|
5 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2013 - 12:49PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2010
|
Just got my hands on HoC and ToG faction packs. My wife and I really enjoyed our initial games. Question: what is the timing on Alarphon's special ability?
You can use it any time, so basically like an Immediate. (But of course only once for each of your own turns, unlike an Immediate.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:02AM
#122
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2010
|
 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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:23AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:46AM
#124
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2010
|
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).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 9:15AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 11:24AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2010
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 4:03AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 10:44AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 1:39PM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 1:44PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
