Dungeon Command Rules Questions/Clarifications

238 posts / 0 new
Last post
Playing with people I hadn't played with before a very basic question arose that we couldn't answer definatively from the rulebook. (I guess my group had always played it one way and their group another way)

Do large creatures pay extra again for moving their trailing two squares through difficult terrain? I made the image on the left demonstrating the question. My argument was that they only pay once (1, 2/3, 4, 5) theirs was they pay each time (1, 2/3, 4/5, 6).

I was basing my interpretation on the description of difficult terrain on p.10: "If a creature occupies multiple squares, its whole space is considered to enter difficult terrain simultaneously." And further up it says "Entering a square of difficult terrain costs 1 extra square of movement" (emphasis mine).

So my reasoning was that the whole creature is already in difficult terrain so it wasn't "entering" it again as the back two squares moved over it (and so didn't need to pay extra again). But I could easily be interpreting it incorrectly and/or mixing it up with the rules from the old D&D minis game and the 4e rpg rules.

Their argument was that parts of their space were entering difficult terrain so they should pay the penalty again (hence the 1, 2/3, 4/5, 6).

If anyone could offer the correct interpretation and/or point out where it is clearly explained I would really appreciate it. And apologies if this is already answered somewhere but I searched as much as possible before posting to make sure it wasn't clarified elsewhere.



We've always used your second example picture, basically counting from the front square(s) entering and not counting the back square(s)....although we also haven't been able to justify this entirely from the rules as written, it made sense to all of us, so we agreed to play it that way.

As far as we've always played the reading of the rule about large creatures and 'entering' difficult terrain, it was there only so that a 2x2 critter didn't get 'double charged' if it simultaneously entered 2 or more squares of difficult terrain.

If it continues to move over the same square of difficult terrain it does pay double again (the same rule paragraph states this clearly ' the creature pays just 1 extra square for each square it moves, not for each square its space enters').

So if it moves 2 squares over difficult it pays the extra 1 twice, and it will move two over it, unless it moves diagonally away.
 
The questions about corners is a good question. I'd believe all corners would just be corners, since the rule do not define different styles of corners (if it does, I'm not seeing it). I just played a game today and we noticed the different between walls on the above ground side (round with only a few corners). But because the rules didn't define one or the other, we played it like the normal corner rules. I'd like to see an official response on this since it would be a big deal in movement and ranged attacks.

The confusion is because of the term 'dungeon'. I know the game is called Dungeon Command, but...

P. 4 'Each tile...has two sides...One shows a dungeon environment, while the other is an outdoor setting.'

So you're not always fighting in a 'dungeon' - 'Warbands fight on the 'battlefield'. (also P.4)

P. 9 moving mentions a creature 'cannot move diagonally around the corner of a dungeon wall'.

Illustration at bottom of P.11 clearly shows war wizard sliding diagonally across an outdoor corner.
To me, players on adjacent corner would not be able to attack each other.  I kind of take it as cover.  You would have to come out one square to do an attack.  But I'd like to see an official response regarding hard corners and attacking as well.



The rules say you are adjacent to a character across a hard corner. The rules say melee attacks can be done to characters that are adjacent. The rules make no explicit exception for hard corners. Ergo, you can melee attack across a hard corner.

Now, if you really want to talk about ambiguous rules, tell me how hard corners work with Reach 2, because I have no frakking clue.  

Personally I'd go with the theory that the simplest solution about what the rules probably mean is almost certainly what they were intended to mean, and go with that.

The Horned Devil caused problems when people pointed out that you have to stop moving when 'adjacent' to an enemy, and that your move becomes 1, but that isn't what was intended.

It's not movement and it's not a ranged power, it doesn't say 'within x', it says '2 spaces away'.

For me that's pretty obvious. It's the ones adjacent to the ones adjacent to you. Squares are always diagonally adjacent. And 'cover' only affects ranged attacks.

