If so : har ganeth + WNYB is not a legal combo on a 2 hp unit

because if i right:

har ganeth must be played at the beggining of the turn.
So Har Ganeth must be played first and the 2 hp unit is not a legal target.

you must play in response at another "begging of the turn action " before playing har ganeth to become legal

Renju said:

That is not correct.

As in the exemples taken when playing 2 Rats ogres, "must be played at the begining of the turn" mean that you can only play this action during action phase 0 of the turn(the first action phase defined in the FAQ), that does meant that you have to take this action first.

Shindulus said:

Actually you are incorrect Shindulus.

James already said that all beginning of turn FORCED effects must resolve as soon as your turn begins (in whatever order you choose). Then, any beginning of turn ACTIONS must be the start of action ques right after. If you play an action that is not "beginning of turn" to start a que, then you cannot play another beginning of turn action this turn (because you are saying that it is no longer the beginning of your turn once you play this action).

Going back to the example, if you play WNYB then you are ending your beginning of turn window (which happens at the start of phase 0). Therefore, you cannot play Har Ganeth after that.

I am just really suprised that you check BOTH on targeting AND resolution. I would really love an official ruling on this since it is a huge way one can counter cards that have specific targets (I'm looking at you Deathmaster!).

Toberk, I'm sure that Shindulus is right. Here's what James said in his email to me back in March.

First is that response actions that trigger "At the beginning of your turn" must be played during that timing window if you want to use them. That is the only restriction in that regard. You do not have to trigger them first or anything like that.

Second, it is also important to know that an action window does not close until both players pass the action window in succession. (Example: At the beginning of the turn, you trigger the Clan Rats action. It resolves. I pass on triggering any actions. You then get an opportunity to trigger another action in this window. If you pass on triggering any actions, the window is closed.)

Third, once a stack begins to resolve, then there is no opportunity to play additional actions until after that stack has completely resolved.

Finally, units do not restore until the Kingdom Phase.

So, for your example.

You can first trigger the clan rat's action to give a power to a rat ogre.

Then, once that action has resolved. You may in the same window then trigger the rat ogre's action. (restore all corrupted skaven units)

Once that has resolved. You may trigger the clan rat's action again to give a power to a rat ogre.

Once that has resolved. You may trigger the second rat ogre's action. (Restore all corrupted skaven units).

Once that has resolved. You may trigger the clan rat's action again to give a power to a rat ogre.

Sigh. The beginning of turn stuff is pretty confusing. Anyway, for sure you can use a -hp effect like WNYB to lower the HP of some unit to 1 and then bounce it with Har Ganeth's ability, that's not really debatable.

Now, the actual question I was trying to answer re: Har Ganeth was whether in a Dark Elf mirror match, playing We Need Your Blood in response to Har Ganeth's action (and thus giving the unit-that-was-about-to-be-bounced +1 hp and some other unit -1 hp) stops the unit being bounced since it has more than 1 hp at resolution time. That's the same kind of question as the one over the Deathmaster's ability.

RE:

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.

So if I'm reading that right, they are basically saying everything has an intervening 'if' clause, whether printed or not?

This game has such bad templating...

Just to sanity check, the stack still resolves first in, last out, even though the entire stack is cleared when both players pass priority, correct? If not, and abilities on the stack do indeed resolve simultaneously, I am *really* confused as to what happens in the dueling Deathmasters case.

Assuming they do resolve first in, last out though, this doesnt really change much. Just means you need a 4th Skaven to join the party before the Deathmasters kill each other (IE its really stupid to shoot first). It does open up interesting game states where one player has Deathmaster + Greyseer out and the other player can't respond with their Deathmaster. Probably a disincentive to splash 6 Skaven rather than play the full package. Huzzah for even more pressure to play a full-bore Skaven deck.

Right. It's a bit more fiddly since it's restricted target legality in the case of Har Ganeth and the Deathmaster, so the question is whether it works the same way as Magic where the magic "if" can make it check at resolution time, or whether it always checks at both declaration and resolution. Anyway, I sent it in along with the Har Ganeth question (which is the same thing, really) and also Wytefang can ask James if he sees him earlier.

I can say that I used 'we need your blood' at the super regoinal to prevent a deathmaster from killing a guy by increasing the targets hit points. Of course, just because it was allowed at this event does not mean that its the offical ruling

Vitamin T said:

Was a judge called when you made the play? Or did your opponent just go, "ok."?

If a judge WAS called, and he ruled in your favor then I'd totally take that as an official ruling. Especially since the tournament was AT FFG.

Well, I think I did it in the semifinals with the judges rigth there but my opponent did just say 'ok'. It's possible I'm remembering the wrong round I guess. I'd suggest waiting for an official reply.

Alright, I got an answer back from James (that was quick!). Q1 was re: Deathmaster Sniktch and Q2 was We Need Your Blood in response to Har Ganeth's ability.

Actions check for target legality twice, once during declaration and once during resolution.

