Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
44 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Marvel Dice Masters: Avengers vs. X-Men» Forums » Rules

Subject: Independent Marvel Dice Masters FAQ rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Rules [+] FAQ [+] DiceMasters [+] [View All]
Jeff W
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Wait no longer and look no further, the Independent Marvel Dice Masters FAQ is here.

We have compiled all the questions and answers players have been sending in. We have searched the internet for additional questions and answers. We have involved other leaders in the Dice Masters community. Here is the Independent Marvel Dice Masters FAQ. Enjoy!

http://www.dicemastersrules.com/?p=1971
4 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ducimus
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks. Nice work
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I will wait for WizKids
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Beiter
United States
Tonawanda
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


That is precisely what I wanted to say.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Martin
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
I've got nothing up my sleeves
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Beiter
United States
Tonawanda
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jergarmar wrote:
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?


The main item is the clarification on Angel. The term "once blocked always blocked" in a removed attacker situation has never been clarified by wiz kids. And this one rule can make or break a lot of combos and ability synergies.
It was only ever addressed in a removing a blocker situation.

There are a lot of strong opinions on this item and I definitely don't want to reopen the debate in a 3rd thread. If anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse its carcass is spread all over the dice masters forums.

That is the main offender. The rest of it is pretty good as far as basic mechanics go. Its mainly just individual cards at this point. I don't want to nit pick every individual one.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It brings up more questions such as

#36 - Black Widow - Natural
Q: Does Black Widow’s ability still occur if she’s been KO’d during the Attack Step?
A: No, since she is no longer engaged at the end of the Attack Step (after all damage has been resolved).

The example of night crawler being knocked out once blocked always blocked seems to contradict this statement.

The argument is the word Engaged, and not Blocked, but the MDM rules state a character is engaged if they are blocked or being blocked - being knocked out doesn't mean they're no longer engaged per the Rules because they're still blocked.

I'm not opening this up for an argument but the blocked always blocked rule is being interpreted in my opinion incorrectly, if everyone wants to apply the rule one way then it has to work with all the characters the same way.

Just showing that none of these rules really matter, I think they're great guidance for playing but far from being real.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
jergarmar wrote:
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?


The main item is the clarification on Angel. The term "once blocked always blocked" in a removed attacker situation has never been clarified by wiz kids. And this one rule can make or break a lot of combos and ability synergies.
It was only ever addressed in a removing a blocker situation.

There are a lot of strong opinions on this item and I definitely don't want to reopen the debate in a 3rd thread. If anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse its carcass is spread all over the dice masters forums.

That is the main offender. The rest of it is pretty good as far as basic mechanics go. Its mainly just individual cards at this point. I don't want to nit pick every individual one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with you both.
I will not even refer to this FAQ while playing, as it appears that they feel that these are 'closed' issues and in fact they are not. Picking and choosing when blocked always blocks applies, or when attack always attacked (which has never been proved) opens up the game to rule manipulation and gaming the rules rather than playing the game. I would rather play the game.
I can appreciate the time it took to put it all together, the layout, and the understanding that there are too many cards that need addressing, but I do not agree that these are all correct interpretations on the rules and the cards that they have presented.
Telling me that a select body of people that play MDM doesn't count as proof either, so I will continue to play as I have played and my stances do not change in the slightest.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

How are your house rules working out for you in Organized Play?


eviljelloman wrote:
Mabuchi wrote:
I will wait for WizKids


Let us know how that works out for you. We've been waiting for WizKids long enough.

The fact that there are so many ambiguities is killing this game. I'm already house ruling my own card selection variants - might as well house rule a FAQ to work around the terrible inconsistencies in this poorly-executed game.

The community can salvage this game, because WK sure seems to have no interest in doing so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's the whole point of trying to get a correct FAQ, and that's why some people have so much passion in the game and wanting to play correctly. (House Rules don't cut it for a lot of these players)



I'm not playing in OP because of these self interpreted rules, I'm having a lot of fun playing the game, but to try and play OP this whole thing is a mess.


I do agree that any questionable cards that all players should agree on the way they will be applied/played, but that's what we do at home not in an OP


eviljelloman wrote:
tebald wrote:

How are your house rules working out for you in Organized Play?


Why would I even want to attempt organized play with such a mess of a game?

