Heroscapers
Go Back   Heroscapers > Official Valhalla HeroScape > Official Rules & FAQ's
Official Rules & FAQ's Compilation and discussion of official HeroScape Rules and Frequently Asked Questions. **Special attacks never receive any bonuses.**

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #49  
Old March 16th, 2007, 11:27 AM
Eclipse's Avatar
Eclipse Eclipse is offline
regurgitation cynic
 
Join Date: July 19, 2006
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 4,103
Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness Eclipse wears ripped pants of awesomeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk
Then after all desired movement, you may then attack with any or all figures on your chosen Army Card.
All figures that come from multiples of that Army Card are 'on your chosen Army Card' when you are only using a single card. I have not seen anything in the rules or FAQ that even implies you are limited to attacking with the specific figures that you have moved.

Edit: one little mouse twitch, and I get extra quote codes...

Edit the second: if no one can come up with an official statement to negate this, I would be interested in Revdyer's opinion as an English-language guru.

Edit the third: now look what you've done! We're entertaining markwars!
Sorry about my comments here. I misread the original question.

In any case, the rule I can't find that pertains to this question is the "activation" rule. That's what I haven't been able to find is that when you activate a Common card, you are limited to activating only the number of figures on the card. Moving 3 then attacking with 3 is activating 6 total, which breaks this rule. That's the rule that limits what you're saying here. The problem with the wording of the FAQ is without this rule, the FAQ says you may Move and Attack with EVERY common figure of the same Army Card according to your logic.

I know this has been resolved, but I'd still like to find that rule. That's really the answer to your question.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old March 16th, 2007, 01:42 PM
Revdyer's Avatar
Revdyer Revdyer is offline
Our Invaluable & Highly Esteemed Resident Chaplain
 
Join Date: May 9, 2006
Location: AR - Little Rock
Posts: 13,323
Images: 11
Blog Entries: 18
Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth Revdyer is a man of the cloth
I'm satisfied that the wording on p. 16 of the 2nd edition, that reads:

"Common Army Cards...

You don't need to keep these figures separate.... For example, if you're using two cards (sic) worth of Blade Grut figures, each order marker place on either Army Card activates any four of them."

"activate" means move and/or attack, but only four (in the example) figures could do those.

I think that's sufficient definition of the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old March 16th, 2007, 03:49 PM
Marduk's Avatar
Marduk Marduk is offline
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: OH - Dayton
Posts: 631
Marduk has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homba
Marduk, my long lost BROTHER!
Ah, you are a contrary, nit-picky type yourself then? Excellent!

Quote:
Nor can your simple request for citation of authority to support the contrary position. That's just ... so basic.
I certainly thought so. Though with the search still incomplete (keep up the good work, Xotli!) I know it becomes harder to provide these citations.

Quote:
(we SO need to repair our site FAQ).
Yes, that would help a lot.

Eclipse, I was aware of the rule RevDyer pointed out, but it did not resolve anything. The language of the FAQ implies that movement and attack are considered seperately (as in active X number for moving and then active X number for attacking) and nothing in the rules or the rest of the FAQ said otherwise. They really need to change the wording on the FAQ.

I do not have a lot of hope in that regard, I have done playtesting for Wizards of the Coast often enough to know their process. The last step is editing for linquistic correctness by people who have no connection to or knowledge of the game. Edits for gameplay consequences occur before that step and rule/card/FAQ texts all too often end up being altered to some completely different meaning before publication. Magic the Gathering, anyone? More errata than game now.

Sadly, most larger game companies work the same way - Alderac Entertainment, White Wolf, Games Workshop, the list goes on and on. The only larger game company I know does not work that way is Steve Jackson Games. Of course it is also one of the few run by a gamer.

