I was wondering if these two quests cards requires an unit on them to be able to use their ability with "0" cost printed units.

Let's make an exemple:

let's image i've an unit with printed cost "0" in my discard pile (like for exemple peasant militia) and I decide to put it back in game with "return to glory" w/o haveing any unit on it and w/o haveing any resourse token on it (teoretically I've exactly 0 resourse token). Does it work? Or Do i need an unit on it or at least 1 resourse token to trigger the card's ability?

I was sure about one answer, if you have 0 ressources you can pay 0 to get back a unit at 0 cost.

For the second answer :

from the rule book :

A questing unit allows
resource tokens to be accumulated on the quest, and
once the specified number of resources have been
accumulated on a quest, its effect can be utilised by
its controller.

So if there are no questing units you are not allowed to use effect/ability of the quest.

You need the unit to accumulate the resoucrse. When you have enough resources you can play the action. You have to put the sentence in two pieces:

1. A questing unit allows resource tokens to be accumulated on the quest, - so you need a unit to accumulate rescource tokens

2. once the specified number of resources have been accumulated on a quest, its effect can be utilised by its controller. - when you have enough token, use the action.

The sentence is about how a quest works. But you can send this to the rules arbiter, I'd like to see the answer :-)

basicly the real question is: do quests need units to be actived?

correct! And there is no rule that says so!

Actions on quests are normal actions that can be activated whenever you want. Units are only necessary to gather resource tokens. It is clearly stated on the card. So you can corrupt your opponent's 0 cost units for free with Extending the Wastes.

I'd like to send this question directly to a game designer, how can I do that?

Maybe a mp to FFGHata I am not sure.

At the very bottom of this page there is a link "Rules Questions" .

thx guys, I'll let you know what they gonna answer me

ok guys, James answered me back and wrote me:

"Yes. In order to use any ability on a quest, there must be a unit questing on it."

So it won't work w/o any unit on it.

Anything in regards to being able to pay 0 resources?
I am wondering if you can pay 0 or if you pay then nil resources.

you can pay 0 resoursec but there must be the unit on the quest.

And then why did the bolt thrower + outpost not work?
If I can pay 0 resources why cant I deal 0 damage?

When you "deal" (note the importance of the "") 0 damage, you do not deal damage.

So the deal on outpost is another deal than that on thrower?
Now you are interpreting words for a wanted result (or how did you say that?).
Spend 0 resources to deal 0 indirect damage to target opponent.
Whenever you deal indirect damage, deal 1 aditional indirect damage.

I agree, that it would be a bit strange, but it is what the card says.
And I disapprove of most FFG rule answers in just saying yes/no. I would like them a bit more founded on rules or bringing new rules and not just answering single questions (a great part of timing rules are builded on the greatswors answer, what is crap for me).

Not this argument again. You can not deal 0 damage. First of all, are you assigning any damage tokens? Are you applying any damage tokens? Would the small minority who somehow thinks this works please stop dragging this ridiculous argument up.

I agree with Jogo that explanations should accompany rules answers. It seems that most of the replies people receive from the rules question link at the bottom are quite short. Entropy does a really nice job of answering and explaining rules around here... you'd think FFG could at least do as good a job.

Sining said:

The card effect is erased by the higher ruling known as common sense. If you insist that it should do this, go down to your local WH:I scene and try that explanation on them. If it works, good for you.

And for that matter, if you want to use semantics, paying 0 is not the same as dealing 0. When there's a card that lets you deal 0 resources, then you might have an argument to stand on.

jogo said:

I would agree that common sense says if you deal 0 damage, you haven't dealt damage, but here's an explanation from rules precedents.

To deal damage, you must assign and apply damage. That is the working definition of "dealt". From Dealing Damage in the FAQ:

A unit is considered to have dealt damage in combat as long as it has contributed at least one damage to the pool of damage that will be assigned to the opponent during combat, and at least one damage is applied to an opponent’s unit or capital during the Apply Damage step.

So if you do not deal assign and apply at least 1 damage to a unit or capital, you have not "dealt" damage, therefore assigning and applying 0 damage is not "dealing" damage.

As for FFG's general devotion to answering rules questions and making the rules available, I think they just don't find it to be worthwhile. The game is primarily played casually, and there are probably only a handful of people in the entire world who care about the rules at this level of intricacy. Presumably only competitive players really have a need to know the rules at this level of detail, and as this year world championships showed, there were only 40 competitive players of W:I. They don't have infinite resources, so its a cost/benefit analysis for them and I'd guess they find the benefit to be minimal. I'd certainly like better rules clarifications (or even just answers to the questions I've submitted), but I only play the game casually anyway, so its not that big of a deal for me if I never get an answer.

It is not about dealt and it is not about combat damage.
Easy thing:
A card says deal 0 damage.
Another card hooks deal damage with ++.
And ++ works because it is 0 and not nil.

jogo said:

I understand that 0 + 1 = 1. The point is that you aren't allowed to add 1. You can't say "its not about dealt", because it is. The card says "whenever you deal indirect damage". If X = 0, then you aren't dealing indirect damage, by the rules I quoted in the previous post. Yes, that example is for combat damage, but there is no reason to expect that the definition of "dealt" changes for non-combat damage.

Entropy42 said:

This makes perfect sense...and is clearly in the rules. It's amazing that some people still think it is worth arguing. To deal damage, you must inflict at the very least, one point of damage. so clear.