Dungeon Command - Multiple Dwarven Defenders

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
If you have more than one Dwarvwn Defender in play, can a adventurer adjacent to both benefit from each Defender's Shield block, stopping 20 points of damage?
Block 10 (Prevent 10 damage whenever a source deals damage to this creature)

The power does not state that it is cumulative, and limits the preventable damage to 10 only.

Answering this may also depend on whether a creature can be affected by more than one version of the same power?  Or trigger multiple copies of the same power and add them to the stack.  I cannot see anything in the rules that do not allow this.

The scenario could be Attacker damages enemy that is adj to two dwarven defenders.  Attack action starts the stack, enemy adds first copy of block to the stack, block is allowed to resolve preventing 10 damage; enemy then adds second copy of block to the stack, which resolves preventing 10 more damage; remaing attack action damage is applied/resolves.  Used pages 9 and 12 to help with this.

If it was multiple order cards there would be no problem (see p11 of rulebook)?
 
Multiple Dwarven defenders adjacent to a creature will not stack.

Each Defender gives the adjacent adventurer "BLOCK 10". If a creature is given "Block 10" by 2 different defenders, it's still just "Block 10". It will not stack to be Block 20. 
Chris Dupuis Tabletop Games Designer Dungeons & Dragons Twitter: gameguruchris
RE: "It will not stack to be Block 20. "

That's too bad.  On Page 11, at the bottom of Playing Order Cards, it says "A creature can have more than one card attached to it, including multiple copies of the same card. Their effects are cumulative."

I would think that having two defenders next to you would be just like having two cards attached to the creature, thus stacking their effects.
RE: "It will not stack to be Block 20. "

That's too bad.  On Page 11, at the bottom of Playing Order Cards, it says "A creature can have more than one card attached to it, including multiple copies of the same card. Their effects are cumulative."

I would think that having two defenders next to you would be just like having two cards attached to the creature, thus stacking their effects.



That's what I thought too actually. Is this a general rule then, attached cards can stack effects, but creature abilities cannot?

Excellent discussion guys, I'm sorry this isn't clear. I'll make a note for the 2.0 rules.

A general note: Named powers don't stack. 

For example, if an Order card gave a creature FLANKING (see below), and you attached 2 of those Order cards to the creature, he would still only have +10 to his attacks from FLANKING. (He could still gain bonuses from other cards, but the power FLANKING would only give him the +10 bonus once. 

FLANKING(This creature's melee attacks deal +10 damage while at least 1 ally is adjacent to the target) 

However, if a creature had 2 Arcane Ritual cards attached to it, you would draw 2 Order cards at the end of its activation.

Arcane Circle Attach text: At the end of its activation, if this creature is in a Magic Circle square, draw 1 Order card. 

Chris Dupuis Tabletop Games Designer Dungeons & Dragons Twitter: gameguruchris
Thanks for the reply! The previous post clears up many questions.
Yes, I do appreciate the response and I do enjoy the game.  I just think it's confusing if some things stack and some things don't.  For a simple game that should be easy to jump into and not overly complicated to play, I think stacking should be for everything or nothing.  Otherwise it's just too much trouble to look it up.
I think perhaps a rephrase would be ideal in this particular situation; something like:

"Block 10 - Prevent the first 10 damage that would be dealt to this creature by a source."


I think this would relieve some of the ambiguity, the theory being that people would more easily understand that you can't prevent the "first" damage twice.
I think perhaps a rephrase would be ideal in this particular situation; something like:

"Block 10 - Prevent the first 10 damage that would be dealt to this creature by a source."


I think this would relieve some of the ambiguity, the theory being that people would more easily understand that you can't prevent the "first" damage twice.



I get that. However since it's easier to clarify, add or rewrite a rule (possibly in a version 2.0 rulebook to be released with later boxes or downloadable as  a PDF) than it is to alter card texts I think Chris' method is the better one. Also, "Named powers don't stack" covers more than just Blocking, but also Flanking like in Chris' example.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I get that. However since it's easier to clarify, add or rewrite a rule (possibly in a version 2.0 rulebook to be released with later boxes or downloadable as  a PDF) than it is to alter card texts I think Chris' method is the better one. Also, "Named powers don't stack" covers more than just Blocking, but also Flanking like in Chris' example.




I agree with you, I really just meant that it could be rephrased on future cards that have the Block 10 ability. I don't think it alters the meaning at all, just removes any ambiguity and cuts off questions from people who don't read the rulebook.
Your proposed wording for block...
"Block 10 - Prevent the first 10 damage that would be dealt to this creature by a source."


So by that wording, a enemy attacks a creature defended by block for 10 damage.
Defender applies block to the stack, since that will prevent the entire attack

Attacker plays an immediate which adds 30 more damage.

If the defender now adds a 2nd immediate to prevent that 30 damage the Block will become invalid.

Because the stack resolves in reverse order. So the block won't be the 1st damage prevention to resolve.

Looks like a serious change to the card effect to me...
Hm. That is indeed weird, and would be a big change (for the worse). I think the intent is clear, but the wording isn't helping things. 

Personally -- and I realize this is me being naive -- from a logical/narrative perspective, I kinda don't see the problem with having Block or Flanking stack. I mean, if you've surrounded yourself with four Dwarven Defenders bent on protecting you, you should be tough to hurt. If you're surrounded by four Halfling Sneaks coordinating their backstabs, you should take a bunch of damage. So kill the Defenders first (which is kind of the point of defending someone else in the first place -- drawing fire), or get out of the middle of that halfling mob, or whatever.

I dunno. I realize even as I type this that someone's coming up with a horrible exploit for four Dwarven Defenders or Halfling Sneaks. I just think there's a better way to fix it than discarding something that makes intuitive sense in favor of something that works mechanically. There shouldn't be a need to choose one or the other.
If Block stacked, you'd habitually face 2 or more dwarven-defenders.
Which would more or less ruin creatures that cause only small amounts of damage.
Not a good thing for one figure to make half the figures in the game useless.

Might be nice if on future card sets they print "named abilities" In Bold-italics. so they are more obvious.  On the dwarven defender card "Block" is in the same font as the rest of the text.