I read today one interesting question rule, and I think that is not right. It is about card Swordmasters of Hoeth.

Becouse if they are declared as defenders they will protect only ammount of damage equal to they hit-point rating. Like when you play action card that can cancel damage. You play this card in timing after the damage is assigned. You can't move damage after is assigned, but you can cancel that damage.

Example: My battlefield is defended only by Swordmasters of Hoeth. 3 hit-points. Enemy has total power of 5 then assign 3 hits to Swordmasters and rest to the Battlefield which is defended by them (2 damage). Then damage on Swordmasters is canceled thru their effect.

It is described in rules on pages (12-13) 4. assign damage and 5. apply damage.

What do you think?

Sword Masters have been covered in a ton of threads. Bottom line: If you attack the BZ where they are defending, you will NEVER get to assign damage to the zone (barring uncancellable damage). Since their cancellation ability is in play at the time damage is being assigned, it has to be accounted for, meaning you have to assign enough to destroy them, which you of course can't, since they cancel combat damage. But you still have to assign enough to destroy them before you can assign to BZ. FAQ changed the combat rules from the Core Set rules, with regard to damage assigning and applying and taking cancellation into account.

Heh I dont read that question in last page..Heh you have right..Now I see. I don't expect that the Swordmasters are so much powerfull..

Sword Masters are still one of the few cards that are actually good for the HElves. Rest of their cards are generally worse than what other races have available. 3x Sword Masters in BZ gives you okay attacking power, especially since you can attack liberally, they won't be taking damage normally. Things to watch out for are Counterstrike and Invoke Khaine's Wrath for the DElves (assuming you don't have Disdain or Drain Magic ready to cancel).

Swordmasters Of Hoeth are the best defence in the battlefield. They are perfect becouse no damage goes through them on Your capitol and even when they are attacking they can't be killed - they cancel all combat damage. One of the best HE card.

But You can still destroy them with tactics, counterstrike, savage, by moving damage from one unit to other and so on. They cancel only combat damage so they must attack or defend other ways they are going to be damaged.

I'm really puzzled about the Swordmasters soaking up all damage. It's clear in the actual, current rules on site, that the Assign Damage rules are referring strictly to hit points, and it is optional whether the attacker applies points to overcome constant effects that will activate in the Apply Damage step. Then the FAQ steps in not to clarify, but to change the rule: must assign enough damage to destroy the defending units before being able to deal damage on opponent's capital. In doing so, he must take into account the unit's hit points and any damage cancellation effects that are already active before damage is assigned.

Several questions:

1. Does the FAQ wording to destroy... etc in fact replace the wording found in the rules, which refers specifically to hit points? Basically, is the FAQ an official change to the wording of the rule? In other words, how official is FAQ? (yes, I've looked at deckbox.org, but it is unofficial - and by the way, tweaks the 'new' rule again slightly).

If so, why this change? It's a huge one, and makes the Swordsmasters way too powerful, but also changes the game play significantly. It certainly wasn't intended to be this awsome when Assault on Ulthuan came out. In general, it gives sides with effects like toughness and cancel damage much more advantage than they had had previously.

2. It also means you have to 'anticipate' officially and play in accordance with a step not yet taken,in the future, and I can't see any where else in the game that this is the case? Sure the Swordmasters' cancellation effect is constant one, but it is really only active ever in the Assign Damage step. Therefore during the Assign Damage step, it is dormant?

We're quite new to WI, but we've had 10 games with HE vs DE and Dwarf and HE have won 80% of the timeh, playing to the FAQ rules. Yeah, there are some cards to counter in these races, but way too few, esp when the Swordmasters get their weapons.

Thanks

kiwi said:

#1: Yes, the FAQ changed the rules for damage in combat. And yes, FAQ is official, you can download it from the W:I Support section (under Catalog -> Living Card Games -> W:I). Why did they change it? Not sure we still have any clue.

#2: Yes, but SWoH are in play and their cancellation ability is a known aspect at the time of assigning damage and as such must be taken into account. Steel's Bane, if played before damage is assigned, has to be taken into account at the time of assigning damage, but if your opponent plays it after damage has been assigned, there is no change to the already assigned damage, just that the unit in question survives.

DElves IMO have more options of countering Sword Masters than HElves have ways of uncountering. You can take control of them, prevent them from attacking, corrupt them, destroy them. And if all else fails, just burn the HElf KZ and QZ, ignore his BZ defended by the Sword Masters.

Swordmasters also seem a lot stronger before you have additional battlepacks. Not every faction has a ton of ways to deal with them in the base sets. I am curious though, how the Deckbox FAQ "tweaks" the new rule. As far as I know it is 100% equivalent to the current FAQ ruling, though it might be written a little more clearly than the FAQ with regards to cancellation/redirection.

Thankyou. We did see the alteration on the FAQ, but were uncertain as to it's being an official rule change: are now. The 'tweak' was just as you said, a little clearer statement of the new rule.

It's an odd change - a major one quietly made, but I guess we'll have to deal with it; doesn't seem to have bothered others too much. I look forward to seeing what subsequent decks can do.

Again, thanks for your patience.

kiwi said:

Well, it wasn't really quiet when it first was revealed in January 2010 or so, there was quite a bit of uproar over the change.