|
Official Rules & FAQ's Compilation and discussion of official HeroScape Rules and Frequently Asked Questions. **Special attacks never receive any bonuses.** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have found WotC support to be very quick with replies and since the initial problems being worked, very reliable. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Malpractice makes malperfect! Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Malpractice makes malperfect! Ohio Valley Association of Heroscapers Art by Susan Van Camp, Copyright 2006. www.artbysvc.com |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#58
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
*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. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|