Wording choice in Remorseless Examples

RobertShepherd

New member
Just a quick wording check in Remorseless Examples. It reads as follows:

After a friendly unit completes a melee attack:

If this attack destroyed an enemy rank, target 1 other enemy in Long Range of that enemy. They become panicked.
If this attack destroyed the enemy, also [emphasis mine] place 1 corpse pile... etc.


In the absence of other rulings, the use of the word 'also' strongly indicates that both effects are meant to trigger if the attack destroys an enemy. However, we know from this ruling that it is impossible for the first part of the card to trigger if the attack destroys an enemy.

I assume we should play RAW for now and treat the two effects as mutually exclusive, but I did just want to check to make sure that's the right take. Thanks!
 

Hecaton

New member
It's not that they're mutually exclusive - if you play it like Diversionary Tactics you can't ever legally place the corpse pile, since the "Short Range" mentioned on the card is, by implication, in reference to the position of the defender, not the attacker.
 
Last edited:

RobertShepherd

New member
It's not that they're mutually exclusive - if you play it like Diversionary Tactics you can't ever legally place the corpse pile, since the "Short Range" mentioned on the card is, by implication, in reference to the position of the defender, not the attacker.
I assumed the placement of the corpse pile was with reference to the attacker, since the card wouldn't work otherwise and the second half doesn't specifically say 'short range of that enemy' like the first half does - so the text can be a little clunkily read as "'when a friendly unit destroys an enemy with a melee attack... place a corpse pile anywhere fully within short range [of the friendly unit]..."

But it would be worthwhile getting clarification on that too. Purely personally I'd really like Final Strike and Diversion Tactics to work on destruction, but the current ruling is that they don't.
 
Back To Top
Top