Jump to content

mahkra

Members
  • Content Count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mahkra

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Malden, Massachusetts, United States
  1. "Gain one attack" is simpler and less misleading than "make one additional attack".
  2. Antistone said: it doesn't necessarily imply anything else in this case, even if it does in other contexts. As you say, the word does imply that there's already something present. In the context of this game, I agree with your interpretation of the rule. All I've been saying is that the word is really being mis-used in the rule, since it strongly implies an incorrect reading. I agree that the rule most likely would have been written differently if they actually intended it to be contingent upon already making an attack, but the wording chosen is certainly not a good way to say what they are really trying to say.
  3. P.S. - Corbon, I hadn't noticed your response earlier. I think you're confusing supplementary with complementary.
  4. <sigh> It strongly implies, even if it doesn't entail. There's certainly a huge difference between "gain an X" and "gain an additional X".
  5. Corbon said: mahkra said: You are correct about the usage of that word. Additional means "supplementary" or "extra", and it strongly implies - if not outright states - that you're starting with something. It does not imply anything of the sort. It can be more of something you already have, but does not imply in any way that you already have some of the same thing you are getting 'added on'. Actually, it really does. Look it up in a dictionary. Or even better, try the thesaurus. You can't put additional money in your wallet when it's empty. However, you could certainly add money to an empty wallet. Additional does not just mean you're adding something - it means you're adding something to something.
  6. mikaeru said: My question would be : why did they put the word additional ? For me it need to have a prior attack, otherwise it doesn't make sens ? You are correct about the usage of that word. Additional means "supplementary" or "extra", and it strongly implies - if not outright states - that you're starting with something. However, the rules really aren't rigorous about using exact language. Many wordings are ambiguous, and quite a few terms are overloaded (used in different parts of the rules with different meanings).
  7. Corbon said: Without this ruling, every time you do an attack you effectively have to split the 'damage' into 'normal damage' and 'sorcery' damage and remember two base damage numbers (althoough without sorcery one of the numbers is zero and can be ignored). Because some figures will reduce part of the damage, and you have to know how big that part is - that is something you don't need to know if you are reducing all the damage. Isn't this a pretty apt description of an attack with Pierce? You have to remember two numbers, some figures reduce part of the damage*, and how big that part is will vary from figure to figure. (*Actually, with Pierce, some figures effectively suffer extra damage because their armor is reduced by pierce. But it's the same amount of math and the same number of steps.) It's a mechanic that already exists in the game. Why is it "simpler" to avoid a mechanic we already know and use?
  8. Corbon said: Ironskin is immune to sorcery. Sorcery is a 'component' of the attack that is part of the core attack (damage/range) not just a 'patch effect' added to the attack (like Bleed, Burn). Hence the FAQ ruling. KISS. Ironskin is messing with something that goes to the core attack effect, so to keep it simple they ruled that it affects everyone. Stealth dice aside, the same attack always affects everyone, its just that with things like shadowcloak, immune to Bleed, etc, when that core attack actually does it's affect to the individual target it might have it's damage to that target reduced to zero, or the bleed 'fall off' etc. Ironskin only operates on owner leads to 'the attack does 4 damage, 2 of which are sorcery , so its actually 4 damage to this figure and 2 damage to this figure'. That is a lot more complex than "the attack does 2 damage, period." For Shadowcloak etc we have "the attack does 4 damage, period. This figure can reduce the damage to zero, period." That is still simple enough... Is "4 damage, 2 of which are sorcery" really any more complicated than "4 damage, 2 of which are poison"? Or "4 damage, plus 2 pierce, and targets all have different armor values"? KISS indeed. (I do believe that could have been the 'logic' behind the ruling, but if so I think that reasoning is totally misguided.) The only actual reason I can think of for the FAQ rule is that they wanted Laurel's ability to convert range into damage to work with Sorcery. If 'sorcery-range' is not 'core' range, then I'm not sure Laurel would be able to convert it to damage. But this only actually matters vs Ironskin, because otherwise sorcery could have just been used as sorcery-damage in the first place! But in creating a tiny loophole for Laurel, they've made the ability function in a completely illogical manner. (And by illogical, I mean it's inconsistent with the way other attack effects work. Not talking about thematic issues here.) Corbon said: It still isn't a good ruling, but there are 'reasonable' reasons why they did it. There wouldn't be any such for a similar ruling for shadowcloak etc. There may be shortsighted reasons, but I'm not convinced there are any good, reasonable, or even defensible reasons for it. I agree that there should not be any such ruling for Shadowcloak, but Ironskin sets a dangerous precedent. I see how Sorcery could be part of the 'core', rather than a 'patch effect', but I don't think there's any indication it should actually work that way except in the FAQ. Corbon said: They are apples and oranges and trying to extrapolate from the one to the other would be illogical as well as utterly wrong. Under original rules, I'm comparing tangerines and oranges. It's just the FAQ that tells us the tangerine is actually an apple. If the tangerine's an apple, might the orange actually be a pomegranate?
  9. Without the FAQ ruling, is there any reason to think Ironskin would affect the attack, rather than purely operating on the defender?
