True...but I think there is a big discrepancy in the fact that Oracle on ICwO is both on the Battlefield for the purposes of BFC, but not on the Battlefield for the purposes of wildcarding her TA.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread, or one of the other hundred or so ICWO threads around, but here is (as I see it) the reasoning behind the discrepancy:

The WC TAs state (paraphrased) that you can copy any TA on the battlefield. As the card states, Oracle is removed from the battlefield, but (implied) is still in the game.


The Earthquake card, on the other hand, states that it deals damage to all figures without the Wing speed symbol, not just those on the battlefield.


That's how I see it anyway...

another question. it states that you add the +1 AS you make an action, so if you don't have range on someone until you add the +! can you even make the action in the first place?

hair10 stated (in this thread, or one of the hundred others) that the sequence of events would go something like this:

Declare action
Add ICWO bonus
Check validity of target
Continue with attack


As such, you would get the bonus to range before you check to see if it is a valid target, and at that time, you would have range to the target.

As I recall, that was his personal opinion and not an official answer as the RA, so it may change later.

Actually, that final bit isn't true. The action is declared and then the legality is checked (LOF, range, etc).

The two following quotes are from this thread:

Of course you haven't told us how you factor in the rules on BFCs themselves which state:

(As opposed to "in the game.")

You want me to list every case where one rule/definition contradicts another.....?

For example:

But in general WK is trying to correct these to make things consistent. This is a place where a ruling was made which is directly in conflict with a brand new rule.

(And the real rule on that is: At the end of your turn in which your character did not receive an action token, remove all action tokens from that character.)

It's on BABY!

You of all people should know that the designers don't alway get thier intent across when writing rules. New ones are the worst examples by far.

I'm aware of the ruling. I quoted the first one when answering a question, and was told I was wrong. Now I know. However, the disparity still exists.

As far as new rules go, lets look at Stunning Blow:

Now, at the time the character makes it's Incap attack, it's Damage Value has been replaced by a 0. So, when you use SB, you can deal 0 damage in addition to the effects of the Incap.....?

This is a perfect example of the designers not getting thier intent across.....

I don't disagree that Stunning Blow missed a step (damage value shouldn't change when using the Feat). I guess we just disagree with the designer's intent in terms of BFC. (Just because something makes it to the FAQ doesn't mean I think that's how it was originally intended.)

but the designers have final say over the FAQs....(that's my understanding anyway, unless you know otherwise)