Vamosamorir you arent say things that stupid...but the matter is:do you go to sanctioned play?If you go there at high level, I think you understand the point of banning this card!
No more visits to the haunted city
Reg06 said:
Vamosamorir said:
And steal the counters o the quest before yout opponent can activates VTHC.
That's a pretty rare ability.
It is non-existant. Cards like Hate or Dark Elf Infiltrator can't remove resources tokens from cards, just from the opponent's resource pool.
The ban was not an answer. Or rather it was not a good answer. VTHC needed errata not ban. However, I am happy that FFG did something about this overpowered quest.
If you ask me what errata I say forget restricted, unique, limit once per turn or more counters - VTHC should only be able to move units and supports controlled by the owner of the quest. IMO the card would still be useful and would not break the game and tournaments play.
Actually whole Empire is overpowered, VTHC was just the last straw that broke the camel's back.
Reg06 said:
Vamosamorir said:
And everyone can destroy de Morrslieb ligth with many tactics or units.
Everyone? There's the dwarf cards (2 now?), the orc card, and the empire have some cards. There are a few other cards that can destroy it, but they often require the zone to already be burning.
Vamosamorir said:
And steal the counters o the quest before yout opponent can activates VTHC.
That's a pretty rare ability.
Vamosamorir said:
Additionally there are ways to kill a unit without making target.
True, if you play that sort of deck. Dark Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, and Empire don't do very much indirect damage without working hard for it.
1.-Burn It Down.- Neutral Tactic-, for ALL PLAYERS... Do you know it?
2-. Yes, but is another possibility
3- You can olso move the questing untit (empire) o reduce his HP (DE) or probably destroy them (Foot of gork -orc; dwarf ranger-dwarves)
Mallumo said:
Vamosamorir said:
And steal the counters o the quest before yout opponent can activates VTHC.
It is non-existant. Cards like Hate or Dark Elf Infiltrator can't remove resources tokens from cards, just from the opponent's resource pool.
WHY? I see nothing in FAQ 1.5 that forbid it.
VTHC says: Action: When you play a development from your hand, put a resource token on this card if a unit is questing here. Action: Discard 2 resources on this card to move a target unit or support card from its current zone to another zone controlled by the same player
And Hate says: Action: Take 1 resource from each opponent and add it to your available resources.
As I pick the resource token, i can choose which one and take one of the VTHC resource tokens. If I'm wrong tell me where to find this rule please? Indeed it may be as you say, but I have not seen that rule even
Thanks... But, Why Not in the FAQ 1.5????.
Not everyone read the FFG forum usually due to language problem. Anyway, with the text of the cards in your hand can not be prohibited, and a post of two forum members, in many cases, don't serve as a ruling in a tournament... Should appear in the FAQ
You also have a rule summary listing all questions asked (Hate is in there) : http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=232
I really appreciate your help, but I think that things like this should be included in the FAQ, since, with no intention to offend anyone, in this posts only can see a post when says that the developer answers... but that's nothing official in itself. Or not?. Is used as official tournament rules, these messages when does not appear anyone from the development team or the publisher?
Thanks again.
I think they covered it in the rules on page 11:
These resource tokens come from the pool in the centre
of the playing area, and are not subtracted from
the resources a player collects during the kingdom
phase.
Resource tokens on a quest card cannot be
used for anything other than the effects of that card.
Only one unit can be questing on any given quest
card at any time. If the questing unit leaves play for
any reason, the quest card remains in play but all
resource tokens accumulated on that quest card are
discarded, and returned to the pool in the centre of
the table.
The card is written vague but I believe they mean resource tokens on quest cards are not resources but markers. It was probably easier to use the initial resource tokens then make quest tokens.
But you can also place power tokens in support or units such as action tags. This rule of page 11 does not speak of such power tokens, then it could take them, or not? For that reason should be clarified in FAQs
It more comes into the fact that Hate and other such cards specify that you are taking resources , which are marked by the resource tokens sitting on the player's capital board. A resource token does not necessarily denote a resource , it is just a generic marker used by the game for various things. When sitting on other cards, they just represent markers and have no direct relation to the resources the player has available to them to use.
Zeruul said:
It more comes into the fact that Hate and other such cards specify that you are taking resources , which are marked by the resource tokens sitting on the player's capital board. A resource token does not necessarily denote a resource , it is just a generic marker used by the game for various things. When sitting on other cards, they just represent markers and have no direct relation to the resources the player has available to them to use.
I think Vaso understands this. It's common sense. He just wants it explicitly stated as such. this is where the term "rules lawyer" comes from.
I meant Vamos...not Vaso.
Doc9 said:
Zeruul said:
It more comes into the fact that Hate and other such cards specify that you are taking resources , which are marked by the resource tokens sitting on the player's capital board. A resource token does not necessarily denote a resource , it is just a generic marker used by the game for various things. When sitting on other cards, they just represent markers and have no direct relation to the resources the player has available to them to use.
I think Vaso understands this. It's common sense. He just wants it explicitly stated as such. this is where the term "rules lawyer" comes from.
Exactly.
also unfortunately common sense and the rules do not always go hand in hand