Jump to content

Magle

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Magle

  1. Posted

    Unclechawie said:

    Actually the rules DO state that the hero gets placed in the closest empty non-lava space.  The issue is actually that it is a part of the knockout process.  When the hero is knocked out his hero token gets placed in the nearest empty non-lava space.  Then the OL places his monsters in such a way that when its the hero's turn to stand up, he is forced to stand up in the closesest empty space, which in this scenario is a lava space, thus immediately killing the hero as he can't move when he stands up.  A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility of the hero simply chosing not to stand up. The rules for this do say "may" so technically the hero could choose not to stand up, essentially wasting the OL's actions and time, allowing his group a better opportunity to win the quest.

    But in the off chance that the OL is just a punk and decides he's lost the quest anyway and would rather just piss off a certain player, OK, the rules allow for him to be screwed over as well.  A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility the the Hero just stays knocked out.  The rules for this state that standing up is the only action a hero "MAY" perform.  May indicates that he doesn't have to and thus he chooses to stay knocked out essentially wasting the setup the OL was intent on setting up. 

    Other than that, another easy house rule would be that the hero token is placed in the lava where the hero was knocked out.  When he stands up or is revived, he is moved to the closest empty non-lava space available.

    Unclechawie said:

    Actually the rules DO state that the hero gets placed in the closest empty non-lava space.  The issue is actually that it is a part of the knockout process.  When the hero is knocked out his hero token gets placed in the nearest empty non-lava space.  Then the OL places his monsters in such a way that when its the hero's turn to stand up, he is forced to stand up in the closesest empty space, which in this scenario is a lava space, thus immediately killing the hero as he can't move when he stands up.  A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility of the hero simply chosing not to stand up. The rules for this do say "may" so technically the hero could choose not to stand up, essentially wasting the OL's actions and time, allowing his group a better opportunity to win the quest.

    But in the off chance that the OL is just a punk and decides he's lost the quest anyway and would rather just piss off a certain player, OK, the rules allow for him to be screwed over as well.  A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility the the Hero just stays knocked out.  The rules for this state that standing up is the only action a hero "MAY" perform.  May indicates that he doesn't have to and thus he chooses to stay knocked out essentially wasting the setup the OL was intent on setting up. 

    Other than that, another easy house rule would be that the hero token is placed in the lava where the hero was knocked out.  When he stands up or is revived, he is moved to the closest empty non-lava space available.

    The rule say:

    When a hero is knocked out, he can only perform a stand up action (see
    “Knocked Out” on page 15). In addition, this action may only be
    performed by a hero that is knocked out.

    I have not ready all the argument on BGG, but it is clear to me. A hero have to make his action (the same discussion in 1. edition if you have 20 burntoken and your fellow heroes is close to kill the last monster. Can you not take your turn, so you don't have to rule for the burn). The text is IMO also clere "he can only perform a stand up action" he has to.

    Why write this "In addition, this action MAY only be performed by a hero that is knocked out. IMO it is because you have to say, that you have to be knocked out to use this action. If they have not written it. You could argue, that a hero that is not knocked out could make the action "stand up" and get the life and fatigue.

  2. Posted

     

     

     

    Lupin89 said:

     

    what i see on rulebook is simple: Non-lava space > closest Free space

    Non lava space part have more value then closest free space. It's simple when you are not one of thous people that want to find every exploit of game to win or just want to piss off fellow gamers.

     

     

    It is funny how people is trying to go around this subject. If your knock out in a no lava space. A monster is standing on you, and you have lave on the 8 hex around you. You will "stand up" in the nearst empty space. Empty space is discribe on page 9 in the rulebook. From that a lava hex is a empty hex. Therefore you will stand up in lava end turn, and get knock out of the lava (and end your turn in a empty non-lava space (because of the speciel rule from lavahex).

    But please read Loosman2001 reply. It is not broken. There are plenty of opportunities for the other heroes to help the trap hero. Only a very speciel map with a lot of lava in the right place will make it a big problem for the heroes. I don't think is brooken at all. If it in line of the rule. I can not see, why the OL should not use that opportunity if he get it. This game is about winning.

    Thanks to Loosman2001 he said some very wise thing IMO.

