If I take damage to my capital in a way that allows me to choose which zone takes the damage, there is nothing in the rules that prevents me from assigning the damage to a burning zone. Yet playing this way breaks a number of cards in practice, so I've houseruled that you can't do that. Besides, it seems the intent not to be able to assign damage to a burning zone. Still, the rules do not disallow this.

Also, might this possibly be worthy of an erratum / rules clarification / place in the faq?

I think it's been pretty widely accepted that the Burning Zone can't have damage applied to it after it's burning. Part of the reason is once a zone becomes burning, you get rid of all damage tokens and put one burning token there. Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to put damage tokens on it after it is burning.

ventura72 said:

This is exactly why I think there should be an errata, since there is nothing in the rules that says this. It makes sense from a design and gameplay perspective, but it's not what the rules say.

karat said:

Rules don't state the opposite, neither.

It's like assignin' damage to a "dead" Unit. The fact that you "remove all damage tokens" means that you can't damage that zone anymore.

DB_Cooper said:

No, it's not like assigning damage to a "dead" unit. "Dead" units aren't in play. The rules do tell you which units you can assign damage to, and units in your discard pile aren't on the list.

The rules do say that you can assign damage to capital zones. There is no rule that changes that for a burning zone, so actually yes, the rules DO state the opposite. If "removing all damage tokens" meant that you couldn't damage something from then on, then Valkyria and Stubborn Refusal would be rather insanely powerful. Once a section is burning the damage is irrelevant, which may easily be the only motivation for removing the tokens. Why track something you don't have to?

I'm also not 100% sure what may be intended. I could certainly see the ability to assign damage to a burning zone as providing a certain "toughening up" as someone takes that step closer to losing. <shrug> The rules clearly allow it, which leaves us yet again in trying to guess what the designers intended.

the ruling from the designers, according to Dormouse, is that you can not assign or apply damage to a burning area.

It is NOT explained in any way in the rulebook (neither for or against), so technically you cant make any arguement by quoting the rulebook, and no matter how you interpret the rules or apply logic, there is no answer to be found. Just trust what the designers have SAID.

This means you cant redirect damage to a burning section, and you cant trigger abilities like sadistic mutation by attacking a burning area and DEALING damage on it.

<sigh> My capital for an FAQ.

But you can still attack a burning zone, right? Which means a Scout could still trigger?

absolutely. Attack a burning zone all you want. you just cant assign, deal or apply damage to it. And, though the rulebook is unclear on this, you CAN trigger the scout ability by having the scout survive an attack on a burning area, according to the designers according to Dormouse.

It is very disappointing that there is no FAQ on this. Personally, I think it is inexcusable, lazy, and shows poor customer/player service, but apparently they dont care about the innumerable requests for a FAQ that have been posted on this/their forum, so no point discussing it more. Seems real quick and easy to do too....

mateooo said:

I heard that they are working on a FAQ. So i guess they DO care about the customers.

Let's give them some time. No use for a FAQ that is written in 5 minutes and then there are again the same amount of questions after reading that.

So let's give them the time to do it RIGHT.

I would be very surpised if the FAQ comes back and says you can assign damage to a burning zone. Until I get proof otherwise, the way I'm playing is that players can't assign damage to a burning zone.

count said:

There's always someone who wants the FAQ to be released BEFORE questions arise. Obviously, that's not possible.

As you said: let's give them some time. They'll do it right.

Buhallin said:

As usual, you misunderstand posters (still, I write with an imperfect english, that's true)...That was a metaphor. It's just like "tryin' to kill something that's dead".

Anyway, EVEN if there's anything about this in the rulebook, I see it as a logical way to rule it.

And Mateoooo (and other guys who's goin' on to say "FFG isn't that...", "FFG doesn't do this", etc.): a FAQ has sense when there are questions to be answered.

I'm pretty sure they're waiting for the more questions they may have before writing a FAQ. We have solved the most basic troubles with the game and I don't see any problem in playin' the game with a bit of logic (or "generic" rulings) while waiting for a FAQ.

Remember that EVERY time we argued about an issue, the ruling that came out was the most logical.

I'm not sayin' you can't post (as you may misunderstand, at this point), I'm just sayin' that you're going to post your concern and it's really unneeded here, WHERE they DON'T post and, thus, can't answer and explain their POV.

Peace.

Based on the fact that when a capital is burned in the rulebook on pg 13 it states that all damage tokens are removed and a burn token replaces them. Then about non combat damage on pg 17 is applied similiarly to combat damage. It makes sense that if you remove damage tokens to replace it with a burn token that damage can't be applied to a burning area. If we follow that logic then burning areas shouldn't be allowed to have damage assigned to them.

That is more or less what Nate said about the issue.

count said:

count said:

I agree - I don't think we should be worried about the an FAQ until the game has been out for at least two months.

I'm just looking at the Companion release. I expect both multi-player rules and a FAQ to be out by then.

mateooo said:

Obviously, you haven't been an FFG customer for long, and have not yet seen FFG's outstanding customer service in action.

FFG staff are very approachable, be it regarding questions about games, releases, etc. or game components(Thaad, I know you are there ).

I cannot think of another game company that listens to their customers as FFG does. For instance, they changed the format of the deluxe AGoT packs, after input from players.

My only gripe, in the past, was about the lax release announcement to actual release ratio, which was poor. I voiced my opinion on that matter often. Nowadays, they actually surprises us by releasing on time, if not even earlier. (This week is WRP release, Skavenblight battle pack, etc.)

I'm sure they will post the FAQ/errata soon, and may include a printed version in the Elves expansion pack as well.

FFG's FAQ's are very comprehensive, and take into account the many questions -if not all- posted in the various fora by users. The fact that it's taking some time doesn't mean they are lazy, but playtesting the rules to get everything correct, and dispel any queries once and for all.

mateooo said:

How about the fact that the game in BRAND NEW! Yeesh, give them a break. Saying its poor, lazy service is not cool, not at all.

It's the culture we are in. People want things not now, but yesterday. There are people who were seriously saying that there should have been a FAQ when the game was released. How they are supposed to create a release of Frequently Asked Questions when there are no players and therefor no questions is beyond my ability to comprehend.

The expansion release should, by all means, be when the FAQ is released. I'll be the first calling for an organized player email writing campaign if there is no FAQ when the Elf Companion Set is released.

The game is not BRAND NEW. It's been out for two months.

I also think they could have quite possibly known about questionable issues, assuming there was proper playtesting. Issues which came up but they didn't have time to fix, were a bit unclear, and so on. I have a hard time thinking that nobody during playtesting wondering what exactly constituted combat damage, or what happens when you attack a burning zone. They could (or maybe just should) have stopped to think that maybe those things might confuse players, and having something in place to help explain that might be a good thing.

It's not really all that confusing a concept. You can certainly argue that giving it such low priority is appropriate, but if you truly can't figure out how they could have helped the players at that point... Well...

Is it so hard to accept that you cannot attack a pile of ashes?

The FAQ will be ready when it has to be ready. Complaining doesn't help at all.

Maybe they assumed the players would think for themselves and realize you can't attack something that is destroyed. Crazy I know...

I believe the ruling as it stands now is that you can attack a burned zone, you just can't damage it.

See? If we had an FAQ you would have been able to make sure that your little snipes were actually accurate. Everyone wins!

What I meant to say was you cannot damage something that is already destroyed.

And your complaining for a FAQ is not going to make it any faster. I agree with Dormouse. try to have some patience.

These complaints are completely useless. Lots of people have been trying to tell'em this, but it seems pointless...They just don't get it.