Just got my order. Yay! A couple of questions:
Is an add-on a building, i.e. can wrecking ball target it? We ended up on yes, but confirmation would be nice.
Do heroes enter at level 1? If not, do they still have access to their first band abilities?
Thanks for any help. Looking forward to playing more.
[quote=“Flikery, post:274, topic:146, full:true”]
Just got my order. Yay! A couple of questions:
Is an add-on a building, i.e. can wrecking ball target it? We ended up on yes, but confirmation would be nice.[/quote]
Yes. Add-ons are buildings and can be targeted by Wrecking Ball
Specifically, they are a sub-type of building and are specifically excluded from a couple effects ( Detonate, Assimilate ) which can target other types of buildings.
[quote]
Do heroes enter at level 1? If not, do they still have access to their first band abilities?[/quote]
Yes, all Heroes enter play at level 1, and immediately have access to their Startband abilities. ( Unless something like Free Speech is preventing them from using those abilities )
Thanks Rabid!
I just recalled one more add-on related question we had:
When tech buildings are destroyed, you can rebuild them again for 0 gold (assuming you still meet the pre-requisites to build it). Do add-ons also have this feature, or would you have to, for instance, pay another 5 gold to rebuild a supply depot that was destroyed?
To build (or rebuild) a new Add-on, you have to pay the cost again.
Bear with me, I’m gonna argue against the previous, now-lost ruling pretty hard here, because that ruling is not consistent with existing rules and also bad for game balance.
Firstly, Indestructible units can totally be hit by “destroy” effects. Indestructible does not mean “this ignores anything which would destroy it”, and any claim pretending that Indestructible works that way is not based on sound reasoning.
So let me reference the actual rules:
I literally cannot see how it is possible to parse the interaction between those as anything but "Obliterate effects the entire set of {X lowest tech units} at once by destroying them, then Indestructible’s “if this would” clause triggers overwriting the destroy effect with an exhaust effect.
For gameplay balance reasons, I personally support interpreting “gone” in the Obliterate text to mean that if the exhaust overwrite from Obliterate sidelines an indestructible patroller, that makes it “gone” from the patrol zone and the the attacking unit can select a new thing to attack after the sidelining happens as per the Obliterate text - but that part is a highly subjective interpretation.
It’s also obvious that the “You can’t sacrifice this” clause in Indestructible means that Indestructible units are unaffected by Sacrifice the Weak, at which point a ruling is needed as to whether Sacrifice the Weak skips Indestructible units or fizzles and does nothing in the case where it would hit an Indestructible unit. In either case, a clarification is needed in database of specific card rulings - and until such a clarification is placed there it does not exist and is just the best guess of random strangers on the internet.
The potentially problematic interaction is between Garth’s Ultimate Death Rites and Indestructible, where an opponent’s units are destroyed one at a time and not in a set of X at once – meaning that a single low-tech indestructible unit such as Hardened Mox or an inactive Gargoyle turns an Ultimate spell into a “just exhaust a weak unit” effect. But I personally find that to be less of a game balance issue than the issue of a Patrol zone with Immortal in Squad Leader backed up by Heroes being immune to attacking Tech III units with Obliterate. It’s not like the game doesn’t already include many ways to render various other ultimates very weak - by denying opponents maxband heroes, casting free Speech, having armies that are untargettable due to Nebula or Lord of Shadows, placing flagbearers carefully, etc
Corollary: You can destroy your own addon to make room for a different one, paying the cost of the new one and dealing 2 damage to your base.
I understand your argument, and a lot of it makes sense, but it fails to address the rule “do as much as you can.” This is a core rule of the codex game design. If a card’s text, not the player, has to make a choice between exhausting a unit and destroying another unit, the “do as much as you can” clause would mean that you destroy the unit.
Immortal is very much intentionally neutering Obliterate, just as Abomination neuters Moss Ancient. There are answers in Tech 2 for certain Tech 3 plans.
