Author Topic: White Hand Sieger (Read 9372 times)

Elessar's Socks · « **on:** June 11, 2008, 09:34:23 PM »

Haha, well coming out of T&D, it didn't seem too out there. *sweatdrop*

I thought damage-based Uruk beatdown was finally getting some lovin'. A consistent strength +5 damage +1 pump would've rocked.

Split from the followers name game topic

lem0nhead · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2008, 02:02:25 AM »

ES sadly you are correct. The card is MEANT to mean you need a site owned to play the sieger. But the way it is phrased if you were being a real rules pedant then to play you must take a site. I.e. Play him and control a site!

Stupid but true.

Thranduil · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2008, 03:07:16 AM »

Not quite. If that were the case, it would say 'And you must take control of a site.'

Thranduil

lem0nhead · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2008, 03:39:49 AM »

Argh stop posting things that make me argue with you! If you check the later cards Decipher were making the phrase "TAKE control of a site" got filtered out and they started using "control a site".

The way the sieger is phrased according to D precedents you can "control site", in fact you MUST, control a site in order to play him.

The "take" is a redundant irrelevant word after tower/king block.

Thranduil · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2008, 03:51:42 AM »

Okay...

You're avatar looks ridiculous! :hey:

Seriously though, I checked the wording and you're right.

I guess that'll teach me to argue with juicy-headed people...

Thranduil

lem0nhead · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2008, 04:00:00 AM »

LOL i love how the blue skelton in a spaceman suit isnt silly though

Its no more preposterous than a man with a citrus fruit for a head!

Where do you get your very random avatars from?

Thranduil · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2008, 04:03:52 AM »

Varying sources. I had a couple from the Sandman series, then the Vampire Count Mannfred von Carstein, followed by this one which is obviously from the best Doctor Who episode of the current season...

"Hey, who turned out the lights?"

Yeah, anyway.... Back on topic. So followers, eh? :hey:

Thranduil

lem0nhead · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2008, 04:05:41 AM »

Doctor Who is so lame. (If that triggers a flame war do it in the members lounge!

)

Yeah erm....bugger... Guess we're even you got me on the followers thing but im right about the sieger.

It definately makes the sieger one of the best minions on the game though if you dont follow common sense rules.

DáinIronfoot · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:15:22 AM »

I remember that debate raging when the Sieger first came out. 'Twould make it the best minion EVER if you read it the right way. It's a key example of how lazy what was left of Big D's staff was near the end.

I'm telling you, if they put some of us DCers in charge, LOTR TCG would still be steaming right along today.

lem0nhead · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:17:58 AM »

Quote from: DáinIronfoot on June 12, 2008, 07:15:22 AM

I'm telling you, if they put some of us DCers in charge, LOTR TCG would still be steaming right along today.

D a m n right DI, we'd kick Decipher's a s s into shape. And on that point im off to make a deck with white hand siegers and take 4 sites really easily

Kralik · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2008, 08:34:02 AM »

Quote from: Elessar's Socks on June 11, 2008, 09:14:20 PM

As in, you must have a site controlled before you can play it;

That's how I was reading it.

Otherwise, how could it be twilight 0?!

DáinIronfoot · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM »

That's how it is SUPPOSED to be read, yes, but the wording is very sloppy.

Kralik · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2008, 08:51:40 AM »

How about:

To play, spot an

minion. If you do not control a site, discard White Hand Sieger.

Elessar's Socks · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2008, 09:35:41 AM »

I was thinking "To play, spot an

minion and a site you control."

Kralik · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2008, 11:33:32 AM »

Ah, much better. That should be an official clarification.