• 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.

Rules questions to Hasbro

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, let me ask it this way...

Assume you were in the championship game of the GenCon tournament and your opponent used multiple common cards because he believes it to be lucky to do so. You kill one of his 8 rats and he puts the rat on the same card that has an order marker. When he reveals his order marker and goes to move the rats, would you let him move a full squad?

Common Sense says he gets to move 4 rats...

WotC ruling says he screwed up and can only move 3...

You say that he incorrectly played the commons in the first place because we all know that you should only bring one card... even though the rules say it's fine to do otherwise. Therefore you would enforce the WotC ruling and limit his movement to 3 rats. Right???

Naw, I don't think I would.
 
Where does it say you HAVE to play with only one common card independent of the number of squads?

It doesn't and that's exactly why you have to be playing them incorrectly for the first situation to come up. You're allowed to place dead commons on any card (only the card with dead guys on it already once you do), so why would you place them on a card you have order markers on (and pacing order markers on more than one would be just silly and asking for trouble)? Once you have dead guys, why would you place order markers on that card? These things are (read: should be) common sense and why players play with only one common card.

Ok, let me ask it this way...

Assume you were in the championship game of the GenCon tournament and your opponent used multiple common cards because he believes it to be lucky to do so. You kill one of his 8 rats and he puts the rat on the same card that has an order marker. When he reveals his order marker and goes to move the rats, would you let him move a full squad?

Common Sense says he gets to move 4 rats...

WotC ruling says he screwed up and can only move 3...

You say that he incorrectly played the commons in the first place because we all know that you should only bring one card... even though the rules say it's fine to do otherwise. Therefore you would enforce the WotC ruling and limit his movement to 3 rats. Right???
Yes. Depending on how competitive it was. It is the correct way to play it. If we're at a GenCon championship, you bet your butt I'm going to call you on making such a silly mistake.
 
1. If you have multiple commons in your army, play with just one copy of that card in front of you. Period.

2. For the sake of argument, let's temporarily enter a bizarro world where point 1 does not apply. What causes me to think that Cody's answer is off base is that it draws a distinction between commons that are supposed to be a solid mass. My belief was that every common figure is part of the same mass, and that every common card connects/corresponds equally to every one of those figures. The very reason you only need one card is that the duplicates are completely identical in terms of gameplay. If you think you have one card that activates four minutemen, another that activates two, and yet another that activates none, that's like keeping track of which four 4th Line belong to which card.

3. If it turns out that the Cody ruling is indeed real, would I enforce his rule in a game? Absolutely, and I wouldn't feel the least little bit bad about it. You could have avoided the whole thing by bringing just the single common card like you were supposed to, but you didn't, so on your own head be it.

4. Given the "Chomp is mandatory" answer that came back not too long ago, I think we're within our rights to question whether this ruling is correct. But I don't want to get dogmatic here. If it's confirmed and locked in that this ruling is right and I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept that and abide by it.

5. See 1.
 
...we'll have to sort the sculpts so that we don't have two of the same sculpts on the same card...
This got me to thinking....Raelin's defensive aura and Marro Stingers, specifically the figure that holds his weapon upright. One last Question.

Subject
Multiple Common Army Cards

Discussion Thread
Response (Support Agent)04/23/2008 03:42 PM
ra914,
You should use one of each miniature depicted on the card for each unit you have. While there are no sanctioned rules for Heroscape yet, there may be in the future and it would be a good practice to play strictly by the rules to ensure fairness in your games.

Charles
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

Customer (ra914)04/22/2008 10:10 PM
In a Marro Stingers common army card hit zone/target point box, it shows three figures in different poses (Sculpt A,B and C). Since I do not have to keep track of which figures belong to which card, may I use six figures of Sculpt B?

I don't know what he means by the last part, if I could have found reference to this question in the rule book I wouldn't have asked it.
 
Each squad you draft comes with one of each figure. In casual games, your opponents might let you get away with playing all the same sculpt, but for tournaments you should play them the way they come.
 
Playing with all the different sculpts is one thing. But does WotC mean that you have to activate each different sculpt each time? hat severely dampens common abilities. Just think about what an opponent could do then. ex: kill all the sculpt As. Now you can only activate 2 squad members each turn if you have to activate all 3 different sculpts. I hope they mean that you have to start the game with the same amount of each sculpt.
 
But does WotC mean that you have to activate each different sculpt each time?

He said nothing of the sort. When are you guys going to stop putting words in WotC's mouth? :? You have to play with one of each sculpt for each squad you have, but you can, of course, move and attack with any three sculpts when you activate them.
 
But does WotC mean that you have to activate each different sculpt each time?

