Hello

I have somme question left after reading the faq.

1- Is damage during combat still not the same as combat damage??
1.5 - does the combo shrine to nurgle +nurgle pestilence still work? (i don t think so but..)

2 - During battle, must a attacking player assign dommage equal to hit point or hit point + tougness of the defending unit before assigning dommage to the zone.

3 - it's the opponent turn, in his begining of the turn phase.
Can i play favor of gork(-1 power to a unit , +1 power to a unit) to a unit in his kingdom? So he will have 1 less ressource?


Sorry for my english, I'm still French.
Thank you

Friendly
Renju

dear renju,

I would say

1. NO, cf pages 7 of the faq

2. yes, due to:

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.

3. yes

3. because due to the new timing rules^^

nevertheless, concerning the point 2:

something is confusing due to:

Note that more damage can
be assigned to a unit at the attacker’s
discretion, in anticipation of damage
cancellation effects, but a minimum
damage necessary to destroy each
defending unit must be assigned before
any damage can be assigned to the
defender’s capital

but I understand that, in combat you can assign more damage to an unit if you believe that your opponent will play a

card wich cancel any damage "elf tactic for example", but I understand that must be bring after the PV+toughness

But this is not allowed for any indirect damage...

tricky

Renju said:

1. Damage during combat is not the same as combat damage. The only exception to this is Counterstrike damage.

1.5 Can no longer do this combo. Combat damage is different from non-combat damage and specifically described and detailed.

2. No. As per the original ruleset and clarified ruleset, you are only required to assign damage equal to the hit point value of the defenders (including damage they already have). Over assigning damage is optional (for Toughness or possible Tactics cancellation).

Example: Dwarf with 2 Hit Points, 1 damage and Toughness 1 is defending. Orc with 2 damage attacks. Orc Assigns 1 damage to the Dwarf and 1 to the capital zone. The Orc can also assign 2 damage to the Dwarf and 0 to the capital zone.

3. Yes. With the new Beginning of Turn Phase, you can play actions before a player's kingdom phase. However do note the following:

"Response actions are a subset of
actions that can only be triggered
during the stated trigger in the ability.
Each response action can be triggered
once per copy of the response action
and only once per stated trigger.

For example: Rat Ogres (CC 55) reads
“Action: At the beginning of your turn,
restore all Skaven units.” The trigger is at
the beginning of your turn, and the action
can only be triggered once during this action
window per copy of the card in play."

Meaning that if you have a copy of Abandoned Mine in play, you can only use its ability once. If you have two copies in play, you can use it once for each copy so two times.

On page 12 of the Core Rulebook,
the second paragraph under “4.
Assign Damage” it should read “The
attacking player assigns damage to
his opponent first. Damage must be
assigned to defending units before
it can be assigned to the defending
player’s capital. 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.

It does not refer to hit point but to destroy the defending unit.

i would say : tougness + hit point must be assign

but later it is written

Note that more damage can
be assigned to a unit at the attacker’s
discretion, in anticipation of damage
cancellation effects, but a minimum
damage necessary to destroy each
defending unit must be assigned before
any damage can be assigned to the
defender’s capital

in this case cancellation effects refer also to tougness or only to tactics

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.

page 8, in the case of indirect damage, it´s cleary wrote:

and a player cannot
assign more indirect damage to a unit
than what it would take to destroy the
unit (this includes toughness).

I read that as destroy include toughness

The FAQ does say:

"Destroy
Destroy means to put a card that is in
play into it’s owner’s discard pile. It is
important to note that sacrificing a unit
is not destroying it and vice versa."

So i gues its enough damage to put the card into the discard pile... (ironbreakers you are welcome back into my dwarf deck )

What bother me is the part:

"Note that more damage can
be assigned to a unit at the attacker’s
discretion, in anticipation of damage
cancellation effects, but a minimum
damage necessary to destroy each
defending unit must be assigned before
any damage can be assigned to the
defender’s capital."

