PDA

View Full Version : JCB231's Samurai and Deathstalkers Rules Questions.....


jcb231
August 19th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Was looking over the new figures again and I had a couple quick questions....has anyone figured these out? Did anyone ask about them at Gen con?

QUESTION NUMBER ONE:

The new Kozuke Samurai....emphasis mine.

"Charging Assault: Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Kozuke Samurai must BE ABLE TO move adjacent to an opponent's figure in order to use Charging Assault."

Look at the power above. Take out the "be able to" part and read it again. Means something totally different, doesn't it? My question is do they simply have to "be able to"move next to an opponent or do they have to ACTUALLY move next to an opponent? As in, do they simply have to be within movement range of the foe to use this power or do they have to use it to engage? If I had a samurai 8 spaces away from my target, could I simply move 7 spaces, stopping one short of the target, if I wanted? If the answer is no and they actually have to end adjacent to a target, do they have to attack once they engage? It doesn't say that they do. I find this power somewhat confusing. It's hard to read the intent.

QUESTION NUMBER TWO:

Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?

Jason
August 19th, 2006, 03:42 PM
"TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice"

That would mean a castle door would receive 3 wounds whereas if it only said cannot roll any defense it would take less defense due to auto shields.

countblah
August 19th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Isn't the castle door large?

Command-and-Conquer
August 19th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Isn't the castle door large?



It doesn't say on the card.

AmishBurrito
August 19th, 2006, 10:14 PM
idk, apparently you just have to be within movement distance of a figure to attack it, and the deathstalker thing is to prevent auto shields as mentioned above (like gorillinators have 1 auto sheild)

Rhydderch
August 19th, 2006, 10:37 PM
QUESTION NUMBER ONE:

The new Kozuke Samurai....emphasis mine.

"Charging Assault: Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Kozuke Samurai must BE ABLE TO move adjacent to an opponent's figure in order to use Charging Assault."

I think the intent was for players to use charging assault to move their samurai adjacent to enemy figures. However the ability is very badly written. It has at least three problems:

1) As written the ability does not require players to move their Samurai adjacent to an enemy figure: It only requires you to BE ABLE TO MOVE adjacent. So if your Samurai is within 5 spaces of an enemy figure then you can move 8 spaces in the opposite direction.

2) It should specify that each Samurai who wants to use Charging Assault must be able to move adjacent to an enemy's figure. As it stands someone could potentially claim they can charge with all three figures as long as one Samurai can move adjacent to an enemy figure.

3) It says you must be able to move adjacent to an enemy figure in order to use Charging Assault. Although I'm certain it is not the intention of the ability it CAN be interpreted to mean the Samurai must be within 5 spaces of their target BEFORE they take Charging Assault into account.

Here is a better version of Charging Assault which takes the aforementioned problems into account. I believe this is how the ability was meant to be read:

Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.

reapersaurus
August 19th, 2006, 11:50 PM
VERY, VERY good post, Ryhd -

Your critique (as almost always) is spot-on, yourt understanding of HS rules is correct, and better yet your correction of the substabndard wording is an enhancement, clearly.

You have a dizzying intellect. :D

LordRaidor
August 20th, 2006, 12:00 AM
You have a dizzying intellect. :D

Hmmm, ...didn't the Dread Pirate Roberts say the same thing to Vizzini...

[poke-poke]

...Really though, ...great insight Rhydd...

^_^
-LordRaidor-

thehandofzarquon
August 20th, 2006, 12:05 AM
Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?As far as I know, you don't get the automatic shields if you don't roll defense dice... so that can't be the reason. I also thought of Crixis, but his power too needs to be able to roll defense dice. The only other thing I can see is that there will be powers similar to Crixis that don't require a shield to be rolled... otherwise, the text is completely worthless and amounts to the same thing.

Grungebob
August 20th, 2006, 12:12 AM
Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.Well I don't know about your wording. There are things that can happen to a figure while moving that can potentially stop his move. I'm going to use an extreme example. Let's say you are within 8 spaces of an enemy unit. You begin your move and after moving 6 spaces there is a drop off that could cause falling damage. You may be destroyed before you reach the opponent. Lets say there are multiple oponents and you want to risk a passing swipe during your move? Let's saay you are zapped by engagement strike?? There are countless reasons why you need to have the wording be open ended.

countblah
August 20th, 2006, 12:15 AM
Isn't the castle door large?



It doesn't say on the card.

Can Krug fit through it? Then it's bigger than Krug.

