im on a cthulhu faction thingy today or something but.... i know the errata is old news but the card is called 'sacrificial' offerings, not 'karmic' offerings...... just saying the rule change really ruins the flavor of the card. they really need to do away with that errata or something.

How so? First you need to "sacrifice" something of your own before you can kill something else. It has been the sensible way to use it, except when you don't control a woundable character, which was a little too good.

but the way it is now errata you dont 'sacrifice' one of your characters. you wound one of theirs and they wound one of yours, thats karma! maybe the errata should have been 'wound a character without toughness, then that characters controller..........'

the card flavorwise is ruined. without a sacrifice, how can there be an offering?

PearlJamaholic said:

One of us is confused... AFAIK there never has been a sacrifice on Sacrificial Offerings. It always has been about wounding things.

Marius said:

yeah but youre basically sacrificing (flavor, not rule) one of your characters to wound one of theres. ive been talking about the flavor of the card and not the mechanics of it. cause in-game sacrficing is its own thing. but textual sacrfice is what i was referring to and how the errata doesnt fit.

Hi,

I'm sorry I'm getting confused here.

Do I have to have a valid target to offer for wounding in order to play SO or can I play it even if I don't have any characters in play?

How about if I have an invulnerable character ?

Finally, how about if the oppponent has 2 valid characters and I have none ? Can the card be played since there are 2 valid targets ?

thanks for help

msommi said:

You can play the card even if you don't have any characters in play. So it's also fine to play it if you only have invulnerable characters in play.

Note, that the opponent 'may' choose and wound a character. This is optional and for the opponent to decide. The opponent is never forced to wound one of his own characters.

So even if the player playing 'Sacrificial Offerings' had characters in play that could be targeted and affected by the opposing player, the opposing player could decide he doesn't want to wound any of them (for whatever reason).

A very unusual - but possible situation like this would be if you had two useful characters in play....say Chess Prodigy and Living Mummy....and your opponent had 4 or 5 characters in play (you are outnumbered) ....if they were really dumb, and made a poor decision, they could play Sac-Offerings...targeting your annoying Chess Prodigy, wounding and killing him.

Then...YOU get the choice to choose and wound a character...in this rare instance, you might choose to wound ANOTHER of your characters, the Living Mummy....since when his killed and put into your discard pile, "wound all characters" ...emphasis on ALL. Your Mummy dies...but so do all of your opponents guys.

This would be one of the few instances (there are some others, of course, depending on the character card) where you would actually want to wound TWO of your characters, instead of the usual 1-to-1 that most Sac-Offering playings' entail.

Agree with the card mechanics discussion. However, regarding the breakdown of the card "flavor-wise" I tend to disagree. You're assuming that it's required for the card's controller to sacrifice something. On the contrary, the card's controller is forcing the opponent to sacrifice something and then offering for the opponent to return the favor, hence it's a Sacrificial Offering. Just change perspective

First time I see a Rules discussion about "karmic balance" and conformity with the title ... Love this ...

I wonder how effective is this card in a deck when there is no choice for you to target a character to be wounded and that the opponent can give you one wound in return. I have never put this card into play (yet) because I do not see its effectiveness. Don't we think that other cards (from different faction) will be a better substitute than using Sacrificial Offering e.g. A Single Glimpse, Calling Down the Ancient, Cursed Skull, Shotgun Blast, Short Fuse, and Small Price to Pay, etc.

Maybe some of the seasoned player can share their perspective on using Sacrifical Offering and the possible combo to use.

brightknight_216 said:

I may be misunderstanding your question here, but... For the second part of SO to trigger, the first part must happen since they are linked by a "then".

Action: Choose and wound a character controlled by an opponent. Then, that character's controller may choose and wound a character.

You can't actually play it in the first place if your opponent doesn't have a character. And only if that character receives a wound can your opponent then choose and wound a character.

As for the effectiveness, it's VERY useful in the first few turns of the game when your opponent is putting in characters and you may not yet have any characters to wound. Another handy use is using it during your opponent's turn. Maybe they commit to some stories, and have only one or two characters ready for defense. At the end of their turn you wound one of their ready characters and likely lose one of yours in the process. Then your turn starts and you can now play some characters and maybe win the story race since they have one less character. Stuff like that.

Thread necromancy...

Tokhuah said:

Instead of just adding the ever so helpful thread necromancy alert, consider that this actually has some use in the rules forum as it keeps all the discussion about a given card together.