No martin, thats not what they had in mind. Its not a missinterpation made by 99% of players reading the old book, this is a rule CHANGE.

The printed rule book was very clear. You assigned damage up to the units hit points. ALSO the rule book used toughness as an example in why you may want to apply extra damage to a unit, to "antiticipate damage cancellation like toughness"

So its very clear that the way we were playing it was exacatly how the designers intended it cause they included an example!

Does playing this way bother me? No not at all, the change itself is simple and clear, and if it was always that way, we would not have noticed, its still a great game, my issue is with a change to a printed core rule set. Now I have to justify the new play style to anyplayer that was playing it the other way. Do Ipack arround a printed copy of the FAQ, or just tell them, to look it up?

Currently I always have the printer-friendly faq with me, when playing WH:I. If playing against someone new, I always ask whether he knows the rules change, if not I explain it. If he isn't comfortable with the new rules we play according to the old ones and I tell him, that in the long run it might be a good idea to adopt. Most of them do, even if they complain at first. So it can be dealt with, but it is a hassle. I sincerely hope that in the reprints the rule will already be changed and that the tutorial videos will be changed accordingly, otherwise there is a good chance that a lot of new players will be alienated in the long run.

Dywnarc said:

My concern with the rules change is how it affects cards that were printed with the previous rule in mind. Will this end up forcing errata to more cards and just making it more complicated to pack an errata paper with you everywhere?

What's funny is that I hadn't interpreted Toughness any differently than the errata clarifies.

You had to break through the 'armor' of the card (its T#) before you actually did damage to it, not the reverse. Oh well.

But the Dragonmage does have me scratching my head. So basically while it's alive you can't ever damage the zone when it defends.

exactly but there is bloodthirster or mob up

this game isnt popular enough as it is in Australia as it is... we dont need this crap

Perhaps wait to see how the card pool develops? They have a number of cards already produced and tested...this rule may be taking those into account. Even as it stands, the game has not been broken in our experience with this change. Simply...well, changed. Though we might feel differently if someone had a dragon mage in each zone...but then getting wiped from a well-timed Will of the Electors/Judgement of Verena combo is quite painful too. Or an Orc rush that virtually takes you out before turn 4. Or your uber-toughness-laden Orc(s) getting bounced to your quest zone. Or corrupted when you needed them most...

This change is absurd and I suspect they'll revert to the original rules soon. This makes a few units act as impossible barriers and I really doubt this is how the game was designed. If the change stays we'll have a lot of overpowered blockers within the first 240 cards (Core + Corruption Cycle). I'd be ok with this kind of units if there were only a few of them, but in the current card pool (and that's only halfway through Corruption Cycle) we already have so many such units (with Toughness and cancellation) and they're mostly concentrated in two of the factions.

This rule just opposes logic and common sense and creates some very convoluted situations if some tactic cards are involved. Furthermore I'm not really sure if they even meant that - the FAQ still has the part about 'assigning additional damage in anticipation of toughness'. Until I get a clear indication that that's not what they meant (and no, I don't consider that email a confirmation of anything) I'll keep playing by the real rules.

By the way I play mostly Dwarves.

Iffo said:

No, the FAQ still has the part about "assigning additional damage in anticipation of damage cancellation effects" (that's the exact wording).

And "damage cancellation effects" aren't limited to thoughness. This part refeers to a "Steel's Bane" (cancel the next 10 damages) played AFTER the damage assignation step. BTW, "Steel's Bane" may also be played BEFORE the damage assignation step, and in this case, the attacker will have to take it into account before assigning damage to the capital.

I won't discuss this rule change : it is now a basic rule of the game, just like Loyalty costs are, so we have to live with it. I ranted a lot about the lack of consistancy between the cardtexts and the rulebook, leading to many unclear situations, but I never ranted about the very rules of this game. I won't start now doing so (but I won't give up if new obscur cardtexts are published in the future ).

About the official-level of cut-paste mail, I'm sharing your concerns. The best is to agree with your opponent how you'll handle such a situation before the start of the game. Personnaly, I prefer to play as close to the known rulings (including cut/paste mails) as possible.

Play however you like, but the implication of the dismissal of the info that has been shared is that it is suspect and therefor the persons who shared it are untrustworthy. That they are lying.

If you are going to call people liars just man up an do it. If you didn't mean to imply that, then just send in your own question so you can get the verification you need and then let it drop. You've identified a problem you have but appear to be taking no steps to resolve it but instead are complaining about it... What's that all about?

My take is a little different. I didn;t have an issues with the game before the faq, I am just playing the way the rulebook was written, I have a decent sized play pool, and so far everyone is playing by the rule book as it comes in the box and having a greta time with the game. So in Vancouver BS, we have no issues at present.

dormouse said:

I'm not calling anybody a liar, but I do question the competence of the guy who replied to that email or of those who published the change in the FAQ. Sounds arrogant? Well, excuse me - I'm not suggesting anything - I was just ranting. I simply wanted to express my confusion about the matter and the balance issues it will cause for at least 3 more months... actually 9 months if the second cycle is designed with the original rules in mind (and it probably is, given that they have at least 6 months to develop a new cycle).

Why am I writing at all if I'm going to keep playing by the original rules? Because this is not about me or about anyone in particular - it's about the health of an otherwise great game!

There were no indication of issues with the original rules, the game was out for only a few months, lots of upcoming cards are already designed, playtested and even printed and shipped... and they publish a blurry rule change that tips balance so significantly? It's neither an interesting design decision, nor a fix for a broken rule. I just can't wrap my head around it! That's simply bad for ANY game that's not a one off buy.

<! END OF RANT >

p.s. I love the game - it's the best one since I started Magic, 8 years ago and now it is slowly pushing MTG away from my playgroup's gaming sessions. I just want to see W:I alive and healthy for many years to come! Again, please excuse my tone - I didn't mean to call anybody names.

