Upper Deck Entertainment Forums

A question came up today from a friend building a rogue team and it's slightly interesting after reading the rules so I told him I'd quadruple check....

What constitutes "a turn"?

Section 501.2 says:
As a character's turn starts, it's controller becomes the turn player until a character controlled by a different player starts a turn.  Ongoing effects that lat "until the start of [this turn]" expire.  Then if any abilities trigger (704.2) at the start of turn, resolve those before doing the following.

It then goes on to talk more about options available to act, move or instant for a mini.

So, here's the scenario:
Zomm, Haruka, and Thangal are fighting Vigor, Dralor, and Jaina (why, who knows, they've all been drinking maybe)... but The alliance team has no minis to act on tick 5 while the horde team has both Thangal and Zomm to act on tick 5.

Thangal starts his turn and attacks Jaina, moves, and goes into bear form.  Then, the alliance team has no one to act with, so the horde team player uses Zomm, who attacks Dralor, and then plays expose armor.  Since 501.2 specifically says the turn player doesn't change until a different player starts a turn, can both Jania and Dralor receive a -1 armor from expose armor?

I'm 99.99% sure that Expose Armor is specifically meant for any mini that was attacked this turn by the rogue using it will get the -1 armor and even though the turn player doesn't change from Thangal to Zomm, that a turn is, or should be, defined by a single mini taking it's actions, by either moving, instant-ing, action-ing, or doing nothing but ticking up, and then switching to another mini.

If not, Expose Armor is ridonkulous, but I think it already is and will only get better once Fan on Knives is out and Illidan is declared a Rogue class :-)

Anyway, thanks and I look forward to hearing that yes, a turn is a full sequence used by one mini and only one mini and not the shifting of active players. :-)

---

WoW Minis RK 2
PM LV 1
http://www.critshappen.com

This is the first time I noticed it, but I find it very odd that the glossary has the definition for "turn player" but not "turn." I suppose the correct way to answer this question would be to say that characters, and not players, take turns. Being the turn player only gives you priority for resolving effects. So, Expose Armor will only work on characters that defended during the rogue's turn. I suppose this could be made a bit clearer in the rules document. 

---

Vs System RK1
Wow Minis RK2!
WoW TCG RK1
PM 1

Expose Armor says this turn, not this tick....


Think about that for a little bit.....

---

Simon Key

Player Management Level 4
WoW TCG Rules Knowledge Level 2
WoW Minis Rules Knowledge Level 2
Huntik TCG Rules Knowledge Level 1
Tournament Organizer Level 1
UDE Forums Moderator

Simon this does bring up an interesting point. I believe we all know the intent of turn is that each activation of a character is a turn; however, with the text of expose armor saying

"Expose Armor, T0, Rogue
Instant, Assassination
Play only if this character has attacked this turn.

Put an [Armor] -1 counter on each enemy that defended this turn.
Recharge: Ready this card at the end of tick 5."

and with Section 501.2 stating

As a character's turn starts, it's controller becomes the turn player until a character controlled by a different player starts a turn.

and there being no definition of "turn". It does bode the question, "Would expose armor hit multipul characters that defended without an opposing character activating?"

---

William C. Zobac
Lubbock, TX
WoW TCG RK 1
WoW Minis RK 2
PM LV 1

1202630:

Simon this does bring up an interesting point. I believe we all know the intent of turn is that each activation of a character is a turn; however, with the text of expose armor saying "Expose Armor, T0, Rogue Instant, Assassination Play only if this character has attacked this turn.

Put an [Armor] -1 counter on each enemy that defended this turn. Recharge: Ready this card at the end of tick 5." and with Section 501.2 stating As a character's turn starts, it's controller becomes the turn player until a character controlled by a different player starts a turn. and there being no definition of "turn". It does bode the question, "Would expose armor hit multipul characters that defended without an opposing character activating?"

Hello!

Your question is a little off, but I'm willing to take a stab.

Expose Armor leaves room for multiple defenders to have been attacked during that rogue's turn.  Take Dagg'um forexample. If he crits, he can launch a shuriken attack against a different defender, so in one turn, he could apply 2 [Armor] -1 counters---one to each enemy that defended during Dagg'um's turn.

Until the definition of a turn is added, if it ever gets added, we have to interpret a turn as the length of time a given character is active under your control as the turn player.  When the character's turn starts and you become the turn player, it is active until you check at the end of its turn to see if it used any payment abilities that increased its personal clock by 1 or more, and if not, you raise tick it up.  The next character to act starts its turn, then the turn player changes to that character's controller.

Cheers!

-teh Sig

---

Level 2 Minis Judge.

500.4 Check whether any personal clocks match the master clock.

500.4c If more than one does:
· If those characters belong to the same player, that player chooses which of them takes the next turn.

Turns are applied to characters not players.

1202630:

Simon this does bring up an interesting point. I believe we all know the intent of turn is that each activation of a character is a turn; however, with the text of expose armor saying "Expose Armor, T0, Rogue Instant, Assassination Play only if this character has attacked this turn.

Put an [Armor] -1 counter on each enemy that defended this turn. Recharge: Ready this card at the end of tick 5." and with Section 501.2 stating As a character's turn starts, it's controller becomes the turn player until a character controlled by a different player starts a turn. and there being no definition of "turn". It does bode the question, "Would expose armor hit multipul characters that defended without an opposing character activating?"

Those answering this like it is obvious are missing the problem. The definition needs fixed to read what the rule is. If there is a correct answer and a wrong answer in the Rules then shouldn't both be saying the say thing instea dof something that can be interpreted as something else?