Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
* * * * *

Clogged with Corpses



Clogged with Corpses

Clogged with Corpses


Type: Event
Faction: Tyranids
Cost: 0
Shields: 1
Signature/Loyalty:
Traits: Tactic.

Action: Sacrifice X Termagant units to destroy a target support card with printed cost X or lower.
Termagants are higly expendable and the Hive Mind has no qualms about burying a foe in the bodies of its fallen.

Set: The Great Devourer Number: 34 Quantity: 3
Illustrator: Federico Musetti
Recent Decks Using This Card:
Want to build a deck using this card? Check out the Warhammer 40,000: Conquest Deck Builder!


33 Comments

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?

 

Sorry, but still trying to get my head around the reasoning on this, and to me that does not look like an applicable example. Is there anywhere in the game rules that require a cost to 'change the game state'? I could not find that while checking the RRG. A corollary from that would be that Mystic Warden and other 0 cost units cannot be deployed as the cost does not affect the game state.

 

Does the requirement for a minimum of 1 termagant always being sacrificed to pay the cost come from

'sacrifice 0 Termagant units' => 'instructed to sacrifice a card'??

I see this as 'sacrifice' if you sacrifice 0 termagents, then you haven't sacrificed anything.  Something has to be sacrificed for a sacrifice to take place.

Does the requirement for a minimum of 1 termagant always being sacrificed to pay the cost come from

'sacrifice 0 Termagant units' => 'instructed to sacrifice a card'??

 

Kind of. It comes from the definition of "sacrifice" in the RRG saying that in order for the game to consider a sacrifice successful, something has to actually leave play. As Ywingscum says above, if you sacrifice 0 termagants, you literally have not sacrificed anything.

 

The following email exchange w/ FFG agrees with what has been said here:

 

"Action: Sacrifice X Termagant units to destroy a target support card with printed cost X or lower."

 
The question is whether or not you can set X = 0, sacrifice no units at all, and still destroy a support with printed cost 0. The RRG appears to answer this directly in the entry on Sacrifice (p. 14) by saying:
 
"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."
 
If no sacrifice has been made, the cost hasn't been paid. If the cost hasn't been paid, then you don't get the effect. Essentially, "Sacrifice 0 units" is an oxymoron that can never be successful because a successful sacrifice requires a card to leave play. But others argue that "sacrifice 0 units" bypasses the requirement for a card to leave play by requiring the sacrifice process to be completed 0 times.

This interaction should work the same as it does in our other games. If nothing is sacrificed the ability will not initiate as the cost has not been paid. You cannot destroy a support with 0 cost by sacrificing 0 units with Clogged with Corpses.

 
A cost cannot be paid that does not change the game state (In the case of cards with cost 0, the 0 actually indicates that the card has no inherent costs to be played and thus avoids this rule.)
 
Hope this helps!

Brad Andres
Associate LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

A cost cannot be paid that does not change the game state (In the case of cards with cost 0, the 0 actually indicates that the card has no inherent costs to be played and thus avoids this rule.)

That makes sense. I suspected there might be a rule like that, but couldn't find it in the rules. Excellent. :)
 
But for clarity, this has nothing to do with the definition of sacrifice. This rule doesn't say you can't sacrifice 0 units. It says that if you do so, nothing has been sacrificed, so the board state has not changed (which it must, for a cost to be considered paid)
 
Imagine that the ability had instead read "Pay 1 resource, and sacrifice X units to....". Then it would have worked - you could have paid 1 resource and sacrificed no cards (in which case you would have paid a cost that changed the game state), allowing the effect to trigger.

 

Anyway, that's getting into pedantry. Glad we got a clear answer :)

Interesting (and counterintuitive) ruling. We need this added to the rules forum, I think, for future reference.

Imagine that the ability had instead read "Pay 1 resource, and sacrifice X units to....". Then it would have worked - you could have paid 1 resource and sacrificed no cards (in which case you would have paid a cost that changed the game state), allowing the effect to trigger.

 

So, by that reasoning, if a support says, "Pay 1 resource and exhaust this support to...," I can use that ability even if the support is already exhausted?

 

I sincerely doubt anyone would agree that is true because it's fairly clear that you cannot pay just part of a cost when triggering something.

 

As Brad's email says, "If nothing is sacrificed the ability will not initiate as the cost has not been paid." Sacrificing 0 units (i.e., "nothing") cannot pay a cost -- even if there are other parts of the cost that can be paid. This is no different than the fact that exhausting a card that is already exhausted (i.e., doing nothing) cannot pay a cost -- even if there are other parts of the cost that can be paid.

 

But for clarity, this has nothing to do with the definition of sacrifice.

 

It really does. The definition of sacrifices says that there is no sacrifice if nothing leaves play - i.e., "sacrificing nothing" is no sacrifice at all.

    • Antaiseito likes this

Rules Lawyer pls ? Ahhh, thanks Brad :-)

 

Also, Termagant Unit refers to any Unit with the Trait Termagant, right ?

correct!have fun clogging