Here We Stand returning units and previous rulings
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Here We Stand returning units and previous rulings

  1. #1

    Default Here We Stand returning units and previous rulings

    Michael Shinall has previously indicated in a question about Inexplicable Return that a destroyed attachment is still an attachment that was destroyed even once it has been returned to play.

    This would seem to extend also to the wording on the game mode Here We Stand:

    At the Start of each Round, beginning with the First Player,each player may Redeploy 1 of their previously destroyedCombat Units (including Attachments) in Short Range of theirDeployment Table Edge or any Flank Table Edge. UnitsRedeploy Activated for the Round.

    This seems a little bit problematic to say the least, it would mean that for example, after having had my Drogon unit die, I could bring a new Drogon onto the board every round without concern for whether he is already on the table or not. Alternatively you can just endlessly clone your commander given he's worth +3 points for zone control. This seems to warrant an errata or a rewrite to the mission given some of the extreme outliers it can create and especially given that the mission rewards you for maximizing the number of points on the board.

  2. #2


    While I can't comment on any official ruling, you are taking a ruling on one specific situation/card and trying to apply it to an entirely different, even if similar one, which is something that they have stated numerous times not to do. Namely, because the specific instances and wording can vary, and that changes how it works. Just because something is similar doesn't mean it's the same.

    Having said that, I'm not weighing in on an answer here as I haven't looked at the specific text and/or rulings.

  3. #3


    Just took a moment to look up both effects and it's indeed just as I stated above. These effects do similar things but they are not the same. Inexplicable Return says to take a previously destroyed attachment and a new unit gains that attachment. The scenario rule you quoted above says, specifically, to Redeploy a previously destroyed unit. These are not the same thing. With Inexplicable Return, you are creating a copy of the attachment somewhere else, just like with how Jaqen Hgar works with copying attachments. The scenario is very specifically stating you are Redeploying the unit, it's not making a copy, it's taking the unit and Redeploying it.

    The semantics here matter very much.

  4. #4


    Inexplicable return doesn't say you make a copy though, it's language is just to "attach" the attachment, there's no more reason to really infer that makes a copy than that redeploying does, I definitely think if they are meant to function differently then it still warrants some sort of clarification from the horses mouth as it were as to why this is not the same situation.

    I can definitely see what you're saying about how there is the room for them to be different, would you apply the same reasoning to using Endless Horde to "deploy 1 previously destroyed friendly Free Folk Infantry unit"?

  5. #5


    Use of the word Deploy there. It is again a card that is taking the specific unit and bringing it back to the table. Inexplicable Return does not use the terms deploy, redeploy or any of that.

    Going further back to my original point, we are also dealing with two separate cards that deal with entirely different aspects of the game. One brings Attachments back, the other(s) bring full unitsz which is further reason you shouldn't be cross-comparing them to try to force the same effect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion

Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.