Episode 11: The fine arts of war

We’re back! And to contrast the previous episode, we’re really raising the bar in this one. No mention of the defining motive in Asur architecture this time, instead we hit you with a highbrow analysis of modern art, fine literature, and we repeatedly dabble in that most occult of arts, math. (The value of x is always in the eye of the beholder, don’t let anyone tell you differently.) But to reassure you we haven’t really changed and are still awful, ignorant people at heart, we also display some terrible prejudices.

But that’s not all! We also proudly display and discuss an exclusive Cataclysm spoiler – thanks, FFG! Our Deviant Lifestyles segment is back, we rules lawyer unique cards a bit more, wonder about the Eternal War legends in tie-breaker situations and multiplayer games, look back at The Silent Forge, and of course discuss the Hidden Kingdoms announcement.

 

(Oooooh … 21212121 … we told you math is occult! Numbers are the tools of Tzeentch!)

Click below for stuff we mention this episode:

 

The best thing about being a mage is that you never truly lose your keys.

Bobby knew that five centuries of studying magic had been worth it when it got him the key to the executive bathroom.

 

The current deck building contest on BGG.

The Rules Summary on deckbox.

 

26 thoughts on “Episode 11: The fine arts of war

  1. Virgo

    Two words Mallumo about the unique cards because I don’t have time now to listen to whole podcast 😛
    1) Bringing a second Grimgor into play via Mork’s Teef Ritual by sacrificing the first is a little bit different than other put into play actions because the first Grimgor disappears from play at the moment of paying the cost of the tactic (sacrifice).
    2) I read sacrifice from:
    “If a unit causes an illegal state when it enters play, then that unit is immediately sacrificed.”
    as it is defined in FAQ:
    Sacrifice (v1.7)
    Sacrifice means to remove a card you control from play.
    (notice the difference between wording of Asuryan’s Cleansing: Cancel and discard target unit or support card being played…)
    Which would mean that if End of Times puts into play 3 Grimgors they will all trigger despite 2 ot them being sacrificed (because they are sacrificed from play). I think that this rule is mostly about the situtations when it is the opponent who causes the illegal state to occur. I would say if you play Reclaiming the Fallen or End times and have unique card in play or another hero in that zone you just ignore the effect of RTF/End Times for that card, not put it into play and sacrifice it immediately (which would result in triggering all effects: when something enters play/this zone etc).

    Reply
    1. Torsten Post author

      1) In other words, the copy in play is still there when you declare your use of Mork’s Teef Ritual. Therefore I don’t think it is that different – but yes, it could be. Again, the FAQ isn’t perfectly clear there. And like we said on the show, we can argue this back and forth, but with the wording being as ambiguous as it is, we won’t come to a perfect conclusion without clarification from the devs.

      2) If the card doesn’t enter play, you can’t sacrifice it, by the definition you gave. And again, this is one of those unclear things where there is no definite answer in the FAQ yet. If you play End Times and three copies of Grimgor would enter play, do they all, or does just one, and if they all do, do all their effects trigger? I believe the intent is that if they all do enter play, two are immediately removed again without their effects triggering, but I can’t prove it.

      That’s what I tried to illustrate with the basic explanation regarding unique cards, there simply are still a lot of holes in the FAQ. The rules and FAQ never actually say I can’t have two copies of the same unique card in play. They just say if I have one, I can’t play, put into play, or take control of a second. But when I have a Grimgor, and Rip a second Grimgor, I’m not doing any of those things, the card was already in play (that’s why its effect doesn’t trigger after all) and already under my control. Of course the card text including the unique symbol wasn’t active while it was facedown, but still, I end up with two copies of a unique card in play, which in itself isn’t forbidden by the rules, and without having violated a rule. So just from the rules, it doesn’t follow that this is actually an illegal game state.

      Bottom line, I’ll pester Brad about this to try and get an answer soon, so we can all get back to playing. 😉

      Reply
      1. Virgo

        1) ) “In other words, the copy in play is still there when you declare your use of Mork’s Teef Ritual.” Yes, but Ritual doesn’t target/choose/name the unit that will be put into play until it resolves, unlike Raise Dead or Repair the Waystones.

        😛

        Mallumo the sooner Brad gives the answer the better XD

        Reply
        1. Torsten Post author

          Turns out everyone is right! And everyone is wrong! I talked to Brad and here’s how it works:

          1. I can trigger an effect that would result in a unique card entering play while I have another copy of that card in play.

          2. If a unique card would enter play while I have another copy of it in play, it will be prevented from doing so.

          Example A: I have a unique unit in play and another copy of it in my discard pile. I play Raise Dead and choose the unique unit in the discard pile as my target as I play the card. The effect resolves, and when the unit tries to come into play it is prevented from doing so by the game rules.