By the way, I notice that no one cited the FAQ ruling in the previous thread and question, my interpretation was not included in the list of possibilities, nor did anyone consider the gameplay implications in terms of ranged dominance. It is entirely possible that they would have ruled according to my interpretation if my question had been the one asked. There is essentially no chance of that now, of course, as we have been given a ruling that told us to do "what the rules don't say" to quote one of our resident experts. With this ruling the rules now say something new (if contradictory) on the subject. :P

I also notice that customer service is evidently not taking questions, so this is moot. I kept expecting some link to direct me to WotC, but when I checked it myself the WotC site did not have anything for Heroscape beyond listing it as a category (with no entries). So I entered the question on the Hasbro site, where it is not listed in "My Stuff" for my account. Nor have I gotten an email confirmation as I had hoped, after almost 20 hours now. Has customer service pretty much just shut down?

Malpractice makes malperfect!
Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers

Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old March 16th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Cavalier's Avatar
Cavalier Cavalier is offline
Trainer of n00bs
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Location: AZ - PHX Metro (Mesa)
Posts: 10,844
Images: 176
Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk

I also notice that customer service is evidently not taking questions, so this is moot. I kept expecting some link to direct me to WotC, but when I checked it myself the WotC site did not have anything for Heroscape beyond listing it as a category (with no entries). So I entered the question on the Hasbro site, where it is not listed in "My Stuff" for my account. Nor have I gotten an email confirmation as I had hoped, after almost 20 hours now. Has customer service pretty much just shut down?
ARe you saying, Marduk, that you did not see the HS category in the Email form on the WotC page? If that is the case, I find that very strange. If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.



I have found WotC support to be very quick with replies and since the initial problems being worked, very reliable.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old March 16th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Homba Homba is offline
has been BANNED
 
Join Date: June 3, 2006
Location: MS - Jackson
Posts: 754
Homba is a puppet of Ne-Gok-Sa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk
By the way, I notice that no one cited the FAQ ruling in the previous thread and question, my interpretation was not included in the list of possibilities, nor did anyone consider the gameplay implications in terms of ranged dominance. It is entirely possible that they would have ruled according to my interpretation if my question had been the one asked.
It's true that your option was not proposed, but there are reasons for that - generally that people who've followed the game since its original release, including on the original fansite where the designers actually interacted with us answering our questions, etc, there is an established "mode of understanding" of the common squad rules that excluded your suggestion as a viable choice. Again, you cannot be expected to know this (or faulted for not knowing) if you do not have this long experience with the discussion of the game mechanics/rules/concepts. So you are completely justified in the question you raised in this post.

A majority of people believed that the eventual answer we got was the correct way to play. You just couldn't really tell from any text, and some knowledgeable people did have a different understanding. But not to the extent of your proposed interpretation, the confusing text you cited notwithstanding.

I don't believe that if your interpretation would have been included, the answer would have changed. We first got a wrong answer from WotC, but then it was corrected by the designer Craig himself. Presumably he knows what the rule is. Now I'm the first to admit it isn't IMPOSSIBLE that he made up the ruling on the spot, and might've used yours had it been offered, but you won't find anyone here (including myself) that believes this happened ON THIS ISSUE. This was a case of the available rules and FAQ clarifications providing insufficient information to clearly support, without ambiguity, one of the three positions we proposed, and not a case of it never having been considered and decided by the designer and design team.

Cheers,

H
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old March 16th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Marduk's Avatar
Marduk Marduk is offline
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: OH - Dayton
Posts: 631
Marduk has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalier
ARe you saying, Marduk, that you did not see the HS category in the Email form on the WotC page? If that is the case, I find that very strange. If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
That is exactly what I am saying. It was not there when I looked for it, the only Heroscape-related option I found was in their Knowledge Base, and that was empty. Down for a site update, maybe?

