DB_Cooper said:

I believe the spirit of the card is for the combatants to spread the curse of Nurgle to the units they battle. Does a bolt of energy from a sorcerer carry the blessing of nurgle? No! The units bless by it do. You have to take the spirits of the cards into consideration. The designers always forget to standardize their wording the first go round. Maybe they will learn before they send the 2nd battle pack to the printers.

Fletchgrooves said:

Dont even try it before a faq . See you Sunday!

Minzi101 said:

Yes the combo you suggest is broken if some people have their way , but troll vomit is punitive to EVERYONE, not just your opponents as your example could be.

jaycsin said:

You may want to go back and reread what I wrote? The answer is yes, the games developer has already confirmed that this is the way the card works, as long as he does not play it in the action window after Step 5 is finished since that lies outside of the Steps of Combat as laid out by the rules.

Shrine to Nurgle will corrupt any and every opponents unit as a forced action that is damaged during combat, which includes both units damaged from combat and as a result of unit abilities, support abilities, any quest abilities, as well as any tactic effects that cause damage during the 5 Steps of Combat.

Shrine to Nurgle

Building
Kingdom . Forced: After an opponents' unit is damaged during combat, corrupt that unit.

There is no other logical way to interpret that card as written. The only way to come up with a different ruling is to either not understand that combat is a series of specific steps during the Battlefield phase (an easy enough thing to overlook in the rules), or to assume that the designer/developer did not know what they were writing and surely could not have meant you to take it literally (in which case you can use that argument for every card and every rule and it leads you nowhere).

Until we have rulings from FFG that say otherwise (and in some cases we already have) we should interpret the cards and the rules as literally as possible unless there is a direct conflict with another part of the rules when taken literally. When this happens we should note it and send it to Nate to be answered and cleared up in the FAQ. We can develop house rules, or come on here and try and get group consensus and play that way until FFG hands down the clarification.

People who are not familiar with Eric Lang's games, especially the LCG ones, may assume that you need to read into the cards or rules and interpret them a certain way, and they usually do so based on their experience with other CCG's. Eric's games are pretty straight forward. The cards do what they say they do, and require little if any interpretation or extrapolation. When a card says target, it is targeting a card, if it doesn't, even if it directly effects another card, it is not targeting that card. If it says during it means during, not because of. If it says this effect works as it leaves play then it does, if it doesn't... well it doesn't. If it is a choice between A and B it will say choose either A or B. If it says must do A or B it means A is required and if A cannot be done then B. The most interpretation this game generally requires is comparing the wording of one card to a card which uses the same or similar wording.

Have fun with Chaos Jaycsin, or if you are fighting against it, remember they have no board reset, no massive way to give units a bunch of power mid-attack/defense, or native way of removing support cards, and their direct damage is expensive. This combo is pretty much all they get right now as a global effect.

jaycsin said:

No, but he did it when we were playing face to face last weekend. Nate does not post on the forums as per FFG's rule. You can play the card however you want, but as of right now, Nate says this is the proper way to play it. Your interpretation of damage is wrong. Nate is keeping an eye on the strength of the card but has no immediate plans to give it errata. If he choses to break the combo it will not be by following your interpretation of damage, but by changing the wording of the card to combat damage.

jaycsin said:

It is broken, it is dangerous. Troll Vomit is more balanced because it removes all units from play permanently and requires no combo to pull off. This requires a combination of cards and removes only 1 HP units permanently, and every race gets to restore one card a turn so it doesn't even corrupt them permanently, as well as there are cards in the game which restore units as well as make them immune to corruption, where there is nothing of the sort against Troll Vomit.

The combo is relatively balanced when taken into perspective of the entire mix of cards. And Fletchgrooves combo does work as well. You can argue with him if you like, but you are going to be on the wrong side of Nate's ruling and don't be surprised when the FAQ comes out and Fletchgrooves shakes it at you in faux fury while giving you the raspberry.

If a raspberry and a "I told you so" is what it takes to get a FAQ published then so be it.

Saying "I know somebody and this is the ruling he is says is correct", is the wrong argument to make on a forum. I'm sure Nate would not be happy with you using his name to speak for him in an official capacity. That aside, I don't have an interpretation of the damage, I copied and pasted the rules from the book.

