hello,

can I put to play "shrine to taal" with "dwarf cannon crew" if I don´t have any empire icon ?

Thank you for your reply ^^

From another thread:

Question 1: Dwarf Cannon Crew puts into play a support card of cost 2 or less. Is this cost the PRINTED COST or the TOTAL COST (including loyalty). I voted PRINTED COST.

Total cost, but remember how the rulebook defines cost -

Page 11, "A card’s cost is determined by adding the card’s
printed cost (the numerical value in the upper left
hand corner of the card) and its loyalty cost (the number
of loyalty icons under the printed cost minus the
number of matching race symbols the player controls
in play)."

ok, so that´s means no...

Without a clarification/FAQs about this card, I'll continue playing it considering the "printed cost". There are just way too few eligible support cards if one uses the "total cost".

Martin_fr said:

Don't know if this needs clarification. Rules say cost = printed + loyalty. And total cost causing exclusion of support cards doesn't hinder mono-Dwarf decks much at all.

Using "printed cost" (which is defined) instead of "cost" (which is also defined) seems strange to me. The card clearly says "cost".

If you were playing the dwarf deck in the starter box , there are 8 support cards, of those there is only one you can't play , the "Master Rune of Destiny" which has printed of 4 and loyalty of 3. The rest of the support cards have "cost" 2 or less , since you have 2 loyalty icons in play , one from the capitol , and another from the "Dwarf Cannon Crew". There is a pretty good chance you are going to put a support card in play.

The Card Anatomy Key on page 7 defines "Cost" as the number in the upper left of the Card. And the rules regarding playing a card on page 10 refer to "Total Cost". However, on page 11 where this is explained in greater detail they simply refer to "Cost". So you can cetainly argue both ways. At the moment I lean towards following the Card Anatomy Key, mostly for the reason that it is slightly simpler to handle. Anyway, I will send it in as a rules question.

Life is not all beer and skittles...

Dam said:

To be precise, Rules say cost = printed number on card + loyalty icons on card - loyalty icons in play.

This is how I play and how I'd rule in a tournament until Development says otherwise, because it is the most precise definition we have. It is entirely possible that they meant simply the printed cost, but the card does not say that, and while the rules do have other possible interpretations, this one is the most specific in the section about how many resources it takes to play a card. The reason I defer to this rather than the card anatomy is two fold, first while the numeric value is identified as cost, the loyalty icons are also referred to as variable cost, and then specifically directs the player to pages 10-11 where this is addressed.

This is the very first game I played where only cards like "Chaos Knights" doesn't call for additional rulings/clarifications. And the designers already developped 2 other card games, for years ?!? This definately must be a joke.

I'm starting to get lazy about all those unanswerable questions nearly every single card of this game seems to bring. And this is only the beginning, since BP #3 previewed a very unclear gametext about "unit returned to hand without attachement".

Be sure I'll never ever play the 2 others FFG's LCG... again (since I already played those 2 games while they were CCGs).

@Dormhouse : I'll probably play the way you do (my Cannon Crew deck countains only Dwarf and Neutral support).

lol, it´s a bad news but this is logical and that´s not really killing ^^

Dwarf Cannon Crew still a good card.

In a CCG or LCG with so many different combinations it is to be expected that there will be a lot of rules questions. In the end they at some point will provide "completely defined" rules. However, I agree that many of these questions could and should have been prevented by providing clear definitions in the rulebook.

The thing is, most of these questions are answered in the rulebook, pretty clearly. Most of the clarifications from Nate fit with the majority of players interpretation of the rules. There are definitely some which cannot be suitably understood, we've got about a dozen or so that required clarification because they either were not addressed in the basic rules or because the card or rule was given errata. Considering there are over a million possible card combinations just within each alignment I think about 13 clarifications is not so bad.

The other questions that have come up and ensuing debates have been based on peoples bias from other games and unwillingness or inability to read and apply the rules and card text as written (and I include myself in this). That is not something one should fault the game designers for. This is a case where the rules do say something quite specific for determining the cost of a card. IF the intent of the designers is other than including loyalty cost then I'd venture to say that the rules or card should receive errata to indicate all cards that refer to another cards cost, refer only to the printed cost in resources excluding the loyalty icons, and in which case we'd have 14 needed clarifications/errata. Still an incredibly small amount given how many cards are available for use and the various interactions they have. I've played games were there more than twice as many clarifications in the same amount of time. That doesn't mean the games weren't good, on the contrary, I find the more subtle the game and more interactive the cards the ore I enjoy them, despite the increased need for flowcharts.

Q:

When I play Dwarf Cannon Crew, which cost should we watch at if we are looking for a support to put into play with them? Printed Cost or Total Cost?

Answer from Nate:

"Reference to "cost" should check the card's modified total cost."

this answers part of the questions surrounding cost. however, what if a card's text affects the modified total cost?

example: master rune of dismay: "Opponent's Units cost 1 additional resource to play". sure, this doesn't affect dwarf cannon crew yet, but there are numerous cards, that alter the cost of different cards (at least one makes supports cheaper) and i guess there will be more to come in the future, how will that be handled? my guess is, that i should determine the "cost" by calculating how much it would cost me if i would play it right now from my hand.

but what if the "cost" of an enemy's card had to be determined, would the "cost" be calculated from my perspective (as if i would play it) or from my opponent's perspective (as if he would play it)? the former will usually be higher than the latter... again, at the moment there is no card that requires this clarification, but i wouldn't be too surprised if one came out soon.

The cost of a card being put into play is the cost that card states, not taking into consideration any additional effects that affect playing a card (remember the distinction between a card entering play from the draw deck or discard pile versus being played from hand). If you have an effect that increase the cost to play a card from hand does not affect the cost to put a card into play .

I think this distinction would resolve most questions we are likely to run into.