Jump to content
Sadgit

Community Rules Reference Guide (CRRG)

Recommended Posts

One thing I just noticed while reading through the CRRG:

On Page 3:

Notably, an ability that causes one or more figures to suffer damage is not considered to be an attack and does not count toward a figure’s attack limitations.

I think this is not worded ideal, because the way this is written one might conclude that Lord Merrick Farrow could use Ignite twice:

Lord Merick Farrow suffers 1 damage to perform an attack that targets all adjacent figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Merick may not perform this action if suffering the damage would defeat him.

 

I think this would be a better way to formulate this point:

Notably, an ability that causes one or more figures to suffer damage, without performing an attack, does not count toward a figure’s attack limitations.

It would still apply to skills like Throw:

Choose a hero adjacent to this monster. That hero must test strength. If he fails, remove the hero from the map, then place him on any empty space within 3 spaces of his original space. He counts as entering that space. Then the hero suffers 1 damage.

But skills like Ignite, which contain a self harm condition, would not be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worded slightly vague, but the ", without performing an attack," part is implied in the original wording. I'm not sure it needs to be made clearer than that. There should be no question really about if Ignite counts as an attack, it says to perform one in the very ability.

That said I think your copy of the CRRG is out of date. The newest version, 1.11, does not have the wording you're concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think this is not really necessary because Mericks's Ignite already states that he will be performing an attack.

Your suggestion to add " without performing an attack" would be redundant in this case or wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Proto Persona said:

It's worded slightly vague, but the ", without performing an attack," part is implied in the original wording. I'm not sure it needs to be made clearer than that. There should be no question really about if Ignite counts as an attack, it says to perform one in the very ability.

Which is excatly why I brought this up. I'm not saying, that Ignite doesn't count as an attack, I'm saying that the CRRG entry implies, that the attack limitations do not apply to it.

The issue might sound overly precise, but I think that's the point of the CRRG.

6 hours ago, Proto Persona said:

That said I think your copy of the CRRG is out of date. The newest version, 1.11, does not have the wording you're concerned about.

I copy/pasted it directly from version 1.11. The last bullet point under abilities on page 3.

6 hours ago, Innoxious said:

Well, I think this is not really necessary because Mericks's Ignite already states that he will be performing an attack.

Your suggestion to add " without performing an attack" would be redundant in this case or wouldn't it?

I don't think so. The point is not that Merricks ability doesn't state that it performs an attack. The problem is, that the entry implies that the attack limitation does not apply to Ignite, because a figure (Merrick in this special case) suffers damage. I know it is common sense, that this rule would not apply here, but the point of the CRRG is to have precise ruling that should capture these edge cases.

Also, I'm not saying that my suggestion was the best or only way to fix the sentence, perhaps somebody has a better idea. Even if Sadgit decides to keep the old sentence, I'm fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are probably right, maybe my English is not advanced enough to see the problem in the formulation. Essentially, the ruling is pointing out that abilitys one could view as an attack are not declared as attacks if they cause figures to suffer damage as their effect. Merrick's Ignite is an ability that lets him perform an attack at the cost of suffering 1 damage. So it probably could be pointed out that the ruling is referring to the actual effect and not the cost.

Edited by Innoxious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I stumbled upon a few moments ago:

On page 5 under Agents the following entry is listed:

Quote

•    The overlord cannot use an agent in any quest that features the lieutenant version of that agent. Additionally, the overlord cannot use certain agents in specific campaigns (with details given on the Agent card or in the quest description):

– Baron Zachareth - The Shadow Rune (entire campaign) and Heirs of Blood (after the overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Zachareth)
– Eliza Farrow - Heirs of Blood (entire campaign)
– Splig - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Splig)
– Belthir - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Bethir)

This list is incomplete and could be extended in the following way:

Quote

•    The overlord cannot use an agent in any quest that features the lieutenant, ally or hero version of that agent. Additionally, the overlord cannot use certain agents in specific campaigns (with details given on the Agent card or in the quest description):

– Baron Zachareth - The Shadow Rune (entire campaign) and Heirs of Blood (after the overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Zachareth)
– Eliza Farrow - Heirs of Blood (entire campaign)
– Splig - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Splig)
– Belthir - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Bethir)
– Queen Ariad - Labyrinth of Ruin (entire campaign)
– Rylan Olliven - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)
– Tristayne Olliven - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)
– Gargan Mirklace - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)

 

Edited by DerDelphi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sadgit,

I just noticed something that seems to be contradictory. The question was, whether the reanimate still gets the additional yellow die from "vampiric blood" if the necromancer is knocked out:

Quote

Page 13:

Other figures may benefit from passive abilities of knocked out heroes. These abilities must not require the knocked out hero to “use this card“, “exhaust this card“, pay fatigue, and must not imply the hero to be on the map.

The reanimate is treated as a figure (by his card), and vampiric blood does not fullfil any of the conditions which would make the card unusable.

Yet:

Quote

Page 52:

Vampiric Blood

[..]
The Reanimate does not gain an additional yellow die while the Necromancer is knocked out.

Which one of these statements is correct? I think he still gets the die (I'm pretty sure Zaltyre explained this to me once), but I couldn't find it on the fly. This was also related to the usability of elixir tokens if an apothecary is knocked out or not on the map.

Edit: This is what I found so far:

Clarifications from FFG (which I think are the base for the entry on page 13): 

Explanation from Zaltyre on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1451754/necromancer-reanimate

Regards,
Delphi

Edited by DerDelphi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is contradictory. I vaguely remember that the Vampiric Blood paragraph in the CRRG is based on a uFAQ, but I cannot find it anymore. It might as well be a typo or an older uFAQ that was revised later on. I am going to change that in the next version.
Thanks for bringing this up. 

Edited by Sadgit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying this. I could imagine that this was an individual ruling which was made before the broader clarification in August 2015, but I also didn't find any sources for the Vampiric Blood rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your continuous support, guys!

 

CRRG Version 1.12. (10/2018)

modified entry Abilities, last bullet for clarity
corrected entry No Rest for the Wicked
modified entry Agent
corrected entry Vampiric Blood
corrected typo in entry Feral Frenzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sadgit, I'm wondering if you can add some clarification regarding Pierce to the 'Steps of Combat' section in the CRRG? Specifically, when it occurs...

It seems like something that should at least be mentioned in that section 😛

 

This request is partly driven by my slight confusion over the application of Internal Rot... I could swear I read somewhere that the Pierce effect of Internal Rot can be applied to the attack in which the hexes are placed (ie attack an un-hexed monster, if you roll a surge you're placing two hexes and piercing two), but I now can't find that anywhere... I can find the direct opposite ruling here: 

 

It's possible I have conflated it in my mind with the CRRG entry for the placement of the Shadow Walker's Shadow Soul using Soul Bound:

Quote

The Shadow Soul affects the attack used to place it. It is placed immediately after resolving the last step of an attack that may cause the attack to miss.

If combined with the Otherworldly skill, this would cause a Pierce 1 to be applied to this attack (right?).

 

The mechanics here seem to be the same: in each case the declared target of the attack would not initially fulfil the conditions for the skill to trigger, however in the case of the Shadow Soul the fact that the declared target gains the required conditions during the course of the attack allows the skill to trigger... Would this not also be applicable to Internal Rot?

 

Any clarification of these points would be welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×