  3. Posted

    Bindlespin said:

     @thiesmagle: i edited my post just for number 12 almost immediately to answer the infinite loop problem. there is no infinite loop problem for the following reasons:

    1.  if you die in lava it doesn't matter where the overlords monsters are because you only have to place the hero in the nearest non-lava tile. if in the the weird event the overlord has managed to completely surround the lava terrain with monsters you would put the hero behind the wall of monsters because adjacency to the lava or to where the hero died is not a restriction at all. might be weird but not a mechanical problem here.
    2. what antistone is actually suggesting is that there may be a problem if the overlord knocks out a hero who is standing next to lava terrain then moves all his monsters in the nearest tiles to where the hero was knocked out so that when the player stands up the nearest empty space is a lava tile from which he can't move away from. a fiendish move which would certainly get you punched in the face and never get invited back, but clever.  
    3. two solutions: a) you can reasonably rule that a space filled with molten rock that will sear the flesh off of anything in it is not an empty space and thus does not fulfill the requirement of being the nearest empty space. b) you can be a **** and rule that the hero wakes up in lava and then next next turn he wakes up in the nearest empty non-lava space because of point one above. Still no loop. Dying in the lava ends the dying in the lava. 
    4. we can imagine a scenario in which we forget about lava completely. a completley surrounded hero is knocked out. the OL moves a monster onto the hero token and moves another monster into the gap so that we now have a solid nine square block of monsters. where do we put the hero? no biggie right. we just put him outside the block. all i am adding to this is: "in a space without lava" which you can ignore. but there is no loop. can't say this enough. no loop, no loop, no loop. by which i mean both no loop and no loop and no loop, and  no loop or no loop or no loop.     

    No one is against asking questions or discussing ones understanding of the rules, but most of the things i addressed were not posed as questions but as facts many of which i felt had no relation to what was written in any rulebook that I have seen so far.   

    Antistone beat me by that. But he have a point on the other 11 points as well.

  5. Posted

    SolennelBern said:

     

    Bindlespin said:

     

    Not trying to be mean, but  I don't think that Antistone's reading of the rules is very accurate. And, it is causing a lot of unnecessary confusion that careful reading can fix. So here is my take on what the rules actually say, take it or leave it:

    1. Players do decide their turn order before the round starts. If they can't agree they go clockwise from left of the Overlord.
    2. Stand up, roll two red dice to determine recovery, replace your token with your figure in the nearest empty space, and flip your activation card because you are done.
    3. You can only target spaces with figures in LOS.
    4. Melee means hand to hand combat, with or without a weapon. That is why it is used to differentiate between hand to hand and ranged combat.
    5. This is a small mistake; clearly, they meant the black bordered edge of a tile blocks line of sight.
    6. what?
    7. A miss is a miss. if it is a miss all other results are ignored. it is a ranged miss if after all possible jiggering with surges you still lack the range to hit your target. 
    8. Nice try, but this is not what the rules say at all.
    9. How many reasons are there to interrupt movement when there are only two actions and one of them is movement?
    10. You can't attack spaces without figures so why care if you have line of sight to an adjacent figureless space from inside a pit. In fact, the only action you can perform while in a pit is to get out of the pit. 
    11. This is an invented problem that is not in the rules anywhere.
    12. The lava pit says nearest non-lava space, not an adjacent non-lava space. So put the hero in the nearest non-lava space without a monster. 

     

     

    Thanks Bindlespin for this post.  After reading the rules I can't fathom for the love of anything sane how we managed to get to this point in this discussion.  The rules are clear to me and the minimal confusion in the rules are easily clarified.

    I'm not one who likes to piss people off with over analysing the rules, the commas, the "and", the "or" and the "if" when playing.  We always managed to find a quick patch when we stumbled upon a dilemma and quicly resumed our game.  We always have fun despite irregularities and confusions in rules.

    Thanks again for posting something coherent and clear, it's refreshing.

     

     

    It is fine list Bindlespin have made. It is close to the way I would say the game work. So if the gamegroup agre or you SolennelBern think is fine for you. Then go for it. Nothing stoping you. I like to play by rules that are "correct". I also enjoy a good argue about it. Hope is ok with you SolennelBern.

    I will not go true Bindlespin 12 point. I have already made my arguement for Antistone.

    So here is just af few things: 1. (it would slow my gamegroup down, if the had to choise the order of turns for each hero at the start of the round. To make the right tactic, you have to think true all scenario of missing and OL interup, and then choise the order). It works much more fluently if you just pick the next hero to act.

    9. could be quickshot, Rage then you have 4 interrupt. 1. edidition A Manticore could move 8 hex insted of 4. (of course I don't know if quickshot or Rage is in 2. edition

    12. The point is, that you get kill when you wake up in lava and end up in a non-lava space (because of the lavarule), but then it is the OL turn and he move a new monster on your new location and forcing you to wake up in a lava space once again. You could make a loop out of that.

     

    To end this. Just as annoying you think we "rules-lawyer" are. Just as annoyed do we "rules-lawyer" get when the argument is 8.Nice try, but this is not what the rules say at all, 11.This is an invented problem that is not in the rules anywhere. You have made no argument just said you think you understand the rules better. (the isue on 11 was also a isue in 1. edition. That need a FAQ to clear it!)