I know that's not on any card, but it's on the card of common sense. Which I now regret bringing up.

reapersaurus
August 20th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.Well I don't know about your wording. There are things that can happen to a figure while moving that can potentially stop his move. I'm going to use an extreme example. Let's say you are within 8 spaces of an enemy unit. You begin your move and after moving 6 spaces there is a drop off that could cause falling damage. You may be destroyed before you reach the opponent. Lets say there are multiple oponents and you want to risk a passing swipe during your move? Let's saay you are zapped by engagement strike?? There are countless reasons why you need to have the wording be open ended.oh, my god.

we've just had quantum physics enter into Heroscape. :roll:

If a Samurai attempted to satisfy the condition of being adjacent, but died on the way, does that satisfy the wording? :puke:

RichardD
August 20th, 2006, 05:21 AM
New Einar unit in Wave 7 - Schroedinger's Samurai.

Jabba O'Riley
August 20th, 2006, 11:24 AM
New Einar unit in Wave 7 - Schroedinger's Samurai.

heh

AmishBurrito
August 20th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.

I don't think i agree with this. First, i believe that they only need to be within 8 spaces of the enemy to do this, and they only need to be ABLE TO reach them, they do not have to. I believe if hasbro wanted you to move next to an opponent, it would state that somewhere. I see the point about getting zapped by an engagement strike or whatever, but you would still have the intention of getting there. I believe that this ability is just to make the samuria stronger when closer to the battle, kind of like a rage of emotion when that close to the enemy (think braveheart). They could use this emotion to run in the opposite direction. This ability to me seems like hasbro wants the figures to have a lot of move, but not to have it when going for glyphs at the beginning of the game, only to have the move bonus when your opponent is nearby.

jcb231
August 20th, 2006, 05:01 PM
Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?As far as I know, you don't get the automatic shields if you don't roll defense dice... so that can't be the reason. I also thought of Crixis, but his power too needs to be able to roll defense dice. The only other thing I can see is that there will be powers similar to Crixis that don't require a shield to be rolled... otherwise, the text is completely worthless and amounts to the same thing.

Hmmm....good post. Could this be a teaser of powers that limit the number of wounds a figure can take but do not require a defense roll? And if so, aren't those powers going to have to have some funky wording to take Maul into account? Guess we'll have to wait and see.



Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.

I don't think i agree with this. First, i believe that they only need to be within 8 spaces of the enemy to do this, and they only need to be ABLE TO reach them, they do not have to. I believe if hasbro wanted you to move next to an opponent, it would state that somewhere. I see the point about getting zapped by an engagement strike or whatever, but you would still have the intention of getting there. I believe that this ability is just to make the samuria stronger when closer to the battle, kind of like a rage of emotion when that close to the enemy (think braveheart). They could use this emotion to run in the opposite direction. This ability to me seems like hasbro wants the figures to have a lot of move, but not to have it when going for glyphs at the beginning of the game, only to have the move bonus when your opponent is nearby.

Good post, Amish. I think we need to know the intention of the power before we can call it one way or the other. Is the intention that the Samurai just run faster when enemies are near? Or is the intention that they have to charge up to the enemy and strike him? I'm thinking Craig and Rob will come down on the second point and errata this card to read MUST move adjacent to an opponent...possibly even adding the need to attack at the end of that move. That seems to me to be the intention at least.

spacemonkeymafia
August 20th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?As far as I know, you don't get the automatic shields if you don't roll defense dice... so that can't be the reason. I also thought of Crixis, but his power too needs to be able to roll defense dice. The only other thing I can see is that there will be powers similar to Crixis that don't require a shield to be rolled... otherwise, the text is completely worthless and amounts to the same thing.

isn't the "takes a wound for every skull" just refering to an ability like the g'nators Tough enhancement?

thehandofzarquon
August 21st, 2006, 12:55 AM
Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?As far as I know, you don't get the automatic shields if you don't roll defense dice... so that can't be the reason. I also thought of Crixis, but his power too needs to be able to roll defense dice. The only other thing I can see is that there will be powers similar to Crixis that don't require a shield to be rolled... otherwise, the text is completely worthless and amounts to the same thing.

isn't the "takes a wound for every skull" just refering to an ability like the g'nators Tough enhancement?Impossible. You get the Tough bonus when you roll defense dice, but you can't roll defense dice against a successful Maul... just like any other no defense power (Paralyzing Gaze or otherwise). Unless I missed a ruling that says otherwise or something.

LoneDragon
August 21st, 2006, 01:04 AM
Maybe the takes a wound for every skull part refers to the gladiator who can only take one wound at a time?

And I posted that same Samurai question on the general board lol

thehandofzarquon
August 21st, 2006, 01:12 AM
Maybe the takes a wound for every skull part refers to the gladiator who can only take one wound at a time?

