Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
*points to subject title*

Basically, I have one attacker and my opponent decides to double block. We'll say I have a 5/5 and they have a 2/3 and a 3/2 (doesn't matter if these actually exist or not, just a fictional example). I attack with the 5/5. My opponent blocks it with both the 2/3 and the 3/2. For one reason or another, I'd rather not have the 3/2 get a chance at being re-rolled, so I'd rather it stay on the field. Can I assign all 5 damage towards the 2/3 and none to the 3/2? Obviously my opponent's 5 damage would be assigned to my 5/5, which would knock it out.

My gut reaction is yes, as you can 'overkill' in a normal instance - the rules even list extra damage dealt as wasted. However, since there's no reason to assign extra damage (globals are used before assigning and dealing damage), I could see you being forced to assign it all as long as there's a valid target for the damage (until you hit an amount of excess, in which case it would be wasted regardless).


Along those same lines, I had a second question. Looking at the basic action Thrown Car, would the same thing still happen? Thrown Car reads:
"Two of your attacking characters get +1A. While attacking, damage that those two characters deal in excess of the total defense of blocking characters is dealt to your opponent."

Let's take the same example as before, but we'll add a 1/1 to my side of the field so I have two valid targets. I attack with my 5/5 and 1/1. My opponent double-blocks the 5/5 with his 3/2 and 2/3. I then use my basic action die for Thrown Car, resulting in a 6/5 and a 2/1. Damage is then assigned and dealt. Can I deal all 6 damage to the 2/3 and none to the 3/2, as before? Again, I assume yes, as listed before.

The difference is that Thrown Car allows extra damage to be dealt to my opponent if it's in excess of the total defense of blocking characters. I'm not as confident in this, but I feel that you can compare the attack value (6) and the total defense (5) to deal the difference as damage to the opponent. Even though you're assigning all 6 to one blocker, it just looks at the hard numbers, despite what is being dealt and to who. In the given situation, my opponent would take 3 damage (2 from the 2/1 and 1 from the 6/5 with Thrown Car), the 2/3 and 5/5 would go to KO'd, and the 1/1 would go to used.

This might just be a lot of wishful thinking, but I'd like to hear some input from others.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ICE 0ne
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Pocolius wrote:
*points to subject title*

My gut reaction is yes, as you can 'overkill' in a normal instance - the rules even list extra damage dealt as wasted. However, since there's no reason to assign extra damage (globals are used before assigning and dealing damage), I could see you being forced to assign it all as long as there's a valid target for the damage (until you hit an amount of excess, in which case it would be wasted regardless).



I've played it as you can. Damage prevention globals are the only interrupts and they can only be played after damage is dealt, so to make sure you kill the 2/3 you'd have to be able to assign it extra damage.

Other people have had the same question about thrown car. The way it's worded I would think you can assign it all to one character.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr Who
msg tools
mb
we have been playing to where the extra blocker does have to take the left over damage

another way to knock out another beast

or to put some dice in your prep for next roll

good question though, not sure

like Human Torch Johnny Storm, the damage hits you, if no other opposing character is available.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
ICE 0ne wrote:
I've played it as you can. Damage prevention globals are the only interrupts and they can only be played after damage is dealt, so to make sure you kill the 2/3 you'd have to be able to assign it extra damage.

Other people have had the same question about thrown car. The way it's worded I would think you can assign it all to one character.

Maybe I overlooked it, but where does it say you're able to use damage prevention globals after damage is dealt? Combat specifically lists a step for basic actions (for the active player only) and globals (both players) to be used, and that step comes before damage is assigned and dealt. That's the main reason I'm hesitant to say you can assign all of your damage to one target if two are blocking - there's no surprises. No instant speed reactions to damage happening or anything else.

If I missed that rule that certain globals can be used during the damage step, then it should fairly cement how one attacker can deal with two blockers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rauli Kettunen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Players are allowed to use global abilities that react to events at the appropriate time (for example, a global ability that allows you to redirect damage when one of your characters takes damage)." (p. 22)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Dam the Man wrote:
"Players are allowed to use global abilities that react to events at the appropriate time (for example, a global ability that allows you to redirect damage when one of your characters takes damage)." (p. 22)
Ah, thanks. Well, that firmly cements my opinion in being able to overkill one target then.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Walker
United States
Idaho
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
tl;dr - I agree with Case 1, but not Case 2. MtG rules seem to support my conclusion, if that means anything for this, admittedly different, game. Also, I might not have a life.

