I tried my search-fu, and it is weak.

Also, I'm really new to Skirmish, and when I was reading the updated rules document (FAQ), it changed how points are scored for defeating figures. With this change... how does "Of No Importance" work now? It used to deny your opponent 2VP for killing the last figure in a group, but that applied to the Deployment Card's value, not the figures value.

Can anyone be so kind as to clear this up for me?

It technically does nothing now.

However, it would not be unreasonable for it to subtract 2 from a figure when it is killed.

So we have to wait for an errata to use this card again?

Ok.

14 hours ago, KryatDragon said:

So we have to wait for an errata to use this card again?

Ok.

That's right, I really do hope they fix this, it's a decent card and I hate to see collateral damage via well intended erratas. Our local group has agreed to use as intended, though this should be well communicated before the tournament.

On 2/13/2017 at 1:48 AM, DTDanix said:

It technically does nothing now.

However, it would not be unreasonable for it to subtract 2 from a figure when it is killed.

I think that would be quite unreasonable actually... unless that figure is the last (or only) of its group, in which case it'd be working basically as intended.

5 hours ago, Bitterman said:

I think that would be quite unreasonable actually... unless that figure is the last (or only) of its group, in which case it'd be working basically as intended.

I disagree counselor, if the last figure is defeated, the deployment card is worth 2 less. But now we don't score off the deployment card, but the figure cost. So as currently worded, this does nothing in any case.

I don't find it unreasonable to play this as intended, others agreed at a tournament as well. This card wasn't broken, it's just blanked by unfortunate rules changes, I hope they bring it back.

The point was that it would be unreasonable to play it on any defeated figure (DTDanix didn't notice to specify 'last figure in the group'), and reasonable to play it as intended.

Restricting it to the last figure in a group seems rather arbitrary considering the new rules and somewhat against the spirit of the card.

The card effectively says: "When your opponent would score points for killing your non-unique figure, score less points."

Deployment group is only mentioned because that was how you scored points for killing something previously.

That said, either way would be fine.

Depends on the theme you want to attach to it. I'm sure you can think of good thematic justifications for both alternatives.

(The current timing is after the last figure is defeated, so also changing that would make it a bigger change, practically a new card.)

1 hour ago, DTDanix said:

Restricting it to the last figure in a group seems rather arbitrary considering the new rules and somewhat against the spirit of the card.

The card effectively says: "When your opponent would score points for killing your non-unique figure, score less points."

Deployment group is only mentioned because that was how you scored points for killing something previously.

That said, either way would be fine.

Wait, hang on. I've just realised I had an absolute brain misfire before. For some reason I had it in my head that Of No Importance is a Skirmish Upgrade! Obviously, it's not - and as a Command Card, yes, it is entirely in the spirit of it that you play it once - when any figure is defeated, last in the group or not - and score fewer points for that model (same as you'd previously have scored fewer points for that group).

Sorry, I brought unnecessary confusion into this thread. My bad.

Id argue that the spirit of the card is when the final figure in the group is defeated.

Otherwise a card that now only triggered after two or three figures were defeated, a lower likelihood than say the first figure in the group being defeated.

By making it any non-unique figure being defeated (not the last) you are increasing the opportunity to play the card significantly.

(The last figure in a group is less likely to be defeated than the first, logically because the first would have to be defeated before the last and the last may not be defeated at all)

To me, the original purpose of this card is "When your opponent gets points for killing your non-unique, they get less points."

The only reason to tie this to the last figure in the group would be because that was the only way you could score points before, so that's what was written on the card.

I already doubt anyone is going to play this card anymore, so if you're already going to errata it there doesn't seem to be a need to make it more restrictive.

I get that you think the purpose is that, but its not clear that its the real intent (nor how the translation of its ability would work in the new scoring format).

Changing the trigger period for the card (any figure vs last figure) would be a significant difference.

One is almost guaranteed (any). The other is possible that it could never happen (last).

You are changing the effective playability of the card. (opponent just has to defeat one figure, vs all figures in a group)

Of one vs all, which fits better with the original wording and playability of the card?

Its clear the card needs a clarification or errata, but until then changing the opportunity trigger is dangerous territory.

Edit: Card Image added for exact wording

To me the new wording should read:

Use after the last figure in one of your non-unique groups is defeated. That figure is worth 2 fewer VPs, to a minimum of 0.

Previously, you could play the card when your opponent would score points. With your suggestion, there is now a window where your opponent can score points but you can't play the card. This window didn't exist previously, and would effectively make an arguably weak card weaker.

If it were up to me, I would keep it the same - you can play the card when your opponent can score points.

We can certainly disagree on this, and that's fine. I'm looking at it from a "What does the card do in the game, and how would you continue to make it do roughly the same thing and be useful?" whereas you're looking at it from a "What exactly does the card say and how can we modify it as little as possible to still actually do something?"

Oh, I certainly agree that the card could be better.

And they may take this opportunity to improve the card in light of the change to how scoring works.

But until then, if someone shows up at a tournament with this card, what's gonna happen?

RAW doesn't work, because of the change to scoring.

RAI becomes murky at best, as our discussion has shown.

When it says last figure defeated did it intend for any figure defeated? Or did it genuinely mean last figure defeated.

Either way, it definitely needs an errata/clarification soon.

1 hour ago, Majushi said:

But until then, if someone shows up at a tournament with this card, what's gonna happen?

Currently, if the card is used, you would have wasted a 0 cost slot in your deck. We now score off of reinforcement cost, not deployment.

10 hours ago, theChony said:

Currently, if the card is used, you would have wasted a 0 cost slot in your deck. We now score off of reinforcement cost, not deployment.

Still works fine for my Rancors and Nexu! (All single figure, non-unique, deployment cards with no reinforcement cost). So the card isnt *worthless*, it's just far less functional and more situational to play because of the new scoring rules. That said, the command card "Sit Tight" also became worthless after the pass rule was introduced.

Personally, in light of the new method of scoring, I think this card should be changed so that whenever you defeat a non-unique figure, you score two less VP's for it. E=

Of No Importance makes the deployment card worth 2VP less, to a minimum of 0. However, it does not change the deployment cost itself, thus it does not change the figure cost of single-figure groups. So, as written Of No Importance really does nothing.

For casual skirmish it is reasonable to assume that it affects the VP value of the last figure in a group. That is when the card was playable before the scoring change.

The next FAQ will probably take a stance in the issue. Knowing FFG the abilities change as little as possible.

47 minutes ago, Fizz said:

...That said, the command card "Sit Tight" also became worthless after the pass rule was introduced.

Technically, Sit Tight is just far less functional, but many would still argue a waste. You can 'pass' by playing this card when you're tied in remaining activations.

Check the new FAQ. Card has received an errata so that it"Of No Importance" does still retain some Importance.