www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

Gutter Runners, very excited to see Skaven getting Scout. I really like the Scout ability and have been on its receiving end when facing against my friend playing the Empire.

Rat Ogres, not as much power as I was hoping for but really great effect for the Skaven and decent amount of hit points.

And even more exciting is the tidbit at the end, Join us next week when we take our first look inside Assault on Ulthuan, the upcoming deluxe expansion for Warhammer: Invasion! That should be very cool to see.

I was impressed by the usefulness of the Rat Ogres in particular. They make the Gutter Runners and Clan Rats a bit more worthwhile, and brings all the corruption back under control.

Of course they're going to be a massive target, though.

Rat Ogres are a great machine of ultimate power. Works well with Excavation, Warpstone meteor, globadiers, clan rats, gunners, warp lightning cannon...

Gutter Runners is a cheap scout, but it's "comes into play corrupted" ability maybe limits it's usefullness. I hope not... destruction deserves a good scout.

And we know that we will receive Clan Moulder Elite Rat Ogres in the same BP to get hitting power. These cards together makes Chittering Horde playable too.

Very true, I am hoping to be able to build a pretty much all Skaven deck by the time the Corruption cycle is over.

Rat Ogres are yummy. But if I understand the ruling on Abandoned Mine....later on, we'll have to make a choice which Beginning of Turn Action we will want to use since you can only use one...

Well that would be weird, maybe that will change once the action window is clarified. Otherwise I would just take a limited or single at beginning of turn action card.

Is there a difference between "uncorrput" and "restore"? If I remember well, in the rulebook there is nothing about uncorrupt, only about restore. I think FFG stuff should stablish strict vocabulary and keywords for this game.

Edit : I'm talking about Rat Ogres' text.

shiba_nivengo said:

Don't think there is any difference.

There's not, easiest way to think of it is, Restore means to uncorrupt a unit.

My understanding is that they purposefully have created a number of actions that will conflict with each other for "at the beginning of your turn" to force you to choose which you will trigger. It is a way to allow for some powerful effects that when a few of them are played together they would be overly powerful. This way you need to consider how many to include in your deck as well as which you will trigger when in play.

Nate also mentioned the apparent confusion people were having about what restore means (despite the fact it is defined in the rulebook). I guess he decided (or maybe it was Eric, or even someone else working on W:I) that uncorrupt was less vague and/or more intuitive. *shrug* This is not the first FFG game, nor CCG styled game whose language morphed from the first release to supplemental releases. As long as it is a case of the language becoming more clear and not less I can support this. Especially if the language is carried over when they reprint the Core Set and Rules.

shiba_nivengo said:

That's the biggest issue I have with this game. On the bright side, this means the game is pretty good and nice to have such a small "big issue".

Rat Ogres look awesome
i cant wait to get enough cards to make a full skaven deck
just for sumthing different

dormouse said:

I hope such an idea is behind this mecanism. And if this is true, I would like such action receives a dedicated keyword (and not just a "at the beginning of your turn"). For example, marking those Action as " Limited Action " would clearly identify that action as being conflicting with the Abandonned Mine one (of course, a "limited action" wouldn't conflict with your ability to play one "limited" card per turn).

A Limited Action is different than this and a dedicated keyword (which Limited Action would not qualify as either) would be unnecessary and redundant. We've already had a ruling on how to play this and its implications, it is easy to explain and understand (whether you agree that it should be this way is an entirely different thing BTW).

It is past time to just get on board with the ruling and understand that Eric wants this and this is the way they have chosen to represent it.

Now a Limited Action is a brilliant idea and I hope it is something they choose to do in later cycles. This would allow for more versatility than a "at the beginning of your turn" actions could, and therefor the effect is automatically more likely to be powerful, but also kept in check, and yes would not count as playing a limited card but instead as playing a limited action. My mind is already bouncing around trying to figure out effects that would be powerful enough that they would deserve your Limited Response trigger restriction. Oh the possibilities. I hope someone brings this idea to their attention at some point if it isn't something they haven't already decided on implementing.

dormouse said:

Too bad they wrote it so poorly on the card. Reading the card, only a few chosen peoples could have understood it worked the way it was intended to.