(protip: game stores have had to make judgement calls on these timing issues a ton anyway - that's essentially a house rule)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Satan Himself
United States
Dead Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
Strangely, the thing I disagree with isn't Angel. I think that's actually how Angel works.

What I don't get agree with is E3. The premise comes from the rulebook, which is really poorly formatted. So much so that if you read the step-by-step section of the rules without context of how abilities resolve you could be lead to believe that you never check to see if anyone is knocked out until after combat. Since that is the same general area of the rules which mentions damage from drawing dice I think you have to take it with a grain of salt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Martin
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
I've got nothing up my sleeves
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MajaiofDreams wrote:
jergarmar wrote:
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?


The main item is the clarification on Angel. The term "once blocked always blocked" in a removed attacker situation has never been clarified by wiz kids. And this one rule can make or break a lot of combos and ability synergies.
It was only ever addressed in a removing a blocker situation.

There are a lot of strong opinions on this item and I definitely don't want to reopen the debate in a 3rd thread. If anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse its carcass is spread all over the dice masters forums.

That is the main offender. The rest of it is pretty good as far as basic mechanics go. Its mainly just individual cards at this point. I don't want to nit pick every individual one.


I'm am not posting this to debate, just to clarify. I want to be consistent, too! This is a quote from the official FAQ:

Quote:

Q: Is a character considered to be blocked even if the blocker is
removed from combat before damage is assigned?
A: Yes, once a blocker is declared in the Assign Blocker step, the
attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage. As an
example, if Nightcrawler, Circus Freak, is blocked by a single
character and that character is KO’d by Nightcrawler’s ability,
Nightcrawler is still considered to have been blocked for the turn.


I have definitely taken "Once a blocker is declared... the attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage" to be reducible to "once blocked, always blocked". Is there a thread that you can link that has another interpretation of this? I didn't even know this was up for debate.

Also, Black Widow - Natural was brought up, but that too was covered by the official FAQ:
Quote:

If Black Widow, Natural, would be KO’ed due to damage taken
in the Assign Damage step (or otherwise removed from combat
before the end of the attack step), then she is no longer actively
engaged with any opposing characters so her game effect would
not occur.


Is there a thread where THIS is disputed? Or was that brought up to show that it is a supposed counter-example?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jergarmar wrote:
MajaiofDreams wrote:
jergarmar wrote:
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?


The main item is the clarification on Angel. The term "once blocked always blocked" in a removed attacker situation has never been clarified by wiz kids. And this one rule can make or break a lot of combos and ability synergies.
It was only ever addressed in a removing a blocker situation.

There are a lot of strong opinions on this item and I definitely don't want to reopen the debate in a 3rd thread. If anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse its carcass is spread all over the dice masters forums.

That is the main offender. The rest of it is pretty good as far as basic mechanics go. Its mainly just individual cards at this point. I don't want to nit pick every individual one.


I'm am not posting this to debate, just to clarify. I want to be consistent, too! This is a quote from the official FAQ:

Quote:

Q: Is a character considered to be blocked even if the blocker is
removed from combat before damage is assigned?
A: Yes, once a blocker is declared in the Assign Blocker step, the
attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage. As an
example, if Nightcrawler, Circus Freak, is blocked by a single
character and that character is KO’d by Nightcrawler’s ability,
Nightcrawler is still considered to have been blocked for the turn.


I have definitely taken "Once a blocker is declared... the attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage" to be reducible to "once blocked, always blocked". Is there a thread that you can link that has another interpretation of this? I didn't even know this was up for debate.

Also, Black Widow - Natural was brought up, but that too was covered by the official FAQ:
Quote:

If Black Widow, Natural, would be KO’ed due to damage taken
in the Assign Damage step (or otherwise removed from combat
before the end of the attack step), then she is no longer actively
engaged with any opposing characters so her game effect would
not occur.


Is there a thread where THIS is disputed?


The quote you stated is from the FAQ it says when the Blocker is removed not the Attacker, can you support anywhere that says when an attacker is removed they're always blocked, my example is per the definition in the back of the rules "Engaged = being blocked or blocking", the rule of Black widow seems to support that when an attacker is removed there is no block or blocking, you can have it one way or the other -
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Martin
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
I've got nothing up my sleeves
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tebald wrote:
jergarmar wrote:
MajaiofDreams wrote:
jergarmar wrote:
Awesome! In lieu of an official ruling, having some a community-driven set of guidelines is very helpful.

