• Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.

Remove one unrevealed Order Marker at random?

How do you interpret the word "random" in these situations

  • Owner MUST shuffle/rearrange OMs but can look before the player chooses which he/she removes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    53

lefton4ya

PDFin' sweet self spammer
Site Supporter
Discussion on The Book of the Mind Flayer Mastermind has brought up one of my favorite debates on the definition of the word "random" when used for stealing/discarding cards/order markers from an opponent - namely does it use the scientific definition of random or the "customary" definition of random which IMHO is more akin to the definition of arbitrary. So let us have a vote! For the powers below, how do YOU play or think it should be played:

Mind Flayer Mastermind
Psionic Blast Special Attack
Range 3. Attack 3.

This Mind Flayer Mastermind does not need clear line of sight to attack with Psionic Blast Special Attack. If a figure receives 1 or more wounds from Psionic Blast Special Attack, remove one unrevealed Order Marker at random from that figure's Army Card (or cards if your opponent has more than one Common card for that figure).

Glyph of Oreld (Intercept Order)
When one of your figures stops here, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 1 - 9, nothing happens. If your roll a 10 - 20, you may remove one random Order Marker from an opponent's Army Card.

Note: Entangling Web DOES NOT have the word random, so the poll is about the the two above, but note your interpretation of Psionic Blast Special Attack and Glyph of Oreld may differ from your view of Entangling Web or may be the same.

Fyorlag Spiders
Entangling Web
After moving and before attacking, you may choose any small or medium opponent’s figure that is engaged with at least three Fyorlag Spiders that you control. Roll the 20-sided die. If you roll 16 or higher, remove one unrevealed Order Marker from the chosen figure’s Army Card (or cards if your opponent has more than one Common Army Card for that figure).
 
Last edited:
FWIW, option 5 is the GenCon ruling. Play them where they lay. The card doesn’t say to shuffle them.
 
Last edited:
The point is that the choosing player does not know what OM they are picking. However you can make that happen is fair.
 
FWIW, option 5 is the GenCon ruling. Play them where they lay. The card doesn’t say to shuffle them.
I have not played this way (tournaments I went to were option 3 or 4), but would not mind doing, as it reminds me of:
16f66f683ea18bd6e12c071e53a6bade.jpg



The point is that the choosing player does not know what OM they are picking. However you can make that happen is fair.
So basically any of the choices above would work for you.
 
I really need to watch that movie. I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
 
I was reading up on the conversation imbedded in The Book of the Mind Flayer Mastermind and I have to admit it is a very interesting topic to discuss and I love the idea of this poll.

I will start by stating that Heroscape in itself was not designed to be played competitively as is. Therefore, the designers did not anticipate any ruling such as this to be a big deal nor this thread to even have a reason to exist. Because of which, I feel it is the responsibility of the players, table, and event coordinator to decide what ruling should apply. For house games, informal events and the like, it would be best to "read the room" to set the competitive level of the games prior to any being played. Any rules set forth before play cannot be undermined like rules that are implemented mid-match or made by a judge ruling at such games because, once again, Heroscape is not a naturally designed competitive game. More specifically in each case I describe in detail below.

My argument stems from other competitive games and the notion to "Do as the card says". But in regards to the answer to the question it depends on the setting. I, however, find some answers to be wrong in any setting. For example, the answer I picked, Players MUST always roll a dice or shuffle the order markers and without either player looking. This answer is the closest ruling I can see to the nature of "random" in games. I agree whole-heartily with this answer except for the option to shuffle. No where does any card say they may shuffle the order markers. That being said the premise of responses 2, 3 and 4 namely Owner MUST shuffle/rearrange OMs but can look before the player chooses which he/she removes, Owner CAN shuffle/rearrange OMs and can look before the player chooses, but is not required, and Owner CAN rearrange OMs but MUST do while looking before the player chooses, but is not required. There is no shuffling/rearranging required nor stating in any power or ruling and so there is no option to shuffle/rearrange. Players cannot shuffle/rearrange order markers at any point period, whether prior to a "random" discard or no discard at all. Order markers are placed in any fashion, important note here, any fashion, and not removed until chosen from a power described in question or when used.