I don't think they covered it anywhere, but I would protest about anyone who tried to attack through an obstacle, when they can't see what they're hitting, even though LoS isn't needed for melee attacks (if in doubt think about 'blidnfighting' in tabletop).

So, now that Curse is out, I'm back with a round of questions for my tournament tomorrow!  I'd love another official response but consensus on what feels best would be helpful too.

So, a couple of sorta-similar questions about two orders.

Call to Battle: "As a standard action, deploy 1 creature now.  If this creature is in a magic circle, gain 1 morale before deploying."  This implies to me that I can just use a standard to gain 1 morale if I'm in a magic circle and want to (say because I don't have enough leadership to actualy deploy anything) but this could be a Magic bias showing through.  On the other hand, 1 morale for a standard action on a level 3+ dude hardly seems broken.  Anyway, I'd love to know the intent here.

Swarm of Bats: "Prevent all damage to this creature from one source, then shift 6 squares."  So, my interpretation of this is that the shift happens after the source resolves, but isn't contingent on preventing damage.  So it basically sets up what we'd call in Magic a "delayed trigger" that resolves after the chosen source does and causes you to shift 6.  So I've got two conclusions here that I want to make sure I'm right about:

1. If the damage can't be prevented, say due to Piercing Strike or Magic Short Sword, I still get to shift (I am pretty sure of this one)

2. (The less clear case) It seems pretty clear I can't just play this card to shift 6 whenever I like, since if I can't pick a source, I can't set up the delayed trigger.  But, can I play it if the source (ie, some random thing on the stack) isn't even trying to do damage to the creature?  In other words, if I want to move my Vampire Stalker around, and my opponent is attacking some Skeleton somewhere else on the board, can I play Swarm of Bats, prevent the damage to the Vampire (even though the attack doesn't target the Vampire), and then shift the Vampire 6?  It seems like I should be able to, but I'm not sure this is the intended effect.

Thanks!

Call to Battle - definately agree that you have to actually deploy a creature to be able to gain the morale from this - how embarassed would your leader be if he called for more allies and no-one came? That should reduce morale instead...

Swarm of Bats -
way we have been playing this may reduce your hatred of magic short sword.
It's already been posted that you can play damage prevents even if the damage can't be prevented (think example was a riposte), so that's not an issue.
Effects resolve in reverse order, then you check validity of targetted effects...
So you get to shift 6, then the attack resolves after checking validity.
Melee attack requires target is adjacent, so if you've shifted 6 you probably won't be, so attack fizzles.
Ranged obviously just needs LoS and target to be in range (or AoE for Fireball), so if you can get behind a wall you could be OK.

We could be doing it wrong, but we've tried to stick to the rules we know as printed.

On 2, I wish this were true, but I think it isn't, because Swarm of Bats says to prevent damage "then" shift, which seems to me to mean you have to shift after the damage happens.  (If it just said "Prevent all damage from an attack.  Shift 6" then you'd be clearly right.)
I agree with Ultville. if you look at the two cards mentioned (Riposte and Cloud of Bats) you can see that on Riposte the prevent damage and the make an attack commands are two seperate sentences. Whereas on Cloud of Bats it is all one sentence, so it is one action on the stack.

A few cards have more than one sentence in a block of text, so for clarity's sake I would say: Each paragraph on a card is a different action. Even if that paragraph is only one sentence long.
If the attack is already on the stack then it has a confirmed target and is already in play. the requirement to play the attack is to be adjacent. so you play the attack and it goes on the stack as unresolved damage to teh target creature.

you then play cloud of bats on top of it. cloud prevents all damage from one source of your choosing and lets you shift 6.

you then shift 6 and have resolved cloud of bats, the attack underneath then resolves where your character takes the damage which may be 0 if the cloud of bats prevented it all.

so short sword will still do it's damage even if you move away. you can not use cloud of bats to "dodge" a fireball for example. even though you are able to reduce the damage to 0.

if the stack worked in such a way that the shift 6 removed you as an eligable target of an attack then it would not need to reduce damage for one, and for 2 the attack would never exist for you to use cloud of bats in response to.

