RexGator said:

This ruling of course is a product of my gloating over the prior interpetation! Note to self, less smugness!

Buhallin said:

Someone disticntly said that Nate had said it was A if not A then B. That was the reason why I went with it. I still think the wording is vague, and goes to prove my point that even familiarity with the language in CoC and Thrones is not sufficient reasoning to expect the rules to work in the sameway here.

I actually am glad about this, though it does weaken it a touch as a corruption card, because while both readings of the card are valid it does two things I like, gives players more options (always something I look for in a game) and it settles the card in the simplest reading. Now I wish I could remember who had said Nate had ruled it the other way to find out if he had simply misunderstood Nate or if Nate has changed his ruling (which can and will happen).

Good news is it sounds like Nate is wading through his back log of questions which always gives me hope that a FAQ is that much closer to being released.

We should also use this as an opportunity to remember that even if Nate responds to an email query that until an official FAQ is released, it should be treated as a guideline and not something written in, well... anything.

In our all-brand new "in-house FAQ" I found this, that points to this topic (thanks to Clamatius for his efforts) :

"Warpstone Meteor

Q. Can I choose to take damage on the capital instead of corrupting a unit in the same zone as the Meteor?

A. Yes.

Q. Can I take the damage anywhere in the capital, or must it be in the same zone?

A. It must be in the same zone. If that zone is burning, a unit must be corrupted if possible."

The only reply from Nate I can find in this topic is :

"Each player can choose between corrupting a unit or damaging the capital. If one option is impossible (i.e. no units in the zone, or the capital section is burning), the other must be chosen."

I have no problem linking this answer to the first Q&A. But I'm afraid it was overread for the second Q&A, as it goes against what's written on the card (cardtext allows each player to choose where the damage will be assigned).

So, is Warstone Meteor under errata ? Or does "capital section is burning" refeers to the section chosen by the player to suffer the damages instead of the section of the zone the Meteor is located in ?

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

where is the errata? the text is correct... it says damage the corresponding zone.

Good eye Martin. The answer is no, you can choose to damage any zone you want with Warpstone Meteor. The card reads, " Forced: After your turn begins, each player must corrupt one of his units in this corresponding zone or deal 1 damage to his capital. (Players decide where their own damage is assigned.)" This means you must choose to either corrupt a unit in the corresponding zone as Warpstone Meteor, or place one damage on one of your zones, which is your choice.

I think there may have been just a touch of confusion. Given the effort and time consumed by the herculean effort of gathering all this information (which after creating the unofficial flowchart, despite my repeated suggestions to gather all of Nate's ruling into one place I was unwilling to be the one to use the less than useless search function to do the job) we can forgive him the small errors that creep into the document.

Yeah, I was surprised by this when I read it, as it was the 2nd thing I found that went against the card text (the 1st being Abandoned Mine).

Nate's reply was:

"Each player can choose between corrupting a unit or damaging the capital. If one option is impossible (i.e. no units in the zone, or the capital section is burning), the other must be chosen."

There is never a reason with the current card set why the damaging capital option would be impossible if you can choose where it goes. Nate's wording of "the capital section is burning" means that the capital section that receives damage must be the zone of the Meteor. That was my interpretation.

Now, it may well be that Nate misspoke on this. But I don't see another way of reading his ruling as written.

Maybe he is overworked answering all the same questions people keep sending him. I don't understand the logic of not coming on here directly and answering questions. Take the Monsterpocalypse boards for example. The rules team comes on there daily answers questions and then locks the thread. Nice and sweet, you have an official answer and can use the search to find stuff. If only these forums were like that this game wouldn't be so confusing.

If you had so much money, you probably also would be bored of writing on "some" forums

pancerek said:

I'd still write on the forums, but would use (almost) every opportunity to rub the money in peoples' faces . That's just me though .

By the way, I'm really confused by the reason for posting this thread. I think that the card description is clear as the sky though and no additional ruling is needed here...

If there was an obligation to deal one damage to the capital and also corrupt a unit, there would be written "AND". Is it there?

If there was an obligation to deal one damage to the corresponding zone of the capital, there also would be specially written "IN THIS CORRESPONDING ZONE". Is it there?

So what's the problem anyway?

Because as Buhallin said, the way the card is written it can be taken two ways.

You must (corrupt a unit or take damage)

You (must corrupt a unit) and if that isn't possible, (take damage)

The English used had to differing interpretations depending on where you put the emphasis when read. English can, at times, be imprecise, especially conversational American English.

As to the implication that Warpstone Meteor requires you to damage a unit or zone that corresponds to the one in which Warpstone was placed, it does appear that it may be that way from Nate's answer. " Forced: After your turn begins, each player must corrupt one of his units in this corresponding zone or deal 1 damage to his capital. (Players decide where their own damage is assigned.)" Given Nate's response and reading this card it appears that "in this corresponding zone" is intended to apply to the entire effect, not just the unit. IOW just like the wording gives you the ability to choose either, that choice is constrained to that particular zone... I think that may make this effect a bit stronger actually, your opponent cannot keep evenly distributing the damage each turn amongst his zones, but must choose one of his units in that specific zone or that zone itself. That forced concentration is going to end up eating up units, developments, and healing cards, that could probably be put to better use in other areas.

This also, if true, goes to show this card is terribly worded. Next time I see Nate, I'm demanding a beer in recompense. Anyone else planning on going to Gencon? I say we make Nate buy the first round.

what? wait a sec

i know there is a choice, and I know the unit corrupted is in the corresponding zone

but what are you saying about the damage to the capital? Is the official ruling that the damage ALSO has to be done to the corresponding zone?

The official ruling as written strongly suggests that the capital damage has to be in the same zone.

However, it doesn't really agree with what's actually written on the card and while our group is playing it by the ruling for now I suspect that this was a mistake by Nate. I sent it in already.

What? WHAT?!? Now we have disputes about unclear official responses?

mateooo said:

LOL! The rules forum is nearly as exciting as the game itself. That's crazy !