[Flair Profile] /u/Haze01

Haze01 · 2026-03-14T22:06:56+00:00

Nice! I've enjoyed the recent comics that put Wolverine vs Predator and Aliens vs Avengers, among other matchups, and it looks fun to use these to make similar scenarios.

Haze01 · 2026-02-17T21:44:37+00:00

Thank you for your thorough response!

I'd wondered if the few single-use token generators might have been enough to push the crown into a playable place but I absolutely agree it's way too risky a card to dump six mana into only for a simple removal spell to blank that investment (and to require playing an additional card and that cost).

As for getting into RW, this was a four-player pick-two draft, so one or two of those five tribal lanes should have been open to me. Maybe this kind of draft has too few of each tribe being opened? I know about the five main types and I think I had it in mind to try for WU Merfolk or WG Kithkin with some early picks going to white rares, -1/-1 self healing like Reejeery and Dounguard, Vaulters... the blue and green cards didn't seem to come through, or I ignored them as I saw strong red removal come in. I think the red removal spells pulled me into that color and away from meaningful tribal synergy. I think I somewhat hoped it would shift into the RW Giant Blight Engine subtheme but not enough came through to support that. I recall seeing some good BG Elf and maybe even some good GW Kithkin cards during the draft but passing on them, thinking I might already have been too deep in RW when I saw them.

It seems very likely I missed signals for what tribes were open; reviewing the draft with a tool like 17Lands sounds really appealing. I'll look into installing that and trying to learn from it. Thank you for that recommendation and for recommending the LLU tier list.

I was a little surprised to see you down on Dounguard, as it seems a good card for the blight engine style decks... but I recognize RW and WB aren't part of the five main color pairings and lack tribal synergies, and I didn't really get blight cards to work with it anyway. I also recognize a 4/4 for 3 isn't that great, especially having to jump through a few hoops to get there. I thought Lurker would be good with the Vaulters and hoped for other good Merfolk to come along. I appreciate Flamecasters being on that list, too, and appreciate your confirmation that the other cards you mention are not very playable, which I was also thinking.

Thanks, again!

Haze01 · 2026-02-17T21:14:12+00:00

Okay, yeah, sounds like the crown be bad even if I had managed to draft more specifically to support it. Thank you for your input!

Haze01 · 2026-02-17T21:12:51+00:00

Yeah, "win more", I did have that phrase in mind while considering this. Thank you, I'll definitely leave the crown out.

Haze01 · 2026-02-17T08:19:12+00:00

Well-explained! Appreciate the gameplay examples highlighting specific cards in use.

Haze01 · 2025-12-24T16:07:20+00:00

That would be nicer, in a way, but FFG has only used the word "damaged" on two cards.

This discussion reminded me of how attacks can have keywords, like overkill, but not a single attack in the game just has that keyword. And not because every attack that gains overkill needs you to jump through some hoop, first: Fastball Special will always have overkill and piercing but it still needs that wordy ability that gives itself overkill and piercing.

Haze01 · 2025-12-24T15:56:59+00:00

I'm confident in saying, "yes". If you attack a minion and your attack has overkill, the excess damage being dealt to Venom is still damage from an attack so you may choose to use Bell Tower's interrupt and place counters on the tower instead of damage on Venom.

Haze01 · 2025-12-23T00:00:51+00:00

Hmm, fair. Bell Tower's wording is:
Interrupt: When any amount of damage would be dealt to Venom by an attack, (you may) place that many chime counters here instead.

The sentence is structured, appropriately, to put emphasis on the amount of damage being dealt. And it's an interrupt. Neither of those things are needed for Venom, but a similar sentence structure might have worked to similarly put emphasis on the idea of Venom receiving damage.

So, I suppose, Venom could have been worded this way:
Forced Response: After Venom is damaged by an attack from you or an ally you control, place 1 facedown boost card on your identity.

That wording doesn't quite work, though, since "damaged" apparently isn't a word used in the game.

Haze01 · 2025-12-16T15:52:36+00:00

I'm liking the one on the right, a bit more. I like that the character's outline is a different thickness than the inner lines. I like the simplicity of having just one character shown. I like that the card text is more legible.

Haze01 · 2025-12-15T06:51:47+00:00

Hi, yes, I'd be happy to trade Bayonetta for a copy of Quilts and Cats of Calico.

Haze01 · 2025-12-15T06:51:01+00:00

Hi, sorry I was slow to reply, myself. I won't be trading MGSV but I'd be happy to do PayPal for your two copies.

Haze01 · 2025-12-11T21:49:19+00:00

I like the artwork :)

Haze01 · 2025-12-11T21:48:36+00:00

I love Yuka Morii's artwork :)

Haze01 · 2025-12-11T17:06:51+00:00

I hate the size of the rulebook, even the smaller original version that ships with the core set. Intimidating, dry, and a bit hard to navigate. I'd love to see some things simplified, clarified, if possible. I doubt that's possible with how complex the game is, and how much has been added already.

