ChaosChild said:

Yes, they cannot, but they still working. Forced effect is on stack (it cannot be stopped from resolving), if it's owner choose to target King or owner of Church unit, he must pay additional cost, if he don't have enough resources, he cannot choose them, and he must choose other target (for example Nurglings - they can target themselves) If there is no legal target, forced effect is resolvin but with no target (doing nothing).

(sorry for my bad english)

Rashley said:

From rulebook p.14:

• Damage is applied and its effects resolve.
Characters leave play if they are out of hit points.
Burn tokens are placed on the capital if necessary.

So you can redirect damege token from the capital, before it burns.

No need to open a new thread, so here are my doubts. I'd like to discuss them a bit.

Those are REAL game situation occurred yesterday, so I'm pretty sure of what happenens and decisions I describe.

- The Greater Swords (takes 1 Power when a unit enters the same zone). Now, usually we have self-responses to coming into play (enter the zone in our language) effect...In this example, The GreaterSwords's response to enters this zone would add a power to themselves...because, otherwise, we'd have seen something like: "when ANOTHER unit..." etc.

So, the question is: Would you rule it this way? I ask because I did, and I'd like to know what you think.

- Sadistic Mutation (after unit deals damage in combat, deal 1 damage to target unit or capital). Now, the game situation is pretty simple: we have it attached to a Unit with 1HP. It's declared as attacker/defender and gets combat damage. It's destroyed...The question is: does this effect trigger anyway? I mean...For the effect to trigger, the card has to be in play and if we follow the rules, a Unit is immediately destroyed when gets damage...In this case we have a Forced that would trigger...

I ruled that YES, it TRIGGERS, because damage is dealt and "at that time", the FORCED triggered, becoming part of the chain effect.

How'd you rule that?
 

- Warpstone Meteor. Pretty simple doubt here. Someone pointed out that you CANNOT choose to take 1 damage if you CAN corrupt a unit. Usually, we find the word "either" when a card implies a choice. I ruled it in this way: if you have a Unit to be corrupted, you HAVE to corrput it. If you don't have it, you deal 1 damage.

What do you think?

I'm trying to remember a couple of other game issues...I'll ask to my play-mates and tell you later :)

Cheers

I've thus far gone the other way with the Greatswords (no self-bonus) and seems dormouse forgot to ask about it, though he did clear quite a few loose ends, otherwise I would agree with your other rulings. After having done a Power Icon count, it probably wouldn't break Empire if Greatswords got +1 Power from themselves.

In case someone was curious (quoting myself from BGG):

"Found myself with a spare time and nothing to do, so on a whim decided to count the Power icons on Units in the Core Set:

Chaos: 33
Dwarves: 28
Empire: 23
Orcs: 28

Now, this is the raw stats, just what's printed on the Unit card, not taking into consideration any from card text, attachements, supports cards, etc., but does seem to indicate what I've noticed, that Empire seems to lack punch in general. Of course, overall strength of a faction is more than just Power icons, but they do offer a point of interest. "

DB_Cooper said:

 Great Swords: it refers to another creatures, not to themselves. They first come into play, than their ability can trigger (becouse, ability of card can trigger only if card IS IN the game, not while it comes in to play), but it is to late, they are already in play, so it cannot trigger for them.

Sadistic Mutation: agree, first damage is applied -> so unit done damage -> effect triggers -> then unit leave play. There is no space for player in this process, but for effect of mutation - it is, this effect is  waiting for that specific moment.

Warpstone Meteor: agree, we must corrupt if we can,

At first, thanks to both, guys :)

But I think the "The Greatswords" issue is not going to end for me...I'm not convinced...I'm not convinced from my version, neither from yours..:I don't feel sure about it.

The thing is...AGOT example: "Castellan of the Rock: After you play a L character or location choose and kneel (TAP) a character without attachment. Now, it's known that he triggers himself.

I KNOW that WE CAN'T use other games rules to understand this game, but that's about card game lore/wisdom. A CARD text is ACTIVE in the same time it comes into play ("trigger" is another stuff, I'm talkin' in general). Now, the reason why I insist (but I'm still not so sure) is that there's no reason for this card to work differently from other...

There's no "ANOTHER unit". There's "A unit".

Anyway, your points are OK and that's because we're here talkin' about it...

We do really need the faq.

after some thinking.. you might be right.

we need faq, but until it comes, i will play the same way as you : )

don't know if anyone said something about Bloodthirster, do you agree, that his ability refers to all damage in the game? (I think - Yes)

I'm pretty sure about The Greatswords ability, now :)

Anyway, let's see that badass...BloodThirster.

The statement on that card is an "everlasting" effects, continously affecting the game: there's no start/end (thus, no trigger) and that's absolute.

"Damage cannot be cancelled". There's no stipulation allowing us thinkin' otherwise.

Anyway, just a hint: in FFG games, even if sometimes we find unclear rules issues (due to the fact that "user friendly" rules sometimes means "incomplete rules"), what you READ is what really matters.

There are no "under-meanings" or non written stuff. Read = Know what happens.

So, in this case: if Bloodthirster's everlasting effect implied something different, you'd have read something like: "Damage dealt by Bloodthirster cannot be canceled".

That's it. :)

P.S. I love this game. Too much.

Do passive effects like "Temple of Shallya" Stack for controlling multiple copies? 

i have another question, maybe a stupid one, but i couldn't find a clear answer.

Imagine the following situation. My Quest-Zone is burned down, but i still have a unit questing there. This unit there cannot be destroyed in combat, because if the opponent attacks my QZ, i just won't let the unit defend the zone, which doesn't matters because the QZ is burning already. Is it true, that this unit can only be destroyed by a card effect and otherwise my opponent can't prevent me from completing the quests? 

That's how it works in general, even if a zone is not burning. :)

When, in your Example, QZ is burning, this FACT becomes a dangerous tricky situation for the oppo. He's not going to get rid of that Unit, as you say,

Anyway, there are different ways to avoid a Quest from being completed, outside mass removal: Flames of Tzeentch, Blood for The Blood God, Forced March, Nurgle Sorceror, Zhufbaar Engineers...But YES, it becomes difficult, at some point.

thx man

i' ve another question concerning "Lobber Crew" (card nr. 66)

Kindom. Action: Sacrifice this unit to force an opponent to sacrifice a unit he controls,if able. 

Can i decide which unit he has to sacrifice or is it in his choice?

The "force an opponent to sacrifice..." stipulation means "the oppo chooses one of his Units and sacrifice it".

Otherwise, we'd have had a "targetting" choice available, like: "Sacrifice this Unit to Choose a Unit controlled by an opponent: that player sacrifices that Unit:"

DB_Cooper said:

I think it does. why not?

You want to move one unit couple of times using each copy of temple on it?  I think it is possible.