And I posted that same Samurai question on the general board lolAgain, he needs to be able to roll defense dice... I can definetly say that for certain, since his ability only triggers if he rolls at least one shield, no dice rolled for certain equals no shields rolled.

Rhydderch
August 21st, 2006, 01:18 AM
Any or all Kozuke Samurai may add 3 to their Move number as long as they are unengaged prior to moving. Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their turn adjacent to an opponent's figure.Well I don't know about your wording. There are things that can happen to a figure while moving that can potentially stop his move. I'm going to use an extreme example. Let's say you are within 8 spaces of an enemy unit. You begin your move and after moving 6 spaces there is a drop off that could cause falling damage. You may be destroyed before you reach the opponent. Lets say there are multiple oponents and you want to risk a passing swipe during your move? Let's saay you are zapped by engagement strike?? There are countless reasons why you need to have the wording be open ended.

Ok I should have been more clear in my post. I expect Hasbro will most likely say the samurai do NOT need to move adjacent to an enemy figure based on what it says on the card. From the example of Taelord we have an example of how the designers think.

My ability should be seen as an alternative which I (personally) consider to be better written and which I believe better fulfills the intention and theme of Charging Assault. IMO I think they should have chosen another name since their ability may turn out to be a simple charge rather than a charge plus an assault.

By the way I personally consider any "must" text to be void once a figure is destroyed unless otherwise stated so I do not think the problem of the samurai dying before they reach an enemy figure to be a problem. I will say my version should be corrected to read:

Any Kozuke Samurai who uses Charging Assault must end their MOVE adjacent to an opponent's figure.

And for anyone who missed my intention here: think of my version as a house rule ability rather than the official one. I'm pretty sure the designers will rule in favor of what it says on the card.

spacemonkeymafia
August 21st, 2006, 11:38 AM
Deathstalkers....emphasis mine.

"Maul: When rolling attack dice against a small or medium figure, if a Deathstalker rolls a skull on every die, the defending figure TAKES A WOUND FOR EVERY SKULL and cannot roll any defense dice."

I understand how the power works just fine, or at least I think I do. My issue is with the wording. It seems needlessly complex. Why not simply say "the defending figure cannot roll any defense dice?" Wouldn't that have the same exact effect? Am I missing some logic behind the "takes a wound for every skull" part?As far as I know, you don't get the automatic shields if you don't roll defense dice... so that can't be the reason. I also thought of Crixis, but his power too needs to be able to roll defense dice. The only other thing I can see is that there will be powers similar to Crixis that don't require a shield to be rolled... otherwise, the text is completely worthless and amounts to the same thing.

isn't the "takes a wound for every skull" just refering to an ability like the g'nators Tough enhancement?Impossible. You get the Tough bonus when you roll defense dice, but you can't roll defense dice against a successful Maul... just like any other no defense power (Paralyzing Gaze or otherwise). Unless I missed a ruling that says otherwise or something.
then I would say that it is needless redundancy for now or hinting that some units in the future may have an auto Tough feature that doesn't require rolling defense (G'nator flagbearer?)

thehandofzarquon
August 21st, 2006, 11:49 AM
then I would say that it is needless redundancy for now or hinting that some units in the future may have an auto Tough feature that doesn't require rolling defense (G'nator flagbearer?)Yep, I cetainly agree. There could also be a power that limits how many wounds one can take in a single attack automatically (like Crixis except no Shield roll needed).

ugly1hornedmule
August 21st, 2006, 12:12 PM
Don't roll defend dice= no counterstrike

happyjosiah
August 21st, 2006, 02:38 PM
Why don't they just let us all read the abilities before they go to print so we can catch this stuff early.... :D

thehandofzarquon
August 21st, 2006, 04:24 PM
Why don't they just let us all read the abilities before they go to print so we can catch this stuff early.... :DThe Deathstalker's text is likely intentional, I believe. The Samurai's Charging Assault seems pretty clear to me, if they can engage, they can get the bonus, but they don't HAVE to engage.

Jormi_Boced
August 21st, 2006, 05:12 PM
Why don't they just let us all read the abilities before they go to print so we can catch this stuff early.... :D

That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Taeblewalker
August 21st, 2006, 06:37 PM
Quantum Samurai:

It's moot, because I haven't observed them yet in my local Wally World.

Augray
August 22nd, 2006, 09:57 AM
Ok I should have been more clear in my post. I expect Hasbro will most likely say the samurai do NOT need to move adjacent to an enemy figure based on what it says on the card. From the example of Taelord we have an example of how the designers think.

