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.)
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 y
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.
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 i
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 pl
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.
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 t
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.
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.
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.
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 sourc
"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.
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
'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?
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
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
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-
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...
From rulebook p.8:Effects, sources and targetsYou choose the targets for an order card when you play it...when the ability resolves it checks whether the target is legal...
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 norm
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.
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 payin
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 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 payin
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?
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
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.
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 MissMage Hand(bottom)The stack then resolves *top fir
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.
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 MissMage Hand(bottom)The stack then resolves *top fir
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 ?
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.
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.
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 t
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.
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?
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 b
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 wo
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.
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.
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 boost
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?
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?
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.
^ 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
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.
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.
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
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
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 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
@ 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.
@ 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.I wasn't usin
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.
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 ... th
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)?
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 r
Yeah this came up for me in a game awhile ago but if you read the rulebook it's quite clear that whenever you're targetting anything you need to have line of sight to it unless otherwise stated. So for fireball you need los to the square you target, but not necissarily to the creatures being affected. One non-exception but interesting point is Terrifying Revelation which does not require los because it does not target anything on the board.
Yeah this came up for me in a game awhile ago but if you read the rulebook it's quite clear that whenever you're targetting anything you need to have line of sight to it unless otherwise stated. So for fireball you need los to the square you target,
Yeah this came up for me in a game awhile ago but if you read the rulebook it's quite clear that whenever you're targetting anything you need to have line of sight to it unless otherwise stated. So for fireball you need los to the square you target, but not necissarily to the creatures being affected. One non-exception but interesting point is Terrifying Revelation which does not require los because it does not target anything on the board.
Just buy a DM screen, if they tap their Dracolich at a suspicious time dive for cover behind it.
Just buy a DM screen, if they tap their Dracolich at a suspicious time dive for cover behind it.
Yeah this came up for me in a game awhile ago but if you read the rulebook it's quite clear that whenever you're targetting anything you need to have line of sight to it unless otherwise stated. So for fireball you need los to the square you target, but not necissarily to the creatures being affected. One non-exception but interesting point is Terrifying Revelation which does not require los because it does not target anything on the board.
Just buy a DM screen, if they tap their Dracolich at a suspicious time dive for cover behind it.
lol!!
Just buy a DM screen, if they tap their Dracolich at a suspicious time dive for cover behind it.[/quote]lol!!
Deathstrike reads: When this creature would be destroyed, it can first make a melee attack that deals melee damage).
Player A and B both have 1 morale left. Player A destroys Player B's Boar (level 3) but in the process, Deathstrike goes off and kills Player A's Drow Blademaster (level 3). Assume they both have 12 levels of units on the board after these attacks go off. Who wins the game, or is it a draw?
Thinking about how the stack works, I believe Player B would win the game. Player A makes an attack that would deal lethal damage, so that goes on the bottom of the stack. Deathstrike would then pop on top of the stack and resolve first. This would cause the Blademaster to technically die first and Player A would go past 0 morale before Player B. But then again, I've been plenty wrong about rules in this game before.
Deathstrike reads: When this creature would be destroyed, it can first make a melee attack that deals melee damage).Player A and B both have 1 morale left. Player A destroys Player B's Boar (level 3) but in the process, Deathstrike goes off and kil
Deathstrike reads: When this creature would be destroyed, it can first make a melee attack that deals melee damage).
Player A and B both have 1 morale left. Player A destroys Player B's Boar (level 3) but in the process, Deathstrike goes off and kills Player A's Drow Blademaster (level 3). Assume they both have 12 levels of units on the board after these attacks go off. Who wins the game, or is it a draw?
Thinking about how the stack works, I believe Player B would win the game. Player A makes an attack that would deal lethal damage, so that goes on the bottom of the stack. Deathstrike would then pop on top of the stack and resolve first. This would cause the Blademaster to technically die first and Player A would go past 0 morale before Player B. But then again, I've been plenty wrong about rules in this game before.
I think it's a little different than this (the attack resolves first) but I think your conclusion is probably right, because of the wording of Death Strike - it makes the attack before being actually destroyed.
I think it's a little different than this (the attack resolves first) but I think your conclusion is probably right, because of the wording of Death Strike - it makes the attack before being actually destroyed.
I would also judge that match as a draw. Deathstrike power triggers after the drow blademaster attack resolves. DS places a new action at the top of the stack, ds resolves, both creatures are dead.
If the player controlling the blademaster cowers for the damage he or she should win, because they have more leadership deployed.
