Hi All,

More games played tonight and two more rules disagreements arose...

Both more or less about the same thing - how many damage MUST be applied to a unit in combat.

Question 1:

Sword Masters of Hoeth.

For example - A single Sword masters card defending the battlefield has 3 wounds and the text "Cancel all combat damage assigned to this unit".

Being attacked for 5 Damage.

Now, my reading of the rules suggest that I need only assign 3 damage to this unit to equal the number of hit points on the card allowing the final 2 points of damage through to the capital, the damage is then applied where the card text kicks in, cancelling the 3 damage.

Others are reading the rules as - 3 Damage does not kill the card due to the text, therefore ALL damage must be assigned to the unit, where it is then cancelled when applied. (making the battlefield zone untouchable unless you remove the swordmasters by other means)

Question 2:

Very similar - change the Sword masters for a generic unit with 3 wounds but Toughness 1.

I read the rules to work in the same way - I need only assign 3 damage to the unit (well aware I may increase this) then assign 2 damage to the capital. with the toughness rule kicking in when the damage is actually applied leaving the unit alive with 1 wound. (theres even an example of this in the rulebook!)

Others say that because the card has toughness 1, that you must assign 4 damage to the card, because that is how much you need to assign to actually kill it.

PS - in both examples we are fully aware that we MAY add more damage if required, we're disagreeing on how much damage MUST be assigned.

(its basicly the sword masters stopping ALL damage to the capital that seems wrong.)

Many thanks in advance

Squinty

In both cases, others are correct.

And no, that doesn't mean the Sword Masters are crazy overpowered.

Regarding the toughness issue, that was changed quite a while ago. Your rulebook isn't up to date there. Check the FAQ and Entropy's rules summary at http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=232

Cheers for the reply - but for clarification - why?

As the rulebook example on page 13 shows the Hammerer unit being assigned 2 wounds, the capital 2 and the hammers survive due to toughness 1.

The wording of the FAQ for damage allocation (1.5, page 4) is identical to that in my printing of the rulebook, so what changes the way this works and where do I find it?

EDIT - Ok, I can see on page 11 there's an FAQ which would suggest there has been a change somewhere, but cant find any errata to change the core rules (thus changing the core rules example)

Or does FFG work differently to other Games systems with their erratas & FAQs?

Cheers

Squinty

If a rule gets changed, it is in the FAQ, core rules remain as written. By that I mean that there are no updated core rules (which would include official errata/changes) to download. Just have to combo core rules + FAQs for the most current ruleset.

Lord_Squinty said:

From the FAQ, Core Set Rulebook Errata:

On page 12 of the Core Rulebook,
the second paragraph under “4.
Assign Damage” it should read “The
attacking player assigns damage to
his opponent first. 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.

"a minimum damage necessary to destroy each defending unit must be assigned" means you must take all known cancellation effects into consideration. Assigning three damage to a 3 HP, Toughness 1 unit isn't enough to destroy it, four damage is. Assigning however much combat damage to the Sword Masters isn't enough to destroy them, so they soak it all up. Think of it like this: you assign one point of damage, check if the unit would be destroyed now, if not, you assign another. Repeat.

Note that in the example in the rulebook you mention, the Hammerer of Karak Azul is an attacker, not a defender. At least in the version available as a PDF on FFG's main site.

Mallumo said:

The Errata change is word for word what is printed in my rulebook - my interpretation has came from the wording of "a minimum damage necessary to destroy each defending unit must be assigned". Because it then goes on to state that toughness doesnt kick in until the apply damage phase and the definition of destroying a unit is when hit points equals damage.

Still seems the rules aren't worded correctly if that's what they mean, but at least I know how it's played.

Thanks again Mallumo!

PS - I think that making a zone invulnerable for a cost of 4 IS a little OP - I know how to get rid of them, but still...

Lord_Squinty said:

Yeah, that's the usual reaction when people realize how this works. But there are so many ways to deal with the Sword Masters, it's not really an issue. Make combat damage uncancellable, kill them with non-combat damage, reduce their HP, move them to another zone, take control of them, use an outright destroy/sacrifice effect, blank their text box, turn them into a development ... or just burn the kingdom and the quest and let them enjoy their battlefield.

Yeah, I agree they are <relatively> easily dealt with.

What I think is OP is that they only cost 4 for what is a very powerfull effect.

Also - shouldn't they be reworded then to be "Toughness X, where X is the total amount of damage applied to this card in the combat phase"

That would make their rule a LOT clearer....

Thanks for the replies

Squinty

Lord_Squinty said:

From a thematic/fluff standpoint, the Swordmasters are not preventing damage because they have "toughness"; they're elves, they're anything but tough. It's their unmatched skill with their greatweapons that are keeping them from taking combat damage. Can't touch this...shimmy shimmy shimmy.

I'm gonna dig this up just so i can call circular logic on this. Since no amount of damage will destroy the Swordmaster, no damage needs to be applied.

imjodokast said:

although your probably not right on that if that is true maybe that is why they dont have toughness so that they could be unique in not needing damage to destroy them

I'm sure I'm not "right". I doubt that's the way it is intended to be played. I like to point out ways one can try to twist/argue rules and wording, in hopes to better prepared if such a thing comes up.