Oh, I played a game with Obama last night and he says Chaos sucks and needs to be given a public option.

Calm down.

Here we have a fact and a doubt.

The FACT is that the Card is worded as WE say.

The doubt is the "intention" of game designers, un-appropriate wording, "concept" flaws (as your thematic example about the sorceror and the damage)...

EVEN if you understood the intentions of the designers and EVEN if your "concept" is believable, you're not interpreting the card: you're translating its meaning.

The part of the Rules you copied don't say anything. Just tells us what combat is, and we know it well.

FIRST, there is a DIFFERENCE between BATTLEFIELD PHASE and COMBAT. If you're not declaring an attack, there's no combat.

Once you did, combat takes place. You're not forced to combat, thus, combat is optional.

Now. Even if WE have conceptual doubts about this issue (and I can say "you're right" from a "narrative" point of you), WE cannot have any problem about english AND about wording. DORMOUSE's right when says that Eric Lang's game have these great/typical thing: read and play. No hidden rules (with the exception of errata).

DURING COMBAT means DURING THE 5 STEPS of the BP, that take place ONLY if the attacker declares an attack...Otherwise, if no attack is declared and both player pass the opportunity to take actions, the turn ends and combat has never happen.

BUT SINCE you declare an attack, you're resolving combat. THIS IS what rules say. And this is the exact moment in which StN "lives".

Anyway, rule it as you want until the FAQ, you're free, mate And as I said and re-said (and dormouse said) if the card will get an errata, will be ONLY to subtract "power" to this "combo" (if it really is so powerful).

one question, for those players who hang out with the designers of the game.

Why dont you just ask Eric and Nate to spend the 15 minutes it would take to post on THEIR GAME'S forum to clear up all these issues. You guys have probably spent multiple hours responding to the numerous other players who continue to have the same doubts, concerns, and issues that cause confusion. I know I have seen dozens of posts on this forum and boardgame geek from you regarding the same questions... arent you sick of it?

Or you could just ask them to make you guys "official FAQ guys" so you can post the FAQ for them. I understand the whole "play the game as the rules exactly say to" perspective, and the "I see the rules, but the wording of this card just seems so wrong" perspective, but you must understand that it is frustrating for the other players to have someone tell them "Im right because NAte and Eric said so" when Nate and Eric actually dont officially say anything. My view is that the designers will change many of the things that these players are concerned about, particularly to improve the eventual multiplayer experience (For example,That shrine of nurgle will get ridiculous in a multiplayer game if not changed).

Thoughts?

DB_Cooper said:

There is no argument on when, how, or if combat happens...Not sure where that is coming from, so don't I understand your post. I have only stated what combat is and how forced effects which state "if damaged in combat" should be activated.

To figure out where we agree and disagree, let me pose a few examples and ask a few questions on how you would "interpret" the outcomes.

Lets say a Chaos player has a Sorcerer in the quest, Shrine to Nurgle in the Kingdom, and a few random units in the battlefield. The dwarf player has a Runesmith in the Quest. Chaos is the active player, and he has entered his battlefield phase. He declares an attack against the dwarven quest zone, with a few units. The dwarf player chooses not to defend with his Runesmith and is willing to take the 2 or 3 damage to his capital. During the "Declare defenders" step, the Chaos player takes an Action and uses his Sorcerer to give a point of damage to the Runesmith, bringing it to one hitpoint remaining.

Does the Runesmith become corrupted because he takes damage? Remember the Shrine to Nurgle is in play.

Using the same setup as above, the Dwarf player is now the active player. The Dwarf player declares his intent to attack the Chaos quest zone. The Chaos player then declares an action in step 1, "Declare target of attack" and uses the Sorcerer to damage a few battlefield units, he says they are now corrupted.

Is the Dwarven units now corrupted? Remember the Shrine to Nurgle is in play.

Be sure to read the Scout "Advanced Concepts" on page 16 before replying. I want as many responses as possible to get a real understanding on what people "think" is correct.

