RexGator said:

I usually do not count on my unit on Wolves of The North to play a role defending the zone. They are there to give me card draw and attack. Great thing about the WLC combo is that I can put it on a relatively weak unit such as a festering Nurgling or Dark Zealot and now my opponent has a real tough choice. Do they burn some type of removal card or effect to get rid of that unit (knowing that I may have a better unit to replace OR take the three points of damage. Combo can really get nasty with Shrine to Nurgle in play.

wraith428 said:

That's true, however don't forget the golden rule : Card text overrides the rules.

Compare :

Cloud of flies, Sadistic Mutation : "Attach to target unit you control"

Warp Lighning Gun, Organ Gun : "Attach to a target unit"

So... why point out in some card text that you could use it on only units you control ? There are no enemy controled units in your 3 zones anyway, eve with the DE manpower stealer card (what it's name ?)

Thematically speeking : Selling WLG to your opponent to corrupt them by the warpstone seems a valid move, if that corrputon takes them out of your way. Some bribery going on I presume.

I have submitted the question of whether you can play WLC on an opponents unit to James. Will post back when I get an answer.

I don't agree - the rules and common sense (in this regard) seem pretty clear. If they allowed this the whole concept of my cards and your cards starts to blur too much. Plus this is the kind of "I want to be clever so I'm going to ignore the central concepts and rules of the game to do so" maneuver that I (personally) find extremely annoying. It's obvious that it's not meant to be played for your opponent (and as we can agree, it's not going to really help you all that much anyway) but on your units to help them fight.

If I'm playing a friendly game, I'm definitely not going to allow it or play with some butt-weasel who tries to play this way.

And yes, in general, I don't mind the fun part of CCGs where each card breaks the rules. But this is a case of trying to rules-lawyer your way to playing something against the main concepts of the game. If Hata allows this, what's next? Hopefully he makes the right decision here and supports common sense. Thanks for sending him that question.

Wow, that's quite a stance. We've been playing in my group that WLC can be played on an opposing unit, and never thought twice about it. We are all former Magic players, however, so it makes sense to us. I would hope that the official ruling does not remove the versatility and game play decisions associated with this, and possibly future, cards.

My group and I personally played as though it could be played onto any unit, as all other attachment cards that add power literally state they must be played on a unit you control. To us we didn't think about it much as it has a trade-off. But playing now as onto your own units only, thanks to wraith also section in rulebook about control & ownership only mentions another player controlling an opponent's card via "steal[ing] control" of it, nothing of attachments. unless of course attachments CAN be played on opp. units and owner still controls the attachment lol but i hope that won't be the case

f7eleven said:

But for the record, this isn't Magic:The Gathering. It's its own unique entity and rules-system. Thinking that this should work simply because "well it works in Magic" is not the right perspective to tap into (pun intended). This game stands on its own and I think if you start making rulings that allow for basic concepts to be rules-lawyered, you're heading down a slippery slope.

Each to his or her own, of course.

First, the text of the card always super-cedes the rules, playing by the text of the card is not "rules-lawyering" of violating the central concepts of the game. Period. It may cause you to rethink your view or understanding of the game, but those to things are not the same.

Second, there is a long history in military warfare where enemy units are allowed to take hills, positions, fortifications, supplies, equipment, etc, specifically because they are sabotaged, poisoned, or indefinsible. A weapon which is powerful but is unsafe to wield would easily fall into that category, so it is not against the central concepts of the game.

Third, this is exist in the LCG system already.

I would be shocked if at some point in this game there were not attachment supports that were attached to opponents cards. This may or may not be the introduction of this mechanic, but any statement about how this violates anything central to the game concepts is just not true. Development may never go down this route by choice, but still the declaration of a conceptual violation just doesn't hold water.

We'll have to agree to disagree. At some point you have to know that certain tenets of the game remain unchanged or untainted by the cards themselves, regardless of whether or not "that's how CCGs or LCGs do things." Otherwise you're just playing a game like Fluxx or similar games where nothing is reliable. That's my main concern.

I'm not against them specifically making a card to do that, with the card text to support it - I'm against it getting to the point where we can't rely on anything in the rulebook if a card is different. And in this case, to be fair, the card itself doesn't necessarily support this unplanned usage specifically on the card. I imagine that people can come up with arguments for or against, like we always do in these kinds of forums but going by the card itself and the current rulebook, it should not be playable on someone else's unit.

I've always disliked that kind of Munchkin gaming and probably always will. ::: shrug :::

Almost feel bad doing this to you Wytefang...

WLC is playable on opponent's units. I posted the answer in the rules forum. I cannot get the link to properly so you will have to go look for the thread.

I do think you are overreacting a bit here Wytefang. This hardly violates the core elements of the game AND strongly supports the theme. Chaos in the Warhammer world is all about seducing others so that they are truly serving the purposes of the Chaos Gods. Often without even realizing that they are doing so.

Imagine the glee of the Ironbreakers' Commander when his unit "stumbles" upon the WLC. The unit loses all other interest as they study this glorious addition to their arsenal and attempt to decipher how to unlock its obvious power. They are so mesmerized by the finding that they pay no heed to the dust clouds as Chaos Knights charge by into their Kingdom

RexGator said:

Ugh. Seems like the new Designer isn't so hot at rules decisions.

Looks like I (probably) won't be playing this in any tournaments or leagues - we'll probably just house rule this to have it make more sense. There have been too many recent crappy rules decisions as of late for my tastes, with little logic or justification behind them.

This is the only thing I was really afraid of about this new game - poor game design decisions or rules answers, and it would appear my fears are coming true. Sigh.

I'll amend my previous post to say that the ruling seems wrong to me - I can't judge James by just this ruling and it sounds like he wasn't the sole person responsible for changing the Toughness ruling so I'll have to cut him some slack until I can see more about how his rulings work. Plus I'm pretty tired and crabby tonight so this ruling which rewards munchkin-style thinking annoys the crap outta me.

Oh well. More sleep = happier Wytefang tomorrow, I guess. LOL

Every indication shows this was the way the card was designed, not a recent reinterpretation of the card.

Since we never get to hear directly from the designers it is somewhat hard to verify that interpretation but you're probably right (as usual) Dormouse.