I would also judge that match as a draw. Deathstrike power triggers after the drow blademaster attack resolves. DS places a new action at the top of the stack, ds resolves, both creatures are dead. If the player controlling the blademaster cowers for
Huh, so in that case the idea is that the Death Striking creature dies as part of resolution, and the enemy creature does too? That's not unreasonable, I think that's a defensible interpreation. I'd go the other way because to me "it can first" implies you resolve the whole attack before it dies, but sadly added to the ambiguous list
Huh, so in that case the idea is that the Death Striking creature dies as part of resolution, and the enemy creature does too? That's not unreasonable, I think that's a defensible interpreation. I'd go the other way because to me "it can first" imp
It's not as ambiguous as it sounds. Deathstrike triggers when a creature would be destroyed, in Ellerons example it's after blademasters attack resolves and the stack is clear. The boar would be destroyed at this point but it first can make a melee attack. Boom, both creatures die.
DS doesn't add an immediate trigger above the blademasters attack. It creates it's own stack when it would be destroyed.
In the previous example if both players had 1 morale and 12 levels of deployed leadership the drow player could cower for the 20 damage boar (or is it 30?) attacks for and still win.
It's not as ambiguous as it sounds. Deathstrike triggers when a creature would be destroyed, in Ellerons example it's after blademasters attack resolves and the stack is clear. The boar would be destroyed at this point but it first can make a melee
In the previous example if both players had 1 morale and 12 levels of deployed leadership the drow player could cower for the 20 damage boar (or is it 30?) attacks for and still win.
I don't think you're allowed to cower if you don't have enough morale....don't have rulebook here, but pretty sure that won't work.
I don't think you're allowed to cower if you don't have enough morale....don't have rulebook here, but pretty sure that won't work.
Aside from that, in any casual game I wouldn't have a problem regarding this a draw, but it would still be nice to find out what's the official ruling should this happen in a tournament setting.
Aside from that, in any casual game I wouldn't have a problem regarding this a draw, but it would still be nice to find out what's the official ruling should this happen in a tournament setting.
Me and my friend have different opinions about what is a legal source and what is not, and if a source is required at all to use certain actions. So we'd appriciate if someone would help us clarify this. The more replies the better!
Can we use for example Riposte as an action eventhough there is no damage to be prevented? Just using it to make a melee attack for 10 points of damage?
Or could we use Parry just to draw a card eventhough there's no damage to prevent?
Or does these two cards (and some other cards alike) require a source of damage to be used, or else they have no legal target (source) and therefor they'd cancel. And due to multiple effects on cards rule the "melee attack for 10 pts", or the "draw a card" effect would also cancel?
Me and my friend have different opinions about what is a legal source and what is not, and if a source is required at all to use certain actions. So we'd appriciate if someone would help us clarify this. The more replies the better!Can we use for exa
Can we use for example Riposte as an action eventhough there is no damage to be prevented? Just using it to make a melee attack for 10 points of damage?
Or could we use Parry just to draw a card eventhough there's no damage to prevent?
Playing an immediate reaction requires a valid trigger. You cannot play them whenever you like. I don't have my rule book handy, but I'm pretty sure it's stated like that.
Playing an immediate reaction requires a valid trigger. You cannot play them whenever you like. I don't have my rule book handy, but I'm pretty sure it's stated like that.
It says something like "whenever you are resolving an action you need to determine it's source". So does that mean i need a valid trigger to use Riposte or Parry?
It says something like "whenever you are resolving an action you need to determine it's source". So does that mean i need a valid trigger to use Riposte or Parry?
It says something like "whenever you are resolving an action you need to determine it's source". So does that mean i need a valid trigger to use Riposte or Parry?
Correct, there needs to be a valid acation on the stack. What needs to be true for an action to be valid, on the other hand, is not totally clear.
Correct, there needs to be a valid acation on the stack. What needs to be true for an action to be valid, on the other hand, is not totally clear.
It also says in the next sentence that "Each source is a single effect from a creature, an Order card, a terrain square, or other game feature."
So could a hazardous terrain square be a source eventhough it has not dealt any damage to you yet?
Sorry if i go on about this...
Thanks for replying.It also says in the next sentence that "Each source is a single effect from a creature, an Order card, a terrain square, or other game feature."So could a hazardous terrain square be a source eventhough it has not dealt any damage
Can we use for example Riposte as an action eventhough there is no damage to be prevented? Just using it to make a melee attack for 10 points of damage?
Or could we use Parry just to draw a card eventhough there's no damage to prevent?
Playing an immediate reaction requires a valid trigger. You cannot play them whenever you like. I don't have my rule book handy, but I'm pretty sure it's stated like that.
( I cant figure out how to quote properly....)
