Regardless, I do not think it's supposed to target other cards since it specifically says the unit.
And I literally never play SY.
And I literally never play SY.
That's what I thought it initially was supposed to do. Never got a response on twitter, but I sent a DM instead of replying to the thread itself so maybe that's why.
Yes, as long as there can be only one bounty on the board every unit on the opposing board with bounty will be the bountied unit.
Well even if it is bugged I quite like the scoundrel. Paying 2 coins to get some info on the opponents deck and possibly mess up either a thinning card or a bronze with a powerful deploy is pretty nice. I was pleasantly surprised that it attacks units that have bounty besides the one that it pulls but even if they revert that I would probably still play this card.
I think we would all agree that the text could have different interpretations IF taken in its completion.
But the same could be said of Vypper, which reads like it could Summon itself on your opponent's board.
Each paragraph of the text should be read in isolation, so if we can ignore the Summon part and look only at the Fee part, the vagueness is resolved. And the card is intended to damage a unit with Bounty on the opponent's board (of which there can be only one).
If it was intended to only hit the Summoned unit, consider this:
If the unit Summoned has Veil, it cannot receive Bounty, thus Scoundrel cannot use his Fee to hit "the unit with Bounty" because it does not have that status.
Should the card be double punished because of the Veil status? Once for not being able to get Coins back from the Summoned unit, and again for not even being able to hit the Summoned unit?
But the same could be said of Vypper, which reads like it could Summon itself on your opponent's board.
Each paragraph of the text should be read in isolation, so if we can ignore the Summon part and look only at the Fee part, the vagueness is resolved. And the card is intended to damage a unit with Bounty on the opponent's board (of which there can be only one).
If it was intended to only hit the Summoned unit, consider this:
If the unit Summoned has Veil, it cannot receive Bounty, thus Scoundrel cannot use his Fee to hit "the unit with Bounty" because it does not have that status.
Should the card be double punished because of the Veil status? Once for not being able to get Coins back from the Summoned unit, and again for not even being able to hit the Summoned unit?
Well i think i explained more than One time in this thread what os "The unit with bount" - since you can only put One bounty in all the enemy units per time, The unit with The bounty its The unit with The bounty.
Like i said, they can do a better writing in The description, but say its not correct i think players need to play more sy and understand how bounty works
Like i said, they can do a better writing in The description, but say its not correct i think players need to play more sy and understand how bounty works
Well, it can...
When Vypper is in your opponent's graveyard, 'the opponent' from the card's perspective is you and it therefore Summons to your board.
If you discard Vypper, it does Summon itself to your opponent's board. And that is a Vypper player's first play so they can start copying the Vypper.
There is only one way to interpret that card's text, and it has nothing to do with the topic.
And?
A unit with a Bounty can be Purified, transformed, or even destroyed, which also results in no unit having a Bounty. Which leads to the exact same situation of Scoundrel not being able to use its Fee. This argument of yours doesn't work.
The card's text is clear, and based on that text it would make no sense for the current behaviour to be correct.
Also, compare to Graden's "Destroy an enemy unit with a Bounty". An, not the.
Graden does not place a Bounty, so "an" makes sense.
Scoundrel does place a Bounty, but why would he say "the" if he was supposed to be able to affect "an" enemy unit like Graden does?
Only an official statement saying the current behaviour is intended could convince me. I don't know why some of you are so determined to try, anyway. It makes exactly no difference to you what I think.
(In other words, I will ignore any further attempts.)
I don't think the wording is clear. I read the card description quite a few times when it was revealed and it is subject to interpretation. If bounty was a mechanic that could be applied to more units at the same time, then yes, Scoundrel would've only targeted the summoned unit based on that description. But since only one unit at a time can have a bounty, then he can target any unit with bounty.
It could be that the developers worded the card ambiguously. Happened in the past. Or they thought that the description made sense according to the concept and mechanic of the card that they've created.
It could be that the developers worded the card ambiguously. Happened in the past. Or they thought that the description made sense according to the concept and mechanic of the card that they've created.
I think the wording "an" means you have to actually click on the unit(s) you want to target, "the" means you only have to click on the order/fee to damage the unit(s). An other example would be the order of "Yennefer: Conjurer", which says "deal 1 damage to THE highest enemy unit(s)".
Yes. For me its The same thing as yeneffer.
And what i think devs whant to do with that card its it can damage "untarget" cards (behind a defender and/or with imunity).
@DRK3 made a conter deck to sy using The Dragon SC (cant remember her name now). So, since his units wont go tall than The Dragon, The witchfinder puts her bounty on Dragon and you cant kill it.
So with scoundrel you can kill it.
@EduFerraz Yes, it seems Scoundrel is causing confusion on how it works.
When it was announced, i did complain it was OP because i understood how it works, i got the information directly from the devs and did share it here but i guess some players missed it.
Scoundrel is working as the devs intended it, and it cant just target the bountied bronze it fetches, it can target any opponent's unit bounty after that. You mentioned that immune case with ST Saesenthessis on the counter deck i made, but that's not the only one, for example with witchfinder, you can also target enemy units behind a defender because both witchfinder and scoundrel target AUTOMATICALLY, not manually (manually means you have to click on the target).
When it was announced, i did complain it was OP because i understood how it works, i got the information directly from the devs and did share it here but i guess some players missed it.
Scoundrel is working as the devs intended it, and it cant just target the bountied bronze it fetches, it can target any opponent's unit bounty after that. You mentioned that immune case with ST Saesenthessis on the counter deck i made, but that's not the only one, for example with witchfinder, you can also target enemy units behind a defender because both witchfinder and scoundrel target AUTOMATICALLY, not manually (manually means you have to click on the target).
You are just proving my point. All sections of the text are to be read in isolation, in the situation in which they apply.
The text reads, "Fee 1: Damage the enemy unit with Bounty by 1"
There is no mention of Summoning here, or reference to the fact this card Summons a unit.
It simply reads that it will look for a unit with Bounty and damage it. There is no ambiguity there.
Thrilled about Purge for my bounty deck. The Brute and Octavia have some great potential, but not worth reworking into what I currently run; will probably make a separate pure Witch Hunter deck to incorporate them that way. Savvy Huckster is just filler meant to accentuate the new bonded location card, which I'm also not using in a bounty deck, and has minimal synergy with the archetype and some other cards.
It could be a decent addition to some decks, sure, but nothing I'm using. If it were a Witch Hunter and the abilities were a bit better for the archetype (like profit 1, deploy: place bounty on an enemy unit, bonded: increase profit by 1 and damage the unit with bounty by 2) I would actually consider using it. I reduced the value of the initial play because of the added synergy value from bounty.
It could be a decent addition to some decks, sure, but nothing I'm using. If it were a Witch Hunter and the abilities were a bit better for the archetype (like profit 1, deploy: place bounty on an enemy unit, bonded: increase profit by 1 and damage the unit with bounty by 2) I would actually consider using it. I reduced the value of the initial play because of the added synergy value from bounty.
Last edited:
Octavia Hale is weak because her sons are weak, bounty in general is weak because veil counters bounty so hard. Bounty decks are forced to rely on purifies from Kalkstein and Kurt just to survive if placed against veil. None of the new bounty cards address fundamental weaknesses, and so these new cards bring little to SY.