Chill Sea Watchtower

1 cost/ 1*

Building

If you control a non-(DE) card, sacrifice this card.

So, can I still play non DE tactics? Do I control a tactic?

You control the tactic, but tactics are never actually in play, and unless otherwise noted effects only reference or affect cards in play. So if you play a non-DE tactic, you won't have to sacrifice Chill Sea Watchtower.

What about developments ? Are they considered non-DE cards ?

 Awesome! Thanks.

Budmilka_fr said:

I think they are probably not considered to be DE cards, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are supposed to be able to develop and not sacrifice the Watchtower. 

I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier.

 Is everyone seeing this as one of those cards that was hinted at to stop people from auto-including Contested Village? This card is strictly worse than Contested Village. If someone plays Beastmen Incursion, Pleasure Cults, or Snotling Invasion on me, don't I have to discard the Watchtower being those cards were played under my control? If that's all true, this card makes me sad. 

 I think…THINK…that those cards remain under the control of the person who played them, they just happen to be played in your zone. I think.

Entropy42 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand : how am I supposed to be able to develop and not sacrifife the Watchtower ?

@HappyDD : Beastman Incursion, Pleasure Cult and Snot invasion have "under his control" in their textbox, so yes, WatchTower would be sacrificed in this case (therefore the new orc quest specifies "under your control").

Minor correction : Pleasure cults won't force to sacrifice the Watchtower since it's a DE card too ^^ But I agree the two other quests do.

Concerning developments I think we should ask FFG.

Entropy42 said:

looks like another card, that needs errata…

That really really sucks that those other quests would cause me to sac my watchtower. Lame. Not worth giving up contested village and warpstone excavations to take a watchtower that can be destroyed by the other player simply playing a quest under my control. Lame.

I think the word "control" must be change for "if you put into play under your control"… or something like this. This way you prevent the destruction via oposite playe'squest and still has a restriction.