The rules say nothing about immediate actions requiring a valid trigger. This is what the rules say about playing immediate actions:
"Immediate actions are usually responses to other actions. They can be played on any player’s turn. Taking an immediate action taps the acting creature"
It simply says that it is an action that can be played on any players turn, and it taps the acting creature. That it happens to "usually" be in response to another action is not really important...
The source of an effect is determined first when the action is resolved, not at play time (When resolving an action, you need to determine its source).
If an action states that it needs a target, the target will have to be declared at play time though, but that target might be illegal once the action is resolved because of whatever else has happened on the stack. But in a case like "Parry", which prevents damage from 1 source (note: not target source), I interpret it like the source of which to prevent damage from is determined when the Parry action is resolved on that stack, at which time there might be no valid source to prevent damage from, but that would not stop the "Draw order card" effect from resolving properly, nothing stops that.
Consider the following Scenarios:
Scenario1: Player1 makes standard action attack, statig the target of the action Player2 responsed to that action with parry No more responses Stack is resolved, starting the parry. Player2 determines that the source of which to prevent damage from is the standard action attack on the stack, which is a legal source. Parry is resolved and Player2 draws an order card. The standard action is resolved, and the damage is prevented.
Scenario2:
Player1 is in the activation phase, and moves a creatures. Moving a creature is an action according to the rules. Player2 decides to respond to that action by playing an immediate action: Parry. Now move action is on the stack, and parry on the stack. No more responses Parry is resolved, there is no legal source to prevent damage from. Parry is resolved, Player2 draws an order card (nothing prevents that) Creature move is resolved, creature move
Scenario3:
Player1 is ending his turn Before turn is ended player2 decides to play an immidiate action (remember, nothing stops that): Parry. Parry goes on the stack Player1 does not respond to parry parry is resolved, no legal source to prevent damage from, but nothing stops Draw order card effect, player2 draws order card. Player1 turns end.
For further clarification see the play example on page 9 of the rulebook:
"Chris doesn’t want to lose his Drider, so he responds to this action by playing the Uncanny Dodge card, letting him tap the Drider and discard an Order cardto prevent all damage from one source. Uncanny Dodge goes onto the stack above Killing Strike and resolves first: Chris discards a card, taps the Drider, and chooses to prevent the damage from Killing Strike. Then he discards Uncanny Dodge. When Killing Strike resolves, the Drider avoids taking damage from it, and the Order card is discarded with no effect."
See, the uncanny dodge goes on the stack, without needing any target. Chris chooses target source to prevent from first at resolve time, not at play time. That means that at play-time there does not need to be a valid source present, first at resolve time this is determined.
Thats my 2c.
Mar 25, 2013 -- 1:51AM, Cederborg wrote:Can we use for example Riposte as an action eventhough there is no damage to be prevented? Just using it to make a melee attack for 10 points of damage? Or could we use Parry just to draw a card eventhough ther
It says in the rulebook on page 8 that "When an action resolves, it checks whether the target is legal".
And it also says that "many actions specify a target, which require you to choose something". You could argue that the target on Parry ("Prevent 20 damage from 1 source") is the 1 source. Therefor you can't cast parry without having a target (source).
About the example on page 9. Chris is targeting the damage from the Killing Strike melee attack with Uncanny dodge.
You quoted it yourself but left out the whole example.
"Jennifer playes the Killing Strike card on her Dragon Knight tapping it to make a melee attack against an enemy Drider for 100 damage. Killing Strike goes on to the stack. Chris dosen't want to lose his Drider so he responds to this by playing the Uncanny Dodge".
MULTIPLE ACTIONS ON CARDS: Page number 9 states that when there are multiple actions on cards they go on the stack in reverse order they appear on card. So on the Uncanny dodge you place Prevent all damage first (just like on the example), and on top of that discard a card. Then you got discard a card on top which resolves first, then you have Prevent all damage. BUT on Parry you put Draw 1 Order card first on stack and then Prevent 10 damage on top of that which resolves first. So you first Prevent damage, then you draw a card. It's the same with Riposte and it's melee attack. This brings up the question whether or not you need a target source for Parry and Riposte like a Damage to prevent since that is the action on the card that comes first. Because when you resolve that first action on the Parry or Riposte card (Prevent damage) and no damage has been dealth, there is no source.
It says in the rulebook on page 8 that "When an action resolves, it checks whether the target is legal". And it also says that "many actions specify a target, which require you to choose something". You could argue that the target on Parry ("Prevent
Sorry I was short last time, was just coming in quickly. This is one of the questions I asked Chris Tulach, the head judge at the PAX tournament. His answer was:
-You need to be able to pick a source to be able to play a card. (Order of effects listed on the card isn't relevant - you can't play a card with a prevention ability without being able to pick a source.) -He needs to check with the game designers about what, if anything, needs to be true of the source.