With these answers void that leaves 3 choices remain. I agree with answer 5 stating: Owner CANNOT shuffle/rearrange OMs before the player chooses. OMs must be placed strategically but this does not explain the methodology in which players would "remove a marker at random". I've shown sympathy to the last response stating: Depends on who you play with and mood players are in, but can be decided differently each game but with a caveat. In home games, informal and non-competitive matches where the only outcome is fun, this is acceptable as it maintains the level of fun and has no other consequences as long as all players are in agreement with the decision.

This leaves but one answer. To be honest my true answer would be a combination of Players MUST always roll a dice or shuffle the order markers and without either player looking and Owner CANNOT shuffle/rearrange OMs before the player chooses. OMs must be placed strategically given that players can arrange their order markers strategically at all times while also playing to the premise of "random".

Lefton4ya, I do not believe the intentions of the designers were to include the word "random" on some powers and be devoid of it on others, namely the Fyorlag Spiders' power. The difficulty of attaining the Fyorlag Spiders's power by having 3 adjacencies and rolling a 16 or higher (25%) grants the ability to remove an order marker not randomly, but systematically chosen. All other instances of similar powers (to my off-the-cuff knowledge) uses the word "random" which I believe falls under the definition better suited by your word "arbitrary" and was not intended to be ambiguous. The word random is more common, in language and in other games as described below, than arbitrary which I believe is the reasoning for its inclusion to reduce discussion and ambiguity as to the nature of the phrasing, but in the end only added, and is the sole reason for the discussion.

The video in question on The Book of the Mind Flayer Mastermind I can only describe as either a lack of judgement in "reading the room" as described prior given the competitive, or not so competitive nature of the event in this instance, a lack of moral character, knowing to chose at random but choosing with methodology to gain a malicious edge in game, or just a complete under-sight not realizing the ruling on the specific power tells you the method in which to chose the marker. Mistakes can be made and whether the result in this particular case, if the outcome of the match matters (mainly a competitive setting), I would call a judge (or other authoritative figure given the event calls for a judge if competitive) and correct the players actions. When playing competitively the game is not just for fun and so it is more serious than casual where rules need to be abided for sake of competition. In the event the event is not very competitive or if the result is minimal to the game I personally would brush it off, having caught it, taken the process of correcting the actions would be more time intensive than to just ignore the minor mistake and continue.

More on the term "random". I will need to include an example from another game for the wording. Forgive me, I really have no idea how to work links on this forum and would have included a picture of the card in question instead, it's been some time I've linked anything on the forums. In Magic the Gathering, a card game that uses the term "random" on multiple occasions, really hits home with the premise of the word. One card reads: "Target opponent discards a card at random" I have never heard of any argument as to how the card is chosen. The definition of random here is taken literally. Given that there are more likely more choices in other games than Heroscape, given a maximum of 4 order markers, and in this specific case referring to the discussion in The Book of the Mind Flayer Mastermind, only 2 choices, I feel the need for the word random to be taken literally to be of much more importance given the lesser of choices.

To sum up, I would just roll a die given the card says at random in this case. That's how I would personally understand this. This has no mention as to how those markers have been arranged by the opposing player. The ability to place order markers in any given fashion is not mandated in any form so I believe this option is up to the player, but this may be another discussion.
 