*edit: I should note that as far as I know, you can play an interupt in response to any action. So when that big nasty man with a magic short sword moves adjacent to your important guy you don't want to die. play cloud of bats in response to his movement and shift 6 away. thus leaving you 6 squares away from him and unable to be targeted by an unpreventable attack.
If the attack is already on the stack then it has a confirmed target and is already in play. the requirement to play the attack is to be adjacent. so you play the attack and it goes on the stack as unresolved damage to teh target creature.

you then play cloud of bats on top of it. cloud prevents all damage from one source of your choosing and lets you shift 6.

you then shift 6 and have resolved cloud of bats, the attack underneath then resolves where your character takes the damage which may be 0 if the cloud of bats prevented it all.



I disagree. We've already had rulings that the source must still be valid for the attack not to 'fizzle' (if you kill an opposing creature with Riposte, the attack that triggered Riposte will NOT hit you... this was confirmed by WotC), and I expect the same for the target. If you've moved away and the attack is now invalid, the attack should just fizzle.
So what your saying is that cloud of bats no longer needs to prevent any damage because any damage you would be targeted with wont be able to hit you after you move anyway. so it trumps the magic sword piercing strike and any other non range attack. and it trumps any ranged attack provided you are out of LOS when you finish moving 6.

I can't imagine thats the intent of the card.

wow really they ruled that riposte can canel the card it responds to? that's just horrible.

I think Riposte/Sieze the Opportunity cancelling attacks is fine; it's different from Magic but makes those cards actually good whereas they previously sucked, so I'm down.

Also, I 100% agree that if Cloud of Bats said "Prevent all damage from a source.  Shift 6", it would allow you to dodge melee attacks (and ranged attacks if you could get out of range/LOS).  This actually works just like Magic, where a target has to be legal when a spell resolves, not just when you play it.  It's also consitent with all DC rulings so far.  So I think assuming you shift before the triggering attack resolves, you should be able to dodge attacks.

On the other hand, the wording of Cloud of Bats is both unusual and very specific: "Prevent all damage from a source,  then shift 6."  It isn't as clear as I'd like, but it's very different wording from anything else, and IMO strongly implies that you move after the damage is dealt.  This also makes it work better as noted above.

"Prevent all damage from a source,  then shift 6."  It isn't as clear as I'd like, but it's very different wording from anything else, and IMO strongly implies that you move after the damage is dealt.



Ugh, you're right, it's either poor templating or the effect is:


Declare attack. [Attack]

Declare CoB. [Attack "Prevent then shift 6"]. (If it was worded "Prevent all damage from one source. Shift 6." the stack would be [Attack Shift6 Prevent] but it's only one sentence.)        
 
CoB statement resolves. [Attack]

Attack resolves. Damage is prevented (or not, with Magic Shortsword) [Shift6]


Shift resolves.       
Sorry to disappoint but I can't agree.

'Then' as a conjunction is usually just a timing statement.

'If...then...' would be a conditional statement.

We already have conditional clauses with 'if the target takes damage from this attack'.

Since they know how to write those, why assume that this is another conditional when it isn't written that way?

The shadowy ambush card is printed as:

"Shift 2 squares.

Make a melee attack that deals 50 damage"

However, in the write up on 'multiple actions on cards' (p.9) it is written as:

"two actions:Shift 2 squares; then, Make a melee attack that deals 50 damage"

The word 'then' serves here only to place the actions in order, not to make one conditional on the other.

Note that 'players can respond to each action separately' when a card has multiple actions.

What I am undecided on is whether you can interrupt between the damage prevent and the shift in cloud.

Is it one action with two effects, or two actions? Is this why it's one sentance instead of two?

CoB is still not an automatic get out of jail free card though.

Imagine you get attacked when there are two creatures next to you.

