Hi everyone new to the forums and i have a couple of rules questions (this game seriously needs an official faq or someone from the rules team to answer questions here).

Q1. Orc Hero Urguck: "During your capital phase, you may spend damage on this unit as though it were resources."

How does this ability work exactly? There seems to be no in built way to record how many resources he will generate and how many you have spent, so this could get confusing. So do you use resource counters and keep them seperate from your kingdomly generated resources? Also does the word "spend" imply that the damage counters are removed in the same way as spent resource counters?

Q2. Orc Tactic We'z Bigga!: "Lower the cost of the next unit you play this turn by 1. That units comes into play with 1 damage on it."

What happens if you play multiples? I'm certain that it would lower the cost by 2 - 3, but how much damage would the unit enter play with? 2 -3 or 1? Does each copy cause a damage or does the unit "enter play with 1 damage on it", as the card states?

Q3. Orc Unit Followers of Mork: "After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage."

How does this damage interact with toughness? Is the damage assigned 1 at a time or is it assigned as 2 points of damage?

Q4. Dwarf Support Grudge Thrower: "Spend 1 resource and sacrifice a unit to have each attacking or defending unit gain 1 power until end of turn."

Can the ability be used when there are no attackers or defenders? The text does not have the word target in it, so does it have to be used in combat? If yes, i understand that the power bonus would be cancelled, but you could trigger the Dwarf Ranger's text.

Q5. Support Contested Fortress: "Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn."

The effect on this card is constant as it does not have the bolded word Action or Forced. The rulebook states "Card effects that do not have a bold trigger are considered constant effects. Constant effects continually affect the game state, as long as the card is in play and any other specified conditions are met."

The effect contains no timing words, such as "the first" and has no specific conditions to meet, such as "during combat". Controllers of constant effects cannot choose when they are and are not active. There is also no implication of choice in the text of the effect. So what damage does this prevent? Is it the first point of damage dealt to the capital or can a player hold the effect back to cancel later damage caused?

vengefulspirit said:

That's the understanding I've gotten, consider damage tokens on him as spendable resource during the capital phase (IIRC, that's the limitation per Urguck's card).

vengefulspirit said:

Not sure TBH. Probably cost and damage are cumulative, so -2 cost, 2 dmg.

vengefulspirit said:

You assign 2 points of damage, but since each player can assign their own damage, you can put 1 dmg on one Unit, 1 dmg on your Capital for example.

vengefulspirit said:

There is requirement for having attackers or defenders. You can use GT in your Quest or Capital Phase if you like, giving the possiblity of +1 Power to all attackers, but in fact, use the sacrifice just for Dwarf Ranger.

vengefulspirit said:

It will prevent 1 damage from any source, barring uncancellable damage of course. You have 1 point to cancel per turn (per CF), you use it when you want, but you have to use it during the "apply damage" window, since that is when Toughness and other cancelling takes place.

Thank you for your response. The main problem im having with these issues is that the rulebook does not clarify any of them, I have a feeling as to how the cards were intended but the rules as written seem contradictory or confusing. We really need an FAQ or some rules team help.

Dam said:

Q1. Orc Hero Urguck: "During your capital phase, you may spend damage on this unit as though it were resources."

You can spend "DAMAGE" in the same way you spend resources: moving them to the pool.

Q2. Orc Tactic We'z Bigga!: "Lower the cost of the next unit you play this turn by 1. That units comes into play with 1 damage on it."

Dam's right. One damage for every We'z bigga! you play.

Q3. Orc Unit Followers of Mork: "After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage."

During game rounds, damage is assigned and then applied in the same way it happens during combat. Assign them and then apply them one at a time. Then, in the apply step, Toughness cancels the right number.

Q4. Dwarf Support Grudge Thrower: "Spend 1 resource and sacrifice a unit to have each attacking or defending unit gain 1 power until end of turn."

Usually, the word "each" (or "all") mean "any number" (it can be "0")...At the same time, the text "implies" an actual attack/defense...

It's a complicated question, even if, as it reads, I'd rule that you can use it at any time (no limitations).

Q5. Support Contested Fortress: "Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn."

You're both right, in some sense...In another thread my answer was "cancel 1 damage of your choice". But as you suggest, there's no trigger.

The fact that it has been designed and worded this way, makes me think...Defend the Border, i.e., redirects the "FIRST".

I'd interpret this wording choice as an explicit will of make this effect work in a different way.

So, I guess, even if I have not a "bold trigger", I have a passive that allows me to choose and cancel "ONE" damage each turn, not the FIRST.

Thanks for responding D B Cooper.

We've asked these questions in our gaming group and I've posted them on 2 different forums.

So far, the answers to the first 3 questions are pretty consistent.

4 and 5 however throw up different discussions.

4.