...Random means random.
or does it....
@Brewster I 100% agree with all your logic, except that the word "random" used in boardgames (including but far from limited to Heroscape) is so customarily means your various views of what arbitrary could mean (chance, strategy, intuition, inkling, whim, divine revelation, etc.) that the word random when used in the context of the power in question has literally changed definition. If I say I am gay, most people's minds goes to thinking one thing, even if I am using it in the [ame="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nineties"]1890's meaning of what gay meant[/ame], the word has literally changed meaning in 100 years. Therefore I argue random has literally changed meaning to the degree that the word gay has that random no longer means the same thing when used in a math/science textbook as it does in a rulebook. As to prove use as this way in Heroscape, I have played Heroscape tournaments and everyone I played with when random was used such as Mind Flayer Mastermind, it was the owner's decision whether they should be shuffled first or I just "randomly" took one - shuffling order markers or rolling a die was not required. I have even seen this backed up by tournament directors. If you want more proof, see @vegietarian18 quote where he is all but pointing to a Heroscape designer (without naming names) as also playing this way.
So I can say with 99% certainty that I've seen a heroscape celebrity play (not with Mindflayer, with Spiders Entangling Web) it the non-random way, trying to predict where his opponent had put the OMs on the card. Personally I think that's valid, I've always seen it as a small difference between online and in person play that you can't do that sort of OM sniping online. If it were truly supposed to be random, it would say something about rolling a die to determine which one was removed.

See also the example of designer Craig Van Ness using the "Spirit of the Rule" overruling the "Letter of the Rule" - and he had the same spirit when actually coming up with words for rules/powers for the game. Watch what happens at 6:40 and on in this video. I try to play by the same spirit the designers did.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuMFIkeT-6g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuMFIkeT-6g[/ame]

BTW, I could go all day in this topic ;)

I'm not going to get into a discussion of dialectic philosophy, but I will say simply that language is cognitive tool used to unify concepts in your mind. When you use a word, you mean something, and what you mean is not subject to change over time. It is poor use of language to be unclear about which concept you are trying to convey. It leads to confusions, which is not a good thing! Notice how convention of using the word "gay" to mean 'happy' went out as the convention to use it to mean 'homosexual' went in. It would be confusing to try and maintain them both, and we now laugh at the idea of using it to mean happy, because that is no longer the convention. It's funny because it's a poor use of language now. Because it causes confusion. So for this reason I say that when I use the word 'random', I mean something specific, and I refuse to dilute my mind by saying "well, random can mean lots of things..." in that case the word is useless, and do whatever you darn well please.

You've proven that it's convention to have no objective standard where the rules are concerned, even by game designers. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but this is not good for tournament play. It will and does lead to bad beats scenarios, and times where someone deserves to succeed but failed anyway. Slowly but surely people drop off because of this. The health of a game depends on clear rules among other things. I highly, highly recommend some sort of -exact- ruling on things like this be put forward.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Maybe my example of "gay" wasn't the best example, but the idea is that a word can mean two different things to different people, based on their culture and experiences. In addition people may decide how to interpret a rule differently. You are right in that there is not (as of yet) any codified way - Gencon uses a completely different interpretation than Online games - that is because the tournament directors decided on an interpretation. But note that specifically the word random has the same issues in other games as well. However I think a TD deciding on an interpretation is a strength of Heroscape - fun and friendliness is prioritized over formality. Now if you are coming from the CCG/CMG realm such as Magic the Gathering or Warhammer where formality is prioritized over fun and friendliness, I can see where you are coming from, as they prefer all tournaments to have the same exact rulings. The ultimate answer is Heroscape is philosophy diametrically opposed to those types of games in that it embraces differences in groups. However anyone who has been to a Heroscape tournament as well as a Magic tournament will tell you that most HS players put fun and friendliness first and therefore most of them appreciate HS tournaments more than CCG/CMG, even (especially) BECAUSE each game/TD may be run differently. I have seen some HS tournament goers not like the "TD prerogative", but they are few and far between.
 
I don't see why "clear rules" and "friendly fun" have to be mutually exclusive. I do not accept this dichotomy.

What is friendly about fudging the rules? Faking reality to satisfy someone. Seems to me this has simply fostered an environment where more and more generous faking is expected.

