I was wondering if I attach a support card to an opponent's unit, does the loyalty symbol still count for me?

Coastercinder said:

The support card is still in play, right? Then it counts. Question that has come up of late is if you play a support on an opponent's unit, do you still control the support. No official answer yet I think, but it could change things slightly.

"(the number
of loyalty icons under the printed cost minus the
number of matching race symbols the player controls
in play)" (p. 11)

You must control the card so no.

I don't think there is any control over the card. It is not in play in one of your zones, and is therefore controlled by your opponent. I do believe if both players are playing destruction decks, then the card would count as a loyalty symbol for your opponent.

ventura72 said:

This hasn't been clarified, has it? I know in CoC, if I play an attachment on my char and opponent takes control of that char, I still control the attachment (or if I just play the attachment on an opponent's char). W:I needs a clarification one way or the other in this regard.

On page 11 or original rulebook, it reads that you add "the number of loyalty icons under the printed cost minus the number of matching race symbols the player controls in play."

You have to control the symbol in order for you to use it.

Yes you have to control it, but it doesn't say anything about zones. You own the card and control the attachment. I say that it gives you a loyalty symbol. As mentioned, it works that way in CoC and it works like that in Magic also.

IT, you are right.

If it comes from your deck, you have control over the card, and I would agree that the symbol can be counted even if the card is in someone else's zone.Check out Pg 17 of the Rulebook "Control and Ownership"

If a card effect steals control of a card, then I don't believe you would be able to count the symbol.

Is it possible to play my attachments to enemy units? (p. 10 R)

Uncle Sam,

You can play attachments on your opponents units as long as there is no limitation on the attachement about having to be played on one of your units. For example, Choppa has to be played on a unit in your BZ, on the other hand a Warp Lightning Cannon can be played on any unit in play.

ventura72 said:

Overseer Lazarus said:

Sorry to rain down on your hate-parade:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Overseer Lazarus said:

If that were true, the Dark Elves would have some really useless support cards.

Dam said:

-Original Message-

James,
Being that you guys are based in MN, can I get some in-game love if I can sing a Prince song from beginning to end?

And the answer that forever changed my winning percentage:

HA. Great question. Tell you what, if you can sing anything at all from the album MPLS (Minneapolis) Sound, you can put any number of cards from your deck into play for free.

Now THAT'S what's up. I'm gonna make sure to print that out and carry it with me to every tournament I play. Peace.

So basically, no point in asking for official rulings, because you'll never take them as official? Guess we should just notify FFG that they take out their "User Support" link (or at least the Rules Questions choice from the drop-tab) since Overseer Lazarus can't be the only one who won't take asked and officially answered questions as official, so what's the point in having the link .

We'll just play with OL-rules from now on then? Ones where nothing is official unless in the rules (hell, FAQ is highly questionable at best, by no means official) and even then semantics are argued endlessly.

¡Dios mio! Why all the fuss, Gus? I'm just pointing out the obvious, that being that a "ruling" given to one person on a planet of over 6 1/2 billion people couldn't be further from anything remotely resembling official. What offends me (slightly) is the fact that you expect me to accept your word on the attachment-on-other-people's-cards nonsense when you won't accept my sweet deal on Prince Roger Nelson's legendary music library!

I'm funnin' here, mostly. But I have two serious points:

1. NOTHING is official until collated and released in an OFFICIAL rules document, which is comprised, to date, of a whopping 1 FAQ. And this isn't because I say so, it's because FFG says so! When I ran the Orlando Regionals, they didn't send me a collected list of James's personal e-mail responses as tournament rules; they sent me the one-page (*sigh*) Floor Rules and FAQ 1.0, and nothing else. Now, if they direct me to run a daggone Regional event on just these rules, why in Wayne Gretzky's toolshed would anyone expect me or anyone else to play their home games by rules posted on an online forum....by other players?

2. Assuming that every single person who posts a "ruling" from James is of impeccable integrity and moral fiber and reproduces the original e-mail response that he gave the person - which is an enormous leap of faith - how in Sherwood Forest can a game of this scope possibly maintain a jot or tittle of credibility if rules clarifications and errata are disseminated only to the people who ask a question of one company employee? Honestly, guys. With every question answered on the Hata Hotline, the game community becomes more and more fractured. I can't WAIT to hear about the pick-up games at Origins and GenCon this year:

"Dude, James say that's not legal."

"What? James who? James Spader? Jesse James? James Do-Hung Lee?"

"Naw, man. James Hata, the dude who runs this here game. I have his personal e-mail and he answers my game questions."