  10. Steve-O said: +1 to James. Shadowcloak is an ability that is granted to the target based on certain conditions. Whether or not it activates depends on where the attacker is positioned relative to this figure, so the one adjacent will not get the benefit of Shadowcloak, the one further away will. Note that this is a subtle but important difference from an ability being granted to the attacker, such as the whole Andira Runehand debate that's surfaced a couple of times recently. The OP's question is somewhat similar to that Sorcery vs Ironskin FAQ ruling, though. You know the one: "Sorcery may not add damage to any attack that includes a figure with Ironskin. It may add range to the attack, but not damage... The damage immunity granted by Ironskin does extend to all figures affected by an attack that includes a model with Ironskin." In that case, Ironskin is an ability granted to the target but it does extend to all other targets. On the other hand, that FAQ ruling seems totally wrong to me, and I doubt I'm alone in that. I'm reluctant to extrapolate from a rule that feels so completely incorrect.
  11. Corbon said: Karui_Kage said: 4. I saw a giant thread about this and have read it, but still am a bit unsure on what most people go with. Large creatures and rubble tokens. We've been playing it that a large creature could move over rubble (and water) so long as they never ended their turn on it, and so long as it never took up all of their mini spaces. How do others play this? Not allowed, quite definitely. There may be still some holdouts whose stubborness exceeds their good sense though. FWIW, this too will be attempted to be clarified for the next FAQ. By original rules, it's definitely not allowed. It's probably still not allowed, as that's a pretty big change to make without drawing more attention to the change. But the most recent FAQ ruling uses totally undefined language that might mean a number of different things, so nobody can really know for sure how large monsters interact with "terrain" (or even what counts as terrain) right now.
  12. Corbon said: mostly a direct copy of a well written post by Mahkra Hahaha, where'd you find one of those? I like your disclaimer in that Google groups thread. ("even though related directly to an 'entering impassable terrain' argument") Solairflaire said: On a related note. Until RtL came out, was there any confusion about when and how often large monsters were affected by obstacles and props? I think the most obvious rules loophole was that if a large monster was half in mud and half in lava, it could use each of those terrains to be safe from the other, and would suffer the effects of neither. But there were probably other issues as well.
  13. Great_Lotus said: (1) As OL, when i play the mimic card, would i be allowed to charge it aswell`? (2) Say you got 1 card left in the OL deck and your turn as a OL comes up, Would you draw 1 card then shuffel the OL deck and draw 1 more, or would you just get that first card? (3) This one is kind of stupid. As boulders rolled over a hero in a pit, one of my heros asked if he could just walk over the pit as a normaly space (Stepping on the hero in the pit thus ignoring the pit) (4) And last, Thalia is standing next to a door in guard, i declare that my turn is done and the hero intreupts me and opens the door and reveals a new area. Would my turn be over since i declared that. Or would i get to activate the new mosters i get in that area? 1. Charge is played "when you activate a monster", and the mimic card definitely activates the beastman/chest, so I think it's a legal combination. The only issue I can see is if someone were to claim the beastman/chest is not actually a monster. 2. We've always played draw 1, shuffle, and draw another. 3. There's nothing in the rules that would indicate a hero can just walk over another hero in a pit. I would call shenanigans on that. 4. If Thalia interrupts you, then you "rewind" back to before you declared your turn was done, so that Thalia can take an action. When Thalia is done, your turn resumes, and you can do what you'd originally declared, or you can change your mind.
  14. RoboRally is one of my favorite games ever & I'm thrilled it's finally being printed again, but it can be a bit dull with only 2 players. The fun-ness (and definitely the hilarity) of the game comes from unanticipated interactions between the robots (someone pushes your robot to a different square and then the rest of your program works in an unintended way), and that doesn't happen much with only 2 players.
  15. I agree, it's simpler to play as the overlord. There are often multiple monsters, but they all just move and attack, which is pretty straightforward. The overlord cards complicate things a bit, but they're really not too hard to learn. For the first quest or two, you could just play with no hidden information - quest book and overlord cards are visible to everyone. (The first couple quests are really just for learning, anyway.) Once your daughter gets the hang of things, she can keep the qeust book & cards hidden and play the overlord part without assistance. The heroes, on the other hand, are fairly complicated. Each turn, they can choose from 4 different actions, 3 of which just give different numbers of movement points and/or attacks that can be used throughout the turn. The 4th action gives some movement OR one attack, and additionally lets the hero place an order. If the hero goes with that last option, he then has 4 unique orders to choose from - aim / dodge / guard / rest - all of which further alter the things he can do during his turn. Every hero also has a unique special ability which modifies the base rules of the game in some way. Some of the abilities provide passive bonuses, while others can be activated to perform unique actions. The hero player has to remember to use this ability during the game, or he will be at a disadvantage. Heroes also have 3 skills (usually), all of which modify the game in different ways. Some are very simple (+1 maximum fatigue), but others are more involved (telekinesis). And heroes have weapons, armor, potions, and other items to keep track of. And they have fatigue, which can be used for extra movement or to boost the power of attacks. The biggest issue with the hero side, though, is that the game really doesn't scale well to smaller parties, so you really should play with 4 heroes. (3 heroes is also okay if you're playing without any expansions, but generally 4 heroes is best.) And if you're controlling multiple heroes, it can be really hard to keep track of each hero's equipment & abilities, especially when you're new to the game. EDIT - There's a lot involved in Descent, but it's certainly not too hard for an 11-year-old to learn. My brother and I have included my 2nd grader in our games a couple times over the past year, and while the strategy seems to go over his head, he understands the mechanics fairly well. And he LOVES the game, even if he doesn't always know what he's doing.
×
×
  • Create New...