So right now it's clear that you can play it if there's a source that the damage prevention would do something against. Where it gets tricky is whether the card has to have the potential to do something or not. In other words, can I play it and target a "source" that doesn't even try to do damage (like a Behind Enemy Lines) just to play the card? What about if the source would be able to do damage but that damage is unpreventable (Magic Short Sword etc)? I think people are going to have gut-feeling ideas about these but we just need to wait on the official ruling.
Sorry I was short last time, was just coming in quickly. This is one of the questions I asked Chris Tulach, the head judge at the PAX tournament. His answer was:-You need to be able to pick a source to be able to play a card. (Order of effects lis
If the the enemy has Piercing Strike or the Magic Short Sword and uses it against you, Can you use Savage Demise to do an Attack?
You can certainly do that - Savage Demise doesn't have any damage prevention involved, so you can actually use it to make an attack more or less any time as long as your creature is untapped. For example, you can use it on their turn more or less immediately, before they even start activating their dudes, if you want.
The more interesting question (which I'm hoping Chris will email me back about once he recovers from PAX) is whether you can use a card like Riposte or Defensive Advantage against a Magic Short Sword attack just to do the damage or draw the card or whatever.
You can certainly do that - Savage Demise doesn't have any damage prevention involved, so you can actually use it to make an attack more or less any time as long as your creature is untapped. For example, you can use it on their turn more or less im
Sorry I was short last time, was just coming in quickly. This is one of the questions I asked Chris Tulach, the head judge at the PAX tournament. His answer was:
-You need to be able to pick a source to be able to play a card. (Order of effects listed on the card isn't relevant - you can't play a card with a prevention ability without being able to pick a source.) -He needs to check with the game designers about what, if anything, needs to be true of the source.
So right now it's clear that you can play it if there's a source that the damage prevention would do something against. Where it gets tricky is whether the card has to have the potential to do something or not. In other words, can I play it and target a "source" that doesn't even try to do damage (like a Behind Enemy Lines) just to play the card? What about if the source would be able to do damage but that damage is unpreventable (Magic Short Sword etc)? I think people are going to have gut-feeling ideas about these but we just need to wait on the official ruling.
My interpretation is:
1. Target and Source are two different things.
2. Actions that require a target needs you to explicitly choose that target when the action is played, based on:
Many actions specify a target, which requires you to choose something (such as a creature or an Order card). You choose the targets for an Order card when you play it, and you choose targets for a creature’s power when you use it. Once you choose targets, you cannot change your mind later. When the action resolves, it checks whether the target is legal (it’s still in play, is still in range, has the right keywords, and so on).
See, an effect (each source is a single effect from a creature, an Order card, a terrain square, or other game feature) does not even have the kind of attributes that we're talking about when we talk about target: Still in play, still in range, has the right keywords, etc..
3. Actions that require a source, determines the source when the action is resolved, not when its played. Based on:
When resolving an action, you need to determine its source. each source is a single effect from a creature, an Order card, a terrain square, or other game feature.
On the other hand, if a card like Parry ie, explicitly said "Prevent 20 damage to this creature from 1 target source", it would be a whole other bag of potatoes...
But based on what you're saying Ultiville, should we interpret the rules in a way that whenever it says 0..n source on a card, that actually means "target source/s", so that playing the Action requires that we state a target source?
That still leaves open for scenarios like this, no?:
Player1 plays Standard attack on Player1_Creature1, targetting Player2_Creature1 Player1_Attack1 goes on the stack Player2 responds to the attack action by playing the Parry order card on Player2_Creature2 (In no way involved in the fight, might even be on the other side of the playing field) targetting the Player1_Attack1 effect as the source of the Parry (Valid target source as far as I can see from your interpretation) No more responses. Parry resolves, Prevents 20 damage from Player1_Attack1 on Player2_Creature2 (which will never happen), and Player2 draws an order card. Player1_Attack1 resolves, dealing 20 damage to Player2_Creature1
My interpretation is:1. Target and Source are two different things.2. Actions that require a target needs you to explicitly choose that target when the action is played, based on:Many actions specify a target, which requires you to choose something (
Unfortunately unlike Magic, DC isn't great about explicitly using "target" when it means it. I would say yes, that "a source" is indicating "target source" in this game.
Unfortunately unlike Magic, DC isn't great about explicitly using "target" when it means it. I would say yes, that "a source" is indicating "target source" in this game.
