Hi!

I have a few rule questions from my gamming group:

1) Does Hellcannon Reserves work on the damage assigned by cards like Pestilence, Offering of Blood and etc? Or just on cards that have keyword "target" in them?

2) What happens with Viligant Elector if I use his ability between damage assignment and damage dealing phase and he is about to receive 3 or more damage on himself? Does he dies, or he changes into attachment and assigned damage is no longer relevant? Also - can he be target of cards like Flames of Tzeentch after he is attached to enemy unit?

3) Iron Discipline - it counters only cards with keyword "Action:", or any effect that "target" a unit (i.e. cards with keyword "Forced:") etc. And one more thing about this card - does it prevent cards from taking effect if played in response? Example: Enemy plays Blood for the Blood God, I play Iron Discipline. Is my unit safe? Can he choose other targer then or Blood for the Blood God is discarded without effect?

#1 - I think a lot of people had this question, and it has probably already been sent to James.

#2 - I had this question as well, and sent it to James. Don't think there's any precedent.

#3 - There seems to be general agreement that it does not stop Forced effects. You can play it in response tactics, and it will stop the effect of any tactics that have not yet resolved (if your opponent does not pay 4). Your opponent cannot change targets, as targets are always declared when a tactic or Action is played.

1. I submitted this question to James last night.

2. I am inthe same boat, no precedent but I am assuming that the unit is "no longer a valid target" when you get to apply and thus it survives.

3. I am confident that Iron Discipline only applies to effects preceded by "action"

1. The answer is in the FAQ. Only tactics that specifically use the word "Target" are considered targetting.

2. There is no precedent in this game, but if I had to extrapolate, I would say "is considered an attachment" is probably going to mean it is no longer considered a character and since you may not apply damage to attachments the damage would fall off.

3. Iron Discipline only works on cards whose effects start with the bold "Action:" trigger word.

dormouse said:

The rules are pretty clear on this one. There are only 4 card types in WH:I (5 if you include the Draft cards) : Unit, Quest, Support, and Tactic. Attachment isn't a type of card. The rulebook reads : "(most often Attachments are support cards)" on page 7. "Most often" ? This must mean that cards could be Attachement without being a support card, right ?

So, the rulebook says that Attachment has nothing to do with the card type, let's read the card itself to know if its type changes when being an Attachement. The card says nothing, so the Elector must still be a unit. But it moved to another zone when it get attached to the enemy unit, does it matters about the damage assigned to it ? The FAQ says "no". So, the poor Elector will get killed...

Luckily, since the Elector is pretty much in an opponent's zone (unless it get attached to an enemy Elector attachedto one of your own units), it can no longer attack, nor contribute power. Sadly, since the Elector is still a Unit, it can be affected (and targeted) by cards that affect Units.

Either that, or the card text is miswritten (which won't be a surprise to me).

No, I don't buy that. When it changes to an attachment it isn't a unit any more. Compare and contrast with Bolt of Change:

Action: Until the end of the turn, one target development becomes a unit with 2 hit points and P P . It also counts as a development.

If changing the type of the card meant that it still kept the old type, Bolt of Change wouldn't need that final sentence.

Similarly, when Rip 'Dere 'Eads Off! changes a development to a unit, it isn't a development any more.

Martin's point I believe is attachment is not a card type, but a trait. So any card that acts on the attachment trait would act on it, but since the card type has not changed, the assigned damage would not fall off...

The second point you make about developments is equally valid though, a development is not a card type, it is a card state. It will be interesting to see how James rules on this. I suspect if we stick with strict interpretation of the rules we are probably closest with Martin's stance. The card text does certainly imply that the card is no longer a unit but an attachment... is it possible for it to lose it's card type and hold a trait instead?

I think I may prefer it to be only an attachment and not a unit because of the combos and design space it opens up, but I think it may be a case of conforming the rules/text to designer intent, essentially errata'ing the card or rules to function properly.

Just got an e-mail back from James. He says they will be issuing an errata for Vigilant Elector to make it clear that it becomes a support card. Also, if anyone was wondering, you can't get the bonus from Isha's Gaze by healing damage that isn't there.

1. James confirmed that Hellcannon Reserves only applies to tactics that specifically use the word target in their card text.

Was someone really arguing that you could heal damage that wasn't there?

dormouse said:

I wasn't arguing it, I was just asking. I thought Isha's Gaze seemed like one of the worst cards in the game since there are all of two cards that can work with it right now. Then I remembered that one of them, Archmage of Saphery, is also one of the worst cards in the game, so I thought maybe they were intending a combo. They do have the Dragonmage, but that doesn't exactly justify playing an Archmage on turn one. I'll be interested to see how they try to tie all of the HE stuff together.

I believe the plan is for all the HE stuff to get tied to a large stake on top of some kindling and then the Dark Elves will light the kindling.

That's how they all get tied together.

I updated the rulings links thread with all of James's answers (thanks to the people that sent in questions!).

Here is the official answear from James Hata:

Hi

Hellcannon Reserves only trigger when a tactic you play deals damage to one or more targets. Therefore, it is looking specifically for a tactic that deals damage and has the word "target." So it would not work with Nurgle's Pestilence.

Viligant Elector should say that it counts as an Attachment support card. This will be reflected in the next FAQ update. If you do use his action between assign damage and apply damage, then he does change into an attachment and the assigned damage will no longer be relevant. Once he becomes an attachment, he also counts as a support card (again the errata will fix this) instead of a unit.

Iron Discipline is a card that will only work against actions. For the purposes of this ability, only cards with "Action:" really matter because while playing a unit or support card is considered taking an action, they aren't actions that target a unit so they can't be cancelled by this effect.

If Iron Discipline is played in response to an action that targets, like Blood for the Blood God,
on the same unit that Blood for the Blood God targets, then Iron Discipline will resolve first. Iron Discipline's effect will resolve, requiring any other actions that target the unit to cost an additional 4 resources or be cancelled. When Blood for the Blood God resolves, it checks again to make sure the target of the effect is still legal. When it checks this time, it sees that the controller of the effect must pay 4 resources or the Blood for the Blood God will be cancelled. If the controller of the Blood for the Blood God chooses not to pay the 4 resources, then the Blood for the Blood God is cancelled.

Hope this helps!

James Hata

If a Drangonmage is defending a zone, can we assign 3 damage to it and the others to the capital or not because we can't destroy it ?

Mister Mask said:

Doesn't matter that you can't destroy him, still need to assign enough damage to destroy him (so if DM is defending solo, all damage your attackers assign must go to DM).

i still find this weird. how many damage must i assign to DM to kill him ? no possible answer...

i would like the design team to go back to the very first way to assigning damage :

you have to assign damage at least equal to the "remaining hit points" of the unit. so you can choose to kill the unit or damage the capital with the extra damage. (once again, how can a single dragonmage stop an entire Chaos Army with all generals and more!)

having the Dragonmage takes only one damage instead of three would still be a strong ability in my opinion and would fit a lot more an "actual" situation.

Mister Mask said:

This remains me some fluff questions : "How many Trolls are needed to cover the whole Old World under vomit ?"

Let's consider the Dragonmage to be a... Mage. Guess he summons a gigantic (but temporary) Wall of Ice protecting a large part of your capital from total annihilation.

I won't be surprised this ruling will be rewritten (one way or another) in the next FAQ. But for the time being, we'll have to include some "Pilgrimage" / "Seduced by Darkness" / "Cloud of Flies" / "Mob Up!" in our decks. (yes, Destruction has more tools to deal with this unit)