But i guess that refers to optional cancelation effects (cancelation effects that has to be activated through actions) that has not yet been activated.

if you are right, that´s kick ass...

then dwarf are back in the business^^

mathulus said:

The FAQ does say:

"Destroy
Destroy means to put a card that is in
play into it’s owner’s discard pile. It is
important to note that sacrificing a unit
is not destroying it and vice versa."

so enough to send in a discard pile ...

Gerson said:

Actually mathulus wanted to say the opposite. When the attacker assigns damage he must assign enough damage to each unit to destroy (move it to the discard pile) it, including cancellation effects that are already known (toughness or a steel's bane that was played BEFORE the assign damage step). He may assign additional damage to a unit if he expects the defender to play cancellation effects AFTER the assign damage step. I agree with mathulus interpretation of the FAQ, though it could have been stated a bit more clearly, like they did with indirect damage which explicitly includes toughness in the calculation.

The problem here is that we have things like Bloodthirster that makes damage uncancelable. The way it is being discussed seems to imply that the toughness, even if it is not going to be active would still have to be taken into consideration (after all it would be possible to remove BT from play before damage is applied which would mean not enough damage was properly assigned to destroy the unit). This would make Dwarfs (and other toughness having units) incredibly strong protectors, because there would be no way to overwhelm a zone until that unit was truly dead. If this is the way of it, Dwarfs received a huge boost and the gap between Chaos/Empire and Orcs has widened noticeably.

dormouse said:

But in that case you already account for effects played in the future. IMO only the effects that are in play when damage is assigned must be taken into account. Thus if the Bloodthirster is in play during the assign damage step, the attacker may ignore the defender's units toughness. And I don't see how it can be handled differently.

Which is what my assumption would be... I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the apparent switch that toughness does not need to be taken into account when assigning combat damge to it does have to be taken into account.

but if u have as a defender sword masters od heoth, how many damage u must assign? it's impossible to kill them so, still 3 damage?

With the current rules and Sword Masters of Hoeth (Battlefield: Cancel all combat damage assigned to this uni) not being changed before Assault on Ulthuan is printed, your Battlefield can not be harmed during combat. At least as long as you are able to declare Swordmasters as defenders. Cancellation effects have definitely risen in power with this rulechange.

for a Ironbreakers of Ankhor wich defend alone (3 HP, and he has toughness = number of devellopement in the zone) , in a zone with 3 devellopement,

you must assign 6 damage token before assign damage token to the capital.

-

for king kazador , 6HP and toughness 2, it´s 8 damage token ....

-

and it´s restricted to toughness , for example Warrior Priests, you should applied 2 .

I mean, it is not restricted omly to toughness^^

I hope that rule will diseapear because with

3 stell bane, 3 valhala, 3 master of...

the deck is quite invincible...

These are all reasons why I think there is a misunderstanding on our part about this. Has anyone sent it to Nate fore clarification yet? I believe the intention is similar to the "cost/loyalty" issue which was clarified, that the cost itself was the number in the corner, loyalty was a variable added after. In this case the HP of a unit is what it takes to destroy a unit, and toughness and any other cancel is a variable that is only considered when it comes into effect.

dormouse said:

Honestly, the differences between Nate's replies and the official FAQ don't give any credits to the former... (I'm not ranting)

BTW, like you I think we misinterpreted this rule point. To me it is just a rewrite of the original rules (to avoid the mention of "remaining hp" , which means nothing, as damage doesn't remove hit points), rather than an errata. The examples above help demonstrating situations where this would become an issue.

And, with such a rule, WH:I would be the very first game I know where one as to take into account future effects (damage cancelation) when one makes a choice (assigning damages here).

So, a quick confirmation would be nice, but if it is just a cut/paste from one of Nate's reply, I'll concider it as official only if it goes the way I like...

I sent a rules question. I hope they'll respond soon, because it's a pretty dramatic change in the game and should be cleared up as fast as possible. I also asked whether the updated turn diagram is correct, because it doesn't include an action window between declaring the zone being attacke and declaring attackers, which was mentioned in another thread.