I could of swore I seen someplace where if you run out of cards to Draw you lose. I couldn't find anything so we called it a tie. (I would of killed him if I would of finished the turn.) I can't find it so I am asking here. =)
Draw Phase
Yes, you lose as soon as you are forced to draw and cannot. Its on one of the first few pages of the core Rulebook I believe.
"If at any time a player has no cards in his deck, that
player is immediately eliminated from the game." (p. 5)
The official ruling in the rulebook is as Dam states, which isn't actually the same as Entropy42 writes. You could still draw your full requirement as per Quest power icons, but if that draws your last card - that's it! You immeadiately lose! You don't even get to use those cards. Harsh, but that is what it states. Now, the original rulebook is way out of date now, though still being used by new players, so that rule can also have been changed. But I havn't seen a change. I still take issue with the first major change of 'killing' defenders before hitting zone rather than the original 'remaining hit points' of defenders then zone. Every new player starts with the original and then has to adjust to the significant change. Anyway, I hope this clears this draw query and I appologies in advance if any 'official' change to this rule has been made that I missed. Cheers!
Yep, sorry, I just answered without looking it up and mixed in a little bit of MTG rules.
Rashley said:
The official ruling in the rulebook is as Dam states, which isn't actually the same as Entropy42 writes. You could still draw your full requirement as per Quest power icons, but if that draws your last card - that's it! You immeadiately lose! You don't even get to use those cards. Harsh, but that is what it states. Now, the original rulebook is way out of date now, though still being used by new players, so that rule can also have been changed. But I havn't seen a change. I still take issue with the first major change of 'killing' defenders before hitting zone rather than the original 'remaining hit points' of defenders then zone. Every new player starts with the original and then has to adjust to the significant change. Anyway, I hope this clears this draw query and I appologies in advance if any 'official' change to this rule has been made that I missed. Cheers!
Didn't know about the Killing Defenders also. =) Good to know. Thanks.
It just goes to show how many people take the rulebook as read. And so they should! It's your 'Bible' when you buy the game. Normally people will ask about rules they are unclear about - we all know it is impossible to make everything 100% clear with an ever expanding game like this. However, the rule about damage on defending units equal to remaining hit points before hitting zone, was very clear and never questioned. A fundemental change to 'killing' defending units is bound to cause confusion and problems. Every time I teach new players, I have to state that that rule - clearly defined - has changed, but can give no reason as to why. I am getting used to the change, now that there are more cards out there to counter the 'unkillable' units, but still find it difficult to accept logically that a single unit could stop infinite damage. It seems stupid that scores of attackers line up to hit that invincible unit without some of them going to hit the zone! Ah well, it is fantasy. Cheers!
Rashley said:
It just goes to show how many people take the rulebook as read. And so they should! It's your 'Bible' when you buy the game. Normally people will ask about rules they are unclear about - we all know it is impossible to make everything 100% clear with an ever expanding game like this. However, the rule about damage on defending units equal to remaining hit points before hitting zone, was very clear and never questioned. A fundemental change to 'killing' defending units is bound to cause confusion and problems. Every time I teach new players, I have to state that that rule - clearly defined - has changed, but can give no reason as to why. I am getting used to the change, now that there are more cards out there to counter the 'unkillable' units, but still find it difficult to accept logically that a single unit could stop infinite damage. It seems stupid that scores of attackers line up to hit that invincible unit without some of them going to hit the zone! Ah well, it is fantasy. Cheers!
Eh. Damage assignment really needs another clarification. The wording is mildly contradictory in the new version. From the FAQ "the attacking player must assign enough damage to destroy each defending unit before any damage can be assigned to the defending player's capital. Note that more damage can be assigned to a unit at the attacker's discretion, in anticipation of damage cancellation effects , but a minimum damage necessary to destroy each defending unit must be assigned before any damage can be assigned to the defender's capital." This is subject to interpretation. The words in bold might suggest that additional damage need not be assigned to a unit with built in damage cancellation effects because the attacker may not anticipate them, at the attacker's discretion. The rules do not say that more damage must be assigned in anticipation of damage cancellation effects(which toughness and SoH text are), even though a minimum damage must be assigned to destroy the unit. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong and this is bad wording. Or maybe I'm wrong and this was an attempt to slow down the factions that take best advantage of the basic game mechanics and objective.