It's not fun, in my mind, to be put in a scenario where you rightfully should have a 50/50 lease on life, and you are expected to just give away that chance so your opponent can fudge the rules in his/her advantage. You know what's fun for me? Rolling the dice and seeing if I get lucky. Luck makes for hilariously epic games. Win or lose.
 
My only point is that each game/event/tournament organizer has the right by Heroscape's very nature to decide interpretations. I agree that these should be done before a game starts to set the groundrules and expectations, and that if someone disagrees before the game start then a decision by the organizer can be changed. However in my view it is more important as a player to go by the rules of the organizer without complaining, than to resent the organizer who may not go by the same rules as other groups/tournaments you play.

For this example Gencon has option 5 and Online tournaments have option 1, and most tournaments I have been to in Ohio and KY (and home games in my house) have option 3 or 4, but I am perfectly happy with playing differently in different groups.
@Brewster Would you be willing to to follow the rules of each group, or would you rather not play because they do not have your preferred rule interpretation? Sorry if I seem like an a$$ asking this, but my hope is we can "agree to disagree" if it means we can play more games and have fun doing so.
 
I don't see why "clear rules" and "friendly fun" have to be mutually exclusive. I do not accept this dichotomy.

What is friendly about fudging the rules? Faking reality to satisfy someone. Seems to me this has simply fostered an environment where more and more generous faking is expected.

It's not fun, in my mind, to be put in a scenario where you rightfully should have a 50/50 lease on life, and you are expected to just give away that chance so your opponent can fudge the rules in his/her advantage. You know what's fun for me? Rolling the dice and seeing if I get lucky. Luck makes for hilariously epic games. Win or lose.
You are more than welcome to do what you want in home games. You have laid out a different way to rule this than the GenCon rules team, and that's fine! Our ruling is that because the opponent does not know which OM is which, choosing one is sufficiently random.

But I will push back on the notion that we're "fudging the rules" simply because you don't agree with the ruling. This is an example of "clear rules"; this is the standard for competitive play (at GenCon). If you want to change that, the burden is on you to prove why our current ruling is erroneous. It isn't enough to just say it could, or perhaps even should, be ruled the other way. You need to make the case as to why it MUST be ruled the other way, and you have not adequately made that case yet. Again, we are certainly open to reevaluating our rulings.

As a quick aside, is a thread with a current list of GenCon rulings something that the community would like to see? Most people that play at GenCon are aware of the rulings we use, but perhaps that would be helpful?
 
I'm surprised that its anything other than #5. I've never put any thought that it could be anything different.

Interesting discussion.
 
My only point is that each game/event/tournament organizer has the right by Heroscape's very nature to decide interpretations. I agree that these should be done before a game starts to set the groundrules and expectations, and that if someone disagrees before the game start then a decision by the organizer can be changed. However in my view it is more important as a player to go by the rules of the organizer without complaining, than to resent the organizer who may not go by the same rules as other groups/tournaments you play.

For this example Gencon has option 5 and Online tournaments have option 1, and most tournaments I have been to in Ohio and KY (and home games in my house) have option 3 or 4, but I am perfectly happy with playing differently in different groups.
@Brewster Would you be willing to to follow the rules of each group, or would you rather not play because they do not have your preferred rule interpretation? Sorry if I seem like an a$$ asking this, but my hope is we can "agree to disagree" if it means we can play more games and have fun doing so.

I'm typically happy to play however the house/TO wants. The bad beats so to speak happen when such a scenario happens in the moment, you were playing the whole game under the assumption the rules work one way, and instead they worked the other way. If I go into a game knowing the mind flayer can pick away a vital OM on an educated guess, that makes it much more powerful, and I will play accordingly. But if I play under the assumption that I have only a 33% chance of getting wrecked by it, and it turns out I was guaranteed to get wrecked by it, my whole game goes belly-up because of confusion over the word "random".