PS I agree with Mateooo above me, except to make someone who is not a Mod, an Official FAQ Guy is not a good idea. I could say I play with Nate or Eric or the CEO and they said "my option" is the official ruling.

I'm one of those who wrote FFG to ask something about these issues, but no response yet. I guess they're busy....

And I guess that, as dormouse said (if I understood correctly) they simply CAN'T write (even if, sometimes ago, they used to answer to these kind o "eternal" threads).

Anyway, if I know them as I think, they're waiting for the more issues they can get, in ordere to write down a COMPLETE FAQ.

There are too many doubts about the game and this StN problem is something I can swear they're talkin' about.

And let me say that I've never been frustrating if someone told me "I know Nate (or other FFG guys) and told me that while playin'" 'cause that happened and I don't see anything wrong.

So, please, quit accusing dormouse and misuse that episode, is not fair and I don't see any good reason to do it...I don't think is right. It's a bad way to let the conversation go on, isn't it?

I don't see any single reason why we can't simply trust a player who gets the chance to speak with an FFG employee. We're a community and we should trust in other members.

I repeat: there's anything wrong.

BTW, if I can say my opinion about the errata/FAQ, I don't see any reason to do it, right now, cause, IN EXAMPLE , Judgement of Verena + Will of the Electors is stronger and cheaper than StN + Pestilence, especially if you think about the fact that Chaos has low HP in general and can be a half-suicide if not played correctly...Judgement of Verena can be played turn 3/4 without any problem...IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE, just to say that each race has its own power-interactions)...

An early Errata for a so crucial card, could be a mistake.

IMHO.

DB_Cooper said:

I have no ill will against Dormouse, I just told a friend I really like his comments and value his opinion. But on the same note, it is bad form to state you know someone at a company and use that power to legitimize your opinion. I deal with that ethical fact everyday as an officer in the military. I'm not able to say, "As an Air Force Officer, I disagree with the new healthcare bill!" That statement would mean that the US Air Force doesn't agree either. That's what Dormouse is doing when he uses Nate's name connected to a ruling or opinion. Now if Nate came on to the forum and made statements he would be representing FFG, I guarantee thats why they are not allowed to post on the forums. FFG does not want a hireling to speak for them. Ever see on TV, "the following show does not reflect the opinions of the broadcaster".....

There is no argument on when, how, or if combat happens...Not sure where that is coming from, so don't I understand your post. I have only stated what combat is and how forced effects which state "if damaged in combat" should be activated.

Actually, there's a hidden argument, cause if you state that StN involve combat damage, and I say that it involves damage during combat it means that we've a different timing/mechanic ideas.

To figure out where we agree and disagree, let me pose a few examples and ask a few questions on how you would "interpret" the outcomes.

All right, let's do this!

Lets say a Chaos player has a Sorcerer in the quest, Shrine to Nurgle in the Kingdom, and a few random units in the battlefield. The dwarf player has a Runesmith in the Quest. Chaos is the active player, and he has entered his battlefield phase. He declares an attack against the dwarven quest zone, with a few units. The dwarf player chooses not to defend with his Runesmith and is willing to take the 2 or 3 damage to his capital. During the "Declare defenders" step, the Chaos player takes an Action and uses his Sorcerer to give a point of damage to the Runesmith, bringing it to one hitpoint remaining.

Does the Runesmith become corrupted because he takes damage? Remember the Shrine to Nurgle is in play.

Yes, it does. Cause in the example, they're IN COMBAT and the Sorcerer's damage is done During Combat. (Here's the argument ).

Combat is determined by the presence of an attack. The choice of the defending player is irrelevant. We're DURING COMBAT, so StN triggers. No doubts.

Using the same setup as above, the Dwarf player is now the active player. The Dwarf player declares his intent to attack the Chaos quest zone. The Chaos player then declares an action in step 1, "Declare target of attack" and uses the Sorcerer to damage a few battlefield units, he says they are now corrupted.

Is the Dwarven units now corrupted? Remember the Shrine to Nurgle is in play.

If the Chaos player uses the Sorcerer's ability in the STEP 1, it means that the attacked zone has ALREADY been declared, so COMBAT has started...Otherwise, STEP 1 is useless, if not intended as "Combat is takin' place".