You tap to play CoB, the second then hits you with Seize (and perhaps poison?). You're still not well.

Oh, and of course, this 'full evade' tactic fails completely before a L1 Int card (Web)!

That's what I love about this game, so many exquisite ways the cards spoil each other, and stop each other being broken.

'Then' certainly does not imply that the shift from cloud resolves after the card played before it on the stack.

If it did you'd never be able to kill an attacker and make his attack fizzle before it hits (because as we've seen above multiple actions on cards have an implied 'then', like shadowy ambush.

Damage prevention always resolves before the damage it 'soaks', you don't take the damage and then wind it back, you shield yourself against anticipated damage, thus taking less later when you actually do get hit.

What clinched it for me was... "Sometimes resolving an action on the stack makes another action on the stack impossible to resolve. For example an effect moves or destroys the target of a second effect below it on the stack. In this case the second action does nothing when it would resolve - it is simply removed from the stack."

So we have riposte and seize, which can destroy the attacker (other way round here, but WotC have validated this ruling).

Anyone volunteering any options for immediate effects that can move the target, as described? or the attacker?

I can think of two candidates, and Cloud of Bats is one of them.

The other is when an earth guardian uses seize to push his attacker out of melee reach...(now there's a cool trick, assuming it would work)

As we're 4 sets in, I'd say it's a safe bet that cloud is one of the cards this text was written for specifically, we know they designed most of, if not all of, the first 5 sets before they released the rules and I don't imagine many 'evade' cards will be in the orc set.

Could be wrong, after all, we don't really know what wisdom does, apart from card draw.

Perhaps the wise orc has had plenty of practice moving away before the ogre clobbers him for kicks?


I agree with you that Earth Guardian can push people out of the way with Seize the Opportunit.  That never occurred to me and is sweet as all heck.  I will definitely try doing that, though I suspect the Guardian still basically sucks since he's Str-only and not a Humanoid.  Maybe BoG will give us enough awesome Strength stuff to make that ok, or his being an Elemental will make me want to use him with the Druid or something.

I still disagree on the Cloud because other effects that contain two different abilities that resolve one at a time have clear separate lines of text, separated not only by periods but by complete line breaks.  I see what you're saying on the rulebook, but the whole point of the rulebook is to explain the technical language in plan language terms, so I think it's use of then doesn't indicate the phrasing is interchangable in technical language (I certainly hope it isn't).  But I certainly agree it's not an open-and-shut case or 100% unambiguous.  This is why a full Comp Rules equivalent for DC would be nice, and failing that it'd be nice to have some more official response on boards or via FAQ  
Thanks to everyone who has responded, but I still feel like my first question hasn't been addressed. I may have been unclear.

In short, the question is: when do you assign the target of an attack action? Do you select a target as the attack/order goes onto the stack? Or, do you select the target when the attack/order goes to resolve?

My original example with Shadowy Ambush wasn't a question about the card, but just an illustration as to why such a question matters.

I know that assigning as the action goes on the stack seems more intuitive (at least to me), but I am hoping to find an official answer / offical source for this. Thanks! 

From rulebook p.8:

Effects, sources and targets

You choose the targets for an order card when you play it...when the ability resolves it checks whether the target is legal...



I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.
Can someone clarify this?

A) Is assistance an action?
B) Does assistance  use the stack?
C) Can I play in response to an assistance?
Thanks!!! 
I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.
As far as I am aware you can only respond to an attack. As such the act of assisting does not warrant a response. However if the assisted action is an attack, then you can respond to either of the creatures, provided they are adjacent to you, as normal.
As far as I am aware you can only respond to an attack. As such the act of assisting does not warrant a response. However if the assisted action is an attack, then you can respond to either of the creatures, provided they are adjacent to you, as normal.