          Example B: I have a unique unit in play and another copy of it in my hand. I play Mork’s Teef Ritual and don’t have to choose what I am putting into play with it yet. I then pay all costs including resources and sacrificing the unique unit in play. Then when the ability resolves I may put the new copy of that unique unit into play from my hand (and it won’t be prevented from entering play because the other copy is gone by then), or any other unit in my hand. (see 5. below)

          As for the Gathering combo, it works because you can trigger the action that would put the copy in the discard pile into play, and by the time it enters play the other copy is gone.

          3. If I have a unique unit in play, and another copy of it would enter play because of an effect like Reclaiming the Fallen or End Times, it is prevented from doing so. All other units enter play normally.

          4. If Reclaiming the Fallen or End Times would put multiple copies of a unique unit into play I don’t already have a copy in play of, they all enter play, and then all but one of my choosing are immediately sacrificed. Only the copy that stays triggers “enter play” effects, but the copies that were sacrificed trigger “leave play” effects and are considered to have been in play. The same goes for Reclaiming the Fallen or End Times putting two heroes into the same zone.

          5. (just a follow-up to Example B above) When I trigger an effect that results in the playing of a card, or the putting into play of a card, if that effect doesn’t target the card in question, I do not have to choose the card at the time of triggering the effect, only when it actually resolves. So when I play Mork’s Teef Ritual, I don’t have to choose which unit to put into play until the effect actually resolves, and when Wurrzag attacks and I trigger his action, I don’t have to declare which tactic I’ll play until the action resolves. I can trigger Wurrzag or Mork’s without having a tactic / unit in hand. If I do have one in hand, I have to play it / put it into play. If at a tournament I claim not to have one in hand, my opponent can ask the judge to check.

          Reply
          1. Gnomeschool

            “4. If Reclaiming the Fallen or End Times would put multiple copies of a unique unit into play I don’t already have a copy in play of, they all enter play, and then all but one of my choosing are immediately sacrificed. Only the copy that stays triggers “enter play” effects, but the copies that were sacrificed trigger “leave play” effects and are considered to have been in play. The same goes for Reclaiming the Fallen or End Times putting two heroes into the same zone.”

            Do the unique cards that are sacrificed in this case trigger “enter play” effects of other cards, such as banna thief?
            Example: I play End Times and 3 Grimgork Ironhides in the 10 cards. Only one of them trigger his “enter play” effect – but do the other trigger a banna thief, that is in play?

            Reply
            1. Torsten Post author

              That’s a general statement, it doesn’t just refer to the units’ own effects. So no.

              Reply
          2. Virgo

            As for 4 I don’t like the fact that cards do trigger some effects but don’t others, but I will go with it. Thanks for much needed clarification.

            Reply
  2. Junglecat

    Haven’t had time to finish listening yet but I want to point out that the Lizardman capital board ability combos quite nicely with the Spawn of Itzl which destroys a damaged unit in the zone that it attacks.

    Reply
  3. kaine

    While I’m not convinced Son of Grungi is not a reason to buy that pack, I do think he is second only to Serpent Slayers when it comes to 4 cost Dwarves. He can defend a zone all by himself. We see him a lot in our area. If you can get him on a New Trade Route he’s even better.

    Reply
      1. kaine

        I say Grungi is better.

        I really love Tunnel Fighter, but to maximize him he needs a 3 card combo ( Tunnel Fighter + big unit + my life for the hold). He is still awesome, but Grungi is good alone.

        Duregan is really good as well, but he’s a hero and if I’m playing a hero in dwarves it’s going to be Kazador (with Tunnel Fighter + my life for the hold). There can be multiple copies of Grungi.

        Reply
        1. Virgo

          I think you meant Stand Your Ground 😛
          Also you don’t have to use tunnel fighter combo to make him efficent, he’s essenitally a free 2/4 unit.

          Reply
          1. kaine

            Oops! Thanks for the correction. I did mean Stand Your Ground.

            I will concede Tunnel Fighter. He is one of my favorite Dwarf tricks and almost put Grungi 3rd when typing my original post. I don’t think Grungi should be dismissed though. He is a very effective rush stopper and that 1 toughness can be very handy.

            Reply
          2. bitva

            Kaine, why did you say Son of Grungi (I think the card is supposed to be called Son of Grugni, but FFG typo) is even better on New Trade Route? I think any unit is better on Trade Route, but why Son of Grungi in particular?

            Reply
          3. kaine

            There is no broken combo with New Trade Route and Grugni. The 2 hammers are nice. I find people do not want to attack when they see him in a zone.

            Reply
  4. Herzogar

    Great podcast as always guys! Can’t wait for Hidden Kingdoms, I so want to try winning by milling myself! 😛

    As for the three mystery cards, could they be more fulcrums?