Who has Obliterate? Zarramonde relies heavily on it, but within black both Plague Lord and Lord of Shadows can work around immortals. Blues tech 3s all fly, as does Gunship, so they’re less effective but not neutered. TRex has overpower so again, less effective but not neutered. The Duck is hurt but still has its attacks ability. Guargum can turn Immortal into a squirrel. None of Whites T3s fear Immortal.
But Oblitterate isnt making a choice between exhausting and destroying. Oblitterate doesn’t know what is going to happen to the things it affects, it just picks the defender’s X lowest tech things, and then {mumble mumble}.
“Do as much as you can” just means that if you oblitterate 4, and the defender only has 1 thing, you still affect it.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but as already mentioned in the thread, this has been discussed and a ruling has been made. When the discussion took place, the points you’ve raised were made. I agree that the ruling doesn’t follow the rules as written, and at the time I pushed for making both Death Rites and Obliterate use sacrifice language also, as that seemed to be the most elegant solution. However, we had already passed the point where card text could be changed, so we’re stuck with the cards as they are written.
If the ruling hasn’t been added to the database yet, I’m sure Sharpobject will get round to it eventually.
Anyway, this is why I was hoping we could get this officially settled.
And officially documented, with the exact errata applied to any affected cards / abilities / rulebook entries, so that future questions can be answered without reference to “that’s just the way it is.”
Also, my recollection was that someone said “this is how it should work” and then I said “that’s a really bad interpretation for {reasons}” and no-one said anything after that.
So far, my list of errata is:
Rulebook mention of tokens leaving play: should say “ceases to exist” instead of "are destroyed"
Rulebook mention of fading: when you remove the last rune from something with fading it “dies,” it does not “die from fading.” Things only “die from fading” when you remove the last rune using the turn-based upkeep effect.
Sacrifice the Weak: should have “that can be sacrificed” or “ignoring units that can’t be sacrificed” or "weakest sacrifice-able unit"
and apparently Hooded Executioner, Death Rites, and Oblitterate need some as-yet-to-be-determined change to match designer intent.
I’m not saying immortal is an answer to everything about everything? I’m not sure what you were getting at.
I thought the designer had weighed in on the subject of hooded executioner et al, but if not, then something official will have to be decided on eventually, and this is the place for that discussion.
Unrelated interesting corner-cases:
Scenario:
I have a Hero’s Monument in play, and Daigo Stormborne leaves play (for example, he could get Rewound).
I then play a second Hero’s Monument, which is immediately put in the discard pile because it’s the second copy of a Legendary Building.
Its Arrives: ability still happens, however (which we know because DeGrey still triggers, even if it’s the second copy), putting a new Daigo Stormborne into play
This new Daigo won’t be trashed when the old Monument leaves play, since he was created by the new one, which can’t leave play to trigger its own restriction.
Scenario:
If you Doom Grasp an Illusion with a Soul Stone, it loses the Soul Stone, and then still gets destroyed by the Doom Grasp effect.
Why wouldn’t the second Daigo vanish when the second Monument goes to the discard? What is keeping Daigo 2 in play? If its arrive ability triggers, doesn’t that mean it was in play, however briefly? And therefore when it left play, its leave play will trigger? Secondary example, if I have a necromancer and played a second Terras Q, will it trigger necromancer and create a skeleton by going to the discard?
The monument goes to the discard first (due to Legendary rule), and then the Arrives ability resolves.
Im not clear why the legendary rule has to resolve before the arrives ability?
I can’t get to the rulebook anymore, but the description I remember was that Legendary happens “immidiately”
Even if it was at the same time as “arrives” the active player can order them in the more beneficial order.
Ok, lets assume you order the legendary and the arrives in either order, you will still have to resolve both before you can move onto the leaves play trigger. Further: The “Trash him when this leaves play” clause is clearly something the monument has, not Daigo. If the ability was placed on Daigo, then i could see the order mattering the way you described, but the trigger is placed on the Monument, as indicated by the pronouns.