I think this sounds correct to me. Just as you can't respond to a creature tapping to play a standard, you respond to the action itself being played. Assiting is just 'paying the cost' to do some action, it's the actions you respond to, not the paying.
As far as I am aware you can only respond to an attack. As such the act of assisting does not warrant a response. However if the assisted action is an attack, then you can respond to either of the creatures, provided they are adjacent to you, as normal.



I think this sounds correct to me. Just as you can't respond to a creature tapping to play a standard, you respond to the action itself being played. Assiting is just 'paying the cost' to do some action, it's the actions you respond to, not the paying.

It's clear thanks alot!
I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.
So, my buddy and I go back and forth on the rules and we are stuck on an issue with Mage Hand/Feint being responded to with Near Miss as an Immediate to untap.  I wanted to get specific ruling on it:

Mage Hand and Feint allow you to tap a creature as a Minor action.

Near Miss can be used as an Immediate Action and Prevents 20 damage, but also untaps the creature.  So, he wanted to use Near Miss on the stack of my Mage Hand/Feint.

In my mind, Mage Hand or Feint taps him and is unable to use an immediate.

In his mind, Mage Hand or Feint starts the stack and he can use an immediate because of the following text under THE STACK in the rule book:

"When an action would take place, it doesn't happen right away.  Each player gets a chance to respond to it with further actions."

Since Mage Hand and Feint are actions, they go on the stack first. The stack resolves from the bottom up, so he first taps because Mage Hand/Feint tap and then Near Miss untaps him.

Which way is correct?
In my mind, Mage Hand or Feint taps him and is unable to use an immediate.

In his mind, Mage Hand or Feint starts the stack and he can use an immediate because of the following text under THE STACK in the rule book:

"When an action would take place, it doesn't happen right away.  Each player gets a chance to respond to it with further actions."

Since Mage Hand and Feint are actions, they go on the stack first. The stack resolves from the bottom up, so he first taps because Mage Hand/Feint tap and then Near Miss untaps him.

Which way is correct?



Neither. You're both wrong. He's right that he can respond to your Mage Hand with his Near Miss. Mage Hand goes on the stack, he can tap in response to use Near Miss, so then the stack is

(top)
Near Miss
Mage Hand
(bottom)

The stack then resolves *top first*. His Near Miss resolves, he untaps. Then Mage Hand resolves, and he taps again.

So yeah, while he CAN certainly respond to Mage Hand with Near Miss, it's completely useless to do so.

In my mind, Mage Hand or Feint taps him and is unable to use an immediate.

In his mind, Mage Hand or Feint starts the stack and he can use an immediate because of the following text under THE STACK in the rule book:

"When an action would take place, it doesn't happen right away.  Each player gets a chance to respond to it with further actions."

Since Mage Hand and Feint are actions, they go on the stack first. The stack resolves from the bottom up, so he first taps because Mage Hand/Feint tap and then Near Miss untaps him.

Which way is correct?



Neither. You're both wrong. He's right that he can respond to your Mage Hand with his Near Miss. Mage Hand goes on the stack, he can tap in response to use Near Miss, so then the stack is

(top)
Near Miss
Mage Hand
(bottom)

The stack then resolves *top first*. His Near Miss resolves, he untaps. Then Mage Hand resolves, and he taps again.

So yeah, while he CAN certainly respond to Mage Hand with Near Miss, it's completely useless to do so.




Thanks for the reply.  For some reason, I had it in my head that the stack resolved from the bottom up.
Just a quick question when a card say slide a creature x space can I slide the creature in any way or I need to slide it far away from the casting creature ?
Anyway upto the stated number (X), including 0 squares, unless the power/effect states words such as "... slide affected creature exactly 3 square".  Not that I believe there is a card worded in such a way at the moment.
Fireball. I've read and re-read the Distances and counting sidebar on page 13 of the rulebook and I want to clarify to my local players how this power targets creatures.


In the picture below. Can the war wizard cast a fireball behind the ogre? Would the druid and Drudge be hit? I ruled the fireball cannot be cast because the war wizard does not have line of sight. A player argued that he could trace LOS from the lower right hand corner of the war wizard in a straight line to the fireball sqare. He tried to reason he could shoot along the wall of dungeon and cliff wall tiles.
 