Tl;Dr regardless of the TO or house rules, don't tell me it's random if it's not randomized.
 
FWIW

Online assigns random numbers to each OM (unless you're me and give them all unique punny names) as it's the cleanest way to distinguish multiple OMs on a players card (although you do have to set it each round or otherwise it adds more numbers onto the previous set which means it becomes trivial to figure out which OM is which). However, from what I've seen the player pretty much always decides which of those random numbers they want and it's how I would rule as a TD there.

In real life, I would default to the Gencon rule. I think the only appreciable difference between the Gencon ruling and OHS ruling is the medium through which information is transmitted.

~Dysole, noting this is not the only, but probably the worst case of connotations not matching the intent in Scape language
 
I don't see why "clear rules" and "friendly fun" have to be mutually exclusive. I do not accept this dichotomy.

What is friendly about fudging the rules? Faking reality to satisfy someone. Seems to me this has simply fostered an environment where more and more generous faking is expected.

It's not fun, in my mind, to be put in a scenario where you rightfully should have a 50/50 lease on life, and you are expected to just give away that chance so your opponent can fudge the rules in his/her advantage. You know what's fun for me? Rolling the dice and seeing if I get lucky. Luck makes for hilariously epic games. Win or lose.
You are more than welcome to do what you want in home games. You have laid out a different way to rule this than the GenCon rules team, and that's fine! Our ruling is that because the opponent does not know which OM is which, choosing one is sufficiently random.

But I will push back on the notion that we're "fudging the rules" simply because you don't agree with the ruling. This is an example of "clear rules"; this is the standard for competitive play (at GenCon). If you want to change that, the burden is on you to prove why our current ruling is erroneous. It isn't enough to just say it could, or perhaps even should, be ruled the other way. You need to make the case as to why it MUST be ruled the other way, and you have not adequately made that case yet. Again, we are certainly open to reevaluating our rulings.

As a quick aside, is a thread with a current list of GenCon rulings something that the community would like to see? Most people that play at GenCon are aware of the rulings we use, but perhaps that would be helpful?

Do things however you want, but don't tell me that's randomized. It's not. The proof is that "random" has a specific meaning, and that clear language is vital for operating mentally. Just as you would not warn someone a room had a "puppy" in it when really there was a wild wolf inside, and that despite convention sometimes referring to all canines as puppies, the person's proper course of action is determined by the specific meaning of the word used. Such is the same in a game. How to play the game should follow from the instructions on the card and rulebooks. If the rules do not adequately describe how the game ought to be played, an errata (or at the very least, an official ruling in the BOOK) should be the proper course of action.

However this is decided, I would like it to be officially ruled on somewhere for future reference.
 
My computer is updating, so all I can muster is a quick text, but I’ve already officially ruled on this multiple times (both in this thread and the other). I don’t have the power to edit the book.
 
FWIW, option 5 is the GenCon ruling. Play them where they lay. The card doesn’t say to shuffle them.

Can you shuffle your order markers on your own turn? Since this option says you cannot do so before order marker removal, I assume it's legal on your own turns to change order every time.
 
FWIW, option 5 is the GenCon ruling. Play them where they lay. The card doesn’t say to shuffle them.

Can you shuffle your order markers on your own turn? Since this option says you cannot do so before order marker removal, I assume it's legal on your own turns to change order every time.
My ruling (and I’ll defer to Ken on this) would be to treat OMs like figures: feel free to manipulate their position on your own turn, but leave them alone on your opponent’s.
 
FWIW, option 5 is the GenCon ruling. Play them where they lay. The card doesn’t say to shuffle them.

Can you shuffle your order markers on your own turn? Since this option says you cannot do so before order marker removal, I assume it's legal on your own turns to change order every time.