He said nothing of the sort. When are you guys going to stop putting words in WotC's mouth? :? You have to play with one of each sculpt for each squad you have, but you can, of course, move and attack with any three sculpts when you activate them.
So I guess if you want to play strictly by the rules, it would be wise to move out whole squads and try to get them killed off as a unit as opposed to moving out a bunch of sculpt B and get them all KO'd. Which could at times force the situation gamjuven is describing.
 
But does WotC mean that you have to activate each different sculpt each time?

He said nothing of the sort. When are you guys going to stop putting words in WotC's mouth? :? You have to play with one of each sculpt for each squad you have, but you can, of course, move and attack with any three sculpts when you activate them.
So I guess if you want to play strictly by the rules, it would be wise to move out whole squads and try to get them killed off as a unit as opposed to moving out a bunch of sculpt B and get them all KO'd. Which could at times force the situation gamjuven is describing.
What? gamjuven is incorrect. Read my post again.
 
I typed up a huge scenario to demonstrate what I was talking about, and I realized how wrong I was! Thanks, Necro, for bonking me on the noggin!
 
1. If you have multiple commons in your army, play with just one copy of that card in front of you. Period.

But there's no rule saying you must... at least not that I could find.

2. For the sake of argument, let's temporarily enter a bizarro world where point 1 does not apply. What causes me to think that Cody's answer is off base is that it draws a distinction between commons that are supposed to be a solid mass. My belief was that every common figure is part of the same mass, and that every common card connects/corresponds equally to every one of those figures. The very reason you only need one card is that the duplicates are completely identical in terms of gameplay. If you think you have one card that activates four minutemen, another that activates two, and yet another that activates none, that's like keeping track of which four 4th Line belong to which card.

DING DING DING!!!! THat's the point! The whole issue about which card you put a dead common on is ONLY important when you count points! PERIOD! It has no bearing whatsoever on how many commons you can move in your turn. That's set by 1) how many figures each squad has and 2) the number of figures of that squad you still have on the board.

3. If it turns out that the Cody ruling is indeed real, would I enforce his rule in a game? Absolutely, and I wouldn't feel the least little bit bad about it. You could have avoided the whole thing by bringing just the single common card like you were supposed to, but you didn't, so on your own head be it.

I would really fight the ruling. WotC would have to explain why all the sudden they're changing how commons play.

4. Given the "Chomp is mandatory" answer that came back not too long ago, I think we're within our rights to question whether this ruling is correct. But I don't want to get dogmatic here. If it's confirmed and locked in that this ruling is right and I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept that and abide by it.


I'd then hope WotC offers up a FAQ for how commons are now to be played. The FAQ would have to discuss all the issues surrounding the new ruling. They'd have to clarify that it's now a rule that you can only play with one common card independent of how many units you're actually fielding.
 
I was speculating. And panicking of sorts. You're absolutely correct Necroblade, that's not what WotC said. My bad. And that's very good they didn't say that, cause that would suck. In my defense I did type in what they meant in the same paragraph (nervous laughy-smilie face).
 
1. If you have multiple commons in your army, play with just one copy of that card in front of you. Period.

But there's no rule saying you must... at least not that I could find.

2. For the sake of argument, let's temporarily enter a bizarro world where point 1 does not apply. What causes me to think that Cody's answer is off base is that it draws a distinction between commons that are supposed to be a solid mass. My belief was that every common figure is part of the same mass, and that every common card connects/corresponds equally to every one of those figures. The very reason you only need one card is that the duplicates are completely identical in terms of gameplay. If you think you have one card that activates four minutemen, another that activates two, and yet another that activates none, that's like keeping track of which four 4th Line belong to which card.

DING DING DING!!!! THat's the point! The whole issue about which card you put a dead common on is ONLY important when you count points! PERIOD! It has no bearing whatsoever on how many commons you can move in your turn. That's set by 1) how many figures each squad has and 2) the number of figures of that squad you still have on the board.

3. If it turns out that the Cody ruling is indeed real, would I enforce his rule in a game? Absolutely, and I wouldn't feel the least little bit bad about it. You could have avoided the whole thing by bringing just the single common card like you were supposed to, but you didn't, so on your own head be it.

I would really fight the ruling. WotC would have to explain why all the sudden they're changing how commons play.

4. Given the "Chomp is mandatory" answer that came back not too long ago, I think we're within our rights to question whether this ruling is correct. But I don't want to get dogmatic here. If it's confirmed and locked in that this ruling is right and I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept that and abide by it.


I'd then hope WotC offers up a FAQ for how commons are now to be played. The FAQ would have to discuss all the issues surrounding the new ruling. They'd have to clarify that it's now a rule that you can only play with one common card independent of how many units you're actually fielding.
I have a feeling that we won't have to wait too long for a thorough explanation of how commons work -vs- the loosy goosy way they are worded right now. I think it is something that needs attention considering that Cody is not wrong and yet his answer flies in the face of how the entire community plays commons, both casually and in competitive arenas.
 
