corrupt that unit" (response). You apply damage to EVERY Unit in combat, so every unit represents a single trigger...Moving forward, for every unit, you have a trigger.

This FORCED trigger ONE time per unit. And ONE time per unit you're responding. That's it.

;-)

P.S. Just to avoid confusion, I'm mailing someone about it. Let's wait for official rulings. ;-)

Our point of contention seems to be whether damage being applied on both sides at the same time creates one trigger condition or more than one for the Shrine to Nurgle card.

I will be more than happy to wait for an official answer, but I must point out your precedence example are not fully compatible. The "limit once per phase" of AGoT and "limit once per turn" of Invasion (see Archmage of Saphery) simply places a hard limit on the number of times it can trigger within the stated time window. This does not address the issue of our contention, that is the correct number of triggers at a single instance...of simultaneous damage application in this case. Furthermore, if I understand AGoT mechanism correctly, each response must be fully resolved before moving on to what's next, and once moved on you cannot revisit the same response (ie: no time travelling). AGoT's response mechanism simplifies things quite a bit and is different from the LIFO stack we have in Invasion, thus what I mean by the compatibility issue.

For me it's pretty clear that if a unit gets damaged it should be corrupted. At least is my interpretation of the text. The absence of "only one" phrase is enough for me to conclude that "every" unit that gets damaged should be corrupted.

On top of that look at page 15:

"Forced effects always occur immediately whenever their trigger is met, and they cannot be cancelled or interrupted by other actions".

So it's even more clear now that for "every" unit that gets damaged the ability triggers and it's effect is applied immediately.

Until the FAQ clears up this advanced concept I'll play this way

Of course you can play however you like even after the FAQ is released with the correct rulings. No one is forcing your group to play a certain way.

One thing that bugs me though: both you and DB_Cooper seems to see this "every" word you guys claim that is implied by the Shrine to Nurgle card text. Is this a peculiar Nurgle syndrome I'm not aware of?

If it is...then you've been had by Nurgle!!!
Forget animal flu and other influenzas....DOOM has come into this world and its name is Nurgle!

Oh my gosh!

Nurgle!

Punish the Unfaithful!!! Someone wants to say you've limited power!

Tell 'em that you can respond to any number of triggers per turn!!!

I've sent my email...Let's wait.

If I'm right, you'll post: "Sorry Nurgle, I was wrong. Hallowed be thy name"...

If you're right, I'll post my darkest secret...

BTW, just to be IT a little bit... I didn't pointed out the presence of a non-written "EVERY" in the card (even if it seemed...Sorry, but sometimes is difficult for me to point out something in english :-))...I made a "not so exact" example, yes...But what was important to me about that was the "idea" of a single trigger/response.

The WAR starts when you say "I have the trigger (damage) follwed by a single response (corrupt one unit)" and I say "I have the trigger (damage) and the response (A damaged unit is corrupted, wher "A" is not for "one/a single" but for "a damaged unit"...the logical consequence to this step is "each damaged unit".

Before replyin', remember the first part of the post!!!

(Just kiddin' )

The problem here is really based around what is the triggering effect. There will certainly a rule about one response per trigger, so if we can suss out what the trigger for Shrine to Nurgle is we will know how it is meant to be played.

Damage in this game is taken and then assigned. Assigned damage is then applied. The card looks at your opponents units. Checks to see if a unit they control has been damaged during combat. If it has been damaged during combat that unit is corrupted. Because it is a Forced effect, we know two things automatically, it happens every single time the trigger is met and it cannot be canceled.

So the trigger for this effect is an opponents unit being damaged during combat. Every time an opponents unit is damaged during combat it meets this trigger and the Shrine to Nurgle forces it to be corrupted.

The strong implication here is that each damage applied during combat means that unit is corrupted. The answer is actually, sort of. Each unit can only be corrupted once no matter how much damage is assigned to it because that would be multiple responses to the same trigger.

Each time an opponents unit is damaged, even if the damage is all applied at once, constitutes a different trigger as long as it is not the same unit being damaged in the same application stage.

So yes, three units damaged during combat regardless of how, means all three get corrupted as Shrine to Nurgle triggers on each separately.

I hope this explanation made a little more sense regarding one trigger per response.

If one trigger per response holds true for Invasion, then it seems to fall on the "point of contention" I mentioned back at reply #7 then.

I can see the validity of the argument for "multiple separate instances of triggering events happening at the same time, causing multiple triggers" contrasted by my "only one instance of trigger due to triggering events happening all at once and the effect being singular in phrase."
Maybe my lack of experience when dealing with LCG card interaction & timing ruling is causing me to falter here, but I think I'll wait for an official ruling/explanation before laying this one to rest.

You of course are always welcome to but let me give you a AGoT example -

Core Set Joffrey reads, " Response: After a Lord or Lady character is killed, Joffrey Baratheon claims 1 power. (Limit 3 times per round.)"

If Valar is revealed Joffrey claims one power for each lor or lady up to three because each lord or lady being killed is a separate trigger, despite all having been killed by the same plot. This is a known ruling and the reason for his limit since the Core Set is a reprint of the Westeros version which did not have a limit and people were building decks putting Lords and Ladys into play triggering Valar and winning the game just from that.

Shrine to Nurgle is no different, it is one card acting on multiple triggers even though they all caused by the same source. Likewise Maester Wendamyr can save two characters from a single military challenge or Valar because he can kneel to save himself, you can kneel two influence to stand him, and then kneel him again to save a second character, two responses to two different triggers, caused by the same source.

Moribund issues aside, so there is a precedent in AGoT regarding one source creating multiple triggers for a single card to act upon. It will be more than likely that FAQ ruling will fall on that side of the precedent then.

Can we please stop using other game rules to try and interpret Invasion?

I believe dormouse and the others have it right. The event triggers from a unit being damaged. There is nothing in the rules that even implies that the causal reason for that trigger is considered as a limiting factor, nor is there anything that implies that a card can only respond to a single trigger if multiples are occurring simultaneously.

What about something such as Dwarf Rangers, then? It reads "Forced: After one of your other [Dwarf] units leaves play, deal 1 damage to one target unit or capital". Would you apply the same "One trigger per turn" limit to this? We've discussed this particular card before and it never came up for that. What about Keystone Forge? "Forced: After your turn begins, heal 1 damage to your capital". The trigger is the same (turn beginning), so does that mean you only get to heal 1 damage no matter how many are in play?

Moribund isn't a factor in whether it works or not either, since Valar allows for saves which could keep Joff a live (though of course with moribund there is no reason to).

There was also a combo with Viserys Targaryen from WED with Plea to R'hllor. This Viserys claimed 1 power for each character coming into play (and after 4 he was discarded from play) and Plea to R'hllor put all non-doomed characters in all dead piles into play. Viserys was eventually received errata that he could only be triggered 4 times. You could build a deck that would kill Viserys off as early in the game as possible (because he was safe in the dead pile) and was just chock full of weenies and a few plot based kill effects and then you played Plea bringing everyone back and winning the game.

All precedent in LCG has been each character would count as a separate trigger because it is specifically checking for a character who has received damage not a source of damage that hits a character. Obviously this game could be different, but there is no real reason to assume that it is yet.

The reason we look to other LCG's is because they are all published by FFG, designed by Eric Lang, and have Nate French as the lead developer. The logic and language is pretty much the same between all three games. There are definite differences in rules, but when the rules are the same the logic is also the same. The language is similar enough that if you replaced game specific words with a neutral term you couldn't figure out which game a card came from. So until a FAQ comes out, when there is a disagreement about how to interpret a rule looking at CoC and AGoT is better than just trying to shout someone down.

The Dwarf Ranger is a valid comparison. IT would trigger for each death of a Dwarven unit from combat, despite all dwarves being killed at the same time (though we are still not completely sure if they could respond if they were also dying). Keystone Forge is pretty much the exact opposite, we already know that effects stack and that each card gets to trigger if it can do so, even if it is three cards responding to the same triggering event. 3 triggers 1 responding card versus 1 trigger three responding cards.