    Hope there is room for everybody in here.

  6. Posted

     

    Now I have read all the rules and this forum. First I would say. I think FFA have made a good job. The rules are more clear than 1. edition (IMO).

    There have been a lot of "hate" for people, that like to have clear rules! Of course you should not have to much discusion with your gamegroup, but I think this forum is all about what Antistone is trying to do! So thanks for your good work/views Antistone. Anyone can take what they think is right, and make there own rules for the rest.

    I will try to give my view of Antistones 12 points. Feel free to comment (english is my second language, so I could make big mistakes because of that)

    1. The rules seem to say that the heroes choose their turn order at the start of the round, unlike in 1e where you could wait until the first hero finished his turn to decide who goes second.

    it say: "Each round, the hero players decide as a group the order in which they wish to act" not "at the start of the round". So can not see, that they are force to make all the dission for all 4 heroes in the begining.

    2. It's unclear whether a hero who "stands up" can use fatigue to move.  Standing up is "the only action" the hero can perform that turn, but suffering fatigue for extra movement doesn't take an action and can be done even when you don't perform a movement action. However, the rules for standing up also imply that doing so ends your turn. That would maybe still allow you to use fatigue to move before standing up, except that being knocked out uses up all your fatigue, disables your abilities, and prevents you from being targeted by any effects that don't revive you, so there's probably no circumstance in which you can have fatigue available while knocked out.

    As you say. The turn end right after "stands up". No time to move with fatigue. If you have a item like "Ring of Quickness" from 1. edition. (giving 1 free movement point) I would still say no, because you can not use it before "stands up". That conclusion is clear IMO because of the way "Knocked out" is discribed on page 15: Figure is removed, cannot use skills or abilities. (you could argue, that it says nothing about - not moving a hero token and it say skills and abilities, but not items), but I am sure, that in my gamegroup you can not :o)

    3. Attacks target a space (as in 1e), BUT the targeted space must contain an enemy figure. No more centering Blast attacks on empty squares, or moving allies around with knockback attacks (of course, knockback seems to be gone anyway). That will make Blast a lot less powerful.

    This rule is clear. IMO it should be change, but it need a houserule or beter a FAQ, that change it. (but as you said, maybe the game designer thought it was a way to make Blast less powerful?)

    4. Unarmed attacks must target adjacent spaces, but are never described as "Melee" attacks.  So, unlike in 1e, any bonuses that apply to "melee attacks" apparently won't work on unarmed attacks.

    You are right again, but I would change it with a house rule and hope for a FAQ

    5. Line of sight is blocked by "the edge of a map tile".  The puzzle-shaped connectors that link to other map tiles are specifically referred to as "edges" in the box on page 5, so, as written, you can never attack a non-adjacent space on a different map tile, even if it's a straight shot down an empty corridor.  Pretty sure this one's a mistake.

    You are right again. This is where I would not even use time to point it out :o)

    6. Range determination is retroactive again.  Similar to 1e, you determine whether you have enough range to hit in step 3, but get to include extra range from surges spent in step 4.  (Actually, what it technically says is that you miss unless you can increase your range with surges; it doesn't actually say you need to exercise that option.) That probably doesn't cause many problems in actual play, but it still bugs me - why the heck didn't they just write it the other way around?

    on page 12:

    3. Chec k Range …. If the total range obtained from
    the attack roll does not equal or exceed the distance between the spaces,
    the attack is considered a miss unless the range can be increased (see “4.
    Spend Surges” on page 13).

    7. The effects of missing aren't clearly defined.  If you roll an X, "the attack is considered a miss" AND "all other results are ignored".  If you have insufficient range, "the attack is considered a miss" but it doesn't say to ignore other results.  It does not spell out (anywhere that I can find) what "considered a miss" means.  Presumably it prevents you from dealing damage, though nowhere does it actually say that.  Could you still, say, spend a surge to recover a fatigue? Having insufficient range apparently doesn't prevent you from spending surges, since otherwise you couldn't use surges to get enough range - though in 1e they eventually errata'd in a rule that said if the attack doesn't affect anyone after you finish spending surges, then all of those surges retroactively have no effect.

    you right again: My house rule will bee, that you can not use surge if it miss also miss with range.

    8. When "using skills or moving", you can only suffer fatigue up to your stamina.  "Any other game effect" converts excess fatigue into damage. That means that if you can find any items, hero abilities, heroic feats, search cards, or quest-specific actions that cost fatigue, you can pay for them with damage instead (once you're out of fatigue).