MajaiofDreams wrote:
Over all I think the structure of the FAQ is very well put together. It is laid out very well. I hope the official FAQ has a card by card lay out.

But on looking through the individual card clarifications there are items I strongly disagree with and therefor can not give much weight to this FAQ. I admire the effort, but without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.


What things do you strongly disagree with?


The main item is the clarification on Angel. The term "once blocked always blocked" in a removed attacker situation has never been clarified by wiz kids. And this one rule can make or break a lot of combos and ability synergies.
It was only ever addressed in a removing a blocker situation.

There are a lot of strong opinions on this item and I definitely don't want to reopen the debate in a 3rd thread. If anyone wants to continue beating the dead horse its carcass is spread all over the dice masters forums.

That is the main offender. The rest of it is pretty good as far as basic mechanics go. Its mainly just individual cards at this point. I don't want to nit pick every individual one.


I'm am not posting this to debate, just to clarify. I want to be consistent, too! This is a quote from the official FAQ:

Quote:

Q: Is a character considered to be blocked even if the blocker is
removed from combat before damage is assigned?
A: Yes, once a blocker is declared in the Assign Blocker step, the
attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage. As an
example, if Nightcrawler, Circus Freak, is blocked by a single
character and that character is KO’d by Nightcrawler’s ability,
Nightcrawler is still considered to have been blocked for the turn.


I have definitely taken "Once a blocker is declared... the attack is still considered blocked when assigning damage" to be reducible to "once blocked, always blocked". Is there a thread that you can link that has another interpretation of this? I didn't even know this was up for debate.

Also, Black Widow - Natural was brought up, but that too was covered by the official FAQ:
Quote:

If Black Widow, Natural, would be KO’ed due to damage taken
in the Assign Damage step (or otherwise removed from combat
before the end of the attack step), then she is no longer actively
engaged with any opposing characters so her game effect would
not occur.


Is there a thread where THIS is disputed?


The quote you stated is from the FAQ it says when the Blocker is removed not the Attacker, can you support anywhere that says when an attacker is removed they're always blocked, my example is per the definition in the back of the rules "Engaged = being blocked or blocking", the rule of Black widow seems to support that when an attacker is removed there is no block or blocking, you can have it one way or the other -


I guess I don't understand what you're saying without an example. As far as "engaged", the official FAQ states:
Quote:

Q: Please explain game effects that occur when a character is
“engaged” in combat.
A: If a character has a game effect that is triggered when the
character is “engaged” with another character, then that
character must actively be in combat (either as attacker or
blocker) with the opposing character when the game effect is
supposed to occur. If that character is removed from combat
before their game effect would trigger, that character’s effect
will not occur. As an example, Black Widow Natural has a
card effect of, “At the end of the attack step, spin each
character engaged with Black Widow down 1 level.”

That seems pretty clear to me. At least provide a thread link, so I don't have to keep mucking up this thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
it was a copy and paste directly from the rules in the back -

Lexicon
Abilities: The text on the die’s associated card.
Action: A die that has no character faces. A face on such a die that shows the special
graphic and can be used for a powerful effect.
Active: An effect that takes place when one or more of that card’s dice are in the field.
Assign: To commit your monsters to attack, or to block an attacking monster. Also, to
designate how a monster’s attack value is dealt as damage to targets in an attack step.
Attack: To send your characters to try to damage your opponent.
Burst: A star-shaped symbol that indicates extra abilities may be in effect for a die.
Capture: To place under your die and temporarily remove from the game.
Engaged: A character blocking or being blocked is engaged with the opposing character.
Face: One side of a die.
Field: The area where your characters go when you pay for them to fight your opponent.
Global: A type of game effect that is available for both players to use.
Opposing: Owned or controlled by the other player.
Spin: To turn or rotate a die so that it shows a different face.
Stats: The numbers on a character die face.
When Fielded: An effect that takes place when you pay a character’s fielding cost.
While Active: See Active.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Martin
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
I've got nothing up my sleeves
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Right, we know that the rulebook is thin on details, but after the official FAQ, what situations do you think are ambiguous?

