|Warhammer: Invasion The Card Game | Published 03 March 2010|
Life in the Empire is brutal, and its violent and unstable conditions are enough to turn sane men mad. Faced with the ravages of war, disease, and Chaos, many become convinced that they are witnessing the end times. They travel across the Empire in ragtag bands, proselytising angrily to their fellow citizens and harshly criticising those who do not measure up to their deranged standards of piety. Believing that suffering is their lot in life, they charge headfirst onto the battlefield, diving into the fray and welcoming whatever fate their god has waiting for them. These are the ultimate martyrs.
Welcome to another card spotlight for Warhammer: Invasion The Card Game, a game of kingdoms, questing, and combat! This week, The Deathmaster’s Dance hits store shelves, and by Thursday, decks everywhere will include this fourth Battle Pack of The Corruption Cycle. Over the past two weeks, we’ve seen two cards from this exciting upcoming release: the massive Chaos unit Great Unclean One, and the Empire tactic Ulric’s Fury. Today, we’ll look at another Empire card, a unit that provides an inexpensive and versatile “meat-shield,” the Flagellants.
Flagellants seek out pain in the hopes of cleansing their soiled souls of the taint of sin. In battle, they look for the enemy’s weapons, hurling themselves to as painful a death as possible. While a questionable course of action for them, it can work out pretty well for you... since they can sacrifice themselves to prevent two damage to your capital!
Like Peasant Militia, a similar Empire meat-shield from the Core Set, these units have no power, only defense. But whereas the Peasant Militia is good for taking care of three incoming damage, the Flagellants can take four... if you manage their timing correctly.
Imagine you’ve been hit for four damage in a zone in which the Flagellants are defending. During the “Assign Damage” Phase, place two damage on them. This will kill them, but not until the “Apply Damage” Phase... so you can place the other two damage on your capital. Now, in the action window between these two phases, sacrifice the Flagellants. They go away, taking their two damage with them (they’d have died anyway, but this way you benefit), and you get to remove the two damage you just assigned to your capital as a result of their card effect! Viola! Four points of damage have been averted.
As mentioned above, the Flagellants are also more versatile than the Peasant Militia (though more expensive). In a pinch, you can sacrifice them to cancel two damage to any zone of your capital, even if they aren’t in that zone. Sure, this isn’t the most efficient use of this unit, but if means the difference between defeat and survival... well, it’s a small price to pay.
Don’t forget to pick up The Deathmaster’s Dance when it hits shelves this week, and join us next week when we take another look at the upcoming Assault on Ulthuan expansion!
In Warhammer: Invasion The Card Game, designed by Eric M. Lang, two players develop their kingdoms and lay waste to their foes. Each side is comprised of either the forces of Order or the forces of Destruction as they seek to extend their empire to include the entire Old World. The Living Card Game™ format allows players to customize their gaming experience with monthly Battle Pack expansions to the core game.
What troubles me is that we only found out about this error because of the article. Nobody would play the card the way it was intended if Flagellants hadn't been featured in the card of the week article. Who knows how many cards are there with the same problem ?
Don't get me wrong, I really love this game but, like others mentioned, it needs some stardard wording templates to avoid these inconsistencies.
Here's a little example from the latest battlepack:
Silver Helm Detachment
This unit enters play with 3 resource tokens on it.
Place 5 resource tokens on this unit when it enters play.
Same action, completely different wording.
Looking for someone to lose to:) Anyone playing in Southern California? Hit me up!
@GodsHand... no damage is placed on any card or capital during the assign damage step. The rulebook clearly states you place the damage near the card. You have player actions. You then do damage cancel effects removing damage near a card/capital and move the rest to the cards/capitals.
As to an explanation to new players, I find the explanation, "the arrows are in the air and the sword is swung, but nothing has been hit yet" gets the point across beautifully.
I have to agree with some of the posts on here. I love the old m:tg style assign damage then apply damage step because of the cool tricks that it enables you to pull off with tactics and abilities, but the way the card is written the damage would already be assigned before you could use this ability the way the article says. So I can retroactively remove assigned damage with Flagellants (since it says next 2 assigned damage and this example counteracts that) but I can't retroactively cause a unit not to attack with Franz’s Decree?
I am sure the card will be rewritten in the next version of the FAQ (like Franz's Decree was) but I just hope that each battle pack doesn't keep adding 1 or 2 cards to the FAQ list per release or it is going to start to be hard to play the game correctly if you aren't a diehard W:I fan such as myself. It's already hard enough to explain some of the card interactions and why certain combos do or don't work to non-ccg players, and inconsistent technical writing doesn't help reinforce mechanics that are functionally the same to new players.
This game is my favorite card game but I hope that starting with the next BP cycle FFG has settled on some standard wording templates to avoid all the confusion that seems to surround at least one card per release. With some cards you can figure out the intent but the problem with card games is that each card needs to be clear because each card is an addendum to the rule book. Hopefully the language will be tightened up in the future so the game won't start to feel like the table top war game where you need to check an armybook (or in this case faq) to see what a unit can actually do ;)
Congrats on another release FFG. I can't wait to pick up my pack this weekend!
Here's the text for Steel's Bane:
Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn.
So for consistency Flagellants should probably read:
Action: Sacrifice this unit to cancel the next 2 damage that would be dealt to your capital this turn.
Curato - "I think it makes sense theme-wise. Have you ever seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven? The viking at the beginning takes a crossbow bolt to the neck, and still fights. Technically he is dead but his willpower and rage allows him to push on and defend the king."
lol. Strange example but it really made sense. : )
I think it makes sense theme-wise. Have you ever seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven? The viking at the beginning takes a crossbow bolt to the neck, and still fights. Technically he is dead but his willpower and rage allows him to push on and defend the king.
I don't mind the spelling on the card. If they worded as dealt then even more confusion would come up. People would fight over being able to sacrifice a unit after damage is dealt to it, as the power window is only open after that point, and the rules state a unit that is assigned enough damage equal to it's defense is removed. So, they had to move the power to the assign phase to avoid the confusion. ... well I mean or try to avoid the confusion. =P
Taking actions in windows between steps such as after damage assignment is more dynamic than assigning damage and the unit being killed outright.
Take the dwarves and cards that redirect damage from them to another unit (Battle pack 3,I forget the name of the card), it makes sense that the damage does not kill the unit outright simply because they were assigned damage.
I agree with Clamatius though, that as worded the card does not work as intended. The omission of the word 'next' would suffice to fix this issue.
I dont like this mess... :s
I like the card and i like the power they do. (the way they explain anyway) but i dont think its going the right way the gaps between the actions.
"During the “Assign Damage” Phase, place two damage on them. This will kill them, but not until the “Apply Damage” Phase"
Its weird and very info for ppl that are trying to get into this game. Guess i will have to carry the FAQ and The rules always with me. Live and learn.
If that's the way that the card is supposed to work, it's misworded. It should read "Sacrifice this unit to cancel the next 2 damage dealt to your capital this turn" instead.
As written, it doesn't do what you say it does - all the damage is assigned at the same time so if they take their damage then sacrifice themselves, it won't cancel the damage already assigned to the capital.
I am assuming this is a templating error in need of errata. Alas.
Cool card but I dislike the fact that they get to soak the damage and also use their powers. Too much stuff is being allowed in the gaps between Actions. I think that this makes the game difficult for non-CCG players or newcomers to this genre. :(
If you take the damage, it should be an insta-kill, plain and simple. It's also fairly clumsy thematically, imho. If you've just been killed, well, you've just been killed. That's it. You're dead. Nothing more - it's not like they're suicide bombers who can be shot and still explode.
Other than that minor quibble (on my part), it's definitely a useful card. Nice to see Empire getting some love.