NOW, we can argue about the fact that THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RULES tellin' us that at STEP 2 I can/cannot declare "0" Units as attackers...I guess is possible and i guess that at that point combat would end.

Be sure to read the Scout "Advanced Concepts" on page 16 before replying. I want as many responses as possible to get a real understanding on what people "think" is correct.

Sorry...Maybe I'm missin' something...What should I read? What's the question about Scout?

PS I agree with Mateooo above me, except to make someone who is not a Mod, an Official FAQ Guy is not a good idea. I could say I play with Nate or Eric or the CEO and they said "my option" is the official ruling.

I've already answered to him explainin' my reasons...When I "published" that post I saw THIS post and answered...You can see there my opinion...One step before

Peace

DB_Cooper....Ok, you answered as I expected you would.

And it sounds like you didnt read the scout rule

The scout rule says that: After combat damage is applied, the controller of any surviving participating unit(s) with the Scout keyword forces his opponent to discard one card at random from his hand for each of his participating units with Scout that survived the combat.

The participating units is what is important here.

Another place this wording is used is in declare defenders: The defending player now decides which of his units in the attacked zone (if any) are going to participate in the battle to defend the zone. Only unit cards in the attacked zone can be declared as defenders. The defending player may allocate as many units in his zone as he wishes to defend. Defending units do not block particular, individual units; the attackers all attack together and the defenders all defend together. After defenders have been declared, both players have the opportunity to take actions (including playing tactic cards). Once both players have passed consecutively, play proceeds to the next step.

Again participating units...

What I'm getting at is combat/battle is between declared attackers and declared defenders. Only those units declared are in combat, there is no arguing this point as it clear in the rules.

Would be OK if a Dwarven Ranger to invoke his scout ability if he did not "participate" in combat, meaning he was not a defender or attacker? The scout rules states that a card that survives after damage is applied (he would have to participate in order to be not be able to survive) can use its scout ability. What this means in both my examples from above is that units are not considered "in combat" till they are 1) declared an attacker 2) declared a defender.

In my first example, the runepriest would not be corrupted as he did not participate in combat as he did not participate in the combat.
(considering I agree what is considered damaged in combat)

In my second example the chaos player can use the sorcerer to damage the battlefield units, but they would not be corrupted as they are not participants in the battle YET, and therefore the Shrine of Nurgle would be useless to prevent attackers from attacking that turn by corrupting them. Once attackers are declared they can not be stopped from assigning damage, except by counterattack, even if they are corrupted. Corrupted means they can not be DECLARED.
(considering I agree what is considered damaged in combat)

My whole point of using the examples was to demonstrate that units are particatants in a combat/battle phase that includes only them. External damage should not effect the participants as the Shrine of Nurgle is concerned. Sure the Shrine of Nurgle would be in full effect if each of my Mountain Brigade dwarfs took damage from the chaos knights they just fought. They would be corrupted preventing them from defending the following players attack phase and possiblely my following turn, as I can only restore one per turn.

I wish I could hang out with Eric and Nate...

um, does a scout effect trigger if no damage is inflicted? For example, the scout attacks a burned area, the damage is prevented by an effect, the scout has its power reduced to zero, etc.

The rule says "after combat damage is applied" but does that really just mean "after the apply damage phase?"

After your opinion is given, can you say "Nate and Eric told me this" or "this is what I think."

I don't believe you can "attack" a burned area for that forced effect to take place.

And the raspberries are coming!

For the record, I play Orks (primarily) and am just as happy to kill my own units as my opponents

mateooo said:

yes the scout effect would trigger as he survived combat, regardless if they were ineffective at doing damage, they survived. I think you could attack a burned area in theory, dont see a rule stating you can't, so if scouts survived they would trigger their effect. This is what I know causes the rules tell me so! lol

In my opinion, if your only goal is to make your opponent dis-card... then attack an undefended zone burning or not. Don't think I would use that tactic though...

jaycsin said:

jaycsin said:

Sorry, mate, but you didn't demonstrate anything.

And I explain why:

A- I've READ the Scout rule as I read ALL rules. I can make some "distraction" errors while answerin' fast, as anyone else, but I demonstrate the game once a week and when I'm there, I know what I'm talkin' about.

