The Book of Deathreavers

[Confred]

If a Deathreaver's Defense value is reduced to 0 and then is attacked, would it trigger Scatter since it didn't roll any dice for defense?

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Confred

If a Deathreaver's Defense value is reduced to 0 and then is attacked, would it trigger Scatter since it didn't roll any dice for defense?

If it's reduced down to 0 dice, it would still be rolling dice, so it could scatter.

If a power says that the figure cannot roll any defense dice, then they could not scatter.

[BurnyFlame]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

If it's reduced down to 0 dice, it would still be rolling dice, so it could scatter.

If a power says that the figure cannot roll any defense dice, then they could not scatter.

Just to throw another opinion in there -- I disagree and have consistently held that rolling zero defense is not rolling any at all. So Scatter should not activate. I just wanted to point out there is not a community consensus on that ruling.

[Confred]

I don't know where my original reply went, so I'll repeat

Quote:
If it's reduced down to 0 dice, it would still be rolling dice, so it could scatter.

If a power says that the figure cannot roll any defense dice, then they could not scatter.

@Megasliver, you are saying that zero dice is "any" dice and thus triggers Scatter, and only when it specifically mentions the inability to roll defense dice, then Scatter doesn't trigger?

@BurnyFlame, suppose I'll post it under the question dump

[Arch-vile]

Megasilver is correct. There is a difference between "rolling zero" and "being unable to roll".

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Confred

@Megasliver, you are saying that zero dice is "any" dice and thus triggers Scatter, and only when it specifically mentions the inability to roll defense dice, then Scatter doesn't trigger?

Yep, that's right.

Originally Posted by Arch-vile

Megasilver is correct. There is a difference between "rolling zero" and "being unable to roll".

Yep, that's the exact way to look at it.

Even Rÿchean had ruled that.

[BurnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Arch-vile

Megasilver is correct. There is a difference between "rolling zero" and "being unable to roll".

Again, "correct" is a relative term (especially in this context where there are no longer "official" answers). Also, I agree with Arch-vile that "rolling zero" and "being unable to roll" are different, but they do have overlap. Just like "fruits do not equal apples," but there are obvious cases where they are the same.

The community is in 100% consensus when a power specifically says that the opponent cannot roll defense vs. powers like Scatter, and that is that Scatter cannot activate. Megasilver (and several others) however, do not extend that negation of Scatter to powers which reduce defense dice by some set number, whereas I (and others) do when the defense reach zero. Megasilver, etc. contend that the opponent is still rolling when their defense is reduced to zero dice, and that they are simply "rolling zero," but I cannot see any practical difference between the two ideas (rolling zero vs. not rolling) and contend that therefore the effect should be the same.

My point of view comes from reading the Deathreavers card, which says

After a Deathreaver you control rolls defense dice . . ."

In my view, "rolling" is an action, just like placing or removing (or walking or driving for that matter). If the action is not performed, then it did not happen, logically. If I say I "drove" my car but it just sat in my driveway, I did not really drive it. The same should apply to rolling -- if I rolled nothing, I did not roll. Scatter only activates after rolling; so no roll = no Scatter. That is my view.

I have been a tournament director several times now, and although it has not come up, I would rule that way because it is the most logical to me.

[greygnarl]

This was officially FAQ'd back in the day.

[BurnyFlame]

Originally Posted by greygnarl

This was officially FAQ'd back in the day.

I checked the FAQ on the FAQ page: http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=432
and it is not there, so I'll have to disagree that it was officially ruled on in that way. I apologize if it was, but you'll have to show me. I have only ever seen "this is how I play" statements, which are not official.

Without an official ruling, I think the most logicial, consistent, and direct way to play should rule. I hope I made mine clear.

[obfuscatedhippo]

Originally Posted by BurnyFlame

Just to throw another opinion in there -- I disagree and have consistently held that rolling zero defense is not rolling any at all. So Scatter should not activate. I just wanted to point out there is not a community consensus on that ruling.

In the D&D rulebook Page 6 it defines the Defense Value as "the number of dice you roll to defend."

Example: what about the Venoc Vipers? They have a natural Defense of 0 ... but I assume they are just rolling zero-dice

[awesomeunleashed]

BurnyFlame can play it however he wants, and as he said, it almost never comes up, but Rÿchean clearly stated that the designers said that 0 defense dice is not the same as no defense dice.

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

Jared, DA Burny understands the logic being presented he just doesn't agree with it. Rehashing it for him or presenting it from another point of view isn't going to change his mind. But thanks for trying.

-------

DA BFlame, I'm not a designer. I had these same questions when we tested these guys and the game designers explained the difference to me.

Obviously, there is a difference between rolling 2 less and not getting to roll any at all regardless of height, Raelin, glyph, shadow tile, etc... But you already know that.

It is what it is. I see what you are saying, but it won't change this item. Powers have been written with the mindset that rolling less defense is not the same as not being able to roll defense. They are different and they will continue to be different.

[BurnyFlame]

Originally Posted by awesomeunleashed

. . . 0 defense dice is not the same as no defense dice. . .

We agree on pretty much all else except this definition (above). At some point it becomes a definitional thing, and I don't believe it is possible (or consistent with other rules) for game-designers to relabel parts of the game abstract concepts. Like if they wanted to say "Dund is not a figure,"* perhaps because they designed him so he could therefore be immune to many powers which specifically target "figures," I could not accept that. They can change the powers and their wordings all they want, but they cannot reject inherent, physical attributes of the game or of the actions the players undertake while playing the game.

*Note: This is hypothetical. Dund is, by most accounts, still a figure. He is made of plastic like all the rest. Unless of course we wish to define figures by "any character used in HeroScape competitions . . ."