I have a feeling that we won't have to wait too long for a thorough explanation of how commons work -vs- the loosy goosy way they are worded right now. I think it is something that needs attention considering that Cody is not wrong and yet his answer flies in the face of how the entire community plays commons, both casually and in competitive arenas.

GB, would you please explain why you think he's not wrong? I've explained why I believe he is wrong.

Thanks.
 
If Cody is right, then you should always be required to play with all of your army cards.

I personally don't believe he is right. I.e., Phaethon's explanation is absolutely correct.

From the rulebook:

"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."
 
From the rulebook:

"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."
The reason these questions were asked is simply because there is no 'Always' in that example. (Card always activates) The fact that there is no 'always' was why I was playing wrong and despite others beliefs, I think that many more have/will misunderstand the rules as I did. That and the fact that the example uses two army cards and not one.

I agree whole heartedly with Grungebob's statement above on having a thorough explanation on how commons work. IMO, at least wording the rules better.
 
Please forgive me for asking this. I belive I read somewhere on this site that a special attack cannot get a highth advantage. It is only the normal attacks. Is this true? That would seem a bit crazy? If there is anyone who can point me in the right direction on this I would appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Please forgive me for asking this. I belive I read somewhere on this site that a special attack cannot get a highth advantage. It is only the normal attacks. Is this true? That would seem a bit crazy? If there is anyone who can point me in the right direction on this I would appreciate it. Thanks!
Look at the Description of this very subforum:

Official Rules & FAQ's: Compilation and discussion of official HeroScape Rules and Frequently Asked Questions. **Special attacks never receive any bonuses.**
 
I agree whole heartedly with Grungebob's statement above on having a thorough explanation on how commons work. IMO, at least wording the rules better.

Yes. I'm pretty sure that the very important "common figures who moved must be among those who attack" rule was never put in the paper manual.

LONG-AFTER-THE-FACT EDIT: I'm changing this post to insert the official outcome of the Earth-Bizarro World commons war in a convenient place. TheGuru's blog now has a preview of the new "Gen Con 2008" version of the official WotC FAQs. And I quote: "ERRATA: If your Army includes two or more of the same common Army Card, we suggest using only one common Army Card to represent them. For example, if you’re using three cards worth of Marro Stinger figures (3 figures per card=9 figures on the board), use only 1 Marro Stinger Army Card. Each Order Marker placed on your Marro Stinger Army Card activates any 3 Marro Stingers you control."
 
I have a question about a situation that came up in a game last night. I apologize if it's been asked before, but I just sifted through 25 pages of this and the search doesn't like small words:

RoTV Raelin was positioned an equal distance from 2 pieces (both within 4 spaces), yet her back was facing one of the pieces. When I attacked the piece behind her, the player claimed that her aura still benefitted it, since she could "turn around" while I was attacking it. The 2nd edition guide says to use her target point to determine LOS, and her target point is clearly in the front of her head which would lead me to believe once you position her it determines which units fall under her LOS. Two players claimed that her aura covered 360 degrees around Raelin while I argued that it only covered the 180 degrees in front of her. Who is correct?
 
I have a question about a situation that came up in a game last night. I apologize if it's been asked before, but I just sifted through 25 pages of this and the search doesn't like small words:

RoTV Raelin was positioned an equal distance from 2 pieces (both within 4 spaces), yet her back was facing one of the pieces. When I attacked the piece behind her, the player claimed that her aura still benefitted it, since she could "turn around" while I was attacking it. The 2nd edition guide says to use her target point to determine LOS, and her target point is clearly in the front of her head which would lead me to believe once you position her it determines which units fall under her LOS. Two players claimed that her aura covered 360 degrees around Raelin while I argued that it only covered the 180 degrees in front of her. Who is correct?
They are correct. She can see 360 degrees.
 
I have a question about a situation that came up in a game last night. I apologize if it's been asked before, but I just sifted through 25 pages of this and the search doesn't like small words:

RoTV Raelin was positioned an equal distance from 2 pieces (both within 4 spaces), yet her back was facing one of the pieces. When I attacked the piece behind her, the player claimed that her aura still benefitted it, since she could "turn around" while I was attacking it. The 2nd edition guide says to use her target point to determine LOS, and her target point is clearly in the front of her head which would lead me to believe once you position her it determines which units fall under her LOS. Two players claimed that her aura covered 360 degrees around Raelin while I argued that it only covered the 180 degrees in front of her. Who is correct?

The "Book of Raelin" has a quote from the Hasbro FAQ (although the latest FAQ doesn't mention this ruling):

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=8119

And if I'm not mistaken, you're allowed to turn your single space figures at any point? Being able to do so would make this a moot point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top