Also, don't get me started on any other questionable rulings.... like Warp Lightning Cannon.
It looks like the new rule is causing more problems than the old. Hurrah for the good old days! However, as I see it, the new rule means you have to put enough damage on defending units to kill them AS THEY APPEAR NOW. That means 'Toughness', 'Redirect', 'Cancelled' printed on the cards in play must be overcome. The 'anticipation' part is for possible unseen Tactics or 'Actions' that the opponent could take but isn't forced to. Does that make sense? My head hurts! I would still like to know why that clear rule was changed in the first place. Cheers!
Oh, I'm with you on this. I'm just picking on the wording
Chaos and the (beautiful) Dark Elves can take care of these threats without entering combat
So what would happen with character like Sword Masters of Hoeth and Dragonmage? Where you can not kill them.
As it seems to stand now, Sword Masters of Hoeth shut down the battlefield until an opponent can deal noncombat damage enough to kill them. Oh yeah. They're immune to counterstrike, too.
They shouldn't, counterstrike damage is specifically uncancellable, per page 16.
'Tis true. Swordmasters are entirely counterstrikeable. As are all units, for that matter.
Periculum said:
They shouldn't, counterstrike damage is specifically uncancellable, per page 16.
There is that, though on some card descriptions, counterstrike is also referred to as combat damage.
qwertyuiop said:
Periculum said:
They shouldn't, counterstrike damage is specifically uncancellable, per page 16.
There is that, though on some card descriptions, counterstrike is also referred to as combat damage.
It doesn't matter (says the Rock
) if counterstrike is combat damage or not (though IIRC it is), uncancellable trumps Swordmasters' ability regardless.
qwertyuiop said:
Rashley said:
It just goes to show how many people take the rulebook as read. And so they should! It's your 'Bible' when you buy the game. Normally people will ask about rules they are unclear about - we all know it is impossible to make everything 100% clear with an ever expanding game like this. However, the rule about damage on defending units equal to remaining hit points before hitting zone, was very clear and never questioned. A fundemental change to 'killing' defending units is bound to cause confusion and problems. Every time I teach new players, I have to state that that rule - clearly defined - has changed, but can give no reason as to why. I am getting used to the change, now that there are more cards out there to counter the 'unkillable' units, but still find it difficult to accept logically that a single unit could stop infinite damage. It seems stupid that scores of attackers line up to hit that invincible unit without some of them going to hit the zone! Ah well, it is fantasy. Cheers!
Eh. Damage assignment really needs another clarification. The wording is mildly contradictory in the new version. From the FAQ "the attacking player must assign enough damage to destroy each defending unit before any damage can be assigned to the defending player's capital. Note that more damage can be assigned to a unit at the attacker's discretion, in anticipation of damage cancellation effects , but a minimum damage necessary to destroy each defending unit must be assigned before any damage can be assigned to the defender's capital." This is subject to interpretation. The words in bold might suggest that additional damage need not be assigned to a unit with built in damage cancellation effects because the attacker may not anticipate them, at the attacker's discretion. The rules do not say that more damage must be assigned in anticipation of damage cancellation effects(which toughness and SoH text are), even though a minimum damage must be assigned to destroy the unit. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong and this is bad wording. Or maybe I'm wrong and this was an attempt to slow down the factions that take best advantage of the basic game mechanics and objective.
Also, don't get me started on any other questionable rulings.... like Warp Lightning Cannon.
I think you're overthinking it in this case. You must assign enough damage to kill units with toughness or any other dmg cancelling effects on them during the assigning damage phase. ie. For a unit with 2 hp and toughness 1, you need to deal 3 damage to it. However, you may also deal more than 3 damage to it if you expect the person to play any other damage cancelling effects like Blessing of Valaya and Steels bane. This is if there's a unit you really really want dead. So to summarise, during assign damage phase, you must assign at least enough damage to kill the unit. You can assign more damage if you want.