I guess thats what I am not likeing. At this point it is creating a whole ton of questions, that where not present before.

How does that HE guy work? Do you assaign enough damage to kill him, and he heals all but one, or can he soak up infinent damage?

Gustav the bear is the other big one. Yeah as a chaos player you can make sure you are not corrupted, after all he is one guy, a named hero, and being an alls top deffender of a zone may just very well be his job. But the question is still there.

Well there were plenty of questions pre-release and post release about assigning damage, as a matter of fact we have somewhat less now than we did when the First Chapter pack was released. Trust me on this, the decision to make the change was play tested. Your group may not have experienced "problems" but you aren't likely to recognize a design flaw since you do not know how they want this game to play. What you see is the final product (or I should say final-ish product) and develop thoughts and feelings by how you play it with this end point in mind. The designers and developers (and to a lesser degree play testers) see things with a vision of what they want the game to play like and when something stands in the way of that changes get made... even after release.

Now to be perfectly blunt, I liked the old rules better. I didn't experience all that much that made me think that the change was necessary, but I'm also not privy tothe inner workings of Eric Lang's mind, so his vision is closed to me. From discussions and contacts I may have some sense of what he might be thinking, but short of sitting down and interrogating him on game play and inspiration I'm not going to have anything more than a decent clue. If I had to guess they decided that Dwarfs in particular were not as powerful as they would like them to be and to often people were deciding to leave Toughness units in place and instead destroy the capital zone. I'd imagine that they viewed Toughness as more of a Capital buffer than a HP buffer and the only way to fix this problem was with this change.

As to the design cycle, there is no way of telling when this rule was decided on. It may have been decided on during the creation/play test of Assault on Ulthuan, or in the design of the following cycle. They could have decided to release the change now so when the next cycle/set is released the cards would be played as desired. This could have even been the original intention by Eric from the beginning, but play testers may have balked or someone in management may have suggested an alteration which Eric followed, only later to regret and insisted on his original vision. I don't know, but any and all of these are possible.

I've been playing with the new rules and I find that it makes very little difference to any of my match ups except Orc Blitz versus Dwarf Turtle... and that is a beneficial difference to me, even when it is my Orc Deck against someone else's Dwarf deck.

As always dormouse, you present very valid points and frankly made me rethink my position on this. After a few more BP's and the expansion I'll see how the new rules work out and maybe I'll switch to them. Right now Dwarves in my meta (we only play 1x core and 1x BP's) beat everything easily - with a good hand they even out-aggro Orcs!

Anyway it would be interesting to see what happens next.

If they have playtested it and now see confused people, they should post somewhere in the forum and explain, why they changed it. If the have reasons for it, everyone could agree, but just stating it is a bit arrogant.

And if you have your contact, why not ask them to clarify the change and the reasons for them?

They already clarified the change, as to why I don't call or text my friends at FFG, it is because they are my friends. I want to keep them friends based on personal experiences together, not because of their position and what they can do for me. Next time I'm talking to them or hanging out with them and gaming comes up I'll see if I can work into the conversation, but I don't like pestering them for info that is not readily available to the general public. Next time we sit down for a Game of W:I though I will certainly ask (though that is months away at best given my work schedule and location).

As to "arrogance," dude it is their game. They design, develop, print, and ship it. If they have decided that it is in the games best interest for Dwarfs to wear pink bunny hats then that is a decision they get to make. We decide if we want to continue to buy pieces of card board with pink bunny hats. The producer/consumer bond is one way. It is not arrogant for them to make changes they see as healthy for the game. I will ask through official channels, but I don't have any expectations about an answer.

Funny, I kind of suspected that was the reason... That damage cancellation was not saving capitals. Also there is no doubt this change hurts the mass damage rush more then anything, which is good for the game.

I have been playing by the old rules till, but always kept in mind the implications of the new, and my conclusions where the same. Little overall effect most times, but helping and hurting the right things.

I kind of liked the options avaible playing by the old rules, but am ok with the new.

Now to those that felt this change was going to wreak the game, that fear was always blown out of protportion. If you are in an area where the game is not popular yet, this chance is not the difference maker one may or anyother. Local marketing and promotion has always been the bigger factor in local markets in the board/card game industry.

dormouse said:

I have friends designing boardgames as well and it is quite usual that we talk about their games and I ask them questions. But it is your way.

Yeah, it is their game, but game developers (should or at least the ones I know) have interest in their game and their customers. If they brought a chance to a discussed rule (e.g. Mine), anyone would know that there are reasons to change something. But if they change a rule nobody had problems with before, somehow explanation does not hurt.

This rule change has make useless card like steel bane a playable card.
This rule change is helping the weakest faction. (DWARF)
This rule change has given a good and unique way of playing to the high elf.
This rule change give a chance to build very defensive deck

For my the rule change is a good rule change.

Yeah thats how I see it. I do hope a reprint is soon so that all players on on the same page.

jogo said:

Talking about the games they work on is one thing, contacting them solely to get an answer which they as of yet have not made public... IT is too much like using my friendship with them. In my own professional world I have to deal with this kind of thing, and while I love discussing my work and do not have a specific issue with giving free advice, I would hate to think any of my friends were my friends because of what I do. I definitely have acquaintances who seem to pump me for information or discussions which seem more like professional consults, and that is why they are acquaintances and not friends.

You say no one has a problem with the way the rules were before, but we can see people piping up about how Dwarfs have been given a bit of a boost because of it and ORcs have been given just a bit of a road bump, and considering the multitude of claims about Dwarfs being the weakest and Orcs being the strongest, I'd say that others have recognized a problem.

If this was intended, why not write one little sentence with that information?