This is definately a question of intent and spirit vs design. The rules would imply that you can use it at any time, but the intent would be that you have attackers or defenders. I lean towards being able to use whenever you want, but the effect is lost if you have no units in combat.

5.

The main problem is, is that we have been given a card that doesn't work within the rules.

I hope we get an FAQ soon as at the moment all we can do is discuss the questions amongst each other and this will result in different play groups playing cards in different ways.

Those are very inteligent/complicated questions, as I said.

Anyway, until Faq comes out, I'd rule them this way (after lot of reasoning):

Grudge Thrower: even if I may seem psychotic, I don't agree with my previous post. I wouldn't allow players to use Grudge's action at any time for a simple principle: "Do X to do Y" effects can become TOO powerful if out of control. The best thing to do (and that's what I wish for the FAQ) is "don't allow X if you there's no Y".

If FFG allows players to use Grudge Thrower at any time, we'd have:

- great "self-removal" for combos (i.e. after this unit leaves play kill the opponent, etc.)

- free "powers" on kingdom/quest.

It's too much for a "1 Cost" card and for such an effect...

So, I KNOW that it's not official and maybe not so "near" the rules, but if you're running a tournament what you need is a "fast" solution and I guess that's it.

Contested Fortress: it's a serious doubt...

I can say that, as i said for other cards, it's bad worded and appearently in conflict with the rules.

In the end, even if I'm not so convinced, I'd say you HAVE to choose the FIRST damage taken, just for the fact that a Constant effect is "continously affecting" the game and it's something like an imperative (it happens). To avoid some troubles we're not able to face during a competition, yet, I'd rule it this way.

hmm, i must be missing some sort of brutal combo, but my interpretation on these would be

Grudge Thrower: Battlefield. Action: Spend 1 resource and sacrifice a unit to have each attacking or defending unit gain l until the end of the turn.

I believe you would not need an attacking or defending unit at the time of the playing of the card to use it.

The rules say "All costs must be played and any targets must be chosen when the action is triggered, regardless of whether or not the effect resolves immediately." When you play the card, you have to choose to target "attacking or defending units", and for the rest of the turn, any units that are designated as either "attacking" or "defending" (depending on which you picked) would be affected accordingly.

So, if you play it during your turn, during the capital phase, you would likely say "All attacking units will get +1 power) and then if you declare combat and designate attacking units during the battlefield phase, they would get +1 power until the end of the turn.

Contested Fortress: Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn.

whats the issue here? You get to choose one damage to your capital to cancel. At no point does it suggest you have to choose the 1st, 2nd, third, worst, best, ugliest, scoutiest, sadistic mutationist, fattest, loneliest damage to prevent. It just says, "Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn"

I understand that the rules indicate that this has a constant state, meaning

Card effects that do not have a bold trigger are considered constant effects. Constant effects continually affect the game state, as long as the card is in play and any other specified conditions are met.

But this does not imply that the effect has to be triggered as soon as possible. The card is simply constantly AVAILABLE until a specified condition is met (only one point can be canceled each turn).

Orc Unit Followers of Mork:"After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage.

[How does this damage interact with toughness? Is the damage assigned 1 at a time or is it assigned as 2 points of damage?]

Not sure what you mean by "assigned 1 at a time". Do you mean can you split the damage up among 2 sources? if so... yes!

If you mean, can I assign one point to a 1 toughness unit, cancel the 1 point of damage, and then apply a second point of damage to the same unit, and then cancel the second point of damage... the answer is No!

You have a single source of damage (the card effect). You assign your damage to 1 or 2 targets, and then apply the damage. If you assigned 2 to a unit with toughness 1, only one of the damage could be prevented (NOT TWO).

Actually, Grudge Thrower is not targetting anything. You have a TARGET when you "explicitly" have one: words like "target" and "choose" are "always" there to suggest you that the effect involves a target.

Here, we have the word "each" that doesn't indicate a single Target, but a "general game condition" (attacking) and can involve any number of Units (each, that can be "0").

Now, as I said, I'd rule that you have to do it WITH attacking or defending units, but NOT for a "targetting" reason, but for the fact that otherwise, you'd be allowed to sacrifice your own Units at any time and EVEN if we don't have a combo RIGHT NOW, you may have one in the future...let's talk about at the simple DWARF RANGER...You can STILL trigger it (cause all the things you have to do is to declare attackers/defender), but at least you have a "strict" game condition to do it.

IMHO.

Out of interest which other forums did you post this too?

With regards to Grudge Thrower as written, I think you can do it any time you like, as often as you like. Although as it says "attackers or defenders" you'll only get the bonus on units that are actually attacking or defending at the time.

I think to avoid degenracy this card needs to be errated. (limit once per turn) would probably do...

