wording questions

By AbuChris, in Warhammer Invasion Rules Questions

Warpstone Meteor states something along the lines of "each player must corrupt a unit in the corresponding zone, or take one damage on capital"
(sorry, don't have the game here atm, so can't quote accurately)

Question is: MUST you choose to corrupt a unit if able, or can you choose to take the damage, even if a unit is able to corrupt?

Followers of Mork states "indirect damage"... does this include both capital and units, so I can choose any which way I want?

Final issue: Active player assigns attackers, Passive player assigns defenders, Active player corrupts a defender. is the corrupted defender removed from combat? And/Or is the corrupted defender considered a defender still?

these came from our first four playthroughs of a surprisingly refreshing card game :)


Let's see...

1- The word must and an interpretation of the whole sentence lets me give this answer: you HAVE to corrupt one unit. If you CAN't, take one damage. There's no choice. For a choice, other wordings would be more appropriated (each player chooses to corrput one unit in the corresponding zone or to take one damage...).

2- We tried to find an ultimate answer about indirect damage in a previous thread, but noone agreed in a single version. But i'm pretty SURE of my previous answer, so i'll write it again.

Let's see how many types of damage we have (by words):

- Combat damage: damage dealt by Units during combat.

- Indirect damage: normal damage that is allocated by the "passive" player.

- Damage: when you don't find any word near damage, it means that the text specifies the target.

So, about Followers of Mork, you can deal that damage to the capital or to a unit.

3- Now...This thread it's about wording...So, let me roleplay a Professor, for a second.. gran_risa.gif "Assign" is not the proper word to use with attackers/defenders. You "declare" attackers or defenders. Assign is about damage. Just to be clear and avoid doubts (PROFESSOR MODE: OFF).

The "Corrputed" state is important if at the time in which you have to declare attackers/defenders (step 3 in the case you're the passive player). In your game example, you have "already" declared defenders. So, if we follow the logical flow of the steps, you've already passed the "able to be declared as att/def" check.

If a Unit is corrupted at that point, it doesn't matter anymore.

At least until rules say specifically that a Corrupted Unit is removed from the challenge, but there's nothing similare in the actual rulebook.

Hope this make sense.


Indirect damage is just that, any damage not directed. A certain amount of damage must be assigned somewhere but there is no clear requirement by the card causing it where it must go (another way to look at it, is as un-targeted damage). Each player gets to determine where it will be assigned without restriction (excepting that damage must be assigned to a card you control).

I was unaware there was confusion about this. What else have people been saying? Which thread is this brought up in.

I don't remember the actual thread, but there were 4/5 posts about this issue...I'll try to find it, dorm. :-)

dormouse said:

Each player gets to determine where it will be assigned without restriction (excepting that damage must be assigned to a card you control).

Does that mean that it can't be dealt to one's own capital?

You can do it. What dormouse tried to explain (correct me, if I'm wrong, dorm) is that you CANNOT choose and assign that damage to an opponent card (it would be a "suicide" for the controller ;-)).

Obviously, that's true unless a card states otherwise.