Pocolius wrote:
...since there's no reason to assign extra damage (globals are used before assigning and dealing damage), I could see you being forced to assign it all as long as there's a valid target for the damage (until you hit an amount of excess, in which case it would be wasted regardless).


Generally speaking this is my interpretation of the rules. No particular reason, it just feels right to me. Despite that, I can see an argument for your interpretation in Case 1. However, I still disagree with Case 2. Here's a rough argument, on thematic grounds.

Case 1:
Pocolius wrote:
I attack with the 5/5. My opponent blocks it with both the 2/3 and the 3/2. For one reason or another, I'd rather not have the 3/2 get a chance at being re-rolled, so I'd rather it stay on the field. Can I assign all 5 damage towards the 2/3 and none to the 3/2? Obviously my opponent's 5 damage would be assigned to my 5/5, which would knock it out.


I imagine this as Hero runs forward, and encounters Defenders 1 and 2. He punches Defender 1 twice, knocking him out, but then in his blind rage he keeps attacking Defender 1 (kicking a man while he's down, if you will). Meanwhile, Defender 2 keeps attacking our hero, and knocks him out, without taking any damage himself. I'm mostly fine with this.

Case 2:
Pocolius wrote:
Let's take the same example as before, but we'll add a 1/1 to my side of the field so I have two valid targets. I attack with my 5/5 and 1/1. My opponent double-blocks the 5/5 with his 3/2 and 2/3. I then use my basic action die for Thrown Car, resulting in a 6/5 and a 2/1. Damage is then assigned and dealt. Can I deal all 6 damage to the 2/3 and none to the 3/2, as before? Again, I assume yes, as listed before.


I'm with you so far. If you could overkill before, why shouldn't you be able to do it now?

Pocolius wrote:

The difference is that Thrown Car allows extra damage to be dealt to my opponent if it's in excess of the total defense of blocking characters. I'm not as confident in this, but I feel that you can compare the attack value (6) and the total defense (5) to deal the difference as damage to the opponent. Even though you're assigning all 6 to one blocker, it just looks at the hard numbers, despite what is being dealt and to who. In the given situation, my opponent would take 3 damage (2 from the 2/1 and 1 from the 6/5 with Thrown Car), the 2/3 and 5/5 would go to KO'd, and the 1/1 would go to used.


To me this sounds like Hero runs forward, and encounters Defenders 1 and 2. He punches Defender 1 twice, knocking him out, but then in his blind rage he punches Defender 1 three more times. Then, using the very last of his energy, he turns around and punches the "Mastermind" (that is, the player) but for some reason Defender 2 - despite having been sent as a blocker - never thinks to step in the way of the punch. Since one other card (Doc Oc - Fully Armed) and likely more future cards include this effect, let's ignore the fact that my explanation didn't involve soaring automobiles, but you can feel free to substitute in kicks, laser vision, repulsor rays, soaring automobiles, stunning good looks, etc.

It just doesn't feel right. If your attack is never really applied against a character's defense, I don't see how there can be any spillover. To me, the idea of damage spilling over sort of implies that your attack power was actually used against all of that defense power.




Since a lot of this game's combat is mechanically similar to MtG, it might be useful to see how MtG handles similar effects. First, I realize that they are different games, and so none of this is official, but it's probably at least useful. Second, I have played MtG only a little. Briefly in middle school, once or twice since. I am by no means an expert, and all of these rules were found after a brief google search. If they are inaccurate, I apologize.

On blocking, MtG rules state:

Quote:
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it can't assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that's being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that's actually dealt. An amount of damage that's greater than a creature's lethal damage may be assigned to it.


So, assuming combat between the two games tracks at this level, your Case 1 example is supported by that last sentence. However, it's worth noting that these rules are much more specific about how damage must be assigned (you can't move on to another blocker until you've assigned at least lethal damage to the first one) than the MdM rules, which just say to split it up as you please.


Now, on trample, MtG rules say:

Quote:
702.17b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures thats being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage thats actually dealt. The attacking creatures controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case cant assign any damage to the player or planeswalker its attacking.


Again, if we assume that combat tracks between the two games at this level, that last sentence seems to speak against Case 2.



In conclusion, two important points. First, when I started writing this post, I didn't really agree with Case 1. I now fully agree with it. Makes perfect sense. Second, sometimes I wonder if I take all this board gaming stuff way too seriously...