I agree with the cosensus on 1, 2 & 3

Bungo_Underhill said:

I guess you may be right (as I initially thought about the issue), but right now, if I was a TO, I'd have rule it as I explained in my previous post.

DB_Cooper said:

Choose does not indicate something is targeted, only the word target indicates that.

As to Grudge thrower, you must pay all costs and make all decisions and meet all restrictions. There is nothing in the wording of the card to say that it is required to be used during the battlefield phase, because it does not target any units (all effects calling for a target must have a legal target), there is no restriction on the card or cost for its ability that cannot be met outside of the battlefield phase. As such it can be used at any time a player may take an action. Of course because it does not say end of phase it creates a constant effect until the end of the turn so you will still get the benefit when you attack or defend.

Is this contrary to their intent? I suppose it could be, but it would have been so easy to have put in the requirement of Battlefield phase or make its effect end at the end of the phase rather than turn which all strongly imply that they could have meant it this way. My suggestion is, as always, play it the way it is worded, and send it to Nate for confirmation/clarification.

vengefulspirit said:

How does this card not work within the rules? Each of your questions is addressed by the rules with the exception of Grudge Thrower, which understandably is causing some confusion.

As you know, dorm, I always prefer to play cards as written.

Reading and re-reading it and thinkin' about what you wrote, I guess I'll leave it work as it is, even if I'd word it in a different way, just to avoid confusion and allow broken combos outside the combat with a card specifically thought for combat.

ANYWAY, this is just a CONSIDERATION and I admit my interpretation mistake.

dormouse said:

dormouse said:

As a card effect, Contested Fortress doesn't work in that it is a constant effect which a player has no control over and there is no opportunity to choose which piece of damage to your capital is cancelled. Ie, the first or can the effect be held back to cancel later damage.

In this rule system, the templating of this type of effect is very difficult.

Constant effects are active all the time and the controlling player cannot choose to turn them off and on at will.

Action effects require a step in which they can be used and so would only be able to cancel damage assigned in step 4 of combat.

Forced effects can trigger when needed but they would require a once per turn clause meaning that only the first point of damage would be cancelled. They could cancel more damage with multiples but only if the damage was dealt from the same effect.

These are just my first thoughts, so i can understand how difficult the effect would be to design. I'm hoping for an official ruling so that it will be easier to consistently interpret future effects.

(This is the unofficially the official ruling by the way)

You are right it is not an action, the player who controls the Contested Fortress has no choice in how or when to trigger this, just like Bloodthirster's "Damage may not be canceled."

As the rules say, "Constant Effects continually affect the game state as long as the card is in play and any other specified conditions are met." In this specific case the specified conditions that must be met is

A) 1 or more damage must be assigned to your capitol

B) this ability must not have successfully resolved previously this round.

It triggers itself as soon as both conditions are met. You were never intended to be able to choose when to trigger it. The only choice you have is if multiple damage is assigned to your capitol simultaneously, you can determine which of those areas it is going to cancel a point of damage from. Since this was what it was meant to do it is worded properly (though it could have used some clarification text saying what you may not or have to do, they chose to let the rules governing Constant Effects explain it rather than the card itself).

We can certainly say without argument the card might have been written more clearly but to say it breaks the rules when it doesn't is going a bit far IMO. It may challenge a players assumptions, but I assure you the card does not break the rules.

So, do Nate and Eric say that Contested Fortress is not controlled by the player, and prevents the first damage? If they say so, then it is so.

If this is the case, then what happens if you have Defend the Borders in play? Im assuming that you are able to CHOOSE NOT to prevent the 1st point of damage, so that Defend the Border can, and in which case you are to able to let Contested Fortress prevent the 2nd point of damage. Seems to go with the rules.

If this is not a "Nate and Eric say so ruling", then Ill wait for the FAQ, as it seems sufficiently unclear. They specifically chose to NOT use the term "prevent the 1st damage to the capital' and instead left it vague, suggesting they had a different intention with this ability.

It is a Nate clarification (through game play, not email).

Here is where it gets interesting, They are both constant effects, the active player gets to resolve the order in which conflicting constant effects resolve. However it is important to note that Cancel happens after damage assignment AND the action window, during the Apply damage window but before application, while a redirect would happen after application, so they aren't even conflicting constant effects.

Contested Fortress resolves first canceling one point of damage for each Contested Fortress you have in play. After damage is applied Defend the Border redirects the first one that actually hit your Capitol.

I know I'm going back a bit since the discussion has focused on the Grudge Thrower, but...

Why would two We'z Bigga do two damage to the played unit? It doesn't say "Put one damage token on this unit when it comes into play", it says "It enters play with 1 damage". That's an absolute number, not an extra token. Both cards say the unit enters play with 1 - if you say it enters play with 1 damage twice, it still just enters play with one damage.