I guess I don't see the point. Other than if someone wants to be a huge jackwagon and have like extra 2s and 3s, etc up his sleeve and do some cheating crap. How is it any different than just placing them down "strategically" (I believe that is the word being throw around it my limited reading of this "issue").

I can try and catch up on all the reading here but it might not be til the weekend but I feel like I'm missing the big point somewhere.

The point is for your opponent not to know which OM it is. Which heroscape (geniusly?) did by making them UNREVELAED OMs. I'm not sure why there is discussion beyond that.

You succeed in your mind blast, point to an OM on the unit. Your opponent removes it or puts it face down (but does not reveal it to you until it's that turn of the round) and you move on with the game. Simple.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the question is basically about what happens if your opponent wasn't thinking about your OM removing power and just placed his OMs on a particular card in numerical order with the X last.

My personal feeling is that not letting the opponent shuffle the OMs in this scenario would be a pretty jerk move, since the only way it makes a difference is if you think that you can get a non-random OM (e.g. one that's not the X) by preventing your opponent from shuffling, in which case you're trying to go against the card's specification of a "random" OM.

On the other hand, if your opponent is keeping your OM removal power in mind when placing their OMs and shuffles their order at the start of the round, it seems like a waste of time to roll a die or make them shuffle again. Basically, if your opponent feels the need to shuffle the OMs to make your selection "random", and they express this before you've chosen an OM to remove, let them shuffle, otherwise, just pick an OM.

~KoS, noting that even in math it can be hard to use the word "random" unambiguously (technically a selection where there's a 99% chance of picking the leftmost OM is random, it just doesn't follow a uniform distribution)
 
As I understand it, the question is basically about what happens if your opponent wasn't thinking about your OM removing power and just placed his OMs on a particular card in numerical order with the X last.

My personal feeling is that not letting the opponent shuffle the OMs in this scenario would be a pretty jerk move, since the only way it makes a difference is if you think that you can get a non-random OM (e.g. one that's not the X) by preventing your opponent from shuffling, in which case you're trying to go against the card's specification of a "random" OM.

On the other hand, if your opponent is keeping your OM removal power in mind when placing their OMs and shuffles their order at the start of the round, it seems like a waste of time to roll a die or make them shuffle again. Basically, if your opponent feels the need to shuffle the OMs to make your selection "random", and they express this before you've chosen an OM to remove, let them shuffle, otherwise, just pick an OM.

~KoS, noting that even in math it can be hard to use the word "random" unambiguously (technically a selection where there's a 99% chance of picking the leftmost OM is random, it just doesn't follow a uniform distribution)

Ineresting, but doesn't that end up being on you? Like if I forgot Sharwin had a lightning attack that could bounce from unit to unit do I get to replace my figures before you attack?

I also think the random element is not knowing which OM you sniped because it's not facing you. For instance, you obviously can't randomize one OM, so since it can't be randomized does that negate the ability if the opponent only has one OM on the card because then it's not random at all? Unless they mean random as in from the perspective that the OM isn't facing you so you don't know for sure which one it is.
 
There's no advantage to moving your OMs to a "strategic" position after placing them, except that you might have forgot to place them strategically initially. So let's say your opponent moves out the Mindflayer on his OM1 and you realize you need to disguise your left to right 1 2 3 X placement before his next turn with the Mindflayer when he can knock off one of your OMs.

In general in competitive games (where I'm playing armies with relevant OM management) I do physically place my OMs "strategically", just so my opponent doesn't try to read my OMs based on their physical placement. I doubt this has ever changed the outcome of a game though.

I do agree with KoS that not letting your opponent do that sort of shuffling during "your turn", if you hit a Psionic Blast, is a bit mean. It's just something they forgot to do, there's no game skill involved, and it actually is a huge impact on the outcome of the game because it vastly changes the power of the OM removal. To be honest I'd probably let my opponent do it if they asked to unless I was playing dok.
 
