Q2 Rules Update
Hello fellow Warlords, and welcome to the Q2 2025 Rules Update article!
If you’d like to take a look at the ongoing changelog or the comprehensive rules document, both can be found at warlordsots.com/rules.
This quarter we have two “big” updates, two “medium” sized updates, and a handful of smaller clarifications, additions, and adjustments. Let’s look at some of those smaller adjustments first.
Smaller Updates
There are a number of adjustments in this month's update that evoke a sense of “oh yeah, that makes sense, I thought that was already a thing and/or I was already doing it that way.” This includes adjusting 511.8.1 to clarify that changing the zone of a card in a player’s hand in any way targets that player, adding 510.3.2 to make sure it’s clear that effects are resolved in the order presented, adding 510.5 to make sure it’s understood that players need to fully read an action before it’s performed, adding the word “ability” to the glossary, adding some clarity for multiclass cards via 203.4.2, and adding some rules for cards with multiple card types under 712.3. None of these are really “changes”, so much as adding clarity or definition to things that have already existed. When we put together the comprehensive rules we codified so many things that had long been “just played that way,” and we’re sure this will continue to happen as new and returning players bring up questions that cause us to look at the rules in new and different ways.
There are three of the smaller clarifications that I want to call out more specifically. The first is 711.6. Very rarely is the control of an attached or equipped card relevant, but in some questions recently it cropped up that it wasn’t clearly stated who controls the item or action card if it is equipped or attached to an opposing character. Unless otherwise stated, control of attached and equipped cards doesn’t change just because you equip or attach it to an opposing character. For example, if I choose to play Piffany’s First Kiss and attach it to an opposing character, I still control that Piffany’s First Kiss. This means I can’t play another one because it’s Unique, and I already control a copy, though it is attached to an opposing character. This does, unfortunately, clarify that there are a couple of instances where cards such as Pick Pockets will have some awkward consequences. Because the card you equipped with Pick Pockets doesn’t leave play in any way, and the action doesn’t state you gain control of the equipped item, the opponent still controls the item. This becomes awkward because you can’t pay the costs of actions with opposing cards, so if you use Pick Pockets on a steed such as Griffon of Misear (the thought of which is already flavorfully awkward) you are further saddened by the fact that you can’t pay the cost to spend the Griffon. You would still gain the attack bonus, so it’s not a total loss, but the inability to pay the cost of the action is notably disappointing. It’s also important to note that characters are the ones who perform the actions on their items, meaning an opponent couldn’t use a decree to spend the Griffon and move your character either.
In realizing this distinction we also discovered we hadn’t covered this for the new Sleight of Hand feat either, necessitating a change this quarter so that the control of items you take with the Sleight of Hand feat also changes.
The second smaller change of note is the addition of the Ancients format to the formats listed in the comprehensive rules, as well as verbiage for the Banned, Epic, and Reserved lists. We are excited to be working with the player populated Ancients Panel on the format and are excited to see it grow in the future. If you would like to read more about the Ancients format and recent changes please take a look at the article posted here.
The third smaller update of note is a clarification for cards like Hola Haben and Brother Dominy. In general, a single card generates a single instance of an effect. For a long time cards like Hola Haben using the phrasing “while one or more of this card” in an attempt to convey that a particular effect only happens once even if there are multiple copies of the card generating the effect. Of course, Hola Haben doesn’t actually say that the effect only happens once, all it does is place a condition of one or more Hola Habens being in your discard pile in order to get the effect. Because of this it could be read that, if you have three Hola Habens in your discard pile, your Free Kingdoms characters gain +3 HP because each one is generating an effect. That’s obviously not what the long used wording was meant to convey and so enters 512.8 to clarify that cards with that sort of phrasing only apply once. For instance, Hola Hoben would be treated as saying “While Hola Haben is in your discard pile your Free Kingdoms gain +1 HP. This bonus only applies once for all cards named Hola Haben.”
Medium Updates
Now let’s take a look at the “medium” sized updates. These two go hand in hand, and really only affect Medusan Lord Challenges. This first is that Medusan Lords cannot be killed, stunned, moved, or banished by opposing card effects. This has long been something that was printed on Medusan Lords, but it takes up a lot of space. We thought it easiest to go ahead and put it in the rules proper and remove the need to put it on every single Medusan Lord we ever print. Similarly, it has often been the case that you can’t destroy the items that a Medusan Lord starts equipped with. The easiest way to slip this into a rule was using a trait. That said, we will be introducing the “Medusan” trait on Items and Actions that we don’t want affected by those who are taking the challenge.
The Big Changes
Finally we have our two big updates and, I’ll be honest, the first is a little lackluster. We’ve added 500.5 to the mix. You might call it the “pre-initiative” roll. Similar rulings have been made before, and it’s not really an unfamiliar concept, just an exciting addition that makes certain things a little smoother. In Warlord almost nothing happens at the same time, and for things like Jautya Syne or the infamous Wretched Horde/Zachary Blaze start it can often matter who resolves their effects first. What if I’m playing multiple targets for Jauya Syne and I choose based on the opposing Warlord and they are also playing Jautya Syne? Who chooses first? Now we have an answer. Players will roll off, then take turns resolving static effects. Pretty simple, a common interaction in Warlord, but one that was conspicuously absent as a rule.
Our last big change is, in my opinion, the most exciting of the month. It has been long requested by our playtest team and we have decided it’s finally time, especially with Gen Con coming up and a dedicated space for Alliance play. We have decided to change 801.5.8 completely, blowing away its original necessity, and changing it from removing the loyalty penalty in Alliance to making your characters in all zones the same faction(s) as your starting Warlords. What does this mean? Well, it means a lot more viable options for Alliance players. Now if I use Kurak Stonejaw and High Acolyte Hellene all of my characters in all zones have the Dwarven Forges and Deverenian Empire factions for the entire game. With this all of my level 4 characters, even those printed with only the Dwarven Forges faction, may enter play ahead of schedule. It also means that Kurak can defend all of my characters, even the ones with only the Deverenian Empire faction. If a card says to search my deck for a Dwarven Forges character, I could get any character in my deck because they would all be Dwarven Forges characters. If a card says to target a Deverenian Empire character I control, I could target any character I control, because they are all Deverenian Empire characters. This also applies to the Warlords, so as long as you have a Warlord (and thus are still in the game) your characters wouldn’t suffer loyalty penalty because they’re always going to share a faction with a Warlord you control.
As an important note, 801.5.6, which prohibits you from including characters that have a faction that doesn’t match one or more of your starting Warlords, still applies. So you can’t, for example, put Mercenary Guilds characters in your Kurak/Hellene deck. But the change to 801.5.8 making your characters the same faction(s) as your starting Warlords will apply during game setup, which is a nice bonus for Sakar, who has had a hard time finding an Alliance partner and a starting army in the past. This will open Sakar up to any good aligned Warlord, and allow him to start with any good aligned characters of that other Warlord’s printed faction(s) as well.
Our major concern that stopped us from doing this before now has always been that cards “not doing what they say” has often been a complaint with older cards, but after a lot of thought and consideration that has been outweighed by the desire to make the format a true “Alliance” of factions and allow the factions that often have abilities referencing their faction (the Dwarven Forges, Deverenian Empire, and Free Kingdoms most notably) really be playable. This does, of course, make some cards much more powerful, and is the most likely change to bring about cards being banned in the future after the meta shakes out a bit more.
And with that last change we bring about a close to our Q2 rules updates. As always, if you have rules questions please feel free to reach out via the “Ask a Rules Question” link at warlordsots.com/rules. We’ll see you next quarter!
