Har Ganeth

Kingdom. Action: At the beginning of your turn, return one target unit with less than 2 hit points to its owner's hand.

-

I'm sure I read somewhere that "hit points" refers to maximum hit points, while "remaining hit points" refers to "hit points" minus damage. As such, am I correct that Har Ganeth cannot target, for instance, a unit with two maximum hit points and one damage?

RM

I was waiting for someone to bring this up given Wytefang's discussion with James. You'll need to check with him to be sure but that is the interpretation that makes the most sense given what we know about HP.

i know what you mean but not exactly, according to what we know.

Maximum HP is infinity really. Take Pistoliers: their native/inherent/normal HP value is 2. Their remaining HP is their current HP value (normally 2); whether they have 0 or 1 damage, they have 2 HP. ....UNLESS there is some sort of effect in play that would increase their HP or reduce them...So the only thing HP has to do with damage is that if at any point damage = current HP, unit destroyed immediately; they are independant of one another.

Also i wish they would've had the card read "...target unit with 1 HP to its owner's hand." instead of "...less than 2 HP". But i guess that makes the card 'sound' less useful.

Okay, and how do I contact him directly?

RM

'Rules Questions' link at very bottom of this page to ask a specific rules question regarding this or any FFG game.

i can't see why people want certain cards to work the way they want to instead of the way they are reading.

it's quite clear on this one. 1HP => ok ; more than 1 => no.

you can use the sorceress to lower hp and use it on a bigger unit if you need.

You'll notice mister he isn't referencing use of the sorceress in this situation. The sorceress's interaction with Har Ganeth is not in question. What's in question is the term 'hit points' as referenced on Har Ganeth in say comparison with Deathmaster Sniktch which says 'with fewer remaining Hit Points'. One takes in to consideration how much damage is on the unit (Deathmaster) and the other is in question whether it does or does not. I think it's a very valid question.

Hit Points (HP) are most of the time the number in the shield on unit cards. Some effects (Vile Sorceress, Dragon Mage Wakening) can modify this number.
Damages assigned and applied to the unit don't modify the HP.

The HP of a 3 H.P. unit with 2 damage is still 3 H.P.

Someone somewhere quoted James on this and it can be guessed in the rulebook p. 13: "Any unit that has as many (or more) damage tokens on it as it has Hit Points is destroyed".

The Deathmaster introduced a new variant, the "remaining Hit Points". It's either a new "concept-word", meaning Hit Points minus Damage, either an error.

I do agree, it's confusing and it would have been easily avoided with a clear statement in the rulebook and/or a better proof-checking on wording.

Back to the first question, Har Ganeth can only bounce 1 total [not 1 remaining] HP unit.

I don't really think it is confusing, i think a lot of people just made an assumption that is not supported by any rule or card, that damage lowers HP.

You shouldn't blame FFG when they only made rules statements and cards that supported one specific interpretation and people made assumptions without bothering to check the veracity of them... that is on us the player base.

dormouse said:

H.P. reflecting the actual remaining life of a player is very common thing in Fantasy games, from tabletop RPG to Computer Games, so I don't blame people getting confused for that - although the rulebook could have been constructed so players could easily find any definition of a game concept, including H.P. Actually, it is a very good self-learning book for the rule, but it's a very poor reference rulebook.

My gripe is rather with the apparition of "remaining H.P." keywords. I understand it as "[total] H.P. minus damage". It could be understood also as "current H.P. of this unit", in opposition to "initial H.P.", i.e: "Free Company", hit by "Vile Sorceress" effect : 2 remaining H.P. vs 3 initial H.P. I *don't* think this is the correct interpretation but without a clear definition, it is as valid as mine. Clear definition (and patience ) is the answer to wrong assumption.

I see any unqualified statement about HP to be the number printed on the card and then including any raising or lowering effects, while I see remaining as that subtracting for damage. I suggest if this is really an issue that it be sent to James for clarification.

FYI - Remaining HP is not a new keyword (important, keywords in this game are a form of rules shorthand with a specific game influencing effect), it is phrase used to describe a condition check within an effect. Totally different. I point this out, not because I think you actually misunderstand it, but because a lot of people have referred to things like text effects and traits as keywords and they are not. Doing so will confuse new players since keywords are listed and defined in the rulebook and if they ever decide to introduce new keywords it will be important to recognize them for what they are so they can be handled properly in-game.

dormouse said:

I do too. But it needs an official statement as, with current definitions as far as I can remember, there is no way to say we are in the right and the other assumption is not. I'll send a R.Q. request about this tomorrow.

Agreed about the use of keywords. I was lacking a good substitute at the time.

The rulebook certainly gives no indication that damage lowers HP. There is an arrrow pointing at the shield in the lower-left, and the key defines this number as HP:

"Hit Points: The amount of damage a unit can
take. If a unit has as many damage tokens as it has
hit points, that unit is destroyed and is placed in its
owner’s discard pile."

If damage lowered HP, then, according to the above text, a unit with two printed HP would die with one damage, because it would have damage = HP. Raise your hand if you think this is a possibility. Nobody? Good. If anything, the "remaining" on Deathmaster Sniktch might need clarification.

Supa said:

The concept of "remaining Hit Points" existed prior to the Deathmaster, in the section on assigning damage (page 12). The meaning seemed perfectly clear in context, even though it wasn’t strictly defined.

But then that paragraph got errataed beyond recognition, and I don’t think anybody really knows why. So it's hard to say what the designers intend to do with that concept now.

About the Deathmaster :

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=140&efcid=4&efidt=317045&efpag=2

Post #37

" "I have been mulling over the Deathmaster. Was everyone playing it that "remaining HP" equaled original HP minus any damage? I guess with just about everyone there playing Skaven they all wanted that interpretation."

James told me specifically at the event that "remaining hps" is not affected by how much damage is on a unit. I dont know why they worded it that way."

Good call on the "RPG effect" in all this. If my thief has 1 HP (as he nearly always seems to), that means he has 1 HP remaining. We've gotta be careful, however, not to cross-reference our gaming knowledge. As so many of us in here love to declare from every mountaintop and belltower (good grief), W:I is its own game, and as such we have to kind of insulate ourselves from outside terminology and whatnot. James has stated that Hit Points are the numbers printed in the little shield, and that damage does not alter that number in any way. We Need Your Blood, Lokhir Fellheart, and Corsairs of Ghrond, on the other hand, all do because their text specifically states as much.

Being a new game, and with its very small card pool, W:I is going through a more pronounced maturation process than most card games that I've seen. It has to settle into its identity, if you will, where we as the core player base get reasonably comfortable with the "feel of the game", and wordings like this one becomes a bit more intuitive, or at least have some precedence. I will say that more diligence in the crafting of the rulebook and the tournament floor rules would have eliminated the bulk of debate and confusion right out of the gate. Hopefully, as this game takes root and establishes itself as one of the power players in the cardgame industry, more attention will be paid to the details that are, right now, slipping through the cracks.