kinda cool that the ruling is based on the rulebook. so the answer was there, we just needed to find it.

But if you have to dig through caves to find a rule answer, it is a bad rulebook. A good rulebook mentions each thing at least twice and easyily findable.

jogo said:

I don't agree with this sentence.

Even the simpliest game in the world needs a FAQ or some clarifications.

Think about the infinite possibilities/occurencies that may happen...It's impossible to "anticipate" all of 'em.

EVERY rulebook needs an interpretation, cause rules, especially in an ever-espanding game, are often over-ride by card effects, hidden behind weird game effects and consequences.

I know that the actual rulebook can be done better than this, but it's not a BAD rulebook: it's clear, easy to read and makes the basic game pretty understandable.

FAQs will do the rest.

IMHO.

seriously, this is a living card game, with hundreds of cards and thousands of combinations. you can not put every possible explanation or every card combination in one rulebook, unless that rulebook is thousands of pages long.

A decent rulebook can have some bad parts, or be incomplete. The fact that such common terms as "deal damage" and "combat damage" aren't defined isn't good. You may not be able to cover everything, but leaving out commonly used terms such as those is a rather bad oversight.

With the ruling on dealing damage, does this mean that damage assigned to a unit during the battlefield phase and then cancelled by toughness or any other effect will cause that unit to be corrupted by Shrine to Nurgle's effect?

vengefulspirit said:

Nope, because Shrine to Nurgle's says "DAMAGED". Damag-ed means "effectively hit by damage".

It doesn't talk about "dealing damage". So, a Unit with Toughness which cancels the damage WON'T BE corrupted by StN.

Found something odd earlier... If we start with this

Lafi said:

How do we reconclie that with this:

If an attacked section of a capital is dealt damage that surpasses the number of hit points it has remaining

If damage is dealt when assigned to the damage pool, and the rule for burning sections says the above, then does that mean that a section will be burned regardless of any cancellation or redirection abilities?

Terms are all mixed up in the rulebook. Go with the spirit of the rules rather than as the devil reading the bible (I'm an atheist, but I love that expression ).

Buhallin said:

Also indirect damage. Also the question of damage to burning areas.... (resolved issues but issues not described in the rulebook)

i do agree. There are some VERY notable omissions from this rulebook.

I feel comfortable saying that this game is IMPOSSIBLE to play correctly relying solely on the rulebook and cards. Even Dormouse, a player who has argueably the deepest understanding of the rules and has played numerous games with the designers of the games has made incorrect interpretations of the rules. Is there ANYONE who is playing the game correctly?

This doesnt mean the game is a bad game. Im just saying that if you gave this game to 100 different players who didnt have the internet and didnt communicate with eachother, very few if any of those players would play the game the same way or interpret card combinations the same way. And I would be willing to wager anything that NO ONE would play the game correctly, as intended by Nate and Eric.

This is disappointing, but not uncorrectable. Hopefully they will come up with a new ,complete, comprehensive and consistent rulebook and FAQ so that players will be able to play the game as it was meant to be played. Its just a shame because it is so easy to type a few new rules and rule clarifications into the rulebook, and type a few FAQs for the many MANY MANY common rule misinterpretations. Why dont the designers just do this? I think its been long enough now. Their fans will love them for it. I know I would, because I really do like this game. I just hate the anger it ignites in my friends when they play the game and can't figure out how to resolve some very common issues, and I cant point to a page in the rulebook to explain why the interpretation Ive previously researched is correct. I dont want to have to play this game with a computer next to me. a printed out FAQ, maybe, but I dont want to sift through hundreds of posts and try to find the correct ruling which is buried in numerous incorrect guesses.

Mateooo they are doing it. The FAQ is in the works as we speak. You can't have a FAQ until there are frequently asked questions. Most of the questions coming up are covered in the rules but it is players misinterpreting things because they are trying to play the game according to their own biased interpretation (this includes me) developed from playing other games. Forseeing which of these is going to be a common problem and adding clarifications to the rulebook is not easy. Take an existing game you know well and try and create a rulebook for people who have never played it before. Making the book short enough and simple enough for someone to get through it in 30 minutes or less and cover every possible misinterpretation and wrong conclusion is, if not impossible, statistically improbable.

There some definite places the rules could use improvement and clarification, we all agree on this. I just think the expectations for the basic rulebook in the core game is a little high.

but I want it Noooooooooooow. And Im gonna stomp my feet and hold my breath until I get it.

Ild love a post from the designers saying so, though. and an estimated date.

I don't have any problem with DEALING damage.

- After a Unit as assigned damage, damage is dealt (Nate's definition).

- After a zone is dealt damage equal...etc...(Rulebook definition).

I know it may not be correct, but is an easy way to handle the problem: damage is DEALT after assign, but a Zone/Unit is considered to has been dealt damage after the damage actually hits it.

For game purposes, I trigger SM after assigned damage, but I trigger "after this unit/zone is dealt damage" stuff when a pool of damage (1 or more) is actually put on the card.

If I'm running a tournament I cannot stop it sayin' "Hey, guys, let's go home, we need a FAQ!" I have to make a choice. And THIS is the logical choice taken from what we know about dealing damage, even if it's not "Intetionally" or "polititcally" correct.

Even if confusing, that's the only ruling we have.

One could maybe say then:
Things dealt damage, after they moved it to the damage pool.
Things is dealt damage to, if damage has been moved on them.

If we would not have dealt in both sentences, it would be quite clear.

Damage is dealt by a unit when they add damage to the damage pool.

Damage is inflicted on a unit or zone when that damage has been applied.