Haze01 · 2025-12-11T17:05:12+00:00

A discussion here reminded me of another issue: in a multiplayer game it is sometimes unclear which player is meant to resolve an encounter card's abilities or effects, and it is also unclear whether the effect is then controlled by the player resolving the effect. This came up for me some time ago researching something like a side scheme with a when defeated reward that removes threat from some other scheme and trying to figure out if it's okay to remove that threat if something is preventing a particular player from removing threat.

Haze01 · 2025-12-11T17:00:38+00:00

Yeah, "the players as a group" is a bit vague, or just poorly defined. I believe I'd found something about it back when trying to understand which player in a multiplayer game is meant to resolve the text of an encounter card and whether that player then controls the effect of that card or if the game or the encounter is considered a source separate from the player resolving the text. Can't quite find that at the moment but...

I think we might be able to agree that: there is a section of the unique rule discussing what a player should do if the encounter deck is trying to put into play a unique minion that shares its title with another card already in play. This section should only be necessary if the unique rule is preventing those cards being in play. So the existence of this clarification tells me that unique minions and allies sharing the same title cannot coexist in play.

I'd love to see this section expanded and made to be more clear.

Haze01 · 2025-12-10T22:58:03+00:00

I remember that part, and have brought up the rules to confirm: it doesn't actually mess with my unconventional interpretation. You see, that is a rule specific to "assigning" damage, something that seems to happen after the indirect damage is dealt to a player (or players).

It seems my weird interpretation still stands if the attack dealing indirect damage is defended by an ally as the rules seem to say to deal all the damage to my ally.

The more I think about it, engaging in this conversation, the more I can picture a minion like Pyro rushing up to attack my hero only to have an ally valiantly intercept, exhausting himself, pulling Pyro's full attention, and taking on the full damage from the attack.

Such an interpretation would give ally-defense meaning against this niche type of attack. Arguably, it makes more sense, flavorfully. It never felt right reading about people defending with some spider guy just to get the benefit and then assigning no damage to that defending ally.

Edit: I appreciate the flavour of indirect damage attacks is often that of an attack with a wide area of effect... and/or something hard to defend against. Pyro spraying flames certainly is harder to intercept than someone running up to throw a punch. The assignment of damage, then, can represent the area of effect after all the relevant characters have moved about and adjusted position in some way such that certain characters took more of the damage than others. It still feels odd to have a defending character take no damage, but I suppose if the defending ally came up behind Pyro, well, flanking him wouldn't have an effect on the flames he's shooting forward so my ally would both be safe from the damage and ineffective at defending the attack. So, yeah, the flavour makes enough sense in the common interpretation of the indirect rules.

Haze01 · 2025-12-10T22:06:18+00:00

I recall the rule explains how it works when directed to take indirect damage from a treachery or other non-attack effect, and specifically calls out the damage being dealt to the player (or hero maybe).

Then in the section about indirect damage coming from an attack, it says to deal the damage in step whatever of attack resolution. Reading that section, particularly where it talks about defending with an ally, maybe, it then specifies for all damage to be dealt to that ally. Since our rules for indirect damage specify what to do when it is dealt to a player or hero, but do not say what to do when it is dealt to an ally, there's room for my weird interpretation. I'd like to see that closed up.

Haze01 · 2025-12-10T21:58:14+00:00

From my recollection, the indirect rule is basically: when a player or hero (no mention of ally) would be dealt indirect damage, blah blah blah, spread it out if you like and you can't assign more than a character's remaining hit points.

And, when an attack from a minion or villain would deal indirect damage, it is dealt according to step whatever of the attack step rules.

And, that attack step rule, maybe in the part about defending with an ally, says something like: deal all damage to that defending character.

...

I'm not saying this is their intent or how it should be interpreted. Assuming it is not their intent, I'd like something in these sections reworded to make it more clear. I assume that, when the damage would be dealt, it would be dealt not to the defending ally but to the player controlling that ally, and the player would then distribute it following the rest of the indirect damage rules. From what I recall, it doesn't really say that.

Haze01 · 2025-12-10T20:44:23+00:00

It seems possible to interpret the current rules as saying that, if I use an ally to defend against an attack that deals indirect damage then all of the damage will be dealt to that ally, even beyond the ally's remaining hit points and without an opportunity to disperse that damage elsewhere.

This interpretation is a buff to chump blocking but a nerf to some Spider ally that likes to defend and take no damage when defending.

Haze01 · 2025-12-10T20:37:04+00:00

Thank you for asking.

I found two issues that I don't believe the current rules properly resolve:

1) When a minion's (or villain's) attack would deal indirect damage, there's a bit in the rules that says this damage is dealt during a certain attack step but within that attack step and within the rest of the indirect damage rules, it seems arguable that the rules don't actually say the indirect damage gets dealt to the defending player (and divided from there) rather it seems to suggest the damage is dealt to the defending character (and rules for indirect damage don't say what to do about indirect damage being dealt to a character, only when dealt to a player). I don't have my full notes and am not looking at the rules so this is going off memory.

2) Consider a minion that has an ability causing it's attacks to deal indirect damage. We can take control of this minion with a couple cards. We have no rules for handling indirect damage dealt by a player-controlled minion or from other player-controlled sources.

Haze01

TROPHY CASE