I didn't WRITE ANYTHING about Scout, SO, I don't know HOW you understood I didn't read the rules.

A non-defending Unit has not survived the combat, so Scout doesn't work. Quote me in the previous posts if I made this mistake, I don't remember. Sorry if I made it, but I'm not workin' here, and sometimes I type without thinkin.

B- Your wording analysis is un-exact and misleading, to me. You talk about partecipating Units, attacking, defending, etc. pointing out the fact that the damage needed to trigger StN is damage IN COMBAT; WHILE the card states DURING COMBAT.

THE BIGGEST error you make, is that you don't consider that PARTECIPATING UNITS can be 0. Otherwise, Combat would never take place without defenders.

If you WERE right, in StN we'd have read "after a partecipating Unit is damaged during Combat..." Answer this. Why it's not worded this way?

All your examples are right, but you NEVER interprete StN as it's written and I DON'T SEE any good reason not to do so.

You argued about conceptual non-senses, dormouse's friendship with Nate, everything...Just READ the card, mate.

C- Again, you make the same mistake of considering the combat started ONCE you declare attackers. STEP 1 is the start of Combat: DECLARE ATTACKED ZONE.

And even if I choose to damage them to corrupt them with StN AFTER the declaration, I KNOW that I don't prevent them from attacking (Have I ever say that I can do something like this?), but I corrupt them. That's the point. We're not arguing about Corruption usage, but Corruption relied on StN.

Anyway, we're DURING COMBAT, so, they are corrupted.

D- Same thing for the RUNESMITH example: they're corrupted cause StN doesn't say "partecipating" but DURING COMBAT.

The WORD DURING CANNOT BE INTERPRETED as "involve all partecipating Unit" by any mean. That's COMBAT. "DURING" is a TIMING reference, that allows us to understand WHEN, along the game, we can trigger StN.

That's it.

FOR MATEOOO

There's no ruling about Burning zone and damage...But, anyway, avoiding another argument and speculation, I'd say that the ACTUAL damage is not important for Scout. You attack with a "scouting" Unit bla bla...assign damage, apply.

Damage can be 0 for lots of reasons, but there's nothin' preventing you from doing ALL the 5 steps. In the end, the unit Survived the combat, thus Scout kicks in.

Now, let's see what happens when a FAQ will come out, tellin' us what to do with burning zones.

I hope this quoting thing works or this post is gonna be a mess

So what you’re telling me is a unit that is not declared a defender and just sits there, is in combat? So, I can use my scout ability every time a zone is attacked in which the dwarven ranger is present (and not defending) because he survived combat right? Come on, answer the question and prove me right!!

Dude, without getting in to a pissing match, you have an eschewed few of what combat is. It doesn’t matter that you play every day or demo the game every week, if you play wrong, you will teach wrong. Combat is dudes hitting other dudes. You keep confusing battlefield phase with combat. Combat is units completing steps 4 and 5, and killing each other, you can’t get any plainer than that.

I asked you to read the scout rules again before answering to insure you were familiar with the rules I would quote and maybe bring in to light the fact that units participate in combat. You say every unit in both zones are in combat during the battlefield phase, which is simply not the case. I stated you didn’t read the scout rule again, as your logic was faulty and it showed when you walk through my examples.

Now on to your remarks...

DB_Cooper said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like quibbling....I’m also sorry that you are closed minded to others pointing out you might be missing part of an issue and pointing to where it is. I know you feel you are an expert because you can “Demo…once a week, I know what I’m talkin’ about.” yeah well, I’m a rocket scientist and I know how to blow stuff up! See what I did there , blow stuff “up” ha ha. I’m not really a rocket scientist, nor are either of us experts at a game that has only been out a month.

DB_Cooper said:

Are you saying that units can choose not to be in combat? Like my ranger in the first example…

DB_Cooper said:

So you are now contradicting your response about “non-defending Unit has not survived the combat, so Scout doesn't work.” Is the ranger in combat or not, does his scout ability work or not?