"Whoa, sorry bro. We don't hang out on forums. You're gonna have to play by the rulebook if you wanna roll with us."

I know my sense of humor is considered flippant by a few people in here, but trust me, I'm not challenging anyone to a wit duel or calling any one person's character into question or anything. To be honest, my personality is as soft as cotton candy if you know me. I'm just not afraid to yell " 'Ang on a minute!" if something needs discussion. I apologize if I came off as "hating". My approach is in jest, but my points are all business.

I'm hoping that they do give an official answer when the next FAQ comes out. I've been playing that an attachment card can be played on any unit unless the card reads you can't based on the ruling from James that Dam listed and will continue to do so.

But the original rulebook does call this into question. It would be nice if instead of waiting for a FAQ, they could issue official rulings on the website via their news stories.

You bring up a solid point here. I would hope that FFG updates the errata/FAQ prior to GenCon. Also they may be on the same page as you on Jame's rulings as I believe there haven't been answers from James for over a month now. I know myself, I sent in some questions and got nothing back.

That all said, I think ignoring the rulings that people have posted comes across as pure stubborness. Its pretty clear that James was answering questions via email and that it definitely came across as an avenue that FFG used to get answers out there. Ignoring them all is a bad was to learn this game. Much of the 'unofficial FAQ' is very critical in learning on the game play should be and likely will be when FFG updates their own FAQ.

-Bernie

Overseer Lazarus said:

While its frustrating that FFG doesn't release regular updates or official rulings on cards, what other choice do people have? Some of these rules are clearly ambiguous, and even going by just the rulebook and FAQ, you can't definitively say how a card should work. If you are running a tournament, you have to make decisions on what the rules allow, and I think these "unofficial" forum FAQs are a hell of a lot more useful than just making it up as you go along.

The topic at hand is a great example of this, as the rules say you can only play support cards on your own units, as you (Overseer Lazarus) pointed out. But you also said that Hexes are outside this because card text overrules the rulebook. I couldn't find any mention of "Hex" in the PDFs, and the 3 cards with that Trait do not explicitly state that you are allowed to play them on opposing units. So we're really to believe that Mind Killer (Attachment, Hex, Attach to a target unit. Attached unit loses one power.) Word of Pain, and Witch Hag's Curse are intended to be used only on your own units? Even when other cards add a restriction of "your target unit"?

Seems to me that being able to point to an email ruling (even if its subject to abuse as you've pointed out) is still more helpful than forcing players to only Hex their own units.

Rhelik said:

It's not limited to W:I, I know CoC front has been quiet, as has Horus Heresy (for which many people have sent in questions, no answers). FFG is probably gearing up for GenCon or something.

The best way to handle this is for the rulebook and FAQ to be considered the go to documents. Where there is points of contention and need for clarification James' emails should be used by TO's at their discretion. Gencon is a big deal for FFG, pretty much the entire company packs up shop and goes to the con. If you are there Laz you can ask James himself how much credence you should give his emails.

Why? I know he'll tell me to give them full credence, which won't change how much I give them in the least.

Listen, I can appreciate that a lot of folks in here are local to Minnesota or have met FFG folks and feel a sense of protective loyalty to them. That's completely understandable and respectable to me. I made plenty of buddies when I was doling out foil Serra Avatars and Stroke of Geniuses and Pokemon promos and the like in my old job. Nothing at all wrong with that. Please understand, though, that I met Christian and a whole lot of folks who are no longer with FFG back when I was working Origins and GenCon for WotC, back before even DiskWars was out. So I have to say that I'm not exactly starstruck by communications with industry employees. Having been on the inside - in WotC's Organized Play department, specifically - I know without any hesitation that for the uniformity of game play, the integrity of rules sets, and the long-term health of a game, all rules clarifications and errata that are not a part of an official company document that is distributed and/or available to ALL players are suspect at best, and certainly are not to be viewed as binding. This is why all of my answers to folks' rules questions in here are accompanied by the exact location in either the rulebook or our lone FAQ, so as to not force players into a situation where they have to make a judgment on the legitimacy of my answer or my trustworthiness.

The thing about it is that I'm not telling anyone that they are fools for going along with someone's report of an email that no one else received except the person reporting it, nor would I fathom it. Why, then, should anyone scoff at or ridicule me for using what I believe to be sound reason by waiting for the latest official Errata Sheet? There's nothing unreasonable in that, is there? I'm cool with others' rational ways and I just ask that you're cool with mine, y'know?