Good day everyone

Played through a couple of games yesterday and had some things come up that we are not sure about.

First toughness

Ork vs Dwarf

Ork units attack dwarf battle zone with 4 units for 6 damage; dwarfs defend with a unit that has a toughness of three (from accumulated support cards) and one defence. Now because the unit that is defending has a defence of one does that mean that it assigned one (or more if the attacking players wishes to destroy the unit) and then the rest to the battlefield? or does the unit defending need to be assigned all the damage inorder to destroy the unit?

Thank you

Tkrikt

another question that I have is about actions...

So after attackers and defenders are declaired when can tactics be applied. forinstance player A declares three attackers player B declares 0 defenders. Is there a time after that player A and B can play actions?

Thank you

Thunderkrikt said:

Dwarf with 1HP + 3 Toughness will eat up 4 points, so only 2 go through to capital.

As for your other question, the rules clearly show the Action Windows during the Battlefield Phase. There is one after Declare Zone, Declare Attackers and Declare Defenders, as well as after Assign and Apply Damage Steps.

Thank you so much for the help but I went ahead and read the rules, so I would like to see if I am seeing this correctly via from the rules.....

Assign damage on page 12 and 13 in the rule book says that toughness takes place before applying damage. Also on page 12 it reads

The attacking player must assigne damage equal to the humber of hit points each defending unit possesses to that unit before any damage can be assigned to the attacked section on the defending player's capital. Not that more damage can be assigned to a unit at the attacker's discretion , in anticipation of the Toughness keyword or other damage cancellation effects, but minimum damage equal to the number of remaining hit points possessed by each defending unit must be assigned to the defender's capital.

Then on a more detailed section for toughness reads

Toughness on page 16 of the rule book says "When ever a unit with the Toughness keyword is assigned damage, the Toughness keyword cancels its numeric value of that damage before the damgage is applied .

So unless I am reading into this to much only 1 damage needs to be aplied to the unit not 4. If I wanted to destroy the unit then I could place 4 damage tolkens on it.

Thank you

This rule was changed, you now need to apply enough damage to kill the unit(s) before you can apply any to the capital, and you have to consider toughness and other effects. That's why Sword Masters of Hoeth (Battlefield. Cancel all combat damage assigned to this unit) will soak up all the combat damage when defending in the battlefield, with none making it through to the capital, no matter how much you deal. And in your example, you indeed have to assign at least 4 damage to the unit.

Interesting....is this in the rules update 1.2? and if so what page?

Thanks for all the clerifications

I only see on page 12 errata

"Damage must be
assigned to defending units before
it can be assigned to the defending
player’s capital. In other words, 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. Damage tokens are
placed near the card(s) to which the
damage is being assigned, and if any
damage reaches the capital, damage
tokens are placed next to the attacked
section, but not yet applied.”

The bolded wording refers to doing enough damage to the card to destroy it, regardless of toughness. There is another section saying note that the attacker can place more damage on the card...But I do see where it says that enough damage to destroy a unit, however if a unit has 2 defence with a toughness of 1 then in order to typically destory the card you would have to do 2 damage. The wording in the note still says, "more damage can be assigned". This does not mean that you must. Because if two damage was assigned to a card with 2 defence it typically would destroy the unit but because of toughness the unit is not destroyed at the end of the turn.

By what I am understanding it is the same as before just different wording.

Is there another place for rules that I am not seeing?

This was from the new rules.

The bolded wording refers to doing enough damage to the card to destroy it, regardless of toughness. There is another section saying note that the attacker can place more damage on the card...But I do see where it says that enough damage to destroy a unit, however if a unit has 2 defence with a toughness of 1 then in order to typically destory the card you would have to do 2 damage. The wording in the note still says, "more damage can be assigned". This does not mean that you must. Because if two damage was assigned to a card with 2 defence it typically would destroy the unit but because of toughness the unit is not destroyed at the end of the turn.

It does not say "regardless of toughness." It says enough damage to destroy the unit(s). You emphasized it in the quote yourself. 2 damage to a 2 HP, Toughness 1 unit is not enough to destroy it. 3 damage is.

More damage can be assigned, as you quoted, in anticipation. Like when you really want to destroy the unit, and want to make sure that does happen in case your opponent uses effects to cancel or redirect the damage after you've assigned it. That indeed is optional. Taking toughness into consideration is not.

The word I am hung up on is the word can in the paragraph... its the same as anticipating from the wording before. Which implies that it is optional and that you do not have to apply all the damage to destroy the creature including toughness just enough to destroy the creature before.

Thunderkrikt said:

You need to focus on the previous sentence:

"In other words, the
attacking player must assign enough
damage to destroy each defending
unit before any damage can be
assigned to the defending player’s
capital."