Has anyone sent this question to Hasbro?

jdtenor
August 22nd, 2006, 10:29 AM
to me it's in the title CHARGING ASSUALT explains it as it was meant you should only be able to use if your attacking besides with 5 attack I would charge it's almost like pre-emtive strike, just don't charge the Nikita agents, they have engagement strike.

happyjosiah
August 22nd, 2006, 11:25 AM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Jormi_Boced
August 22nd, 2006, 12:58 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.

Grungebob
August 22nd, 2006, 01:00 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.You're talking about a few hundred members who can't seem to agree upon anything. You think that would speed things up? :gb:

Jormi_Boced
August 22nd, 2006, 01:04 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.You're talking about a few hundred members who can't seem to agree upon anything. You think that would speed things up? :gb:

I am not saying anything about agreeing, I am saying that we have 300 members, most of which are super picky and will tear any sentence apart. If they get a chance to do it before printing, then won't have to do it once the cards have already been printed.

jcb231
August 22nd, 2006, 02:32 PM
to me it's in the title CHARGING ASSUALT explains it as it was meant you should only be able to use if your attacking besides with 5 attack I would charge it's almost like pre-emtive strike, just don't charge the Nikita agents, they have engagement strike.

That's not what the card says though.



Why don't they just let us all read the abilities before they go to print so we can catch this stuff early.... :D

It's one of many things I'm surprised playtesters didn't catch. Like the little grammatical mistakes on other cards (Roman Legion, for example). Makes me wonder if there is a reason for it.

Jotun483
August 22nd, 2006, 07:26 PM
The Deathstalkers would be way too powerful for only 100 points if it were that way, causing an automatic 2 damage per skull rolled. I think what they meant was simply the figure rolls no defense.

happyjosiah
August 22nd, 2006, 09:23 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.

I know, i'm just messing.... :D

reapersaurus
August 22nd, 2006, 10:15 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.You're talking about a few hundred members who can't seem to agree upon anything. You think that would speed things up? :gb:If you could get across what possible damage expanding the playtest group would do to the line, as opposed to the advantages it would provide (since the group they're using now is obviously missing many rules problems), I'm all ears.

Grungebob
August 23rd, 2006, 08:59 AM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.You're talking about a few hundred members who can't seem to agree upon anything. You think that would speed things up? :gb:If you could get across what possible damage expanding the playtest group would do to the line, as opposed to the advantages it would provide (since the group they're using now is obviously missing many rules problems), I'm all ears.First of all, I was responding to the poster's ludicrous idea of passing all rules by the forum. Second as far as Hasbro's methods of testing how do you know what their methods are or whether they are expanding or reducing the scope of that if it exists. From what I see they are releasing some really cool units with some really cool abilities that are fairly easy to understand. I'm surprised that smart guys like you are having so much difficulty.

Jonathan
August 23rd, 2006, 06:56 PM
Well, since it's called "Charging Assault" and not "Charging Feint" or "Charging Charge", I'm sure the designers meant that an attack should come after the bonus move.

However, poor wording = loophole = charge wherever you please :D

Jormi_Boced
August 23rd, 2006, 07:02 PM
That actually isn't a terrible idea.

Thanks for the... err.... compliment.... :wink:

Yeah, I was just meaning that it is never going to happen, but it actually would probably be a good thing to do.You're talking about a few hundred members who can't seem to agree upon anything. You think that would speed things up? :gb:If you could get across what possible damage expanding the playtest group would do to the line, as opposed to the advantages it would provide (since the group they're using now is obviously missing many rules problems), I'm all ears.First of all, I was responding to the poster's ludicrous idea of passing all rules by the forum. Second as far as Hasbro's methods of testing how do you know what their methods are or whether they are expanding or reducing the scope of that if it exists. From what I see they are releasing some really cool units with some really cool abilities that are fairly easy to understand. I'm surprised that smart guys like you are having so much difficulty.

I don't know why you call it ludicrous. The current playtesters aren't doing their job, maybe if the whole community proofread the cards this kind of stuff wouldn't slip.

madmanmuzik
August 25th, 2006, 03:05 AM
...At the very least it would give them a chance to consider if the way that it's worded is really exactly what they intended. It's not that they would accept the board's interpretation of the rules, it's that it would help write more watertight rules following their intentions more exactly. Any bickering over rules would just them how to cinch up potential problem areas.

Jormi_Boced
August 25th, 2006, 10:01 AM
...At the very least it would give them a chance to consider if the way that it's worded is really exactly what they intended. It's not that they would accept the board's interpretation of the rules, it's that it would help write more watertight rules following their intentions more exactly. Any bickering over rules would just them how to cinch up potential problem areas.

Very well worded.