Question:

I have a question that in this case is for Iron Discipline, although there are a few other similar cards that may be affected.

#45 Empire Tactic - Iron Discipline - 0R/1L - "ACTION: Target one unit. Until the end of the turn, cancel any other action that targets this unit unless the action's controller pays an additional 4 resources (per action)."

What counts as "any other action" for this purpose? For example, can I play Iron Discipline on an opposing unit in response to a Choppa being attached to prevent the Choppa being attached if the opponent chooses not to pay the 4? If so, does the Choppa go to the discard?

Official answer from James:

Any other action for the purposes of this ability means any other cards with the bolded "Action:" before the ability (I say for the purposes of this ability because playing a unit/support card from your hand is also an action with restrictions, but does not apply in this specific case).

For your example, Iron Discipline could not be played in response to Choppa being attached because the "Attach to a target unit in your battlefield" is not an action. Iron Discipline's effect also does not interact with "Attach to a target unit in your battlefield" for that same reason.

Hope this helps.

I see what he is saying, but isn't playing a support card an Action?

How are we to know when a card means printed ACTION verses any action?

So there are actions which are not actions in some cases in this game. Very clear. Really, really making sense.

(Or it is just lame ? *sigh*)

Easy to answer : Attaching a choppa does not target because the word target is not in the rolebook for attaching an attachement.

Target:
Targeting is checked when the card is played
and when the card effect resolves. A card
effect to is considered to be targeting as
long as it says “target” in the card text.

I understand that, but were not talking about targeting, were wondering about when an action is not an action.

Which is also simple, taking an action ("hey it is my turn to do something!") and playing an Action: (an effect you are choosing to trigger) are not the same thing. The words are only confusing if you take them out of context since the rulebook were Action: is defined is pretty specific. I had this same problem back in September so I get the confusion and it was alleviated by someone pointing this out.

My opinion is that, the card is overpowered... It should be just as corruption and franz's decree. I mean that the Iron Discipline card should have been played before choosing attacking and defending units.

Really? Having 3 of them in your hand is overpowered?

Taking an action is a lot different from Action: abilities. I thought this card was a moot issue.

Renju said:

Choppa : Attach to target unit in your battlefield. Attached unit gains 2 power.

Reading before posting is overrated.

BTW, Iron Discipline is still a chaos hoser... and since most times only the zounds of targeted removals gives chaos any chance vs empire it's seems way too strong. This, the invulnerable defenders, and the now near-uselessness of shrine to nurgle hammers chaos badly. I'm waiting to see a pure chaos deck which rivals empire jumping packs, dwarf grudge thower/ranger deck or orc rush.

Reading before posting is overrated.

Reading is my nemesis.

Thanks, i had read the entire rulebook for the attachement rule but forget to read again the choppa

Cain_hu said:

Even more when you kick in the Church of Sigmar (maybe even multiple copies). First need to pay 1 extra for each CoS, then still need 4 Resources on hand for 1 Iron Discipline. Better pack a hefty KZ (which the Empire probably Will + Judgements).

Chaos has a hard time against Empire, but it isn't the "sure-loss" described here. The various BPs add strength to the Chaos decks. Shrine to Nurgle now has a clear game text, its combo with Pestilence is no longer valid, but how many times did you manage to pull out that combo ? Not so often in my experience. Time to look after new combo... Cloud of Flies + Bloodsworn being my favorite.

Martin_fr said:

Shrine was no about Pestilence before FAQ. It was about every damaging effect, be it Nurgle Sorceror or Blood for the Blood God. It was no way uber-powerfull, but at least I could use it. Now it' better to play alliances in place of shrine (especially because you will take in some DE tactics/Vile Sorceress in most cases)

Cloud of Flies is already is a 2 of in my chaos deck.

Maybe they are trying to reinforce a paper/rock/scissors thing for the game. Empire beats Chaos, Chaos beats orcs, etc. That is just an example, I don't know if that is really the intended setup, but you get the idea.

I love buying 3x of everything just so when the next box expansion comes out, I will have all the Delf and Helf cards to make the best deck they can be.

Fletchgrooves said:

Thinking this way makes no card overpowered... Really. Try to play action/spell based chaos when every one of your action is cancelled. Good luck!

Aryan said:

And he is right, no card is particularly OVER powered, somne are very powerful... This is not really one of them. If it could cancel any effect in the game that would be different. Having only one non-neutral cancel in the game would be bad... but as it is we have extremely limited amounts of effect cancel in this game. IOW if ou are playing a Chaos deck and " every one of you actions is cancelle d," you are the unluckiest player in the game, a particularly bad player or deck builder, or your opponent is cheating. I'll believe the first or the last as being far more likely if what you are describing is not hyperbole (which is I think the most likely situation).

dormouse said:

Don't take everything so literally. Not every action. If an Empire player will cancel 2 key chaos actions (sometimes even one in a decisive battle) at 0 cost it can be gg already. I don't say every cancel card would be bad. Just making this a 0 cost tactic and forcing the other player to pay additional 4 res is overpowered. If Iron Discipline costed 2-3 res or if the chaos player had to pay additional 2 res for spell. But 0 cost and 4?? No player will save 4 resources just in case for a spell, specialy in early and mid game. Thus makes this tactic overpowered in my opinion.