The rules say nothing about immediate actions requiring a valid trigger. This is what the rules say about playing immediate actions:
"Immediate actions are usually responses to other actions. They can be played on any player’s turn. Taking an immediate action taps the acting creature"
Yep, sorry about this. I suppose we always played it like that because that's how Immediate actions work in D&D 4e.
Unfortunately, compared to other CCGs the Dungeon Command card templating and the rules explaining their interactions is pretty bad.
Yep, sorry about this. I suppose we always played it like that because that's how Immediate actions work in D&D 4e.Unfortunately, compared to other CCGs the Dungeon Command card templating and the rules explaining their interactions is pretty bad.
Do multiple copies of spawn of kyuss stack on the same creature.
Spawn of Kyuss: Level 1 CON, Minor -Requires Undead. Attach this card to this creature. Each enemy creature that ends it's activation adjacent to this creature takes 10 damage.
I'm hoping it does, imagine a tomb guardian dealing 30-40 damage when you end activation adjacent to him.
Do multiple copies of spawn of kyuss stack on the same creature. Spawn of Kyuss: Level 1 CON, Minor -Requires Undead. Attach this card to this creature. Each enemy creature that ends it's activation adjacent to this creature takes 10 damage.I'm hopin
Do multiple copies of spawn of kyuss stack on the same creature. Spawn of Kyuss: Level 1 CON, Minor -Requires Undead. Attach this card to this creature. Each enemy creature that ends it's activation adjacent to this creature takes 10 damage. I'm hoping it does, imagine a tomb guardian dealing 30-40 damage when you end activation adjacent to him.
I don't see why it wouldn't. As far as I can tell the only things that don't stack are "named" abilities, ie Block and Regeneration.
I don't see why it wouldn't. As far as I can tell the only things that don't stack are "named" abilities, ie Block and Regeneration.
Yeah I was 99% sure it did. So far spawn of kyuss performs miserably against a squad of adventurers with defenders but I'm mulling over ideas on a control/defense deck.
I wish call to battle worked as an immediate and delthrin wasn't soo balanced. He would look alot more attractive with a +1 bump in order,creature hand or leadership, just one category. Or a +2 in morale. Maybe even making his ability trigger out of your own turn, he could rival tarkon in a 3-player game. Tarkon is godly, your opponents can't cower against themselves nevermind you.
Yeah I was 99% sure it did. So far spawn of kyuss performs miserably against a squad of adventurers with defenders but I'm mulling over ideas on a control/defense deck. I wish call to battle worked as an immediate and delthrin wasn't soo balanced. He
Hi all!!! I have a question..played Dungeon Command two times, The Orc Barbarian : "Whenever an adjacent creature is destroyed, untap this creature". If i make a melee attack with Orc and kill adjacent creature, untap Orc Barbarian, Can i make a new melee against other creatures? Thanks
Hi all!!! I have a question..played Dungeon Command two times, The Orc Barbarian : "Whenever an adjacent creature is destroyed, untap this creature".If i make a melee attack with Orc and kill adjacent creature, untap Orc Barbarian, Can i make a new m
Yes, you can. Same thing with the level 4 Bugbear Berserker (Goblins set), who has the same special ability.
You can actually go crazy with these guys: Things like Quick Shot and other Minor Action attacks, along with a Magic Short Sword (unpreventable damage, not even Cowering will work) and movement cards like Into the Fray and Spring Attack can turn these guys into cyclones of senseless destruction if you can set them up right.
And if you start adjacent to an enemy piece, remember that you can spend your Standard action to make a kill on the adjacent piece, then un-tap, THEN move and attack another piece with Minors and such, and then spend your Standard action for the kill, and keep going with more Minor actions (Into the Fray, etc). It's pretty fun! (for you)
Yes, you can. Same thing with the level 4 Bugbear Berserker (Goblins set), who has the same special ability.You can actually go crazy with these guys:Things like Quick Shot and other Minor Action attacks, along with a Magic Short Sword (unpreventabl
Yes, you can. Same thing with the level 4 Bugbear Berserker (Goblins set), who has the same special ability.
You can actually go crazy with these guys: Things like Quick Shot and other Minor Action attacks, along with a Magic Short Sword (unpreventable damage, not even Cowering will work) and movement cards like Into the Fray and Spring Attack can turn these guys into cyclones of senseless destruction if you can set them up right.
And if you start adjacent to an enemy piece, remember that you can spend your Standard action to make a kill on the adjacent piece, then un-tap, THEN move and attack another piece with Minors and such, and then spend your Standard action for the kill, and keep going with more Minor actions (Into the Fray, etc). It's pretty fun! (for you)
The minor action / tap / move + standard aspects work so immensely well in a miniature game setting. Not to preach to the choir but I really hope thy make one more set. Then six of us can do tournaments each with a different faction. That would keep me pleased for a long, long while.