There's no advantage to moving your OMs to a "strategic" position after placing them, except that you might have forgot to place them strategically initially. So let's say your opponent moves out the Mindflayer on his OM1 and you realize you need to disguise your left to right 1 2 3 X placement before his next turn with the Mindflayer when he can knock off one of your OMs.

In general in competitive games (where I'm playing armies with relevant OM management) I do physically place my OMs "strategically", just so my opponent doesn't try to read my OMs based on their physical placement. I doubt this has ever changed the outcome of a game though.

I do agree with KoS that not letting your opponent do that sort of shuffling during "your turn", if you hit a Psionic Blast, is a bit mean. It's just something they forgot to do, there's no game skill involved, and it actually is a huge impact on the outcome of the game because it vastly changes the power of the OM removal. To be honest I'd probably let my opponent do it if they asked to unless I was playing dok.

I plan on playing MFM x 5 for the main event and I'm going to watch you place your OMs like a hawk.
 
Juicy Goodness?

There's no advantage to moving your OMs to a "strategic" position after placing them, except that you might have forgot to place them strategically initially. So let's say your opponent moves out the Mindflayer on his OM1 and you realize you need to disguise your left to right 1 2 3 X placement before his next turn with the Mindflayer when he can knock off one of your OMs.

In general in competitive games (where I'm playing armies with relevant OM management) I do physically place my OMs "strategically", just so my opponent doesn't try to read my OMs based on their physical placement. I doubt this has ever changed the outcome of a game though.

I do agree with KoS that not letting your opponent do that sort of shuffling during "your turn", if you hit a Psionic Blast, is a bit mean. It's just something they forgot to do, there's no game skill involved, and it actually is a huge impact on the outcome of the game because it vastly changes the power of the OM removal. To be honest I'd probably let my opponent do it if they asked to unless I was playing dok.

I plan on playing MFM x 5 for the main event and I'm going to watch you place your OMs like a hawk.

500 points/10 figures or something? ~_^

~Dysole, who'd probably run Sudema and something if that was the actual GC setup; don't have to worry about this OM business just kill things
 
Ineresting, but doesn't that end up being on you? Like if I forgot Sharwin had a lightning attack that could bounce from unit to unit do I get to replace my figures before you attack?

I also think the random element is not knowing which OM you sniped because it's not facing you. For instance, you obviously can't randomize one OM, so since it can't be randomized does that negate the ability if the opponent only has one OM on the card because then it's not random at all? Unless they mean random as in from the perspective that the OM isn't facing you so you don't know for sure which one it is.

If it's clearly specified before the game that "random" just means "chosen without looking", and the opponent just forgets then I guess that you can reasonqbly say it's on them (although personally, I'd let them shuffle). If the person believed that "random" meant "selected by a die roll", then I don't think that their interpretation is really less valid, and making them sufdenly play by yours seems unfair.

I would assume that in this context "random" means that each unrevealed OM on the card equally likely to be chosen from your perspective. Whether this is accomplished by your opponent shuffling their OMs at the start of the round so that the first OM is equally likely to have any number, or whether it's accomplished by rolling a die to select an OM doesn't matter. If there is only one unrevealed OM, it trivially has the same probability of being revealed as every other OM on the card.

If anything, your interpretation of random as "you don't know which one it is" is the one that breaks down in the edge cases. It's possible to have a scenario where all but one of your opponent's OMs are revealed. For example, if they've taken 2 turns and revealed their X for a special power, you could know with certainty that the single unrevealed OM on their army card is a 3. But you surely wouldn't say that in this case you couldn't remove the 3, just because you know what it is.
 
True random would be rolling the die or shuffling them to the point where neither party knows the numbers. "Strategy/Guesswork/Intuition/Pokerface"-style random is when the Fylorag Spiders remove an OM, which if yer opponent is smart and has his Unrevealeds in a somewhat random pattern is more in line with your gut or reading your opponent.

So I put Option 1.

~TAF, :2cents:
 
Back
Top