Back at the end of May, when the official FAQ came out, people were actually praising Wizkids for their quick response. I finally got a copy of the game recently, and I'm trying to get caught up, so I fully recognize I could have missed some rule discussions and debates. That's why I'm only too happy to be pointed to a rules thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Baldassar
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is a character still blocked when removed from the attack field prior to taking damage, if yes then it seems pretty clear they're also still engaged, yes or no?

If they're not engaged after being removed then the rule book is wrong and everyone else is correct.

There's abilities that take place due to being engaged or blocked everyone wants to think you can remove a character and the word blocked on the character card is still applicable, but when it comes to applying engaged abilities they seem to think that once blocked always block doesn't qualify as being engaged and triggering effects.

You asked where the quote came from if everyone knows the rule book/FAQ then don't ask for the obvious.

jergarmar wrote:
Right, we know that the rulebook is thin on details, but after the official FAQ, what situations do you think are ambiguous?

Back at the end of May, when the official FAQ came out, people were actually praising Wizkids for their quick response. I finally got a copy of the game recently, and I'm trying to get caught up, so I fully recognize I could have missed some rule discussions and debates. That's why I'm only too happy to be pointed to a rules thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Beiter
United States
Tonawanda
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The threads you are looking for are:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1194727/angel-and-distra...

and more recently.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1227355/teleport-op-mont...

There are a lot of pages of debate there so get ready... You can see the arguments evolve and the infamous beginnings of "once blocked, always blocked".

Enjoy!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
I didn't read in-depth, just glanced through - is there some precedence of this in the main rules anywhere?
Quote:
[E5] Do as much as possible:

When a card has multiple effects, perform as many of these effects as possible. When a card must target a certain number of targets you must target as many targets as are available.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Pocolius wrote:
I didn't read in-depth, just glanced through - is there some precedence of this in the main rules anywhere?
Quote:
[E5] Do as much as possible:

When a card has multiple effects, perform as many of these effects as possible. When a card must target a certain number of targets you must target as many targets as are available.

No, there isn't.

In fact, there is however some supporting evidence for "if you can't do all you can't do any".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
MajaiofDreams wrote:
...without official wiz kids weigh in it is just a well put together opinion and can not be accepted as fact.

Agreed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, there isn't.

In fact, there is however some supporting evidence for "if you can't do all you can't do any".

That's how I've been treating things and wanted to make sure.


I appreciate the effort at trying to put together a FAQ for the game, but its not anything more than one/a few people's opinions - which doesn't actually help. A community FAQ might actually be worthwhile if we're still without an updated one when the WizKids Open Events roll around in a month. But it would have to be a community one that comes to a consensus on how things are viewed, and include a variety of people giving input on decisions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Cresswell
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
An independant FAQ driven by community feedback is better than nothing. Also a decent idea in the absence of official commentary. This is a worthwhile player aid for anyone involved in OP events seeking clarification in the absence of official rulings.

So long as the subjects being tackled have been collated based on issues discussed by the wider community and the solutions being applied are the agreed consensus of a majority panel.

Collated feedback may encourage the eventual release of an expanded FAQ from the publishers.

Thanks for putting effort in, despite some mixed responses from individuals who failed to agree upon reality.

Regards,

Werekin
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Cresswell
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Feedback on the unofficial FAQ.

#[E5], [E6], [E7] would benefit from having specific examples using cards to help explain these scenarios.

#Reserve Pool - there is some extraneous text here referring to the confusion for dice types

#25 Distraction - Could you please reword this to explain whether the description is referring to the dice rolling effect of the Action or the global ability. I know this may seem obvious to most people. On the face of it you should make it crystal clear what you are talking about when a card has more than one purpose.

#AvX 1/13 Teamwork - Does the Month One promo card ‘Teamwork’ give +1/+1 to dice belonging to the same character?

‘Teamwork’ reads:
"…for each other of your fielded characters that shares a team affiliation with it."

Despite the ambiguity of this wording it would seem the intention could be to marry up other different characters from the same faction. Therefore +1/+1 would not be awarded for two dice belonging to Black Widow in the field.

Attacking with multiple dice belonging to the same character card hardly constitutes teamwork.

Regards,

Werekin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.