DB_Cooper said:

How am I making a mistake? Did I not give an example of that very thing? “I choose not to defend with my Runesmith and take the damage to my capital.” This is zero participating units on the defenders side. Yes, the combat continues, but the Runesmith is not in the battle, so is not affected by the Shrine of Nurgle. He is chilling on a hill watching the walls go down.

DB_Cooper said:

Exactly my point, why was the StN not worded that way? Because you are to understand as a player, that “combat” is units fighting and not the whole battlefield phase. This is the mistake you continue to make. Two units fight attacker vs defender, that’s combat. An attacker and defender have a choice who is going to participate in the combat, as stated in black in white in the rules, page 12.

DB_Cooper said:

From what you wrote you are confusing the battlefield phase and combat. Combat happens in step 4 & 5, assigning/applying damage. When I walk up and bash your orc in the face and he kicks me back (assigning damage) and wither I feel the pain or I’m protected by magic and armor is step 5 (applying damage), that is combat. I make no mistake.

DB_Cooper said:

This was not aimed at you particularly, but was included for completeness and others who do read these threads, not just us. When and who a player can corrupt with the StN is very important. You already stated above “that a non-defending unit is not in combat”, so he will be immune to the effects of the StN for that battlefield phase. That is all I was saying and you agreed.

DB_Cooper said:

This is the same argument you made above regarding participating units, so scroll up and read my response…

DB_Cooper said:

Not catching your meaning about comparing “during” and a sentence. I think you are telling me that “During” is a timing reference for when StN can trigger… If indeed you are correct that combat encompasses the entire battlefield phase, then why do we need a timing reference? Why not just say “damaged in the battlefield phase”? Would that not make more sense? But they want the StN to only take effect in step 4 and 5, assigning damage or when units clash and damage each other.
Please take the time to respond in kind. I do value your input. We do agree on many points, it’s just seems to be the issue of when actual combat takes place, over the whole battlefield phase or just a few steps.

mateooo said:

Because it is against FFG policy. A couple of us have already mentioned this as well.

Honestly I'm here to help. When I ask Nate questions he knows I'm doing so for both my own illumination/better understanding of the game and as a representative of the players. I don't get paid or reimbursed/compensated in any fashion for asking these questions or passing the answers on. I do it because people want to know. Occassionaly people like Jaycsin come along and seem to want to argue about how they understand the intent of the designer/developer, even though it goes directly against what they just told me a week ago. All I can do is point out the rules, wording and logic that the ruling was based on. Whether they believe me or not is really up to them, and I frankly don't care. I try to keep it light-hearted when I can, and admittedly sometimes fail when the person disagreeing is rude or condescending, but I'm not invested in "being right" but get annoyed when someone essentially accuses me of lying for my own gain. None of those players are in my meta so it is very unlikely we are going to ever sit across form each other. None of the people in my meta read these forums, so I'm not fronting for them. They know that I correspond and occassionaly even have beer with Nate. This isn't name dropping, he is a friendly guy and if you go to Gencon I'm sure you'll probably have a couple beers with him to. Anyone who has played Thrones or Cthulu for any length of time has probably already done so.

FFG does allow answers to questions to be communicated directly to players but the FAQ is the official method by which they give their rulings en masse. A number of employees past and present have their own thoughts on this, but this is company policy. I can't conceive of FFG letting non-employees making official rulings, or being the sole voice of the company on the forums, it just goes against everything they have done in the past.

I'm here to help. If you don't trust me, believe me, or think my sources themselves are wrong, I invite you to contact FFG yourself. Arguing with me is pointless though. I'll happily explain the why's and wherefors as often as I'm asked, but I won't engage in a debate about what and why when the developer or designer have been the ones who gave the clarification. There have been clarifications transmitted by other players from Nate, I am not the sole source, and even when it is a ruling that falls on the wrong side of my understanding of the relevant rules and card text I go by it. Why would they lie? A FAQ will be out in a timely manner and anyone who has lied for fame or game advantage will be held up to ridicule or summarily dismissed. There is just no profit in it.

jaycsin said:

You are operating under few false assumptions here, this is not my opinion. I always state my opinion as such. When I have a ruling from Nate on the subject I state it so people understand it is not my opinion, but I'm relaying information. You can trust it or not.

