Tech/add-on buildings finish building at end of turn. Buildings played from hand are built instantly, and while they cannot use tap abilities unless they have haste (which none of them do I believe), any printed abilities they have instantly take effect.
5 Likes
Does makeshift rambaster +2 against buliding become +3 with hotter fire?
1 Like
No, that ability does not deal damage.
4 Likes
Does Water Elemental count as a Green unit for the purposes of Galina/Gigadon/CoL?
Nope, it is Blue (as are the sharks made by surprise attack)
1 Like
The card is blue and Argargarg card says a “blue Water Elemental”.
2 Likes
Not for Draft FFA people
Just for the funsies: What happens when a player is unable to pay Promise of Payment gold the turn after they played it (say their worker was trashed)? Would the remaining players immediately enter tie-breaker mode? Or would it be the only instance of elimination possible in FFA?
3 Likes
Summary
I assume it triggers the end of the game immediately, as one of the players died.
4 Likes
[details=Not for Draft FFA people][spoiler]
I wonder if this is the same question everyone else is asking.
I think I know how it works, but I want to be sure.
In Free for All:
Dothram Horselord’s allegiance shift happens during the Upkeep. According to the rules:
"Whenever you lend a unit or hero to someone, you get it back during that player’s upkeep…You really did lose control of the lent patroller while it was away and they really did gain control of it while it was helping them."
So the timing (upkeep) is the same, and much like the Gargoyle/Vandy maxband interaction, the Horselord controller (to whom it was lent) will decide what happens first: Horselord changes forces or Horselord is returned to lender.
I can lend Horselord out as a patroller the turn he comes into play, giving the borrower (the new controller) the highest total attack if I pick my player carefully. As long as they can keep it by their next turn, they can resolve Horselord allegiance shift before giving it back
Which means that that player will give it “back” to theirself (as the one whose forces the Horselord just joined). And since they will have controlled it since the beginning of their turn, it won’t suffer from Arrival Fatigue. I can effectively pop it onto someone else’s forces with pseudo-haste, permanently.
Do I have that right? (I hope so, because it’s really awesome.)
Or do I have it wrong, and: the Horselord still come back to me (the lender) even after joining the borrower’s forces, in which case it would still go to whoever has the highest total attack on my upkeep, making it useless on their turn and on my next turn. That would be lame.
@sharpobject Please say this game is awesome and not lame.
[/spoiler][/details]
1 Like
Also not for draft
Well, both effects say either “upkeep” or “during upkeep”, which means there isn’t a set order.
This is one of those cases where I believe active player decides. In which case, they probably keep the Horselord! (Or send it back to prevent it from falling into a foe’s hands?)
I believe they also would count the Horselord’s attack, because as the rule book states: “You really did lose control of the lent patroller while it was away and they really did gain control of it while it was helping them.”
So, probably, you’re correct. They “controlled” it, then Horselord “joins” them, then they give it “back” to the “lender”.
Probably, anyway.
1 Like
[details=Also also not for draft]That seems correct, but it hinges on the person receiving it having more ATK than every other player. Granted, giving them Dothram as a patroller does help with that, but it could be hard for a player far from you in turn order to keep their board alive long enough to also keep the highest ATK. That would be pretty cool to see happen, though, and as far as I can tell it’s legal!
Never mind, sharpo says it can’t work that way. It makes sense why, too.[/details]
1 Like
[details=Hey guys above this post]Hi,
You lose control of the units you borrowed before you make any decisions during your upkeep. This is around the same time you gain gold from your workers.
To illustrate why it is this way rather than the other way, imagine lending a unit to a player who controls a Banefire Golem. Should that player be able to sacrifice your unit? No. Thanks.[/details]
2 Likes
I’m curious now. How complex is the rules question? What plans are you brewing, @ARMed_PIrate???
1 Like
Without spoiling anything, @Bryce_The_Rice and I thought he had an interesting idea, but @sharpobject said that the rules prevent it from working.
1 Like
So hey, just confirmation that we did a thing right last week: if two Captured Bugblatters are both simultaneously (and exclusively) destroyed by Obliterate, the simultaneous triggers mean that each one causes 2 damage to the enemy base for their own death and the other’s simultaneous death, right?
2 Likes
Yes, bugblatters’ ability triggers on their own desth as well as on other units’ deaths.
3 Likes
Counterargument
My question was whether it went back despite changing hands, not when it went back.
I thought the official rules document was very clear that it goes back “during” the upkeep; it doesn’t say anything about “at the beginning” of the upkeep. It seems to me that if Sirlin really wanted the timing to be as you suggest, then lent units would have returned to their original controllers during the Ready step, not “during that player’s upkeep”.
For it to work the way you’re describing, wouldn’t it require a change in the rules doc?
And, for that matter, what’s wrong with sacrificing opponents’ patrollers to your Banefire Golem? As long as it’s clear that that’s how it works, then the opponents will know it’s a risk when they lend you patrollers. (Your Golem would already have to be in play for the timing to work out.) They could specifically be lending you patrollers as fuel for the Golem, to help take out other threats like a third opponent’s wall of weenies.
For that matter, why can’t you lend your Golem, and have them sacrifice something to your Golem (hurting you, but not them), then have it come back to you, and you sacrifice one of your own units to hurt them, too. It would be a way to team up (with a little self-sacrifice) to put double hurt on the other opponents.
And you are allowed to sacrifice mind-controlled or kidnapped units to, say, Garth, right? So what’s wrong with sac’ing a unit lent with the knowledge that it could happen?
It’s not clear to me that being able to do so is in any way overpowered, and it makes the game more interesting, and the timing as described in the rulebook doesn’t match, so I don’t understand your ruling, which seems to be a gut reaction.
But even if I haven’t changed your mind yet, take this example:
I have Banefire Golem. I also played Horselord. An opponent goes through a lot of trouble to get the most attack on their turn, so they can take Horselord. Are you saying that I can sacrifice my Horselord to the Golem before the Horselord changes forces? (It seems obvious this is right: they both have exactly the same timing: “Upkeep:”, so it should be my choice.)
But what seems more unfair:
- to be able to deny the opponent a Horselord they earned through building a big board, simply by sacrificing it, or
- sacrificing a unit another opponent gave you, knowing full well that it would probably be sacrificed.
I would argue that the first is more unfair. So if that’s allowed (and it clearly is) why shouldn’t the other be allowed?
1 Like
Summary
Sure, I can request an update to the rules doc to clarify the timing here.
Update: I’m told that the rules doc will not receive any updates, so please look forward to the fanmade comprehensive rules doc (by Proton? or by me?) that will fully specify the rules.
1 Like
hi!
i got a question regarding spreading plague that i didn’t find with strg+f… :
“Destroy all tech 0, I, or II units and heroes that have -1/-1 runes.”
Do I have to choose between Tech levels - i mean, is it an excluding OR (XOR)?
and:
when playing death and decay in a free-for-all:
“Give all an opponent’s units and heroes -3/-3 this turn. Deal 3 damage to all their buildings.”
is the emphasis on AN OPPONENT’S or is it THEIR BUILDINGS? -> an opponent’s i think… so it’s kind of phrased ambigously? or is it because of my bad english skills?
are there other special issues for free-for-all games? should there be a specail thread for free-for-all? i think there are some people who gain experiences right now in the forum games 
maybe we could collect some answers to questions that arise while playing ffa-games?
Spreading plague kills everything, you don’t have to choose.