Virgo wrote:

Entropy this card was played since core set without any problems, it only needs small FAQ question that specifies that the controler of the development is the one doing the sacrificing. Please don't hit it with nerf hammer tongue

That sort of thing is beyond my control, though Lukas usually will try to just errata a card to be in line with how its commonly used, unless the card is being errata'ed for power reasons.

That's a very good point.  I think you are right that this card is worded in a way that makes it break when you play it on an opponent's development.  The rulings we have are pretty clear that you can't sacrifice an opponent's card, so Rip should either force you to only target your own unit, or say "it is sacrificed" rather than "sacrifice it".  Mallumo has put in a request to Lukas for clarification, so we should have an answer soon.

Virgo wrote:
Entropy wrote:

If you flip up an opponent's unit with Rip Dere 'Eads Off, it is not sacrificed at the end of the turn (based on the Bathe in Blood Q/A you quoted) due to Rip's effect.

What? I'm pretty sure it is sacrificed at the end of the turn, because that is the effect of the Rip Dere 'Eads Off! It's not like you're sacrificing something instead of your opponent.

Entropy wrote:

In the 2 Hero example though, he is not sacrificing your unit.  He is causing an illegal play state that can only be resolved by you sacrificing the unit you played from your hand.

What numer two. I taught you sacrifice hero that caused the illegal state to occur (which is the one flipped over by RDEO). If it was the other way round you could "snipe" enemy's heroes by flipping over developments. The hero played from hand leaves play and then the one from rip gets sacrificed.

1. I would have thought the same thing as you, but the ruling for Bathe in Blood is a pretty clear precedent in my opinion.

2. The example I am referring to here is where someone flips the development with Rip in response to you playing a Hero (which is the example from the FAQ).  In that case, the development hero comes in first, and the one from hand comes in second (making it the hero that caused the illegal state to occur).  If you already have the Hero in play, then flip a copy with Rip, you are right that it would not allow you to snipe the Hero from play.

As DaxYell pointed out, most sacrifice cards are worded as "opponent/target player must sacrifice".  Easy Pickens just says "must be sacrificed" which still allows its owner to do the sacrificing.  Rip and Bathe both just say "sacrifice it", which means that as the person playing the effect, you are doing the sacrificing.  But you can't, since its not your unit.

4

(1 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

If you control this card, you trigger its Action only when you choose, but also only in response to a unit becoming corrupted.  It does not create a constant effect that damages all future corrupted units.

So you played it correctly and your opponent is wrong.

Keep in mind, this card does not trigger off of Warpstone Excavation

DaxYell wrote:

Alright, so in fact one copy of the Hero (the one flipped over by RDEO) is going to stay in the game? (the one played from hand leaves play)

Yep

Our Rip ruling is a little outdated and needs to be corrected.  If you look at the official FAQ, you will see that section has changed slightly and no longer says anything about what happens to the flipped up unit. 
If the revealed development is a unit
that cannot be in play (such as a Hero
card in a zone that already contains a
Hero), then the unit that caused the
illegal state to occur is immediately
sacrificed.

If you flip up an opponent's unit with Rip Dere 'Eads Off, it is not sacrificed at the end of the turn (based on the Bathe in Blood Q/A you quoted) due to Rip's effect.

In the 2 Hero example though, he is not sacrificing your unit.  He is causing an illegal play state that can only be resolved by you sacrificing the unit you played from your hand. 

Two heroes cannot be in the same zone at the same time.  The Rip ruling you are quoting is just telling you what to do if that somehow happens.

Please ask questions in their own threads, and just leave this one for things directly related to the content of the Rules Summary.
Thanks.

8

(230 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

Images and text for 6th battlepack emailed to you.

No, it doesn't mean multiple units can quest.  Though its possible a future card could allow multiple units to be on that quest at the same time.  It should have just said "any unit questing here" like all the other quests do.

