CCG-type games are inherently complicated due to the number of possible combinations of the cards. Templating a card so it's unambiguous is really hard (ok, it's really, really hard). I actually think FFG did a great job considering their small team size - a typical Magic set has ~10+ designers/developers.

Clamatius said:

Not sure we should thanks FFG for having such a small development team for 3 LCGs each with monthly expansions...

BTW, I can't remember CoC CCG baseset to have such ambigious cardtexts. To me, the playtesters weren't numerous enought to reveal that some cards could be read in 2+ possible ways.

Anyway, most issues are solved now.

The CoC base set, like the Thrones base set was a large number of reprints for a game that had years of development and play. Of course you will have fewer issues. Look at both first releases as CCG's and you'll see the exact same problems that plagued Magic through their first unlimited release.

After reading all these posts and nate's "rulings", might I suggest an updated flow-chart? Maybe with examples of when a hotly debated card can actually be played an how it should be resolved.

I konw we're given the template for those cards who don't break/add rules, but I think we can all agree there are a few that need a little more clarification or were lost in translation.

What changes would you like to see? I've updated it as ruling have come in that specifically refer to timing issues (first, before, after, etc.). If there is a specific card's timing issue that you want to know or have represented in the flowchart tell me.

Updated from the official FAQ. Here are the changes that the official FAQ made to the list I had:

1. You can now play actions at the beginning of turn.
2. You cannot assign more indirect damage to a unit than would be taken to destroy the unit, including toughness or other effects. You cannot assign more indirect damage to a capital section than would be required to burn it.
3. You can now play optional "at the beginning of your turn" effects once per copy of the card in play (e.g. Abandoned Mine).
4. Dwarf Cannon Crew counts only the numerical cost and ignores loyalty symbols.
5. Shrine to Nurgle only works on damage dealt in combat, not during combat.
6. Warpstone Meteor seems to work the way you would expect it to work, i.e. the damage is dealt anywhere in the capital instead of only in the corresponding zone.

Reading Clamatius's summary of changes, it appears that Nate replied to every individual questions and that Eric wrote the FAQ document...

All of those are how I was playing it. Even after they changed their minds. Except #5, that one never came up. Don't play chaos enough I guess.

I must also say BYE BYE to my chaos deck since new version of Shrine to Nurgle...

rasdsaris said:

Anybody else suspect they changed the StN + Pestilence combo, since Tooth and Claw BP will now feature a semi-resetter for Chaos (if only BZ)?

@rasdsaris - Nate made rulings based on the original set of rules. When FAQ and Errata come out it often times changes existing rules, almost always to simplify card interactions and make the game easier on players to understand, though sometimes because they realize how restrictive a card combination or rule is to future design space. As a result some rules were changed. I don't think insulting anyone is really the mature way to handle what is a common occurrence in these kinds of card games.

@Dam - Nate had told me back in October that they were watching this combo and if it was too abusive that they would errata the Shrine. I was hoping they wouldn't but with some of the cards coming out and the dominance that a lot of Chaos corruption decks have been having I'm not too surprised. I actually pulled apart my Corruption Deck in anticipation of it and because I thought the Sniper deck was ultimately more fun to play (now if I can only get good at playing it the way I was my other deck *sigh*).

While the combo is gone, I believe the Sniper deck would get really powerful now that they clarify how non combat damage works, " the damage is applied as soon as it is assigned before any other actions can be taken ".

I read that too and thought non-combat damage couldn't be cancelled. But in the example they give, you still can actually play actions in response to this damage.

Still a rough deck, though as there aren't many healing or damage cancelling cards.

While you cannot respond to the damage, you can still respond to the Action dealing the damage, thus there is still a chance to cancel the damage. Unless the damage is dealt by a forced effect. In this case you cannot respond.

Martin_fr said:

Reading Clamatius's summary of changes, it appears that Nate replied to every individual questions and that Eric wrote the FAQ document...

Behind the sarcasm within my comment, I would like to thanks the FFG staff for these clarficiations (and erratas).

The rules are much clearer now, and consistent. No more "damage in combat" that weren't define in the rulebook, Indirect Damage is now clearly define (instead of being just a one-line description within the card text).

