James confirmed yesterday that Hellcannon Reserves only applies to tactics that include targeting in the text. So at this point it is fairly overpriced for what it gives you. Maybe there are some multi-target Chaos tactics coming.
Deathmaster's Dance Spoiler
That's what I was guessing the case would be. I agree that makes the card pretty weak.
cyberfunk said:
Wytefang said:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would this Unit be any worse against DE or Chaos as a Defender in a battle??
As a sidenote, it's painful for me to read your Magic-stylized vernacular in your assessment of this new BP. Ugh. Painful. 
But I've enjoyed your perspective and insight, overall, so it all balances out. Though for the record, I think you're a wee bit too negative, in general. )
Anything effect that deals non-combat damage (e.g. Flames of Tzeentch) will assign and apply its damage simultaneously, so there will be no window to use the Hydra's action. Anything that gives it -1HP (e.g. We Need Your Blood) will kill it as well.
@Whytefang - This is not the first time we have seen this used. There are a few cards which sacrifice for an effect and I've seen all of them used between the assign and apply steps of combat. This isn't some micro-manipulation of the rules, this is how the game works, how it was intended to work, and if I may say, how I and many others, prefer it to work. What makes CCG-style games interesting is the subtlety of play, that cards used at the right time by a knowledgable player are more powerful than when used incorrectly or mistimed y a novice player. Board games almost universally lack this finesse, which is why I don't play any board games as obsessively as I do Thrones and W:I. They just lack the complexity to hold my attention for more than a couple of hours every couple of weeks, whereas I'd happily play both of those LCG's a couple hours a day every day.
I respect that it is not something you value, but please understand that does not devgalue the game in the eyes of others, nor is it a mistake on the part of the developers and designers.
Dear dormouse
The problem with Flagellant is not that it is sacrificed between assign and apply... the problem is that damage is already assigned so how it is equal the "next 2 damage assigned" in any way ? Or words regarding "when" should be ignored when we reading WHI card texts ? 
You would be right if it was a response for some damage dealing Action, but it is not the case : you could make your sacrifice only after damage assigned, and it's therefore not subject to the FILO method.
To make this card work as intended they should have worded it based on Rune of Valaya "Sacrifice this unit to cancel 2 damage assigned to your capital this turn"
So please, if there is an answer take your time, and try to explain me how and why it is work, because I really don't see it. 
First time i read Flagellants, i understood : the next 2 damage (that have been) assigned.
So damage that are already assigned. maybe they thought that way too.
@Cain, the way I've read Whytefang's complaints is that it is possible to sacrifice them at all after they have been assigned damage. He repeatedly said that once something is assigned damage it should die, not be able to do something else.
I can't pretend to know precisely how Flagellants works in the timing window anymore than anyone else. I read and guessed at how they wanted it to work, but don't get how it does. It appears to violate my understanding of how aasign/actionw/apply is supposed to work. That is not to say my understanding was ever correct to begin with. I allow for the possibility that I may have been mistaken, as much as I allow for the article to be incorrect on the combo. I expect James to either say the card does not work as stated in the article (<30%), to explain the timing in greater detail so we all understand it (>20%), or errata the card so the wording is consistent with their intentions (>50%). Unlike many people here I do not carry any judgement value with any of these solutions, and won't talk about how they are ruining the game, I'm quitting, or last faith in Lang/French/Hata/Team FFG. It is a game. The designer and developers are human. Mistakes will happen. They will attempt to make a choice that they feel is best for the game. Only they know what was intended and where the game is going, and I've had so much fun so far I am willing to trust them. The card is new, I haven't had a chance to use it yet, so I have no vested interest in the answer, and whatever it is, explaining it to new people will be predictably simple.
Thanks dormouse !
I hoped you know the rules better than I do, and you see how and why the card work as we read in the article.
cyberfunk said:
Wytefang said:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would this Unit be any worse against DE or Chaos as a Defender in a battle??
As a sidenote, it's painful for me to read your Magic-stylized vernacular in your assessment of this new BP. Ugh. Painful. But I've enjoyed your perspective and insight, overall, so it all balances out. Though for the record, I think you're a wee bit too negative, in general. )
Anything effect that deals non-combat damage (e.g. Flames of Tzeentch) will assign and apply its damage simultaneously, so there will be no window to use the Hydra's action. Anything that gives it -1HP (e.g. We Need Your Blood) will kill it as well.