Yes, nice detective work :-)

11

(230 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

Sebi, I'll email you the card text in excel format again, just gotta go through them first to make sure I don't have as many screw ups as last time.

12

(2 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

It means what you said at the end.  You may use his damage counters to pay for things as if they were resource tokens, but only during your quest phase.  You can't just remove damage from him to add 1 resource to your pool of resources and then spend that later in the turn.

daniello_s wrote:

yeah u r right with those forced effect

but still it need official clarifications like note in new faq

The FAQ flowchart that 5oRitez quoted was the clarification put in to deal with cards like you just mentioned.  There are literally over 100 cards in W:I that have the format "Action: When <something>, do <something>"  None of them technically worked correctly before this flowchart.  FFG is VERY hesitant to release errata for cards, and there is no chance they will issue errata for 100+ cards that work under the current version of the FAQ.

14

(4 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

Just updated the rules summary about this today, but here's the full answer:
Whenever you see the word "becomes," then you know that the card is considered to have changed states for as long as the effect applies, but it does not physically change states. So with Judgement of Loec, the unit it is attached to stays face-up and is considered to be a development for as long as Judgement remains attached. The unit is normally no longer considered to be a unit, has no power or HP, and cannot defend (note, however, that effects such as Bolt of Change, Spellsinger, and Kairos Fateweaver are all able to affect it in this state).

Just to be clear, that is only valid for combat damage, since there is no action window between assign/apply for non-combat.

16

(230 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

Seb has the images and text, I'm sure he'll add them as soon as he can.

Pretty sure this is legal.  You can't assign indirect damage to a unit beyond what it takes to kill that unit, but moving damage does not have this restriction.

erdbeerchen wrote:

I have a Question about Slave Pen sacrificing and direct damage.

Cards like [Plage Bomb] target units and deal damage simultaneously?

So I can not wait which targets my opponent chooses and secrefice according to it?
But I could chain a sacrifice of the most likly target before targeting and recieving damage?

is this correct?

No, cards like Plague Bomb have their targets chosen when the Tactic is played.  You then have an opportunity to respond before the damage is assigned and applied.  So you can sacrifice the unit to Slave Pen in reaction to your opponent targeting it with Plague Bomb.

This is directly answered in the rules sticky at the top of this page, under Will of the Electors.

20

(2 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

tnkflx wrote:

"Attach to a target unit. Treat attached unit as though its printed text box were blank (except for Traits)"

It specifically targets the unit, not the attachment. So whatever the attachment says still counts if I'm correct. Couldn't immediately find an entry in the rulebook to back this up, but normally card texts are absolute except when the rulebook says otherwise.

It has to apply to only the unit.  If it applied to attachments as well, Witch Hag's Curse would blank itself, which would then cause the unit to not be blank anymore.

MovingTarget wrote:

This is still being disputed and causing tension.  Anyone have some sort of Warhammer Invasion rulebook page number or additional documentation that would specify this ruling?

Please help.

The important thing here is the type of damage. 
If it is non-combat damage, you can't apply the damage and sacrifice it. 
If its indirect damage, you can't apply the damage and sacrifice it. 
If its combat damage, there is an action window between assign and apply, so you can assign fatal damage to the unit, sacrifice it, and then apply the damage.  The assigned damage in this case just disappears.

Yeah, nothing can die while you are assigning damage.  Stuff can happen before, then you assign, then more stuff can happen, then you apply.

If you can find some friends that want to play with a similar restriction, you could probably have some fun games of God vs God.

24

(3 replies, posted in Warhammer Invasion)

Mallumo wrote:

Great, if headache-inducing work.

One minor point:

The Slayers are in the battlefield, so Spawn of Itzl can't target them when attacking the quest zone, right? The target has to be valid when the action is declared, not only when it resolves.

Good catch.  I changed this example around a lot to get all the effects in there, so I totally missed that.  I'll update it.

Updated for v1.4 FAQ