Great job ! I hope this document will truely live and will be updated as soon and as often as needed.

Now, we can play WH:I at tournament level, against strangers without being afraid of an ambigiuos card combo.

@rasdsaris - Nate made rulings based on the original set of rules. When FAQ and Errata come out it often times changes existing rules, almost always to simplify card interactions and make the game easier on players to understand, though sometimes because they realize how restrictive a card combination or rule is to future design space. As a result some rules were changed. I don't think insulting anyone is really the mature way to handle what is a common occurrence in these kinds of card games.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anybody, I said about rat, becouse Skaven theme of Corruption cycle. Plus I was a bit dissapointed, now Chaos on it's own (without DE) is the weakest faction I belive

still I must say: Many thanks to FFG for realeasing this FAQ, (hovever the will need soon realease version 1.1 becouse there is a few new problems )

dormouse said:

I remember you mentioning this. Personally, with just 1x Core, the Shrine + Pestilence combo hasn't even seen action bar a couple of times, let alone be abusive/overpowered/etc.

With 3x Core, a Chaos sniper deck based around Shrine was dominating all the other decks we could make. Shrine + Pestilence was awesome instant defence but also Shrine + Sorcerer and enough resources enabled you to lock an opponent out of ever attacking.

It's one of those things. Hardcore min-maxers with 2-3x everything had trouble with it, casual, pick-a-race, mix in neutrals, players with 1x product saw it occasionally, but it was by no means OP.

Just like people are saying that the new Toughness ruling and the Units that go OP can be overcome by various methods, so too could Shrine + Pestilence be circumvented (Blessing of Isha, Support destruction, etc.).

I'm with you Dam, but unfortunately, sometimes you have to make decisions based on perception rather than reality, and if everyone perceives the combo to be broken and no one can (or will) build a deck that can tear it down and break it apart, then you end up with the perception of a NPE (non-positive play experience) and that makes people not want to play. Fewer players, fewer sales, and eventually, no game, or so is the fear. They may have errata'd the combo out of existence because of this, or it may have been genuine concern that the deck was so versatile and dominant that the only way to beat the deck was to build against it which meant the decks that could beat it were weak and haphazard things against each other and other decks. Just like we don't want to have the design space artificially restricted we don't want players deck design to be artificially restricted.

I can't say why, but next time I'm up in Roseville I intend to ask. ~Maybe if I can find out what James' favorite drink is I can bribe him to take it back.

I believe I now have all the post-FAQ official rulings linked.

• Arrer Boyz / Thyrus Gorman wording.
• Toughness on units & damage assignation to capital.
• Iron Discipline & attachments.

If I missed one, please let me know.

Okay I am a little confused. I printed out the official faq from the website, and then I see this thing. And some of the rulings aren't official? Why the heck are they posted like faq if it isn't official?

My main issue right now is figuring out this toughness thing, cause that's an obvious change to the original rules in the original rulebook. So when assigning damage, do we have to account for toughness now? Before all you had to do is assign damage equal to the life (not counting toughness, although you could assign more to destroy the figure by accounting for toughness). Now there is a "faq" that is saying that you now have to assign while taking into consideration for toughness? This is very annoying. I don't know who to trust. People are claiming: "This is true! I am right! This is the actual ruling", but it doesn't look like they are actual employees of the company at all.

So what is it? If there is a unit in front of me with 2 hitpoints and toughness 1, do I have to assign 2 or 3 damage before assigning to the capital? Is accounting for toughness mandatory or a choice? That is a major difference that is not addressed in the official downloadable faq, but is claimed to be different. What's going on?

Thanks.

now you have to put enough damage to destroy the unit.

so in your example, you have to put 3 before assigning some to the capital.

if the opponent had a Dragonmage, you would have had to put all your damage on it to do 1 eventually.

Mister Mask said:

Seems rather silly in my opinion. I guess having a Dragonmage with toughness would be as close to invincible as we can get. I think that's kinda lame, but whatever.

Did this new rule come from the staff? If so why isn't it in the downloadable faq? (unless this is very recent)

gamjuven said:

It is in there, just not most clearly put.

"In other words, the
attacking player must assign enough
damage to destroy each defending
unit before any damage can be
assigned to the defending player’s
capital." (p. 6)