Jump to content

DaeMord

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DaeMord

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

342 profile views
  1. The issue now is if your saying stray cat works, well several issues 1) stray cat does nothing that evade doesnt except remove the restriction on needing to be engaged with the enemy. Using this logic there is no reason i could not use stray cat any more than my ally could 2) if stray cat works, then in theory so would evading it just wouldnt "remove the engagement" well if thats the case then that could be seen as an advantage, example : Guardian has machete out, exhausts enemy but not longer looses engagement, the machete stays turned on, where as previously after evading they would need to re-engage the enemy, saving 1 action. I agree that RAI the card is probably intended to prevent ALL forms of evasion, but the lack of using the word disengage (especially when this is used not 2 sections up in the RR) seems both odd and somewhat confusing, especially when the use of this would have simplified the entire section "Any time an enemy is evaded it is exhausted and disengaged". This is much MUCH simpler way of doing what they did and instead went out of their way to describe it step by step, something they didnt do above. Ultimately i fall on the opinion that either "Disengage" is or is not a keyword, if it is and is going to be used as such it should be consistent and defined, if not then we are going to have fringe cases that will benefit the player and create the above confusions, regardless or RAI or RAW
  2. So the issue here is that at no place in evade does it say "disengage". It does say "the engagement is broken" and "the enemy is no longer engaged" but this seems very odd to use the word "disengage" very specifically but not in the rules regarding evading. It may be me being quite picky but this seems to imply you become un engaged without disengaging. There is presedent for this when looking at massive enemies where you "are considered engaged" but do not "engage them" im wondering if evade is similar in that "you become not engaged" but do not "disengage"
  3. So something came up the other day, player had a card on them that made it so they "cannot disengage from enemies" this prompted some discussion so Can another player engage the enemy off you, the feeling is no because the RR says "The enemy simultaneously disengages from the previous investigator and engages the investigator performing the action" the confusion comes from the person doing the action isnt the one with the restriction Secondly can it be evaded, the initial thought was if the above is true then no, however the RR under evade doesnt mention "disengage" anywhere in the text, from what we can see "disengage" itself isnt defined anywhere in the rulebook, from this the feeling is maybe we can evade it, thoughts??
  4. Does anyone know, if you ready Yaotl with Ashcan's ability can you get his bonus twice in a single test. For some reason this just feels wrong to me, wanting to verify
  5. because if your resetting your actions thats fine, but why would you reset available additional actions as well?
  6. "Assuming actions reset" for the purposes of pocket watch for a second, i would also raise the natural issue of Leo, do we get 3 or 4 actions to use?
  7. you are not allowed to discuss, however other players should be aware that you have the weakness in hand, if not on the turn you get it, certainly every turn their after because you have to reveal it. Therefore the absence of discuss is kinda mute in this regard, you have shown them the card thus influencing desicion. Im personally of the stand point you are not choosing the weakness you are making a choice independant of resolution, then the resolution is in turn forcing the discard. There could equally be a theoretical card that made you play all of a certain card type in hand, and then non of us would have problems with us being forced to play it, i personally feel how this is in the grand scheme of things that much different. As a point i do see a third option to do this resolution, namely you choose event and discard all events EXCEPT dark memory which remains in hand. Also as another extra lets be clear about what the rules say, they say you cannot CHOOSE to discard the weakness, however choose is NOT defined from what i can see. This i feel is the crux, how deep does "choose" go, is it any choice that results in the outcome, or is it simply choose the card specificly?
  8. So was playing the game the other day, and a friend of mine was playing as jim and a question came up "So er does this work on every skill test done anywhere" So yeh, where as the effect is location based, the check doesnt seem to mention a test done by jim or even at jims location, so can another player anywhere on the board pull a skull and then jim can exhause his trumpet to go healing sanity?
  9. I cant help but feel that the confusion here lies in both "you" and "Investigator". See where as you is defined as investigator, the character sheet is ALSO defined as investigator. We have had it confirmed that duke does not modify the sheet, but does modify "you" The question i think being really asked is which "investigator" (namely you or the sheet) is Neri checking because having checked multiple times where as i can find definitions of "you" that do include investigator, i cannot find the other direction namely that investigator = you and i feel this is important because neri references investigator NOT you and some seem to have assumed that investigator = you, which it may do, but personally i feel the duke ruling implies that where as you = investigator, investigator <> you The confusion in this argument i feel is routed in this disparity as if all are the same then the resulting ruling to some of us does not apear to work where as others seem to find it just fine. I am still waiting in a reply from FFG, because i feel the only resolution on this is going to come from an official responce. Not sure how long responces usually take.
  10. Except Gaffa according to the ruling above you are STILL fighting on 4 in that exact situation hence the problem. see official responce posted earlier in this thread below In responce to this i asked the question about playing Monstrous Transformation mid combat to see if it now overrode it, however the general concensus is it does not. I belive i have posted this question to the FFG rules place (although it seemed quite hard to find so im not sure) hopefully they will give us an answer
  11. Duke doesnt "Set" anything to 4 it performs a fight on 4 So hyperthetical here to try and help explain, you fight neri with duke but in the middle of the duke fight you fast play MT, MT "sets" your base fight value to 5, but you are performing the fight on dukes value of 4. We have had it confirmed this way round and neri is looking at the investigator so at this point petes fight is 5, you are fighting on 4, this has been confirmed that THIS is how it works. IF neri is checking pete his value is NOW 5 even though the combat is still being done on 4 This is why this matters because clearly there are some people replying to this thread myself included see these 2 things on opposition to each other. and non of the above explanations explain why one would be true but the other would not
  12. yes but the ruling prior states that Petes value does NOT change, so if you refers to Pete then Petes base attack value is 2. Also Neri does not say "Your base combat value" it says "attacking investigators base combat" which is 2 not 4 The important question here is "Does duke modify Petes value or attack with an imaginary card that has a value of 4" the previous ruling would suggest that there is an imaginary thing that has an attack of 4, but petes value remains 2 at all times, and given as how neri detects pete and not what your attack actually IS, this suggests 2 and not 4
  13. indeed unless otherwise specified, it is specified to be "The Attacking Investigators base combat" THIS is 2 NOT 4, Pete is the attacking investigator and his base value is not modified
  14. So question came up, as a result of this ruling extension question about Pete + Duke fighting Salvatore Neri (https://arkhamdb.com/card/82019) Would this mean if Pete fights using Duke, then he has a Fight value of 2, because ive been playing it assuming it was 4 and looking at the above interpretation of rules, i think maybe ive been playing this wrong since petes base value remains 2, is this correct?
×
×
  • Create New...