Hi all!

I'm new to the game and i found some weird things so i ask designers some errata please.

For Lelansi : use her effect only once per turn to break the loremaster loop.

For Slayer of Karak Kadrin : change their warrior trait into Slayers and apply their destruction effect only to opposing units.

Thanks to take it in consideration.

Outpost of Tiranoc
Q. If a card says "takes" damage, like Loremaster of Hoeth , does the Outpost still add 1 to the indirect damage it deals?
A. Yes. If a unit or player "takes" damage, the source of that damage is still considered to have dealt damage. Often this wording is used when a player or unit is damaging themselves. James' Ruling

According to this ruling, I am still not convinced, that the infinite loop is "ok". Cause for me the problem is not if the source is the loremaster of hoeth but if the source is me. ( you in the card text)

On many cards it is written you (dealt X indirect damage).

In this case we have a card Loremaster of Hoeth

And a ruling that specify that this card is considered to be the source of the damage

Nice, but it still does not mean that you have dealt damage only that loremaster does it.

Moreover there were allready rulling about similar card :

Arrer Boyz
Q. Why does it say "takes damage" on Arrer Boyz instead of "is dealt damage"?
A. Because the source of the effect is itself. James's ruling

Thyrus Gorman
Q. Why does it say "takes damage" on Thyrus Gorman instead of "is dealt damage"?
A. Because the source of the effect is itself. James's ruling

Ok a card using a wording "takes damage" is considered to be the source of the damage.

So that's ok for me, I play with the same rules that others players do, but this ruling is the only one, since the beginning of the game, that seems unlogical to me, with an explanation of the rulling that did not at all conviced me of the rightness of this ruling.

This ruling is the only thing that allow the infinite loop, I really don't think that Lelansi should be revised, and I would be really more convinced by a revision of this clarification.

More generally this ruling mean that a player is considered to be the source of any damage dealt by a card he is controlling, this should be clarified somewhere if it is the case.

The card text of outpost & Loremaster.

Outpost of Tiranoc

Whenever you deal indirect damage, deal 1 aditional indirect damage.

Loremaster of Hoeth

Forced: After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage. (Players assign their own indirect damage.)

Alright but since James revised the ruling on damage i prefered to attack another part of the loop.

There some examples in ccg where rulings have been reverted.

Shindulus said:

"You" are definitely the source of the damage dealt by Loremaster, for the purposes of Outpost. By your argument, if you play a tactic, you aren't the source of the damage, the tactic is. So then there is absolutely nothing that Outpost of Tiranoc can add to.

I'm also unclear how these cards form an infinite loop, since you have to pay to get the Loremaster back into play.

Check the subject of the sentences so as to know, for support or tactics.

What's the subject of "deal" in those sentences :

Action: At the beginning of your turn, deal 2 indirect damage to target opponent (players allocate their own indirect damage.)

Action: Deal X indirect damage to one target player. X is the number of developments in your battlefield. (Players assign their own indirectdamage.)

In my natural language subject are really more in evidence in the sentences and in such cards :

http://deckbox.org/whi/Elven%20Warship

http://deckbox.org/whi/Surprise%20Assault

It's obvious (in my natural language translation) that the subject of "deal" is you, I mean the person who is playing the card (whereas it is maybe not so clear in english). And it would be obvious if it was the card itself because the verb necessary has, in his written form, informations about subject.

And

It has been clarified that the loremaster of Hoeth is the source of the damage. (not you but the loremaster).

As you can see I am really not a good english speaker :-), and I am not able to say if you are able to determine what's the subject of "deal".

If in english you are not able to say exactly what's the subject of "deal", so I agree that we do not lead our think with the same data and so we have different conclusions.

But i really think that even in english if it was the support/tactic that was dealing damage it should be written "deals" instead of "deal".

Combo

- Lelansi

- Outpost x 2

- Gifts of aenarion

- Loremaster of hoeth

You "auto" pay loremaster with gifts, you "auto" kill loremaster with outpost x 2 he goes back to your hand with lelansi.

Ah, Gifts was the part of the combo I was missing. Neat.

Your grasp of English grammar is probably better than my own, even though its the only language I know. I think that makes you more analytical of the precise wording on the cards (which is often poor) than I am. I tend to just read minor differences in wording as many ways of saying the same thing, and assume that similar cards work the same. You are also right that in your examples, it is clear that "you" are the one dealing the damage. I didn't think of those when making my post.

That said, I still think you are reading too much into James' exact wording on Loremaster though. Those email rulings are often just quick answers to a question, and maybe don't contain perfect language for making other rule judgements. This seems to me like people really reaching for a way to break up a combo they wish didn't exist. To my knowledge, there is nowhere in the W:I official rules where a distinction is made between a player dealing damage and a player's cards dealing damage. Its pretty unlikely that this one card is the exception.

Like I was saying "I want to play with the same rules that are officialy used", but if in a near future this clarification was reversed I would not feel sad with that.

No matter if this is allowing the combo or not.

Note that I was the OP of the question that lead to this clarification (because I was wondring if this combo was working ). But during those two months (before I get my answer) I have taken many time to think about that. And was given to the point that source of the damages was not checked. I was a little bit disapointed when I get my answer.

By the way, to reach a more general subject as you do in your conclusion. I really think that semantic in a ccg/lcg is very important (because of the golden rule) as card text define the rule of the game.

Shindulus said:

Note that I was the OP of the question that lead to this clarification (because I was wondring if this combo was working ). But during those two months (before I get my answer) I have taken many time to think about that. And was given to the point that source of the damages was not checked. I was a little bit disapointed when I get my answer.

I may have misread your post then. You have asked Lukas about this, and he has told you that Loremaster deals the damage, rather than "you"?

Or are you referring to James' older ruling on it?

Btw, to the OP, the designers do not read this forum. You will never get an official response from them about your request for errata. Also, they are extremely reluctant to release card errata, and will only do so when a cards current text is breaking the card. There is no chance the Slayers will get the errata you are asking for.

Entropy42 said:

I am refering on thyrus gorman & Arrer Boyz rulling, cards using the same wording.

Q. Why does it say "takes damage" on Arrer Boyz instead of "is dealt damage"?
A. Because the source of the effect is itself.

Ok, then I stand by my previous statement.

The wording you quoted from Outpost of Tiranoc is just something I paraphrased when writing up James' ruling. Click the link to James' actual ruling and you can see that he actually says

Q. If I play Loremaster of Heoth having already Tiranoc Outpost in play, how many damage each player take? (Take is "to deal damage by source to itself right?)

A. 3 indirect damage."

By your argument, James is actually agreeing that each player takes 3 indirect damage, and take is "to deal damage by source to itself" Which would mean that each player was the source of his own 3 indirect damage. I hope we can agree that is not actually the case.

"Takes damage" is not a phrase that has actual rules meaning in W:I. Its just shorthand that they use sometimes on cards, and it has always been clarified to just mean "is dealt damage", and it usually occurs when a player or unit is damaging itself.

Ho yes it takes really more meaning.

But just a little remark, when I play loremaster of hoeth, I am damaging myself, and what about my opponent?

From what you say he is damaging himself (so I am not the source of the damage, and it should be 3 for me and 2 for my opponent, in case of 1 lore + 1 outpost). But I agree with you as you say, this would be a little bit strange.

The explanation you gave me is enought to let me know why I am doing a mistake when I was "generalizing" the ruling for thyrus & Arrer. I will be more attentive to those kinds of details.

And the rulling get more meaning at the same time.

Thank you very much.