The second is that the policy regarding posting has to do with strict single point of mass information. They don't want their forums to be the place people go to for the official answers spread over dozens of threads some hidden, some horribly degenerative, and others mostly off-topic. They want the primary single point of mass communication to be the FAQ which they put a lot of time into developing and designing.

NAte is the developer and wrote the rules to the game. Eric Lang contracts with FFG while Nate is a full time employee. Any rulings that happen, as well as any erratta are going to come through him. Certainly Eric and Christian will have input, sometimes sizable, but the day to day rulings, clarifications, and eratta will come form Nate, and even Eric and Christian's thoughts/desires/rulings will go through Nate, or at least his position if, God forbid, he ever left.

I don't claim to speak for te company, I claim to say what the company's #1 rules guy has told me are the official rulings of the game. Nate does represent the company in this, though I do not represent Nate. I'm simply sharing what he has shared with me, just as I hope you will.

jaycsin said:

Which is funny, because if you apply this same logic you end up with the ruling Nate gave about StN.

1) The card says during combat, nowhere in any rule does it say damage done during combat must be done by units participating in combat.
2) The rules do say non-combat damage happens outside of the assign/apply steps of participating units. You are interpreting that to mean that non-combat damage cannot be done during the 5 steps of combat. You are essentially creating a rule that is not there and not supported.
3) We already know that effects can cause damage by non-participating units during the 5 Combat steps. The wording on StN then kicks in.

It honestly sounds like you are trying to justify why it shouldn't work based on your interpretation of intent of the designers rather on strict interpretation of the relevant rules.

Jaycsin, combat is not steps 4 & 5. Combat is clearly stated in the rules on page 12 as all 5 steps, which as DB points out begins with the declaration of a zone as the target of attack. Immediately following there is a response phase. Combat has began, and this response phase is the first opportunity for any card effect to be used, which makes it during combat.

A unit must be participating as an attacker or defender to be in combat, but whether it is a participant or not is not relevant to what happens to it while combat is ongoing. If I am sitting in the Green Zone in Bagdad and someone starts launching mortar rounds outside of it, one of those mortars can come my way and hit my building. I can be injured during combat, even if I am not directly involved. That is what collateral damage is all about. Combat is not two dudes hitting each other, it is a state of time defined as the initiation of an attack which sees itself all the way through to the point of resolution. Stray bullets hit non-combatants all the time. It is the reason why we have such strict rules of engagement.

A unit with the Scout keyword must participate because the rules say so. It must survive through the apply damage phase (even if no damage is actually applied) because the rules say so.

I believe you misunderstood DB, he is a non-native English speaker so his grammar sometimes is not as clear as it could be, but he is saying just as above - A unit with the keyword must partipate and survive all the way through the 5th step of Combat in order to cause a card discard.

Also there are experts in the game. While the game itself has been in general release for a month, it was available in a pre-release at Gencon so some people have been in posession of the game for three months. There are also the playtesters who have had the game for probably six months or more. There are also people who were taught to play by Nate himself at Gencon and other times. All of them are likely to have a greater familiarity with the rules than someone who picked up at the local game store four weeks ago. You can certainly make a valid argument that anyone of them may be playing wrong, but it weakens greatly when used against those taught by Nate or who were playtesters.

Even if we put those two groups aside, the more games you play the more likely you are to see situations that arise rarely, as well as seeing patterns in card text and rule interaction that usually go unnoticed by someone with only a handful of weeks exposure to the game.

I'll answer any questions you pose, but I don't see any value in where this conversation seems to be going. Degenerating into a ***-for-tat point by point, line by line examination of the rules without being able to acknowledge basic points is not going to lead anywhere. The FAQ will come out, this will be addressed, and Nate will either make an errata based on his feelings of the power of the combo or he won't but continue to keep a watchful eye. If he does make the eratta I will be the first one to call for some form of global unit control effect to be released for Chaos or some dark twisting of the Dwarven ability to heal damage to their capitol (a major reason why along with Master Rune of Valaya they don't have a massive unit-hate effect/combo).

Dormouse said

"A unit must be participating as an attacker or defender to be in combat"

Thats all I need to hear....