Malpractice makes malperfect!
Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers

Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old March 16th, 2007, 04:43 PM
Cavalier's Avatar
Cavalier Cavalier is offline
Trainer of n00bs
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Location: AZ - PHX Metro (Mesa)
Posts: 10,844
Images: 176
Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth Cavalier is a man of the cloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalier
ARe you saying, Marduk, that you did not see the HS category in the Email form on the WotC page? If that is the case, I find that very strange. If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
That is exactly what I am saying. It was not there when I looked for it, the only Heroscape-related option I found was in their Knowledge Base, and that was empty. Down for a site update, maybe?
Strange. That screenshot was taken just before I posted.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old March 16th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Marduk's Avatar
Marduk Marduk is offline
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: OH - Dayton
Posts: 631
Marduk has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marduk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalier
ARe you saying, Marduk, that you did not see the HS category in the Email form on the WotC page? If that is the case, I find that very strange. If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
That is exactly what I am saying. It was not there when I looked for it, the only Heroscape-related option I found was in their Knowledge Base, and that was empty. Down for a site update, maybe?
Strange. That screenshot was taken just before I posted.
I did my checking the night before. I am not saying your screenshot is untrue in some way, just that it does not match what I saw last night. The whole question thing under help was not available. I suppose it could also have been a net glitch, though I tried it a few times (to no avail) just in case that was the problem.

Malpractice makes malperfect!
Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers

Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old March 18th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Dennys's Avatar
Dennys Dennys is offline
I'm my own grandpa
 
Join Date: December 20, 2006
Location: NY - Middletown
Posts: 1,510
Dennys rolls all skulls baby! Dennys rolls all skulls baby! Dennys rolls all skulls baby! Dennys rolls all skulls baby!
Marduk, even under your original premise, it would not be possible to "Activate" 6 units (3 by move, 3 to fire). The rule is that a moving figure is active. You can only attack with active figures. Therefore, if you move 3 figures, they are the only 3 that are allowed to attack.

Using the alternate case, none of the figures move (even if you have multiple cards worth). So therefore your activation is taking place at the fire step. Again you are limited to 3 firers.

Middle case, you move 2. They are already active for firing, so you can only activate 1 more that moved 0. Again you hit the limit of 3.

The rules are, you can only activate the number of given figures for that turn, a turn being a move/fire round.

There is no ambiguity.

GENERATION 27:
The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old March 18th, 2007, 06:06 AM
Marduk's Avatar
Marduk Marduk is offline
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: OH - Dayton
Posts: 631
Marduk has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennys
Marduk, even under your original premise, it would not be possible to "Activate" 6 units (3 by move, 3 to fire).
That would actually be activating three units for moving and then three units for attacking. You are making up your own definition for 'activate'.

Quote:
The rule is that a moving figure is active. You can only attack with active figures. Therefore, if you move 3 figures, they are the only 3 that are allowed to attack.
No rule said this until the recent ruling from Hasbro. Again, you people were making up things not in the rulebook or FAQ. I checked the first edition of the rules, the wording is the same.

Quote:
The rules are, you can only activate the number of given figures for that turn, a turn being a move/fire round.
This is clearly not in the rulebook, nor in the FAQ. I accept that the recent ruling will be the standard; consistency is important, after all. But I am afraid the ruling is not correct. Here are the pertinent rules, if you find anything in the rulebook or FAQ that says your interpretation is correct, please be sure to point it out.

Quote:
Action 2. Move Figure(s) on Your Army Card
Now you may move any or all figures on your chosen Army Card, if you want to.
Quote:
Action 3. Attack with Figure(s) on the Army Card
Now it's time for your Hero or Squad to attack.

Who can attack? Any figure(s) on your chosen Army Card within Range, and with a clear Line of Sight, can attack. If no figure on your Army Card meets these two conditions, you can't attack.
Quote:
You don't need to keep these figures separate (that is, keep track of which figures belong to which card). For example, if you're using two cards worth of Blade Grut figures, each order marker placed on either Army Card activates any 4 of them.
Quote:
There is no ambiguity.
This is true - the rules are clear, and the ruling is clear; they just do not match, and the official ruling overrides the rulebook. But you people should really stop making up extra rules that do not exist. I thought the standard was to do what the rules say, and not what they don't say?

