Rip Dere 'Eads Off!

Action: Turn one target development faceup. If it is a unit, leave it in play and sacrifice it at the end of the turn. Otherwise, sacrifice it immediately.

What is the purpose behind Rip Dere 'Eads Off!? Do you play the tactic on one of your own developments?

Do you control the opposing development after playing Rip Dere 'Eads Off!? I ask because you are only allowed to sacrifice your own cards.

Some rush decks use a combination of Rip and Bloodthirster or similar large unit to get a big damage boost. Personally I am not a fan, its a two card combo where you will never actually play the unit unless you have the Rip.

Thanks Andwat, but back to my question: Is sacrificed the right term or should the word be read as destroyed ?

Since you can rip an opponents development the proper term should probably be destroyed as sacrifice implies it only affects yourself.

Ive used rip succesfully mostly on attack with an Orc deck but sometimes on defence. Mostly the cards you want to rip have 3 power or more to get the most out of rip, if youve had the development down from the previous turn and you have at least 1 resource left you can rip a card in the beggining of turn phase to give you a very nice boost to resources or draw.

The last gane that I used rip in allowed me to win the game because I had put boar boyz as a development in my kingdom, as I knew my opponent would have enough to burn me without the extra 3 health (since I lost the development which gave me an extra health effectively on my kingdom)

DavidTJ said:

The only problem with changing the wording from "sacrificed" to "destroyed" comes up in certain weird combinations.

For instance, if you were to rip a DE unit, you could then attach Hydra Blade to it during your Capital phase. So, at the end of the turn when it is supposed to go away, you can pay the 2 resources to keep it in play. Keeping the wording to sacrificed means that it will leave play even with there is a Hydra Blade on it.

I know logically it may seem weird to have the wording like that, but there is clear distinction between sacrifice and destroy. Destroy pretty much means that particular card will most likely end up in the discard pile. Sacrifice means that card will DEFINITELY go to the discard pile.

Toberk, that's a good reasoning. But don't forget: You can always use the word "cannot" to avoid the survival of the revealed unit.

Philos said:

Another way to look at it is that you do not sacrifice their unit, you just force them to sacrifice that unit. Many other cards already do this, though they usually let your opponent choose which unit they want to sacrifice.