    I think Unclechawie answer was good (you have to be force to do it)

    9. Large monsters get a free rotation as part of their move.  This can effectively be used to increase the monster's movement range, by choosing a "front" space to count from when you start moving, and then using it as a "rear" space when you stop (the example on page 17 specifically shows this - the ettin with speed 3 moves a distance that would have taken 4 movement in 1e). Furthermore, you get this "free movement" each time you end or interrupt your movement - the more reasons you can find to "interrupt" your movement, the farther you can move for the same number of movement points.

    It does not say, that you can choise a new space just because you make a interrupt. The picture of large monster "shrink" to a 1 hex monster and "expand" when interrupt is good. But when you "shrink" it after and interrupt you have to do it to the hex from where you where expand it from (I know it is not clear in  the rule, but it is also not clear that it is not like this :o). I think it is good, that they have made it more easy for the bigone to move around. It was realy hard in 1. edition. You right that 2x2 monster with 3 speed can reality move 4, 2x3 monster with 3 speed can move 5. But where is the problem. Now it is the rule. So the designer can make the speed adjusted for that. If they only whant the dragon to have the ability to move 4 like 1. edition they give the dragon speed 2.

    10. Figures in a pit only have line of sight to adjacent FIGURES.  Note "figures", not "spaces". Um.

    and what is the problem with that? (rule and logic is not the same, but if you look up from a pit (a hole that is deeper than yourself) you can not see the floor, but can see people standing at the edge) :o)

    But what happen with this rule page 18: "While in a pit, the only action the figure can perform is a special
    action to climb out of the pit."?
    So you can not attack adjacent figures? not even if the pit is 2 hex and there are monster next to you? If not a melee hero can not do anything in a corridor with a 2 hex pit and 2 monster on the other side?

    11. Only adjacent figures can see a figure in a pit, but figures in a pit still block line-of-sight normally.  Or at least I can't find anything that says otherwise.

    Look for my answer in a previos Reply

    12. Heroes that end their turn in lava are immediately defeated and move to the closest empty, non-lava space. Fair enough. But you may have noticed that there were several other effects up to this point that move a hero to the closest empty space and do NOT specify "non-lava". For example, if the overlord knocks out a hero adjacent to lava, and then manages to position monsters in that hero's space and all adjacent non-lava spaces, then when the hero stands up on his turn, he is forced to place himself in a lava space, where he will presumably instantly die again (and the monsters will presumably move on top of him again so that he never gets out).

    You right again. I don't think it would happen often, that the monster have the opportunity to do it. If they have, the hero is need help from his fellow heroes or he/she will be a very fried hero.

    Last: good thinking about don't play the "bad" OL card, so when your are true the pile first time, you would only get the 1-3 very strong cards. Hope there is a balance in the OL card or the game is so fast, that it will not be and issue.

    Also strange, that it does not cost any to play OL card, and you can play as many as you like. (does that make the OL play 5 card in his first round every time?)

     

  7. Posted

    Coldmoonrising said:

    Sadly, the rules don't specify if he also got the +1 range as well. It appears to me, since they're both on the same line for 1 surge you get both +'s.

    Allegedly, if FFG wanted you to choose between +1 range or +1 dmg, they would have added a 3rd line to the card to make it a choice.

    First I think it is "and"

    But I will argue, that your argument (or other for that mater) is not 100%.

    As already said: you can only use 1 surge on each ability. If FFG intent is, that you can only get 1 damage or 1 range no mater how many surge you role. Then it had to be on the same line!

    In danish it is wrong to divide with a , in this situation, because it could mean both ("or" or "and"). You could say: you get 50 gold, 1 shield and 1 sword (in this case , = and) You could also say you get 50 gold, 1 shield or 1 sword (in this case , = or). I belive it is the same in english, but as you can see english is not my strong side :)

    So to summing up: You could argue both for "or" or "and". It need a FAQ to say for sure, but I will try to convince my gamegroup to go for "and".

  8. Posted

    Antistone said:

     

    Bleached Lizard said:

     

    #11: I presume it is implied that if non-adjacent figures cannot see the figure in the pit, then they do not block LoS for that figure.

     

     

    You are welcome to presume whatever you wish, of course.  But the rulebook doesn't say that, so either it wasn't intended or its omission from the rulebook is a significant error.

     

     

     

    But 1. edition there was on the forum a clering, that monsters, that was out of LOS could not block LOS. (1. edition you could have a situation, where you did not have LOS to a monster because of a corner, but the monster behinde that monster was also hiding only because of the first monster (you could not see))

    Just edit it because I have found the link: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=4&efcid=1&efidt=17937

    A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

     

    But of course you can not say, that because it was clear out in 1. edition, that it still works in 2. edition.

    If you accept, that it does not block LOS, you have to ask what if you are adjacent. Now you have LOS to the one in the pit. Could you now "look over" the one in the pit??? Realy hope for a quick FAQ, that say. You can ignore figure in pit, when tracing LOS!

×
×
  • Create New...