    Cheers,
    H

    Reply
    1. Junglecat

      Fulcrums seems like a good bet for the mystery cards. And I’d be quite happy with more fulcrums

      Reply
      1. bitva

        My other thought for the extra three cards is six copies of a single unit (probably Skaven) that has some in-text ability that there may be up to six copies of that unit in a deck. I thought this because in the announcement of HK, instead of saying “55 different cards (3 copies of each)” as always for announcements, the wording this time was “55 different cards (legal maximum of each)”. To me that implies that 3 is no longer the max. legal limit for all cards. However, I think 3 fulcrums would work with that new terminology as well.

        Reply
  5. Djibi

    Hi I m the guy who found that combo and i m not sure that it s legal but Virgo didn’t convice me
    For exemple, when Virgo said that grimgor forced effect has to be played and then Grimgor has to be sacrified, I m pretty sure he is wrong because Grimgor doesnt come into play in fact grimgor will simply fizzle. That’s what Lukas had explained about reclaiming the fallen when there is a hero in discard pile and another in BF. Here is the answer he did about that :

    “Hi,
    I asked a question about “Reclaim the fallen”, as a Hero called from the discard pile can be put in play in a zone with a Hero already on it, and about playing this tactic while having two heroes on my discard pile.
    Here is the answer :

    In the situation you describe, one of the heroes will fizzle. Reclaim the fallen, once the cost is payed, is an effect that you fulfill as much as possible. So the player who played Reclaim The Fallen will get to decide which Hero to keep when both start in the discard pile. When one is already in play, the one in the discard pile will not enter play since that would cause an illegal state.
    Hope that helps,
    Lukas”

    Reply
    1. Virgo

      So Lukas confirmed what I said I believe in above:
      “I would say if you play Reclaiming the Fallen or End times and have unique card in play or another hero in that zone you just ignore the effect of RTF/End Times for that card, not put it into play and sacrifice it immediately”
      😛
      I still believe it is against the unique cards rule to put on a chain an action that is illegal at the momenf of triggering (raise dead, repair the waystones and any other that targets specific hero/unique card while another copy is still in play).

      Reply
  6. bitva

    I have thought about the EW Cycle Legends for some time since Cataclysm was announced, and these are my thoughts:

    When the first EW Cycle Legend was announced, I remember postulating on the FFG forums that after one such legend enters play on my capital, I could feasibly burn two of my opponent’s zones, and if I have a means to also burn one of my own zones (if one is not already burned) with, for example, indirect damage, I have burned three zones and can win. Entropy and Torsten pointed out that the Legend card does not need to specify that it must be the opponent’s three zones because the Legend’s wording replaces the basic rule of needing to burn 2 of the opponent’s zones; you could never win previously by burning an opponent’s zone and one of your own.

    Using this same logic, I would say that since official multiplayer cannot be won by burning two zones, or any amount of zones, and the EW Cycle legends specify burning three zones is INSTEAD OF two, it simply does not apply. This brings us to the case where these cheap legends are now even better since they are cheap and there is no longer a draw back in official multiplayer. My thinking is that you probably also lose dominance when your legend is slain (making recursion of Vlad not such an obvious choice), and it wasn’t mentioned yet as all we have is a general overview of Cataclysm at this time. Playing a cheap legend early with additional opponents makes them even more fragile than they are already, even without a dominance penalty, as there will be more time and more offenses to throw at your not-well-protected legend.

    Additionally, I think that the higher cost Legends from previous expansions will be more viable in official multiplayer, as the games will last longer and there will be more time to build up to the point where higher cost Legends are a better choices than they are in head-to-head games. Also, it doesn’t sound like Legends are able to Channel on Fulcrums, so you may want to take another unit over a Legend when deck-building.

    Reply
  7. Gnomeschool

    I think I read one or two of these short stories.
    And I think the fact, that I have not read more of them, shows what I’m thinking of them.
    But I agree, it’s just very difficult to do something good with so few words. And not much money, I suppose.

    As for corrupted developments: It’s not, that I don’t like it. I actually think, it is easier to mark something as a delopment in this way. I just can’t get this voice out of my had that tells me it is wrong. 😉

    Reply
  8. Magehammer

    I read the stories because I like stories. I also like when a game gives us a glimpse into the world and its inhabitants. That said, I am not clamoring for the next one. I have tarted reading the Warhammer novels and currently reading The Sundering, an omnibus of novels that chronicle the split between the High Elves and Dark Elves. Great stuff!

    Reply
  9. wilk

    I like the stories although they are not the high class literature:) But the same goes for Gotrek and Felix books. WE have to accept that those are Harlequin of the warhammer world:)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *