This card is a very strong piece of evidence that the previous crop of anti-support cards were poorly costed. It's incredibly playable, even with the poor relationship between threats and answers since its so aggressively costed. It's a pity that it lacks playability outside of Swarmlord though.

Naaa, auto-kill (see Klaivex) is the strongest effect in the game.

I agree with you both though, this is a very playable card out of Swarmlord, and can be used out of OOE if you add the right tech. Maybe instead of Spawn Termagants, a Gravid Tervigon might work better?

A two card combo to remove supports isn't very effective, especially when it adds a resource cost to the effect (the thing I like most about Corpses is it costs 0). Sure, you can use them as shields, but it's quite probable that you'll draw the cards in an inconvenient order. A Corpses without Termagants is only a shield. Spawn Termagants isn't particularly good in itself since it generates no command without Brood Warriors.

Nobody plays any of the other support control cards in competitive decklists, but I have absolutely no problem including three copies of Corpses in a Swarmlord deck and I'm seeing a number of other players coming to the same conclusion. While certainly not proof, it does make a compelling case that the cost of cards like Squig Bombin' is simply too high for competitive play.

Not true, a lot of people run 1x or 2x of Squig Bombin' competitively. It may be overpriced for its effect, but it can also change the board in important ways, and the shield it carries allows it to be redundant. 

Personally I use 1x Squig Bombin' in my Nazdreg deck, and 1 in my Straken deck. You could, of course, argue that those warlords aren't competitive anyway, but thats another story.

I agree on the 2 card combo thing though: you need the right tech on the board from the start of the game, and that means either Swarmlord or Tervigon. My OOE/Lictor and OOE/Venomthrope builds don't use Clogged at all.

I agree with Asklepios on this. I have run a single Squig Bombin' in almost every deck I've made with Ork allies including my current Straken deck and my Ku'gath deck from along time ago.

Not true, a lot of people run 1x or 2x of Squig Bombin' competitively. It may be overpriced for its effect, but it can also change the board in important ways, and the shield it carries allows it to be redundant. 

 

Personally I use 1x Squig Bombin' in my Nazdreg deck, and 1 in my Straken deck. You could, of course, argue that those warlords aren't competitive anyway, but thats another story.

While it may be a little bombastic to say that no one plays support removal, I still stand by my point that Squig Bombin' is really not efficient enough to make the cut.

To illustrate, take your Zarathur deck as an example. I don't think you would consider for a second adding a copy of Squig Bombin' to the list. The slots are tight and every card in there is going to be stronger than a copy of Squig Bombin'. Even though the Squig Bombin' may be able to change a board state in important ways, there are much better cards which change the board state much more favourably (though they do this differently) while being more flexible. If it were more aggressively costed (like Corpses) I think this would be a much harder decision to make.

I think a slightly better question is: What price are you willing to pay for support removal? Generally speaking, the player-base has responded with: less than what Squig Bombin' costs given how uncommon it is. Take the top 8 Ork deck from GenCon as an example, all the two-shield cards, but not even a single Squig Bombin'. While not definite proof that it's over-costed in itself, that should be raising eyebrows.

The point about Zarathur is specifically in reference to the Zarathur deck Asklepios posted. Zarathur/Ork is a popular combination because the Ork supports are so strong with Zarathur.

I can't agree with all of that - Subdualling Cato's Blade for example feels perfectly legit. In fact, no sig squad cards are referenced at all, Zarathur's location is really powerful and a great target for Clogged, and to say no uses against Kith with Archon's Palace and Khyera Den feels very much off.

But those are all 1x sign cards. They don't count. And Squig Bombin isn't good against Arrhons palace as Subdual, since it is unique.

The efficiency of this card is very impressive. I'm starting to think that's it's not even worth playing support cards against termagants unless you're sure you can activate the support before Corpses takes it out, or you literally have nothing better to spend the resources on.

Can i sacrifice 0 tokens to destroy a promotion?

Can i sacrifice 0 tokens to destroy a promotion?

No because promotion is an attachment, not a support.

Murder Cogitator is the example you're looking for (a 0-cost support).

That said, you cannot sacrifice 0 termagants to destroy a 0-cost support. The reason why can be found in the "Sacrifice" entry on p. 14 of the RRG:

"Sacrifice

When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, he must choose and discard a card in play that he controls and that matches the requirements of the sacrifice.

- If the chosen card does not leave play (if it is, for example, saved by an interrupt), the sacrifice is not considered to have been made."

So, if a unit doesn't leave play, there has been no sacrifice. And if there has been no sacrifice, you have not paid the cost of this event. And, of course, if you have not paid the cost, you do not get the effect. That means you can never sacrifice 0 units to pay a cost; setting X=0 for this event means the cost can't be paid.

You can, however, sacrifice 1 termagant and destroy a cost 0 support (because its printed cost is X=1 or lower).

Murder Cogitator is the example you're looking for (a 0-cost support).

 

That said, you cannot sacrifice 0 termagants to destroy a 0-cost support. The reason why can be found in the "Sacrifice" entry on p. 14 of the RRG:

"Sacrifice

When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, he must choose and discard a card in play that he controls and that matches the requirements of the sacrifice.

But, when you set X = 0, you are being instructed to sacrifice NO cards.

Setting X = 0 tells you to "sacrifice 0 termagant units." That's not quite the same thing as being instructed to "sacrifice NO cards."

But either way, "sacrifice" doesn't work that way. You still have to complete a sacrifice in order to pay the cost of this event. The definition of "sacrifice" requires you to choose and discard a card - which then must leave play if the sacrifice is to be considered to have happened.

- How do you choose "0 cards"?

- How do you discard "0 cards"?

- How do "0 cards" leave play?

Setting X = 0 does not change the definition of "sacrifice" or allow you to ignore the rule that "if the chosen card does not leave play ... the sacrifice is not considered to have been made."

But don't take my word for it. Feel free to send the question in to FFG.

thanks for the clarification guys, i thought X could be 0 but if theres a hidden rule that requires it then maybe card text should mention pay 1 or more instead of  X

Post removed...

I'm going to delete what I had here and reopen the discussion on the rules forum, so any argument I have doesn't further pollute the card comments.

Looks like the fight was carried on without me, and it has been definitively answered.  I still disagree with the ruling.  If you have to do X Sacrifices, then if X is = 0, then trivially ALL sacrifices were successful and NONE were cancelled or failed.  But FFG likes counterintuitive exceptions to what could be simple rules, and it's true that at least in the case of this card, it doesn't matter very much.  (Though I can see X costs in the future being potentially more of a big deal.)  So yeah, if you sacrifice 0 units you aren't considered to have successfully sacrificed 0 units.  Whatever.

Yeah, "sacrifice 0 cards" just means apply the sacrifice process 0 times. That's easily done. Choosing 0 cards is easy. Discarding 0 cards is easy (I do that an infinite number of times at every single step in the game). Having zero cards leave play is also easily done. Again, that happens all the time. The effect of multiplying by zero is pretty basic maths.

There's nothing in the definition of sacrifice itself that tells you how many times it must be done. If you have to perform zero sacrifices, you're simply going through the sacrifice process zero times, which means you're not sacrificing anything. "For each card in an empty set, do this" just means "do nothing". Do nothing, and you've paid the cost.

The more relevant question is whether an ability's cost can be considered paid if it doesn't change the game state (although the fact that we have events which cost 0 resources suggests that this is legal.)

The rules also make it clear that in general, X can be 0, so I'm not really seeing anything that would prevent this from working.

The more relevant question is whether an ability's cost can be considered paid if it doesn't change the game state (although the fact that we have events which cost 0 resources suggests that this is legal.)

Well, think of something like Ambush Platform:

"Combat Action: Exhaust this support to deploy an attachment from your hand."

If you can sacrifice 0 Termagant units to pay the cost of Clogged With Corpses (i.e., pay a cost that doesn't change the game state), why can't you trigger the Combat Action of Ambush Platform while the support is already exhausted?