If you don't want me to take it as you wrote it then don't write it or use a smiley so I know not to take your statement seriously. Hyperbole gets us no where and is a detriment to good discussion on forums.

IF getting that tactic through is that important and your opponent has cards in hand then yes, I do expect you to keep 4 resources available, or to string together Actions: that will force him to play it at a sub-optimal time or create analysis paralysis.

This is like complaining about Judgement of Verena and how if you want to keep your units alive you have to play developments in case your opponent has the card. You have a pretty simple work around for it and your choosing not to take it is no ones fault but your own. I'm will to bet 3 out of 5 times if you play your Action: while you have the four resources, your opponent won't even bother using the card unless he knows the combo you are trying to set up and disrupting one piece disrupts the entire combo.

My hyperbole was pretty clear and thus i find it pointless to add a smiley. I don't want to argue dormouse. No offence. Just wanted to express what's on my mind.

But back to the discussion. Of course we may play saving 4 resources per turn, but isn't it to harmful? Empire won't have to warry about cancel and will use full potential of his resources. 4 resources is one strong unit. 'Loosing' it by expecting ID can be very harmful.

Dormouse, do you think it should be a 0 cost tactic or force an opponent to pay 4 add. res.? Would you set it the same? This is the core of my doubts. Is the cost set properly to the effect?

My problem is :

- there is only one race currently out of six which have "you must play/build deck counting on these cards or you lose" effects : Empire. That's everything but not balanced.

A 0 cost card which effectively cancels another effect IS too strong. You lose a card, your enemy lose card and resources. Compare it with then new Scent DE card : it could remove any card from hand, but cost 2 resources, have 3 loyalty and could be played only during your turn. Now thats a well balanced control card.

Judgement was already too powerfull (since even if you play develpoments every turn they still could wreck your zones with Electors), but now you will have less posibilities to disrupt the empire player early with removals. Also, empire have got the best resource engine thanks to Shrine to Taal/Jumping packs which also depend on creatures.

ID would be ok at 2 resources I guess, then at least the Empire player also should make some comitment in disrupting your plan.

Clamatius said:

so iron discipline wont stop a unit from being targeted by cards with forced effects, at the beginning of the turn effects?

for e.g.

Fester Nurglings

Forced : After this unit enters play, corrupt one target unit in any player's corresponding zone.

Bule, Lord of Pus

Forced : At the beginning of your turn, corrupt one target unit .

Cloud of Flies

Attach to a target unit you control.

At the beginning of your turn, you may deal 1 uncancellable damage to this unit and to one target unit .

Normanrezza said:

Exactly. Just like the Bright Wizard Apprentice can't be used to cancel such a non-action effect.

I'ld like ID to be reworded to protect only an "Elite" unit from being targeted, instead of any units (including your opponent's ). This would have been at least one card taking advantage of those useless traits (sure, future cards will use them, but some could already).

I think the card has enough restrictions on its use already that adding more or giving it a cost effect is much to limiting. It is hard, and unfair, to compare cost of cards with different effects in different races. Different effects have different values based on what they do, when it can be done, and what it effects, as well as how likely that effect is to cause a shift in the board position or provide or nullify card advantage, and all of that needs to be considered before we even address the fact that different races are skilled at different things so an effect that is follows a thematic component in one race is going to be cheaper than it is in any other race.

Cain-Hu; " - there is only one race currently out of six which have "you must play/build deck counting on these cards or you lose" effects : Empire. That's everything but not balanced. "

I fundamentally disagree with this statement, unequivocally. If you don't play and build around effects like Troll Vomit, repeated direct damage, damage cancel, capital healing, uncanceable damage, corruption etc. you will lose against any deck that features it. If I'm playing Empire I should know that I need to put developments into zones I have units. I should probably put 3 in the important zones. If I have an Action : effect I want to play I really should keep that four resources available, or it is a gamble. Why should playing Actions: be a guaranteed effect? Why is the uncertainty of their working precisely the way I planned a bad thing? Actually let me reverse this question, how is my certainty of my tactics working a good and healthy thing for this game?

Normanrezza said:

I assume this card only protects the target unit from ACTION: abilities. Forced effects are not actions IMO, they are.. forced effects.

< is only the graphic designer so my word isn't law here... but that's how I intrepret the card (whilst being a player of the game).

Precisely correct.