Sining said:
I think you're overthinking it in this case. You must assign enough damage to kill units with toughness or any other dmg cancelling effects on them during the assigning damage phase. ie. For a unit with 2 hp and toughness 1, you need to deal 3 damage to it. However, you may also deal more than 3 damage to it if you expect the person to play any other damage cancelling effects like Blessing of Valaya and Steels bane. This is if there's a unit you really really want dead. So to summarise, during assign damage phase, you must assign at least enough damage to kill the unit. You can assign more damage if you want.
Of that I have no doubt. The post was intended more as a WTF to the wording than it was a question to the rule. Even so, it seems an odd way to try to balance the game.
Periculum said:
They shouldn't, counterstrike damage is specifically uncancellable, per page 16.
Well that certainly makes more sense than reading the card description and accepting that card text overrules book text. I'm going to apply for a QC/proofreading job at FFG ( I tested this on someone just as new to the game, yet as familiar with games and ccgs in general).
So the official ruling on Counterstrike is?
Has there been a new ruling? With this haphazard Hata Hotline, no one ever really knows for sure if there has or hasn't been. As far as I know, the rules on Counterstrike are the same as always: applied immediately when the counterstriker is declared on the defense, may only be applied to one attacker, and can't be cancelled.
Have you noticed how this thread has gone from 'Draw Phase', through 'Hit Points/Killing' and on to 'Counterstrike'? Partly my fault I have to admit. If they also change the 'Draw Phase' and 'Counterstrike' rule from the original rules, we might as well throw the book away! FFG please note. Clearing up queries is absolutely fine, although 95% can normally be worked out by reading the rules thoroughly. Even I was guilty of that and non-English speakers have a good excuse. However, completely changing clear rules is naughty and will lead to even more problems. Still like to know WHY that 'Hit Point/Killing' rule was changed. Great game though - so far! Cheers!
Good question, and one many folks still have to this day!
The hit points/destruction rule was changed because the old rule rendered one of the game's then only 3 keywords, Toughness, entirely ineffectual. This, in turn, rendered one of the game's then only 4 races, the Dwarves, equally ineffectual. The Dwarven identity has always been one of protecting home and hearth, through physical reconstruction (board healing) and stout defense (Toughness). By allowing attackers to bypass Toughness by dealing the same amount of damage to a "Tough" unit as if it was not Tough, you remove the competitive advantage that Toughness was designed to provide and - I believe just as importantly - undermine the relevance of the Dwarven race in the storyline.
Naturally, there are those who hate this rule change and would love their blitziness to remain even more imbalanced than it currently is. But these are primarily the tournament and competitive munchkins who find obstacles to 2nd and 3rd turn wins highly irritating.
The silent majority, however, can at least partially appreciate competitive balance. I kid, but only a little.......
Overseer Lazarus said:
Naturally, there are those who hate this rule change and would love their blitziness to remain even more imbalanced than it currently is. But these are primarily the tournament and competitive munchkins who find obstacles to 2nd and 3rd turn wins highly irritating.
The silent majority, however, can at least partially appreciate competitive balance. I kid, but only a little.......
The silent majority, however, can at least partially appreciate competitive balance. I kid, but only a little.......
I don't hate the rule change for love of blitzness, I hate it because it created stupid unbreachable zones, if you just have a nitwit like Swordmasters of Hoeth (BZ) or Dragonmage + Gromril Armor (any zone), where one single unit will suck up infinite amount of damage
, even if it has 1HP left.
I hated that rule change because it was a rule CHANGE. In the early days when 'Toughness' was just about the only ability around, and the Dwarves main advantage, it meant that IF a player wanted to hit a zone with maximum damage, the Dwarven unit remained to fight on. Now you have no choice. Obviously things have moved on from there. I particularly disliked the 'infinite' damage stoppers that came out as mentioned in the previous thread, but even that has now been countered. Thanks for letting me know the reason behind the change. Still don't agree with it though. I just hope there are no more significant rule changes in the future just because one player or another thinks a faction, card or ability has been slighly weakened/strengthened by current thinking. New abilities, ideas, factions, traits and even rules are perfectly acceptable, but changeing old rules from the rules booklet - still in use - is not good and is dangerous. Especially to new players. Cheers!