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
While I can't speak to all of board gaming, taking this game that seriously isn't a bad thing. Unfortunately, the rules of Magic have no bearing here, despite their similarities. Two different games and there's no reason to compare them, rule-wise.

I also don't try and make a case for things based on how it might work thematically. It's usually better design for mechanics to be more important than theme. Would your rather play a game that mechanically runs well but doesn't make sense thematically, or play a game where the flavor works perfectly but the mechanics are over-complicated and confusing? Not saying one is better than the other, but I'll take smooth running mechanics over how it makes sense flavor-wise. (As a side note, I imagine getting hit with a car means you probably took a lot of extra damage anyways, more so than just a punch).

I think the Magic rules for how it handles Trample in that situation would be great for Dice Masters. Assign the damage how you want, but if you fail to deal lethal to all blockers, none would be assigned to your opponent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I still play Magic-style combat rules (i.e. you can't assign more damage to a blocker than its defense value) even when it's not beneficial for me to do so. It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to completely ignore a blocker either thematically OR mechanically.

I also disagree that Magic's rules are irrelevant to Dice Masters, given that one of the lead designers spent nearly ten years working on Magic and likely brought quite a lot of his design experience from that into this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to completely ignore a blocker either thematically OR mechanically.


If Hulk attacked your house and both you and your friend tried to stop him, why would it be unthematic for him to ignore one of you and totally annihilate the other?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, can we please stop discussing Magic rules? I think there's a Magic: the Gathering board somewhere on this website...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:
Carda39 wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to completely ignore a blocker either thematically OR mechanically.


If Hulk attacked your house and both you and your friend tried to stop him, why would it be unthematic for him to ignore one of you and totally annihilate the other?
If Hulk was already in the middle of a swing and both you and your friend stepped in the way of it to protect your other friend, wouldn't both of you get knocked out?

Thematically we can argue this either way until we're both blue in the face, but it still doesn't fit the genre of the game mechanically to say that ignoring a blocker is the intention of the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
jhoratio wrote:
Carda39 wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to completely ignore a blocker either thematically OR mechanically.


If Hulk attacked your house and both you and your friend tried to stop him, why would it be unthematic for him to ignore one of you and totally annihilate the other?
If Hulk was already in the middle of a swing and both you and your friend stepped in the way of it to protect your other friend, wouldn't both of you get knocked out?

Thematically we can argue this either way until we're both blue in the face, but it still doesn't fit the genre of the game mechanically to say that ignoring a blocker is the intention of the rules.


No one's ignoring a blocker. The attacker is absorbing damage from that blocker, so they're definitely there. But in terms of damange dealt (as opposed to absorbed) the attacker can just fire away at the one without paying attention to the other. That is, you're on Hulk's back whacking at him, while he's ignoring you and pummeling your friend.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
That still makes no sense mechanically, especially in light of the fact that KOed characters are meant to act as a catch-up mechanic by potentially providing energy on the next turn.

And yes, you're ignoring a blocker by virtue of not dealing damage to him. If Hulk didn't want to risk hitting a guy, he shouldn't have started swinging to begin with. I can think of no other game that handles combat as you describe here, and saying "this isn't Magic so Magic's precedent is irrelevant" completely ignores the fact that a number of Dice Masters' design elements (particularly the combat mechanics) are drawn directly from Magic to begin with. Mike Elliot spent almost ten years working on Magic, I'd hardly consider that irrelevant to the design of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe we should check the Chaos in the Old World rulebook too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
That still makes no sense mechanically, especially in light of the fact that KOed characters are meant to act as a catch-up mechanic by potentially providing energy on the next turn.

And yes, you're ignoring a blocker by virtue of not dealing damage to him. If Hulk didn't want to risk hitting a guy, he shouldn't have started swinging to begin with. I can think of no other game that handles combat as you describe here, and saying "this isn't Magic so Magic's precedent is irrelevant" completely ignores the fact that a number of Dice Masters' design elements (particularly the combat mechanics) are drawn directly from Magic to begin with. Mike Elliot spent almost ten years working on Magic, I'd hardly consider that irrelevant to the design of the game.
In Magic, you CAN assign more damage than is needed.