Thanks for your input. Edit 3/8/13 I removed the first picture so that this post wasn't as confusing.
My Dark Sun Campaign "Shards of a Broken Crown" http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/shards-of-a-broken-crown
After reviewing the rulebook, I agree with your rulings. The assumption for the bottom one is that creaure occupied squares are hard and therefore you couldn't sneak the fireball by the ogre.

Agreed.  By definition any line there has to go through a square that contains either an ogre or a wall.

The interesting question to me: if that ogre were north of open space, rather than north of a wall, I think the fireball would probably be legal by RAW, though it seems kind of weird.  Thoughts?
Quick question about an order card in Blood of Gruumsh.  Does Savage Demise and Death Strike work together? This would mean if I knew my Wereboar was going to die, I would play Savage Demise make an attack against one tapped enemy creature. I then would destroy my Wereboar. However with Death Strike when a creature would be destroyed I can first make another melee attack. Played a couple games last night and the group I played with was split. Just was wanting your thoughts.
Quick question about an order card in Blood of Gruumsh.  Does Savage Demise and Death Strike work together? This would mean if I knew my Wereboar was going to die, I would play Savage Demise make an attack against one tapped enemy creature. I then would destroy my Wereboar. However with Death Strike when a creature would be destroyed I can first make another melee attack. Played a couple games last night and the group I played with was split. Just was wanting your thoughts.



I don't see why it wouldn't work.  I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a cool thing to do with the Wereboar.
Quick question about an order card in Blood of Gruumsh.  Does Savage Demise and Death Strike work together? This would mean if I knew my Wereboar was going to die, I would play Savage Demise make an attack against one tapped enemy creature. I then would destroy my Wereboar. However with Death Strike when a creature would be destroyed I can first make another melee attack. Played a couple games last night and the group I played with was split. Just was wanting your thoughts.



You are correct. Savage demise resolves with the attack against a tapped target first. The second effect is to destroy your creature which triggers the death strike. 

The beauty of this card is that your opponent might have spent an order attack boosting card targeting your wereboar and in response YOU smack them back twice. Of course your creature dies but it was going to die anyways and they wasted a order card. 
My Dark Sun Campaign "Shards of a Broken Crown" http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/shards-of-a-broken-crown
I have a question about an order card from the Tyranny of Goblins set. If a creature has 10 hit points left and tries to use the Reckless Attack card, would their death fizzle the attack, or does the attack go off and they go down swinging?
The creature would die and his attack would fizzle unless you cower for the damage caused by reckless attack.
My Dark Sun Campaign "Shards of a Broken Crown" http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/shards-of-a-broken-crown
^ Agreed. ^

I have a question:

Can dwarf defenders defend themselves if they level up, or do they require a second, adjacent dwarf defender in order to gain block 10? I would think based on reading the card that it would require a second defender since it specifies adjacent creatures. Also, the dwarf cleric's ability specifies adjacent allies or himself. I am curious about what others think about this though, and if there has ever been an official ruling.
I have been doing the dwarven defender level up thing since Cormyr first came out and we have always played it that 2 defenders are required to defend each other.  It would be pretty broken otherwise.
Unfortunately a levelled-up Dwarven Defender still isn't adjacent to himself so you do need two.
So a friend and I just played our second game with the Orcs, this time with me taking her on under the banner of Cormyr. I like using the Earth Guardian to push aggressively in the early game, and I managed to corner her Boar with Daring Attack as it was rooting through a pile of treasure. I did 30 damage, untapped as per the order card, and then did 30 more, killing the boar.

So we're not sure which triggers first, the Earth Guardian's Slam, which shifts the Boar 3 squares, or the Boar's Deathstrike, which allows it to do 20 damage before it kicks the bucket. That 20 HP ended up being the difference between my Earth Guardian dying vs. retreating back behind its own lines.

