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.

Is there another card with the same wording? If the wording is different from every other card in the game, why is it so hard to swallow that it's actually different from every other card in the game?

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?

Wha? Okay, I'm going to be blunt here - you're getting idiotic. DEAL 1 DAMAGE is an action. SACRIFICE A DEVELOPMENT is an action. Neither of them have anything to do with preventing damage, why would you even suggest they did? Both do exactly what they say they do. "Comes into play with one damage" is not an action, it is a statement which defines the ending state. Can you really not see the difference in the wording here?

As a matter of fact, if you play it the way you want to, you're breaking the card's rule. It says "Comes into play with one damage". If you resolve two of them and apply a damage for each, how much damage does the unit have when it comes into play? You're choosing to change the meaning on the card, with absolutely nothing to support doing so.

But fine, whatever... At this point I agree this will be wholly unproductive as long as you refuse to address the actual wording on the card. I'll send it off to Nate.

Idiotic? Really? Is that the strength of your conviction and reasoning talking there or because you have become impassioned with being correct. Whatever.

Or why don't you just go ahead and amil him - I just spent five minutes hunting for how to submit the rules question, and couldn't find anything. Awesome support, that.

dormouse said:

You compare it to a card which has absolutely NOTHING in common with the game text at issue here, and you do so over and over. You pull example effect actions from that card which have absolutely NOTHING in common with the effect at issue here, and you do so over and over. Yes, I think that's pretty idiotic.

The core of this issue is that the wording on We'z Bigga is unique from pretty much anything else in the game. You choose to ignore that, and make the words mean something else entirely. You then take that altered meaning, and compare it to another card as an example, completely ignoring the circular logic.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I think it's a pretty idiotic comparison. If you would care to point out why you believe the cards function identically despite the completely different wording, I'd be happy to reevaluate.

Wait. You can't find where to submit questions and we are supposed to buy your line of reasoning on cards?

new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_faq.asp

Being dismissed or made to look stupid isn't so fun is it? If you can't stop yourself from name calling or trying to paint people on the opposite side of you in a debate as being idiotic, perhaps you should just stop engaging in the activity instead of violating the FFG Forum Policy.

That said this will be our last exchange.

Well, when I went looking for the place to submit rules questions for Warhammer: Invasion I looked on the Warhammer: Invasion page. The page highlights itself nicely in the rich brown, making the common block below easy to miss. Given that the link for "Rules Questions" is in a very small font at the bottom of the page in a low-contrast color which doesn't display as a link, I can happily blame bad usability - not that I'd really feel the need to storm off in a huff of hurt feelings rather than addressing the issue at hand regardless.

It's kinda funny, really... I'm an interface designer and usability expert for the day job. To a usability expert, if a user fails to find something it's the designer's fault, not the user's. trying to call me an idiot for missing what really is a very bad display choice didn't do much more than highlight your ignorance on that particular topic. I assume you'll decide that's an insult too, but it's really just a statement of fact, just as I was ignorant about how to submit a rules question.

But now that I've managed to track it down, I'll go ahead and submit our little quandry since you don't seem inclined to address the issue any more.

I hate doing this, cause it's not so correct from a netiquette point of view, but I'm going to defend dormouse and the reasons are:

1- I think he's one of the most willing and gentle around here with old and new players (as I always try to be);

2- Some Users are going a little bit out of the border with some sentences...We started with the "Nate friendship" argument...Went on with tons of "flaming" post (even if well hidden)...

It's pretty difficult for me to handle and explain this situation in english, but what I want to say is that we're going "outside" the civil conversation limits. We're here to discuss about rules: I said what I think, dormouse did and EVERYONE ELSE did...But, here and in other recent topics, some users tend to be a bit SARCASTIC (just to be gentle) and not in a constructive way.

AND the fact that it began EXACTLY when some opinions have been in contrast with the others, makes me think that it depends a lot on a little LACK of self-control...

EVERYONE can say his opinion, here...But with all due respect and a bit of "thinkin' before writing".

Now, please, let's try to come back to the "usual" forum and be a bit more mature. Everyone.

Asked and Answered -

"Hi Damon,

The two sources of damage are not aware of the other's existence, and both affect the card simultaneously when it comes into play.

So the card would come into play with 1 damage from Source A, and 1 damage from Source B, or 2 damage total.

Nate"

Going back to the Contested Fortress questions:

Contested fortress has a cancellation effect in place. Can I use this effect when assigning indirect damage to the capital?

E.g. if I've got 1 burning zone and two zones with 2 remaining HP each and 2 contested fortresses and no units in play,

can I assign 3 indirect damage to one of the two remaining zones taking 2 damage-worth calncellation effect in the air into account?

Or am I still limited with 2 HP for each zone and will need to split 3 into 1 and 2 and assign to both zones?

I would assume this works the same way as units, where you have to assign enough damage to kill it, including cancellation effects. I don't think this is specifically outlined in the rules, but I also don't think it matters. If you have 2 Contested Fortress, why would it matter if you assigned 2 damage to 1 zone and 1 to the other, or 3 to a single zone? In either case, you are effectively just dealing 1 damage to a zone of your choice.