The guy that won was the other guy that was undefeated going into the last round. He was playing a pretty standard and very strong orc deck. I do not know exactly what he had in there.

Andwat said:

Well, I didn't build the deck, but Walking Sacrifice is good for:

-Stopping opposing Lobber Crews. Far and away the most important function.

-Free Loyalty.

In other decks, you might also use them for:

-Sitting on Quests that accumulate barrels.

-Your own sacrifice effects.

Yeah, that's the guy I played and lost 2 of 3 to. He was a bit over-confident (no offense but that's how he came across) but he won so I suppose it was merited!

Still, I thought he got pretty lucky a couple of times in our matches (at least in 2-3 instances - though I got pretty lucky with my Greyseer draw after he played Troll Vomit so I suppose it wasn't entirely one-sided, either). I appreciated that his deck was more Orc than Skaven, that was a good thing, though it was still a die-hard Rush deck, nothing fancy - just really well put-together and he clearly knew how to play it. That just makes me wish even more than I had more time to devout to working on my decks before the tournaments. Grrrr!!

Oops, too slow. Yeah, the Har Ganeth combo is good, too. Thought about that when I first read the cards, but it slipped my mind.

Whytefang,

The guy you played in round three that only had clan moulder was one of the guys I came up with from Iowa. He ended up getting 5th. (He does as they say 'Run Hot' with his draws sometimes =D )

The guy that won the event played me in the last swiss round and we took a draw. Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean and you were talking about your first round opponent? (The guy you played round 2 was also one of the guys I came up with)

Thanks for the report. This metagame is both completely predictable and highly dissapointing, though admittedly a small sample size. Surprised there wasnt at least a handful of people playing bad pet decks. I guess Skaven in particular and Destruction in general are obviously powerful enough to rule out even developing an attachment to anything else. Not a good thing for the health of the game.

Say it with me... ban Deathmaster & Clan Moulder's Elite for a healthy tomorrow~!

I'm not sure they need banning as much as a time-out, naughty-kid style. They can come back once they've cleaned their room (and other decks have better answers...).

Vitamin T said:

Weird, I thought the heavier-set guy with the striped shirt was from the Ohio group. Regardless of my comments I thought he was a great player and knew his stuff. Weird that he didn't make the cut for the final 4.

I enjoyed playing the other fella from Iowa - he was a friendly guy, great sport and we had some tense matches. And yes, I'd have said that even if he had been the one who won our match-ups.

Actually the card that helps the Ork decks to much is Troll Vomit. It is to much of a control card that can reset the game in their favor. It needs banned before the other stuff. Without it they are just a rush deck. Not that I think things need banned though.

I will say that I did lose game three in the finals in a large part due to troll vomit. I lost it more due to the lobber crew/Pillage turn that followed it though. It was a great match, couldnt really have been closer.

Wytefang said:

Yeah, that was me. Twas a good match, although strangely I had the thought that it was you that seemed over-confident in your skaven, hmm. You'd probably have been right to be so though, considering how everyone was playing them.

My orc deck only featured 2 of the Clan Moulder's Elite as the only skaven in it. I tried to focus on the metagame by taking "Foot of Gork" to try to wipe out targets in the mirror match as well as "Night Goblins" to smoke pesky attachments. "Foot of Gork" was more easily played with all the extra Orc cards in place of the non-aligned Skaven.

Had I known that there would be no order decks in the tournament, I would have played my Dwarf deck on principle alone. Especially after playing with the 4th place finisher afterwards and finding it to be very successful.

-Frog

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.

Wytefang said:

"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.

Vitamin T said:

Wait, are you saying that deathmaster can only kill units if there are more skaven cards out there than the total hp of a unit regardless of damage on it?

For example: Let's say there are 3 skaven cards out (including deathmaster) and i have a chaos knights with 2 damage on it (4hp unit total). James said that in this situation, the deathmasters CANNOT target my chaos knights?

Toberk said:

Thats right. He can't kill your Knights

Vitamin T said:

Vile Sorceress... That, and any other effect that makes a unit lose hit points.

If a unit is printed with 4 HP, but gets pinged by Vile Sorceress, then Deathmaster has to have 3 other friends to kill it, not 4...

Well I guess I've been playing them incorrectly. Thx for the post!

Plus, those DE knights that give a thing -2 HPs when they leave play (forgot their names, embarrassingly). And since they design these cards months in advance of their release, FFG knows that there are more HP reducers upcoming, y'know? Hopefully, mass effect ones that will wipe out all things green and leathery or brown and mangy!

Toberk said:

My fear is that everyone has been playing this wrong and it is one of the lingering questions that really ought to be addressed by a FAQ ASAP. The interpretation of this card can have pretty serious implications for deck builds. I have been kind of down on the game since the tournament rules came out. I am reluctant to invest time and effort trying to build an effective deck for tournament when I have no idea if my assumptions about card language is going to be consistent with my opponent or T.O. I am still digesting the ramification of "ties are worth one point" in a "best 2 of 3" swiss format. What happens if I go 1-1-1 during my best of 3? Who goes in the winner bracket and who in loser? These nagging doubts are really diminishing my interest in pulling my cards out.

I am hoping that FFG can rectify these things and get me re-energized about the game.

In response to the HP reduction ruling - James had told me this as well when we played a while back. My question is this, say I have We Need Your Blood (the -1hp to give another Unit +1hp card) and I play it on a Unit with 2 HP but 1 damage placed on it. Would it kill that unit then??

Wytefang said:

Yes the unit would die because damage would then equal HP. It is probably the best ruling for the GAME, it just needs to be publicized and "official" so that people can properly build with and around Deathmaster.

Frogczar said:

Frogczar said:

It's funny how perception goes, I guess, as I was anything but confident in my deck, especially after losing the first match (primarily through a huge blunder on my part in the first match, where I was ahead of my opponent from the start but got super nervous as things went on and just blundered hugely). I was also (after the first and second matches) keenly aware of the 4-6 totally clunky cards for my deck so I knew that if I played any kind of finely tuned deck I was in trouble (those few mistake cards can kill you in a Rush-focused tournament environment like this one was). So for the record, I was extremely not confident (sadly). D'oh!

Either way you had a GREAT deck and it WAS a fun match, despite losing!!

RexGator said:

Yeah, I suppose it is probably a great ruling for the game. And yeah, they need to do a better job updating the FAQ. I doubt that they'll ever move fast enough on these types of things for our liking, though. LOL

Seems like a templating error if that's how the DM works. There's no need for "remaining" in his text and in fact it makes it much more confusing.

We have been playing him in the way that damage matters. Sigh. I'll update the official ruling thread accordingly.

I completely agree Clamatius. Honestly my biggest complaint with the game right now is the inconsistant wording on cards. There are so many cards that work in the exact same way but are worded differently. (Minor Complaint, I do really like the game!)

TL