Apparently Deathmaster Snitch (Action: Corrupt this unit to destroy one target unit with fewer remaining HP than the number of Skaven cards in play.) acts as if the word "remaining" is not present? You don't subtract the damage tokens on it from its max HP? That's a pretty big error in wording... is this true?

Also, do -max HP effects like Vile Sorceress (After your turn begins, one target unit gets -1 hit points until the end of the turn) allow you kill units with Deathmaster or do they also not count?

Yes... Damage does not affect the number of hit points a unit has. Regardless of how much damage it has, it still has all its hit points.

The effects like Vile Sorceress do subtract from this number, so they do reduce the threshold of Skaven that the Deathmaster has to have around him to pick off a target.

The card is worded fine. You assumed that damage tokens actually subtract from a units hit points, like a lot of people did. In fact, nothing in the rules ever states that this is the case. However, effects that reduce hitpoints like the vile sorceress or we need your blood will make it easier for the deathmaster to use his action on the targeted unit.

chaosvt, I see your point. The "remaining hp" means the max hp after negative deductions like the Vile Sorc.

chaosvt said:

I think there is sorta precedent for taking damage on the unit already into account. Namely assigning combat damage. Unit with 6HP with 5 dmg on it, do you need to assign 6 dmg to that unit? No, 1 dmg is enough. From that POV, dmg on the card affects how much dmg you need to do to the unit to destroy it, so unit with dmg on the card has fewer remaining HP than a unit with no dmg on the card. I know they aren't the same exact thing, combat damage and Sniktch, but you could draw a parallel.

chaosvt said:

Then why most players considered that damage affected Snitch's ability to kill a unit ?

"remaining HP" isn't defined in the rulebook. We erroneously assumed it to be "HP minus damage".

Still, an effet that refeers to the actual value of a stat of a card simply states that stat, if not, it specifies that it refeers to its "printed" value.

ex: "Brutal Offering" deals damage equal to a "unit's power". It is worded without any reference to the "unit's remaining power". And every single player knows how to handle this effect by counting the unit's actual power, and not the printed one.

So, a "unit's HP" has a meaning, a "unit's printed HP" has a meaning (that may be different from the previous due to some card effects), but a "unit's remaining HP" has no meaning.

This is another example of how I thought the rules were clear, but can see arguments now for both ways now. The original rules do mention that damage up to remaining hit points must be assigned. Like many other players I assumed that a units remaining hit points reduced with damage. I shall continue to play this as I do the original rules of not having to kill defending units to hit the zone. However, I have to admit that it was never really explained about remaining hit points. Therefore you could argue that that a unit with 3 hit points and 2 damage, still has 3 hit points. Wouldn't that mean you would have to place 3 damage still? Messy that way, so I think that assuming remaining hit points is printed minus damage, is better. It therefore makes a unit more susceptible to all forms of hit point reduction effects.

Cheers

Rashley said:

I admit the original rulebook refeers to the "remaining HP" (without defining those) in the combat rule. I didn't mention it, becasue the Errata/FAQ totally changed how combat is handled. I'm glad to know some players are still hnadling those "the old way", because I really think about reverting to this original mecanism.

However, since you aren't following the Errata/FAQ, one will consider you are playing with "house rules", so, you should rewrite the sentence in the original rulebook as : "the player must assign at least damages equal to the unit's HP minus damages", instead of "remaining HP". This will allows you to not care anymore about references to "remaining HP" in cards' text.

IMO, this ruling was introduced to lower the effectiveness of Snitch against "big" units (or at least, to require a deck full of skaven cards to handle those). The designers propably considered "HP minus damages" when they wrote the card in the first place. Hence the wording.

I'm taken aback by this also. Totally out of the blue for me. This is either a huge wording issue or this is a revision/errata and not really a clarification, as far as I can see. The idea that the card was worded this way purposefully, with this interaction in mind makes no sense to me.

If it is an errata, it is one I actually agree with (somewhat nerfing the usefulness of Sniktch's ability, in what has become an increasingly Skaven-centric enviornment.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one on this, dormouse.

My personal bet is that this was a templating mistake, and the "remaining" shouldn't be on the card. We've certainly seen a whole bunch of templating variance (just as with the early days of Magic), so I don't think it's a stretch to figure that it's the same deal.

Martin_fr said:

Yeah James told me this at the Super Regional when I was playing a fun game against him between the tournement and the top 4. I tried to use my deathmaster to kill a damaged clan molder elite with only 5 skaven in play. He also stated that -1 hp effects like vile sorceress do in fact work in combination with the Deathmast (as previously stated in this thread). So as far as I can tell Death Masters ability works in the same way as the ability of Har Ganeth (even though this does not say 'remaining' you can use effects like sorceress in combination with it) even though they are worded very differently.

I personally suspect that Dormouse is correct and this is more an errata to weaken this card. James did not refer to it this way when he explained that I had been playing this incorrectly.

I heartily agree that ignoring the phrase 'remaining hit points' and doing damage 'equal to hit points minus damage' works very well. It would have been silly to say a 3 hit point unit with 2 damage had only 1 hit point, as it would be destroyed. Therefore a unit keeps its printed hit points, but needs less damage to kill. I also take your point about having to change my playing if I entered tournaments because I still play and prefer the original rule of damage equaling hit points but not neccasarily killing all defending units. In my experience, no 2 groups ever play exactly the same rules and a lot of time is used up arguing over which rules to adopt. Obviously in tournaments, all players must be singing from the same hymn book, but you must remember that not everyone has the time to keep up on the lastest trends via these threads. That rule in particular is a complete change, not an interpretation and still exists in the printed rules. It had never been argued about as far as I could tell. Ah well, each to his own! Can anyone tell me why this rule was changed?

Cheers!

You can see this change (damage way of assignation) in the FAQ, at least if he does not want to keep on this forum a player can look for game support on FFG website.