From the Magic Rules quote above: " An amount of damage that's greater than a creature's lethal damage may be assigned to it."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Actually, you know what? I found it. Right here in the rulebook, page 8 under "Assign Damage": "Likewise, each blocking character assigns damage equal to its attack value to the character it blocks (characters that can block more than one attacker must split their damage just like attackers do)." (emphasis mine)

You're supposed to divide damage up amongst multiple blockers if you're able to do so. It's clearly the intent of the rules as stated here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
Actually, you know what? I found it. Right here in the rulebook, page 8 under "Assign Damage": "Likewise, each blocking character assigns damage equal to its attack value to the character it blocks (characters that can block more than one attacker must split their damage just like attackers do)." (emphasis mine)

You're supposed to divide damage up amongst multiple blockers if you're able to do so. It's clearly the intent of the rules as stated here.
You omitted the important part of the rule.

"If more than one character is blocking an attacking character, the attacker can choose how to divide the damage between the blockers."

The attacker can choose.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
The attacker chooses how to divide damage provided he doesn't have enough attack value to flatten everyone blocking him. Hulk getting blocked by four Sidekicks is going to KO 4 Sidekicks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
Actually, you know what? I found it. Right here in the rulebook, page 8 under "Assign Damage": "Likewise, each blocking character assigns damage equal to its attack value to the character it blocks (characters that can block more than one attacker must split their damage just like attackers do)." (emphasis mine)

You're supposed to divide damage up amongst multiple blockers if you're able to do so. It's clearly the intent of the rules as stated here.


Awesome. Now go look at what the rules actually say about how that damage "must" be divided. (Hint: It's the attacker's choice.) Then apply the same ruling to blockers that block more than one attacker.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
The attacker chooses how to divide damage provided he doesn't have enough attack value to flatten everyone blocking him. Hulk getting blocked by four Sidekicks is going to KO 4 Sidekicks.

Yeah, that's just not anywhere in the rules.

And its not how it works in Magic either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carda
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Seriously? If you're "dividing" the damage, you're distributing it to multiple targets. Assigning all damage to one target isn't "dividing" at all.

Honestly, if WizKids had just worded the dang rule more clearly in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The intent here is clearly that you're not supposed to assign every point of damage to one blocker if you've got enough Attack to spread it around. To say differently is abusing the vague wording of the rules to gain an advantage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
Honestly, if WizKids had just worded the dang rule more clearly in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The intent here is clearly that you're not supposed to assign every point of damage to one blocker if you've got enough Attack to spread it around. To say differently is abusing the vague wording of the rules to gain an advantage.


It's really not. I can see why you think that, looking at it in a vacuum. It's rather a common convention that magic players and players of CCGs are used to. You're right - the word "distribute" would have been better than "divide", but the intent is to give all the choice to the attacker in how to make his attack. It's not so different from having the right to assign a target when I inflict direct damage.

It would be far stranger and out of place for a game to place restrictions on how damage can be assigned, because that's not normal. The rules don't say damage must be divided evenly, or damage must be assigned to all blockers, or damage must be assigned to the strongest blocker first, or damage must all be assigned to one blocker until that blocker is knocked out. All of those are valid choices, but in the end its easier, more streamlined, and more commonly expected just to have the attacker distribute it however he pleases.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew McFarland
United States
Pepperell
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carda39 wrote:
The attacker chooses how to divide damage provided he doesn't have enough attack value to flatten everyone blocking him. Hulk getting blocked by four Sidekicks is going to KO 4 Sidekicks.

Personally I think this is the intent, but until it's addressed in a FAQ update there will continue to be arguments.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lordrahvin wrote:
Carda39 wrote:
Honestly, if WizKids had just worded the dang rule more clearly in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The intent here is clearly that you're not supposed to assign every point of damage to one blocker if you've got enough Attack to spread it around. To say differently is abusing the vague wording of the rules to gain an advantage.


It's really not. I can see why you think that, looking at it in a vacuum. It's rather a common convention that magic players and players of CCGs are used to. You're right - the word "distribute" would have been better than "divide", but the intent is to give all the choice to the attacker in how to make his attack. It's not so different from having the right to assign a target when I inflict direct damage.

It would be far stranger and out of place for a game to place restrictions on how damage can be assigned, because that's not normal. The rules don't say damage must be divided evenly, or damage must be assigned to all blockers, or damage must be assigned to the strongest blocker first, or damage must all be assigned to one blocker until that blocker is knocked out. All of those are valid choices, but in the end its easier, more streamlined, and more commonly expected just to have the attacker distribute it however he pleases.


Couldn't possibly be more in agreement with this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.