Rule Question regarding the summoning circles: does a large creature that takes up four spaces have to be fully within the circle, or just a portion of its base touching to deploy legally there? My apologies if this has been asked -- I'm working through the 2o pages.
The minor action / tap / move + standard aspects work so immensely well in a miniature game setting. Not to preach to the choir but I really hope thy make one more set. Then six of us can do tournaments each with a different faction. That would keep
Hi all. Here's a puzzler from a friend of mine so I'm asking on his behalf.
If I deploy an adventurer 4 times with Behind Enemy Lines (i.e. attach it to the said adventurer), does it mean that I gain 16 Morale when it reaches my start zone?
Thanks to everyone who can help and I would also like an "official" answer.
Hi all.Here's a puzzler from a friend of mine so I'm asking on his behalf.If I deploy an adventurer 4 times with Behind Enemy Lines (i.e. attach it to the said adventurer), does it mean that I gain 16 Morale when it reaches my start zone?Thanks to ev
Once it's deployed, you can't deploy it again. There is no way to get multiple instances of that card attached to one creature. To use more than one copy of behind enemy lines you would have to deploy a new adventurer each time, so each would only have one copy attached.
Once it's deployed, you can't deploy it again. There is no way to get multiple instances of that card attached to one creature. To use more than one copy of behind enemy lines you would have to deploy a new adventurer each time, so each would only ha
Okay thanks ComradeOne, but on a related note, "When exactly can I play the BEL?"
Since it's a minor, I'll assume I can only play it on my adventurer during its activation (as stated in rulebook). If that's so, wouldn't it have to be in play first? Which means I'd already have deployed it in my start zone.... which would mean your answer above has wierd interactions/repercussions.
Thanks for the help. I just need to wrap my head around this.
Okay thanks ComradeOne, but on a related note, "When exactly can I play the BEL?" Since it's a minor, I'll assume I can only play it on my adventurer during its activation (as stated in rulebook). If that's so, wouldn't it have to be in play first? W
You play it on using any creature you already have deployed. It doesn't have to be an adventurer, only the creature you deploy has to be an adventurer.
Eg. A goblin cutter moves, makes an attack, and then uses the minor action behind enemy lines to deploy a dragon knight. Then the cutter finishes its activation. Then the dragon knight can activate. The dragon knight starts in the enemy deploy zone with BEL attached.
You play it on using any creature you already have deployed. It doesn't have to be an adventurer, only the creature you deploy has to be an adventurer.Eg. A goblin cutter moves, makes an attack, and then uses the minor action behind enemy lines to de
You play it on using any creature you already have deployed. It doesn't have to be an adventurer, only the creature you deploy has to be an adventurer.
Eg. A goblin cutter moves, makes an attack, and then uses the minor action behind enemy lines to deploy a dragon knight. Then the cutter finishes its activation. Then the dragon knight can activate. The dragon knight starts in the enemy deploy zone with BEL attached.
Thanks ComradeOne. This reply has been extremely helpful!
Thanks ComradeOne. This reply has been extremely helpful!
Hi Guys, a question: Lokar of the stonelands :when you deploy starting orc creatures, you can deploy one of them in any unoccupied Treasure square on the board.
Only for your First Turn (starting) , or is possible every turn in deploying phase? Thanks
Hi Guys, a question: Lokar of the stonelands : when you deploy starting orc creatures, you can deploy one of them in any unoccupied Treasure square on the board. Only for your First Turn (starting) , or is possible every turn in deploying phase? Th
Hi Guys, a question: Lokar of the stonelands :when you deploy starting orc creatures, you can deploy one of them in any unoccupied Treasure square on the board.
Only for your First Turn (starting) , or is possible every turn in deploying phase? Thanks
Only first deployment of the game (during setup). Not every turn.
Only first deployment of the game (during setup). Not every turn.
Eg/ Wearboar using furious bellow slides an ogre which was adjacent to him 2 squares to the left over one, and then a second difficult terrain tile. Ogre is tapped and takes 20 damage, ten per square of difficult terrain it entered.
My question is: did I calculate the damage correctly?
I followed it up with a stomp for the kill xD (there was a spirit just to the right)
Sliding big creatures over difficult terrain.Eg/ Wearboar using furious bellow slides an ogre which was adjacent to him 2 squares to the left over one, and then a second difficult terrain tile. Ogre is tapped and takes 20 damage, ten per square of di
When sliding You have to count 1,2 on each square. So he would not have been able to move in to both squares. So 10 damage
Shifting would let you go the 2 squares.
also the rules state that "The 1st time you move in to hazardous terrain during an activation, ( yours or your enemys ) it is dealt 10 damage."