And please don't claim that it is common sense that you can only attack if you have moved - that's not common sense. Haven't any of you watched war movies or cop shows where a few guys provide covering fire while a few others run up? My interpretation would have allowed for that, yours does not. I would say that puts common sense on my side.

Malpractice makes malperfect!
Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers

Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old March 18th, 2007, 09:14 AM
TyrionXavier TyrionXavier is offline
 
Join Date: January 24, 2007
Location: * Canada - Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 182
TyrionXavier has disabled reputation
Quote:
I accept that the recent ruling will be the standard
The rest of your post is meaningless. You accept the ruling. Quit arguing just for the sake of arguing.

*edit*

Oh, and also, you're wrong, and you answered yourself as to why.

From Action 2:
"Now you may move any or all figures on your chosen Army Card."

This implies that you chose a card in Action 1 to reveal your order marker, and it's our chosen card that is used to attack with.

During step 2, when you decide who to move, those figure that move are chosen for that card. A rule doesn't need to specify that as it's implied when you chose what to move. So, when step 3 says that you can attack with any of your chosen army card, it means only the ones that you moved previously. If you did not move the total number of units in the squad, you may chose to attack with figures that didn't move as part of the squad.

This is why the Zombies have the wording that specifies that you can attack with 3 zombies other than the ones that have moved.

Has been away for quite a while. But is back now.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old March 18th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Marduk's Avatar
Marduk Marduk is offline
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: OH - Dayton
Posts: 631
Marduk has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrionXavier
Quit arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Others keep attacking, I will keep defending. My reasoning is correct, it makes sense from a real-life perspective of covering fire, and it helps slightly even out the imbalance between ranged units and melee units. No one has yet been able to poke holes in my logic; like yourself they just keep making things up.

Quote:
From Action 2:
This implies that you chose a card in Action 1 to reveal your order marker, and it's our chosen card that is used to attack with.

During step 2, when you decide who to move, those figure that move are chosen for that card. A rule doesn't need to specify that as it's implied when you chose what to move. So, when step 3 says that you can attack with any of your chosen army card, it means only the ones that you moved previously. If you did not move the total number of units in the squad, you may chose to attack with figures that didn't move as part of the squad.
The rules do not say that, nor do they imply that. Can you point this out anywhere? There are rules for using multiple common units, and they say to use a single card. That means you choose that one card to use some of those matching squad figures. Or are you going to start using a card for each squad and keeping track of which figure goes with which card?

Quote:
This is why the Zombies have the wording that specifies that you can attack with 3 zombies other than the ones that have moved.
This is the only shred of logic you are using, and it is very frail. Why does Q9's special power say "Major Q9 may target the same or different figures with each attack."? Should we not allow Syvarris to shoot at different figures with his double attack, because this rule on a different card sort of implies he should not be able to? No, because the rules spell out what constitutes an attack. Syvarris gets to make a second attack, each one is conducted separately by the rules for attacking. Q9's power has that extra line to avoid confusing people who have not read the rules. The last line of Horde Movement is there for the same reason.

The rules spell out how to use multiples of a common unit. They spell out how to handle movement. They also spell out how to handle attacks. The only connections between movement and attacks are in your mind and in the recent ruling. Until that ruling, there was no reason to believe the two were so closely connected.

Now, would someone lock this thread, please? I already know that no one is going to be able to cite anything contrary to my interpretation from the rules or official FAQ, and I have already said I accept the ruling handed down on this matter. In the effect, the game officials said "because I said so", and as I said before, from them that is good enough.

Edit: by the way, I am done arguing and will no longer read this thread. If anyone else just has to have the last word, no doubt fabricating another new non-existant rule for it, feel free.

Malpractice makes malperfect!
Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers

Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Heroscapers > Official Valhalla HeroScape > Official Rules & FAQ's
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 PM.

Heroscape background footer

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.