Other than "fatty" and "bounce" I don't think I used too many Magic-derived terms in that post, and even those are in pretty wide circulation in other CCGs. I mean, I wasn't tapping guys for mana or anything. I await your Magic-to-Warhammer dictionary so I can expunge, er, I mean extirpate, er, no eradicate, um... get rid of... all of my vestigial Magic phrasology.
Ahhh...now I see your reasoning. I was running on very little sleep the past few days which may explain my obtuseness in this regard. Sigh. My apologies.
Also, it does appear that you are correct - you didn't use all that much non-normalized CCG speak, fair enough.
dormouse said:
@Whytefang - This is not the first time we have seen this used. There are a few cards which sacrifice for an effect and I've seen all of them used between the assign and apply steps of combat. This isn't some micro-manipulation of the rules, this is how the game works, how it was intended to work, and if I may say, how I and many others, prefer it to work. What makes CCG-style games interesting is the subtlety of play, that cards used at the right time by a knowledgable player are more powerful than when used incorrectly or mistimed y a novice player. Board games almost universally lack this finesse, which is why I don't play any board games as obsessively as I do Thrones and W:I. They just lack the complexity to hold my attention for more than a couple of hours every couple of weeks, whereas I'd happily play both of those LCG's a couple hours a day every day.
I respect that it is not something you value, but please understand that does not devgalue the game in the eyes of others, nor is it a mistake on the part of the developers and designers.
I appreciate your explanation and appreciations as well. In fairness, please also understand that there are also many that may NOT like the unnecessary (as they perceive it) complexity that timing-based strategy can cause in these kinds of games. I'm not sure where I'd place myself...at times I find this kind of "crap" (as I've crankily labeled it) annoying, other times it can provide some fun. I'd rather not be put in a box as to where I stand since I've not fully decided yet.
Another note is that I spell your nickname properly as "Dormouse" please spell mine correctly too, if you don't mind. (I ABSOLUTELY don't mean that in a snarky way, at all, I'm just asking you nicely to make the effort, please. If I'd wanted to be called "Whytefang" online, I'd have used that particular spelling.) Thanks.
Finally, and this is referring to a comment you make further down about the poorly worded Flagellants - I'm not about to quit this game over human mistakes or whatever, but I reserve the right as a paying customer and a fan of this game (who has generated for FFG no small amount of other customers for W:I) to provide honest, gut-felt feedback or criticism. That doesn't mean I don't respect or even like James, Eric or Nate (the latter two I've both worked with in the past, and I know they're GREAT designers), not by any means. I, too, believe that this game will only improve and get better with time. I'm just hoping to see the game not fall into the trap of becoming too confusing for new players to enjoy and want to learn. Hopefully that makes sense.
I guess predictably enough, coming from a Magic background, I'm fine with "timing complication", i.e. using a stack mechanic.
I'm not happy about inconsistent templating so that cards with very similar effects work different ways. That's bound to be very confusing to most players. I realise that these are teething pains of a new game but it's something that needs to be addressed in future sets.
Compare and contrast:
Action: Remove a resource token from this unit to cancel 1 damage assigned to it. Then add 1 resource to your pool.
Action: Sacrifice this unit to cancel the next 2 damage assigned to your capital this turn.
Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn.
(respectively, War Hydra, Flagellants and Steel's Bane)
You guys need to chill.
Clamatius said:
I guess predictably enough, coming from a Magic background, I'm fine with "timing complication", i.e. using a stack mechanic.
I'm not happy about inconsistent templating so that cards with very similar effects work different ways. That's bound to be very confusing to most players. I realise that these are teething pains of a new game but it's something that needs to be addressed in future sets.
Compare and contrast:
Action: Remove a resource token from this unit to cancel 1 damage assigned to it. Then add 1 resource to your pool.
Action: Sacrifice this unit to cancel the next 2 damage assigned to your capital this turn.
Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn.
(respectively, War Hydra, Flagellants and Steel's Bane)
I suspect that FFG is aware that they have been having some templating issues and that they will make honest effort attempts at tightening up the verbage. Hopefully the playtesters are also aware and will expend some special effort to getting things to be a bit more consistent, and hopefully intuitive.
As to the three cards shown, the two that act on something other than themselves are worded essentially the same. And should work in the same way.
dormouse said:
As to the three cards shown, the two that act on something other than themselves are worded essentially the same. And should work in the same way.