My argument is that the slam is part of the damage that kills the Boar, so the Boar goes crashing into the wall, gets shakily to its feet, lashes out and then collapses as it breathes its last. She argues that it retaliates as the Earth Guardian hits it, striking back before the Guardian whacks it away. We tried figuring it out from the point of view of the stack, but we aren't sure how triggered actions sit in the stack, so we're at a loss.

Opinions?
So a friend and I just played our second game with the Orcs, this time with me taking her on under the banner of Cormyr. I like using the Earth Guardian to push aggressively in the early game, and I managed to corner her Boar with Daring Attack as it was rooting through a pile of treasure. I did 30 damage, untapped as per the order card, and then did 30 more, killing the boar. So we're not sure which triggers first, the Earth Guardian's Slam, which shifts the Boar 3 squares, or the Boar's Deathstrike, which allows it to do 20 damage before it kicks the bucket. That 20 HP ended up being the difference between my Earth Guardian dying vs. retreating back behind its own lines. My argument is that the slam is part of the damage that kills the Boar, so the Boar goes crashing into the wall, gets shakily to its feet, lashes out and then collapses as it breathes its last. She argues that it retaliates as the Earth Guardian hits it, striking back before the Guardian whacks it away. We tried figuring it out from the point of view of the stack, but we aren't sure how triggered actions sit in the stack, so we're at a loss. Opinions?



I think this isn't 100% clear from the RAW, sadly.  Earth Guardian's ability triggers when it deals damage, and immediately goes on the stack.  Depending on when exactly creatures die, it's either going to go on the stack simultaneousely, or slightly after.  In MTG there's a state-based actions check just for this purpose.  Because DC is pretty clearly inspired by the Magic rules, if it came up in an event I'd probably rule that Death Strike goes on the stack slightly after the slam (and so resolves first) but I could certainly see it going either way, and would love some official clarification.  Maybe someone who knows this stuff will be at the PAX East event and I can harrass them with a laundry list of clarifications Tongue Out

Side note: you can't use Heroic Surge to untap the Earth Guardian because Heroic Surge requires the target to be an Adventurer and the Earth Guardian sadly isn't.

 
@ Ultiville: Thanks lots. Yeah, it had both of us scratching our heads (and raising voice a bit), but ultimately we decided to let the Boar have its last hurrah and gore my elemental till we got some input from the forum here and at BGG.

Side note: you can't use Heroic Surge to untap the Earth Guardian because Heroic Surge requires the target to be an Adventurer and the Earth Guardian sadly isn't.



I wasn't using Heroic Surge though. Daring Attack untaps the attacker if it does damage.



I wasn't using Heroic Surge though. Daring Attack untaps the attacker if it does damage.




Ah right, I haven't used that card in forever so I forgot it existed.  My bad, carry on!
Ah right, I haven't used that card in forever so I forgot it existed.  My bad, carry on!



I'm itching to combine the old Strength-based Cormyr cards with the newer ones introduced with the Orcs. I can just imagine a Strength & Constitution-based faction combining the best of the two sets with the Constitution cards from ToG. Ahhhhh ... the possibilities. Laughing

In this thread there are two different answers for the question on LOS and Fire Trap.  A few have said that the creature activating the Fire Trap card requires LoS to the hazardous terrain, and others say it doesn't.  I am hoping to get an official ruling on it.  Here's how the card reads:

Fire Trap - Level 2
Dex
Minor

Requires Humanoid
Choose 1 hazardous terrain square.  Deal 20 Damage to each creature within 2 squares of that square.

Does the creature using Fire Trap need line of sight and/or line of effect to the hazardous terrain square?

The rule that hangs me up is under Distances and Counting on Page 13:

"The acting creature must have line of sight to the target unless otherwise specified"

Fire Trap has no printed distance, so do we assume it doesn't follow these rules (or do we infer the distance is infinite)?
Sign In to post comments