Was playing against Wrecking Crew the other day and we came across some very odd card wording that made us wonder. The card "I've been waiting for this!" appears in multiple Villain decks, but the wording is one word off. Don't have the cards here (and ChampionsDB erroneously lists them all with the same wording), but I believe the Piledriver one says:

" When Revealed : The active villain gains 3 hit points. Give that villain a tough status card. "

Whereas the Wrecker (or Thunderball) card of the same name says

"When Revealed : The active villain heals 3 hit points. Give that villain a tough status card. "

And then there is Distracting Taunts, a Piledriver attachment card which reads:

"Attach to Piledriver. Piledriver gets +3 hit points. Players cannot attack other villains."

So aside from the weird thing where cards' wording is just one word different, am I getting the difference between these three right?:

Gains 3hp: Villain just ups HP by three (can now also be healed back up to original HP+3)

Heals 3HP: Up HP by 3 but only as far as current max HP.

Get +3HP: Up HP by 3, but remove 3 HP when attachment gets discarded.

I would say you are correct. Gain 3 hit point is the same as increase the hit point pool by 3.

The only thing that makes me think it's a missprint, is that there are no reminders to leave behind for future plays. For example, if you would take that 1 out of 4 villains down to say, 10 HP, and then by some miracle he starts to heal up to full life again, how are you supposed to remember that this villain actually has a higher top HP pool now (+3 extra) than what's printed on the card?

In all other scenarios when an attachment that gives +HP is added to a villain, removing that attachment (rhino suit, klaws side scheme, etc) takes away that +HP also. You know this, and you can remember this, becuase it's all on the card you'r removing.

In the above scenario where the card says "gains 3 hit points", you actually just read the card, and then discard it, when in fact you kinda need to keep that card up front next to the villain for the remaining game as a reminder that he now has +3HP extra to kick down.

Given that only one of those cards is an attachment, I would say that for that one card, the Villain adds three to the current and max HP. For the other temporary effects, it's just current HP that changes. There shouldn't be any permanent changes to the game state without any way of tracking it. The fact that the cards have the same name would also lead me to believe that the intention is they have the same effect.

39 minutes ago, rees263 said:

Given that only one of those cards is an attachment, I would say that for that one card, the Villain adds three to the current and max HP. For the other temporary effects, it's just current HP that changes. There shouldn't be any permanent changes to the game state without any way of tracking it. The fact that the cards have the same name would also lead me to believe that the intention is they have the same effect.

so you are saying "gains 3hp" is the same as "heals 3hp"? That doesn't quite feel right to me...

The simplest and most plausible explanation to me is that the wording for Piledriver is wrong and that "gains" should read "heals". The alternative creates more problems than it solves.

you give Piledriver the 3 extra HP on the spot for healing and increasing his total HP by 2 until that card is removed and then you'll subtract 3 HP from him once that happens. Think of it like Iron Man's Armor pieces or Immortal Klaw.

15 hours ago, OttRod said:

you give Piledriver the 3 extra HP on the spot for healing and increasing his total HP by 2 until that card is removed and then you'll subtract 3 HP from him once that happens. Think of it like Iron Man's Armor pieces or Immortal Klaw.

Except that triggered abilities (which includes When Revealed) always have immediate effects unless they create a lasting effect (in which case, a duration will be specified - see Lead From the Front, for instance). Only Cards that stay in play (everything except events, resources and treacheries) can have effects with an unspecified duration of "as long as this card is in play".

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 12:56 AM, Palpster said:

so you are saying "gains 3hp" is the same as "heals 3hp"? That doesn't quite feel right to me...

heals and gains are the same in this instance. It's a misprint.

18 hours ago, Majushi said:

heals and gains are the same in this instance. It's a misprint.

If you don’t mind me asking: Is that a personal presumption or was this confirmed by FFG somewhere?

I believe in BoardGameGeek.com there is a similar thread and some one quoted an email from Caleb Grace (designer) that it was a misprint. I'm sure it will be added to the Rules Reference Guide soonish... (assumption).

15 minutes ago, Palpster said:

If you don’t mind me asking: Is that a personal presumption or was this confirmed by FFG somewhere?

This is what was posted on BGG, courtesy of Brendan Little:

Quote

Unfortunately, Piledriver’s copy of “I’ve Been Waiting for This!” has a typo. It should say “heals” instead of “gains” in order to be the same as the other two copies of the treachery in the scenario.

I apologize for the confusion.

– Caleb

Thanks! I hadn’t seen that yet

So...back to this. There was no errata in the new RRG even though there WAS one to a card that will come out/has come out in a later expansion. Sooooo....they didn't decide to make it official?? Anyone have any thoughts about this?

(talking about gains 3hp vs heals 3 hp on different cards with the same name in Wrecking Crew, the card being "I've been waiting for this!")

edit: for me, I'll still play it as though all said "heal", because I have no idea what "gains 3hp" means in this game coming from a non-attachment card

3 hours ago, Palpster said:

So...back to this. There was no errata in the new RRG even though there WAS one to a card that will come out/has come out in a later expansion. Sooooo....they didn't decide to make it official?? Anyone have any thoughts about this?

It could simply be that the updated RRG had been finalised before they received the question, so we may well see it in the next update. I don't see any reason to suspect that Caleb is having second thoughts about his response.

1 hour ago, Assussanni said:

It could simply be that the updated RRG had been finalised before they received the question, so we may well see it in the next update. I don't see any reason to suspect that Caleb is having second thoughts about his response.

It wouldn't be the first time for the designers to go back on an earlier ruling (see new entry for Jennifer Walters in the FAQ, which was at an earlier stage ruled the opposite way by designer Michael Boggs).

Having said that, it's very well possible they hadn't been notified of a (possible) print error before the RRG was finalized.