News Shop
Events Forums

Rules Questions thread


There are 2 phrases that relate to end of turn. “At end of turn” or “Until end of turn”. “At end of turn” happens first, and then “Until end of turn” happens. This is confusing, you are not alone, but it is the convention.


It’s very confusing. It’s also the opposite of the ffg ruling on this (which would confuse any players that are migrating to Codex from any LCG) and to the best of knowledge it doesn’t appear anywhere in the rule book or the rulings database.


There was also another card game that used “at end of turn” and “until end of turn” wording. Some years ago, they switched the first wording to “At the beginning of the end step”, which is, if not clearer, at least more poetical.


I’m not sure what your first question is about.

Bloodrage Ogre’s end of turn trigger happens before Kidnapping expires, so the Ogre will go straight from your side of the battlefield to your opponent’s hand.


If a patrolling indestructible Hardened Mox is attacked and “killed” by a swift strike Glorious Ninja, does it hit back?

And after I thought about it, what if he was exhausted and not patrolling, ie its state and place didn’t change as a result of a swift strike attack? Would he hit back?


In both cases Indestructible “beats” swift strike and the mox will get to hit back.


Ruling on Doubling Barbarian says:

His ability DOES trigger when patroling as a squad leader (he gets two armor instead of one), and it does trigger on +1/+1 runes (they give him +2/+2).

That means that we are still putting a single rune. So if he gets -1/-1 at some point runes will annihilate and he will lose 2 points of attack at this point. Is that right?


Yes, that’s correct. He gets double the effect from a +1/+1 rune, but it will still be removed if a -1/-1 rune is added.


I recently found out it is spelld barbarbarian in the card !


I need to recap some overpower rules governing the excess damage

  • it is considered “combat damage”
  • it is not “attack”, so it can be assigned to overpass or nonpatrolling setsuki without paying any gold



Overpower damage is combat damage. It can be assigned to any unit, hero or building which that unit could have attacked if the patroller it did attack wasn’t there. It is not considered an attack (so you can overpower to a nonpatrolling setsuki without paying, as long as you could have attacked her otherwise), but it can’t be directed onto a unit which you couldn’t have attacked (due to e.g. flying or invisisble), or to e.g. a tech building when there are other patrollers which you could attack (assuming you don’t have any other evasion abilities).


Note: You can’t attack setsuki if you have no gold, so overpower cant be directed to setsuki if you have no gold, but if you do have gold, you do not have to pay to apply overpower.


Do you have a source for that, or are you just extrapolating? I can see how you might draw that conclusion from current rulings, but I don’t think it’s the correct interpretation.

@sharpobject - any comments?


If I was drawing from a source, it was probably EricF or my own extrapolation. Hopefully sharpo can weigh in.


This makes sense based on the “this could attack” part of overpower text

But what is “could attack” against Setsuki?
Is it having the 1g or spending it


I think @zhavier’s line of thought was that “not having $1 to spend” = “could not attack Setsuki” = Sets is not a valid target for OP.

If @zhavier’s right, this could often be gotten around by adjusting the order of your attack/spend. Hit her with OP when you still have the money (but don’t spend it), then buy your worker after.

But @MVashM brings up the good point that you may have to spend 1g just to make her a valid target, so that the OP will hit her. I don’t think so, though, because you have to spend 1g every time you attack her, not just once to “unlock her validity as an attack target.” Since you’re not actually attacking her, you shouldn’t have to spend.


Often, but not always.


I would like to avoid this interpretation. I am trying to track down a previous chat about this.


Here is an excerpt from my previous chat about Setsuki, 1 year ago

[01:28:35] <sharpobject> to overpower to setsuki
[01:28:36] <Sotek> oh that interaction
[01:28:48] <sharpobject> do you need to pay a gold?
[01:28:53] <sharpobject> do you need to have a gold, but not pay it?
[01:29:01] <FlakManiak> So I guess you can overpower to her without paying, unless you can't pay in which you can't overpower to her.
[01:29:03] <FlakManiak> That's how I read it.
[01:29:03] <sharpobject> if you don't need a gold, what does it really mean to be able to attack a thing?
[01:29:09] <sharpobject> ok
[01:29:21] <sharpobject> I've arbitrarily ruled that you don't need a gold
[01:29:26] <FlakManiak> So you pay 0 gold unless you have 0 gold in which case you can't overpower to her.
[01:29:32] <FlakManiak> That is how I think it works.
[01:29:33] <sharpobject> is that ethical
[01:29:36] <Sotek> I agree the online implementation will call this "too stupid"
[01:29:47] <FlakManiak> Well it's a shitty way to have it work, so just make you not ever pay or need gold online.
[01:29:58] <sharpobject> it will actually be extra code to make it work the normal human way
[01:30:04] <sharpobject> haha
[01:30:05] <garciawork> no you don't pay gold
[01:30:18] <garciawork> because overpower damage isn't attakcing her
[01:30:30] <sharpobject> that's right so far garciawork
[01:30:31] <FlakManiak> Yes garcia of course you don't pay, but if you have no gold, you can't attack her, right?
[01:30:31] <garciawork> it's like if you pee in a urinal, and if it's full you redirect your pee to the next urinal
[01:30:34] <garciawork> that's how I view it
[01:30:42] <sharpobject> but only urinals you COULD pee in
[01:30:44] <garciawork> sure
[01:30:48] <FlakManiak> So you aren't paying but since you can't pay you might not be able to do the thing.
[01:30:48] <Sotek> that's analogy
[01:30:55] <garciawork> no
[01:30:58] <garciawork> you're not would attakcing her
[01:31:05] <garciawork> you're just would redirecting overpowered damage to her
[01:31:09] <sharpobject> like if it's the one in mcdonalds, and you didn't buy anything, so they won't let you use the bathroom
[01:31:13] <sharpobject> then you can't choose that one
[01:31:17] <FlakManiak> You can't would attack her. You can only overpower if you can would attack.
[01:31:23] <sharpobject> hope that helps
[01:31:30] <garciawork> ok do you mean you're attakcing 0/1 wisp
[01:31:35] <garciawork> and then the remaining 3 damage goes to setsuki
[01:31:40] <sharpobject> if you can would attack
[01:31:54] <garciawork> sure. but you're NOT would attacking her
[01:31:57] <Thelo> Overpower (Excess combat damage this would deal to a patroller hits something else this could attack.)
[01:31:59] <garciawork> you're would attacking the wisp!
[01:32:03] <sharpobject> you're would can attacking her
[01:32:09] <garciawork> you're COULD attacking her
[01:32:11] <garciawork> you're not WOULD attacking her

Anyway, I apparently didn’t have any reasoning to support my position, but my position was that you can overpower to non-patrolling Setsuki while you have 0 gold.


[01:30:48] <Sotek> that’s analogy


But in order to legally attack a non patrolling setsuki you must pay 1 gold, so i can see how not having any gold while attacking with an overpower unit creates this confusion because it would be an illegal/unable to attack a non-patrolling setsukiwithout at least one gold on hand. so sharpo are you 100% that this is your ruling.