You need to assign enough to destroy all defenders before you can assign to capital. If a unit has pre-existing cancelling abilities, that is those that are know about during the assining (Sword Masters or Toughness), those must be taken into account when assigning, because you won't destroy a unit with Toughness if you don't assign enough to overcome Toughness + HP. The next sentence means that if you expect your opponent to play more cancellers to save his units (Steel's Bane), you can overkill a unit in anticipation of more cancellers.

Then lets try to break this down.

the attacking player must assign enough
damage to destroy each defending
unit before any damage can be
assigned to the defending player’s
capital

Which the question is when is a unit considered destroyed.

I looked and have not come across it in the new rules so I will default to the origninal ruling. On page 13

Both players now apply the assigned damage to the cards to which it has been assigned. Toughness does not take effect.

So the maximum amout of damage a unit can take. is the Hit points described on page six

Hit points: The amount of damage a unit can take. If a unit has as many damage tolkens as it has hit points that unit is destroyed and is placed in its owner's discard pile.

So a unit is considered destroyed if its hit points have the same amount of tolkens. So then the next part of the paragraph comes into effect,

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.

and a player can choose to assign more damage if they want to deal with cancellation effects like toughness .

So the amount of damage that must be applied is the hit point not including toughness, because toughness is not more hit points it is a cancellation effect.

Thunderkrikt said:

Why would you go back is my question? Old combat rules don't go together with the new ones.

"Destroy
Destroy means to put a card that is in
play into it’s owner’s discard pile." (FAQ, p. 9)

A unit is destroyed if it takes enough damage, including any and all cancelling to make it leave play.

"Hi,

Yes, in your example you must assign all 20 damage to the Swordmasters
of Hoeth.

James

> Message from:
> Tobogan
>
> Rule Question:
> Hi there.
>
> Since the release of the FAQ, there have been a little controversial
> about Combat Damage, arguing that you have to apply damage equal to
> defending units remaining hit points plus active damage cancellation
> on those units, which seem weird because removes optional decisions
> to players. So the question is this:
>
> If i attack with a total power of, lets see, 20, and my opponent
> only defends with the brand new Swordmasters of Hoeth, do I have to
> assign ALL of those 20 damage to the Swordmasters, or just 3, which
> would be neccesary to kill them in a normal situation and the
> remaining 17 damage to the capital?
>
> Thanks."

Reply #18:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

and I see the light. Thank you for helping through this one was really bugging me but between you guys and new rules I understand it.

How do you get around the swordsman of hoath that card seems crazy OP!

I mentioned some ways on BGG: Corruption so they can't attack/defend, kill them with non-combat damage (or uncancellable combat damage ala Counterstrike), take control of them, attack another zone, etc.. Last one is about the only thing HElves can't counter with their cards for certain.

I, and many other players, stated long ago that this HP/Destroy rule change would prove a problem. We have been proved right! I play the new rule now with no problems, but until the original rulebook is reprinted, all new players will use the old rule until the change is pointed out. There was nothing wrong with the old rule as it was clearly stated, but I still have no idea why it was changed. Was it just a printing error, or heaven forbid, someone thought it might be 'cooler' to change it? What a hornets nest that decision has stirred up! Hopefully not too many new players will be put off by this senseless change. It is still one of the best lcg games out there. Cheers

Hey, folks.

After reading through several threads I'm pretty confident about toughness, Dragonmage, Swordmasters and even Gustav the Bear.

There are still some game situations though, that puzzle me:

- The defending player plays Steel's Bane during the Assign attackers or Assign defenders Action Window (or during any Action Widows this turn before them). Should the attacking player take those 10 cancelled damage points into accout when assigning combat damage to the Steel's Bane target?

I know that this is an unlikely situation, but I can easily think about Steel's Bane played in response to ative player's Flames of Tzeench that was intended to remove a potential defender with Counterstrike.

In general this can be reworded as: does attacker need to take into account any existing damage cancellation constant effects that do not originate from the card's abilities?

- The War Hydra with 5 resource counters is assigned as a defender. Does the attacking player need to assign 1 or 6 damage points to the Hydra?

In general this can be reworded as: does attacker need to take into account Forced abilities on the defending cards when determining minimum damage to assign to it?

Also, is my understanding correct that damage redirection can be ignored for the purpose of assigning damae, so Blessing of Valaya does not imply additional 2 damage to assign, and 1 damage needs to be assigned to Warrior Priests when they are defending?

If so then when assigining indirect damage , does that mean that 2 additional damage points cannot be assigned to Blessing of Valaya's target and that only 1 indirect damage point can be assigned to the Warrior Prists?

brrrtenev said:

I get that there is concern about these old rules / new rules controversies. I remember barreling onto the forums a few months ago raging about the Swordsmasters being able to cancel all combat damage as ridiculous, but Dam and Entropy consistently save the day with their helpful comments. Just acknowledging that those guys should get more props. Dam in particular is some cross-forum mystical rules god, striking from the heavens whenever he is needed.