Which is where we come in to conflict at least in my group. Some say that you take damage from every square of H.T. While others say it is only the first time you enter an area of H.T. you take 10 not for every square. so in your instance the Ogre would only take 10 even when moving the whole way.
When sliding You have to count 1,2 on each square. So he would not have been able to move in to both squares. So 10 damage Shifting would let you go the 2 squares. also the rules state that "The 1st time you move in to hazardous terrain during an ac
Yes, you can. Same thing with the level 4 Bugbear Berserker (Goblins set), who has the same special ability.
You can actually go crazy with these guys: Things like Quick Shot and other Minor Action attacks, along with a Magic Short Sword (unpreventable damage, not even Cowering will work) and movement cards like Into the Fray and Spring Attack can turn these guys into cyclones of senseless destruction if you can set them up right.
And if you start adjacent to an enemy piece, remember that you can spend your Standard action to make a kill on the adjacent piece, then un-tap, THEN move and attack another piece with Minors and such, and then spend your Standard action for the kill, and keep going with more Minor actions (Into the Fray, etc). It's pretty fun! (for you)
So with Bugbear or Orc Berserker i can't make for example MOVE / Melee attack/ kill adjacent enemy / untap / move / attack anorher .... Only one move in all the turn...is right?
So with Bugbear or Orc Berserker i can't make for example MOVE / Melee attack/ kill adjacent enemy / untap / move / attack anorher .... Only one move in all the turn...is right?
I didn't realize hazardous terrain was also difficult. Thanks for pointing that out.
I guess the bigger issue is does the rule book mean entering difficult terrain in a general sense and therefore treat it as a patch of terrain or does it mean each individual tile of difficult terrain (I'm leaning towards the latter).
I didn't realize hazardous terrain was also difficult. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess the bigger issue is does the rule book mean entering difficult terrain in a general sense and therefore treat it as a patch of terrain or does it mean each i
So with Bugbear or Orc Berserker i can't make for example MOVE / Melee attack/ kill adjacent enemy / untap / move / attack anorher .... Only one move in all the turn...is right?
You only get one move action per creature per activation. And you only get one activation of each creature per turn. That's why there are no cards that consume the "move" action - they are either standards or minors. Really, you have unlimited standards and minors, but standards require you to tap, and if you cannot tap, you cannot play a standard. Normal attacks or order cards labelled "standard" are standard actions. So the key for bezerkers is to use standards that include some aspect of movement like chage, shadowy ambush, etc.
You only get one move action per creature per activation. And you only get one activation of each creature per turn. That's why there are no cards that consume the "move" action - they are either standards or minors. Really, you have unlimited standa
I've finally got my girlfriend to play DC with me after about 5 months of pleading (I sure some of you know what that's like!). So, she finally agreed to a game and picked the Heart of Cormyr set. All was going great until she went to deploy a War Wizard. She wanted to deploy the WW in a magic circle that one of my creatures was occupying. I argued that it couldn't be placed there because the Magic Circle was occupied by one of my creatures. She argued the WW card says "When deploying this creature, you can place it in any unoccupied Magic Circle square". That is, my girlfriend, who is a lawyer and very happy to argue the meaning of a phrase, argued that it could mean she could place the WW in any unoccupied square of a Magic Circle. I argued that it meant any square of an unoccupied Magic Circle.
So, which is it? Has the Magic Circle got to be unoccupied altogether for WW deployment or is it just 1 square of a Magic Circle, even if 1 or more squares of that Magic Circle are occupied?
WW: "When deploying this creature, you can place it in any unoccupied Magic Circle square".
I've finally got my girlfriend to play DC with me after about 5 months of pleading (I sure some of you know what that's like!). So, she finally agreed to a game and picked the Heart of Cormyr set. All was going great until she went to deploy a War Wi
And honestly, if it took her this long to finally play DC with you, then I'd be inclined to say she's correct no matter what.
Believe me I rolled over on the issue quick-smart. Still, it bugged me so I just wanted to check.
Yep.And honestly, if it took her this long to finally play DC with you, then I'd be inclined to say she's correct no matter what. [/quote]Believe me I rolled over on the issue quick-smart.Still, it bugged me so I just wanted to check.
Eg/ Wearboar using furious bellow slides an ogre which was adjacent to him 2 squares to the left over one, and then a second difficult terrain tile. Ogre is tapped and takes 20 damage, ten per square of difficult terrain it entered.
My question is: did I calculate the damage correctly?