1) In the situation regarding Deathmaster Sniktch, if the target becomes illegal during resolution due to a targeting requirement not being met (in this case fewer HP than the number of Skaven cards in play), then the ability fizzles (has no effect).

2) No. Since the target became illegal between declaration and resolution, the effect does not go off when it checks again during resolution.

Hey, so if James is answering so quickly, will someone ask him when and if we're getting multiplayer rules!?

So now that I'm a bit confused, how does James's ruling affect whatever the original question was? Can someone layout how a conflict between Sniktch's would work for my slow brains?

Sure. Let's say I have a Clan Rat and a Deathmaster in play.

You now play your Deathmaster. The Deathmasters are now locked in a Mexican standoff until someone corrupts one or another Skaven is played - if you try to kill my Deathmaster, I will kill yours in response and your action will fizzle. Vice versa, so clearly noone will activate a Deathmaster unless they gain strategically by losing their Deathmaster and destroying some amazing 1 hp target (seems unlikely, but yeah). If you really wanted to, I guess you could trade your Deathmaster for my Clan Rat, but that seems like a terrible play too.

swingjunkie said:

I once asked about this on a Friday night session and he was pretty mysterious/weird about it. If I had to guess, not anytime soon AND I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be the elegant, easy solution we've all been hoping for (see my ancient thread that offers a very good - imho - solution for multiplayer). I'd guess it's going to be something a bit more convoluted or involved.

I suppose that's not being charitable enough but I'm "glass-half-full-guy" today. LOL

Clamatius said:

Wait. If you have a Clan Rat and Deathmaster, and I plop mine down, if you activate yours, I'd obviously activate mine in response, killing yours and leaving my Deathmaster home-free since you'll not have enough Skaven to kill mine at the resolution point for your dead-Sniktch's Effect to hit. Sounds good to me for the person playing Sniktch second.

It doesn't matter who plays Sniktch first or second. The person to activate theirs first will lose it, that's the point.

Clamatius said:

Clamatius, this is indeed a beastly deck. Out of curiosity (and because of cards like this in games in the past which only checked main titles and not "sub-titles," so to speak) I did ask Nate (so James may have a different idea) about the nature of Alliance cards and which was the title, and he said Alliance, and thus 4 copies of any kind would be illegal. I know he's not working in the same capacity on the game at this time, so if you want to get this more official, you can. Just thought I'd pass it along.

At any rate, I don't think the deck loses that much having to replace the one Alliance. Great job on optimizing this thing like you have.

I will definitely send that in. It doesn't make much difference to this deck but I certainly have had decks in the past which ran a bunch of alliances.

How exactly was FFG expecting people to know that "Alliance" was the card title? The rulebook shows the title of support cards as being found on the bar in the middle of the card, which would make the Orc/Chaos Alliance card's title "Orc/Chaos." Obviously, the Alliance cards borrow some templating elements from both supports and tactics, but it says right there in the corner that they're supports...

I think it makes for more interesting decisions if you have the option of trying to run three factions... can't really see why they would want to cut off that option.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Nate was wrong - so it's worth checking.

The deathmaster conflict should usually not matter. Any good player with a deathmaster in play first would just use its ability to kill one of the other random skaven in response to the opponents deathmaster being played so that they wont have enough to kill yours. It would also not matter if you shot first if you had enough skaven in play even after the deathmaster was gone to kill the opponents.

You have balls of steel if you are willing to corrupt your Deathmaster without another one in hand in response to your opponent playing theirs. Innovate into another Skaven doesnt concern you at all? This matchup is so dominated by who has an active Deathmaster that I can't see taking that kind of risk unless I was imminently in danger of losing. I mean, maybe if you are offing a Greyseer in a really bad board state its worth it, but killing Clan Rats is not what you want to be doing man.

And Deathmastering Clan Moulder's Elite is referred to as "living the dream" in our playgroup.

The way I see it, if they are playing a rush deck and they have all that in their hand and 2 or 3 developments for innovation, then they are probably in a pretty bad board position to start with. They could have just as easily built up their quest zone in order to stock their hand, but then they aren't generating a lot of resources to keep up either. It just seems like the right play to me. If your opponent has the nuts draw to dump their stuff and blow you out that way, there probably wasn't much of a hope anyway as they would be in that situation where they can have more rats in play than they need for DM.

I wanted to make sure everyone knew this, but I killed a Clan Moulder Elite today with a Deathmaster because I realised that Deathmaster counts the opponents skaven as well. He does not specify "skaven you control". He says "number of Skaven cards in play" meaning that if I have 4 skaven counting the deathmaster and the opponent has 2 CME in play, I can use my DM to kill that 5 hp CME as there are 6 total skaven in play.

So, based on that, if both players have a deathmaster in play along with just 1 other skaven each, both deathmasters would die if they tried to kill each other.

darkdeal said:

Yup, that's why I run ZERO skaven in my "screw skaven" deck.

BTW, I'm beating your deck Clamatius with mine. It ranges somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4.