Because each one must be resolved fully and completely and separately. You can't get the first effect without the second effect, and you can't cancel the damage because it is neither assigned nor applied, the card comes into play with the damage. So two We'z Bigga, two damage.

But by the time the second card resolves, the second condition is already met. The unit has come into play with 1 damage.

Buhallin said:

If you don't resolve both We'z Bigga at the same time (when playing a Unit), you wouldn't get -2 cost, would you? Unit doesn't come into play until you pay the cost and play it. When the Unit comes into play, it comes into play with 1 dmg for each We'z Bigga.

That isn't a condition it is part of the effect of the card. It must be applied. There is no choice and there is nothing that implies that you have a choice about applying it. You are saying if the card read, raise the number of power icons by 1, place one resource in your resource pool, or move one card from the top of your deck to your hand, that once it has been done it wouldn't happen again no matter how many of the cards you played. There is nothing in the rules or on the card that states this is a card state check or is a singular condition that once met cannot, or should not be applied again.

All cards that add a thing or subtract a thing without specific restriction are stackable. Here with each We'z Bigga you are subtracting the resource cost of the card by -1 and placing +1 damage on it.

All requirments, costs, and condition checks are written before the effect of a card or are included in the same sentence as the cards effect and written with a if X is true do Y format.

I've explained my reasoning, I don't think there is anything new I can add to it, but I'd highly recommend you send this to Nate. The reasoning you are using creates a very bad precedent which can be used to apply to all sorts of negative effects intended to balance cards, i.e. if you have two Doom Divers in play using this line of reasoning I only have to sacrifice 1 development to avoid damage because it is a condition that has to be met not an effect that must be resolved for each DD in play.

dormouse said:

The problem is that your other comparisons don't say the same thing as what We'z Bigga says.

All cards that add a thing or subtract a thing without specific restriction are stackable. Here with each We'z Bigga you are subtracting the resource cost of the card by -1 and placing +1 damage on it.

And this is not what We'z Bigga says. If it said "Place a damage token on the unit", then it would be fine. But it doesn't say that. It says it comes into play with one damage. There are a multitude of cards which inflict a damage point to a unit, which are not worded like this. It's not a modifier, it's not an action to be taken, it's an absolute. It does not say "place +1 damage on it" or "place 1 damage on it" or "unit takes one damage" or "apply 1 damage to unit". It says "Unit comes into play with one damage". EXACTLY one damage. Depending on timing and precedence, I'd argue that a hypothetical unit which enters play with 2 damage on it to start would only have one, if We'z Bigga was used for it.

The reasoning you are using creates a very bad precedent which can be used to apply to all sorts of negative effects intended to balance cards, i.e. if you have two Doom Divers in play using this line of reasoning I only have to sacrifice 1 development to avoid damage because it is a condition that has to be met not an effect that must be resolved for each DD in play.

Again, no. You're assuming my interpretation has a broader impact, but you're getting there by assuming your interpretation. Multiple cards taking the same action which are resolved separately, but do the same thing, are fine - In the case of the Doom Divers the same action is taken twice, but by the time the first one has resolved, the first target isn't there any more and can't be selected. In the case of We'z Bigga, the action specifies an absolute. It enters play with exactly one damage. If you say that twice, it's still one damage.

Since it is not set as a condition check, there is no check. It gives an absolute for that cards effect on the unit, not an absolute on the unit. If you are certain send it to Nate for official clarification and inclusion in the FAQ. Having him back it up will end all discussion. Until then you are saying this card operates and is formated differently than every other card in this game and that is just hard to swallow.

Regading the DD, no it does not give any indication that it should be handled any differently than your interpretation of WB. Why is this not a conditional check but yours is? What about your language states that if it comes into play with one damage on it it can not come into play with any other amount of damage on it? DD says "After your turn begins, each player must either sacrifice a development or deal 1 damage to each section of his capital." It says 1 development, why is that not an absolute concerning the prevention of damage to the capitol after my turn begins?

WB says - Do this. This happens. Two affects in one effect. It does not say remove or reduce anything. It does not say ignore anything. Therefor you cannot. You cannot remove, reduce, or ignore any other damage it would receive, have placed on it, or other changes to its game state upon entry into play because the card does not specifically direct you to do so. Do this. This happens.

I've got a feeling we are going to go round after round about this, and be wholly unproductive. Send it to Nate. Or tell me and I will.

If you go with the literal interpretation of the We'z bigga description it doesn't matter how many of these cards you play the next unit comes with only 1 damage token on it. Although I'm almost certain that the intention of the designers were that the unit takes 1 damage for each We'z Bigga. Just one more case of "why didn't they notice that and fix the wording". Anyone with half the brain could've fixed almost all of these issues with wordings after one day of playing the game.