I followed it up with a stomp for the kill xD (there was a spirit just to the right)
I want to add some. That Ogre dont get dmg instantly. ONLY when Ogre become active he take 10 dmg. For example if it where my Ogre I would try to remove him from hazardous terrain by sliding out, before his activatin.
I want to add some. That Ogre dont get dmg instantly. ONLY when Ogre become active he take 10 dmg. For example if it where my Ogre I would try to remove him from hazardous terrain by sliding out, before his activatin.
Eg/ Wearboar using furious bellow slides an ogre which was adjacent to him 2 squares to the left over one, and then a second difficult terrain tile. Ogre is tapped and takes 20 damage, ten per square of difficult terrain it entered.
My question is: did I calculate the damage correctly?
I followed it up with a stomp for the kill xD (there was a spirit just to the right)
I want to add some. That Ogre dont get dmg instantly. ONLY when Ogre become active he take 10 dmg. For example if it where my Ogre I would try to remove him from hazardous terrain by sliding out, before his activatin.
the correct reply was given earlier ... 10 damage only when the Ogre enters the terrain due to the slide.
Damage caused by hazardous terrain is not restricted to the creatures turn, it uses the term "an activation". If it was otherwise is would saying something like 'during the creatures activation.'
it is only applied once, as it states the "first time" it is entered. If this was otherwise it would state something like, "every time a square containing hazardous terrain is entered".
I want to add some. That Ogre dont get dmg instantly. ONLY when Ogre become active he take 10 dmg. For example if it where my Ogre I would try to remove him from hazardous terrain by sliding out, before his activatin.[/quote]the correct reply was gi
Oh I have a qestion. When Drow Blademaster deals damage to target, can I use his ability to strike twice that target. Or I need to choose another adjacent target? I hope yes. Because it`s logical.
Rules text: "Flashing Blade" - Whenever a target takes damage from this creature`s melee atack, this creature (Drow Blademaster) can deal 10 damage to 1 adjacent creature.
Oh I have a qestion. When Drow Blademaster deals damage to target, can I use his ability to strike twice that target. Or I need to choose another adjacent target? I hope yes. Because it`s logical.Rules text:"Flashing Blade" - Whenever a target ta
Creatures take damage both when they enter dangerous terrain (regardless of whether or not its during their activation) and if they end their activation in the dangerous terrain.
Creatures take damage both when they enter dangerous terrain (regardless of whether or not its during their activation) andif they end their activation in the dangerous terrain.
Okay this may be the wrong place to ask this I could not with certainty find a better place.
The Sitch (situation):
Half Orc Thug- Magic Short Sword Hp : -40 melee attacks, Dwarven Cleric - Ability to tap to heal Hp : -40 uses PATCH UP to heal not prevent
The Question: Can the cleric use either his ability or the immediate card to stay alive?
--- OR if not a cleric ---
Boar - Ability of DEATH STRIKE (when this creature would be destroyed, it can first make a melee attack that deals regular Damage
The Other Question: Can the Boar survive the attack since his death strike would kill the Half Orc Thug?
Okay this may be the wrong place to ask this I could not with certainty find a better place.The Sitch (situation): Half Orc Thug - Magic Short Sword Hp : -40 melee attacks,Dwarven Cleric - Ability to tap to heal Hp : -40 uses PATCH UP to heal not pre
Assuming half orc thug has 20/50 hp and magic short sword attached, and cleric has 20/60 hp, and the half orc thug makes a melee attack, -the damage can not be prevented - any immediate won't be able to block damage -an immediate heal of 10 hp or more would save the cleric, since only 20 damage will go through and the cleric has 20 health currently.
So yes the cleric can tap to heal 10 hp -> now it has 30 hp -> now the attack goes through and the cleric loses 20 hp, and has 10 hp remaining, so it survives.
Death Strike: When this creature would be destroyed, it can first make a melee attack that deals Damage. If indeed the boar card reads that way, yes the boar would attack and kill the half orc thug, and therefore the melee attack by the half orc thug is no longer valid so the boar would survive. But the half orc could cower the damage (for a cost of 2 morale) and then still be alive and then the attack by the half orc would still be valid and the boar would die (and lose 3 morale), and this would be the best thing to do in this situation most times. (well ideally you would back off and make a ranged attack lol)
Note that this is different than savage demise, Make a melee attack that deals Damage against 1 tapped creature. Destroy this creature. So if an orc drudge used savage demise, the half orc thug's attack would not go through, but the drudge would have already been destroyed anyways by the savage demise.
Assuming half orc thug has 20/50 hp and magic short sword attached, and cleric has 20/60 hp, and the half orc thug makes a melee attack,-the damage can not be prevented - any immediate won't be able to block damage-an immediate heal of 10 hp or more
