

Sorry for another question so soon.
We are in disagreement regarding the number of damage points to be dealt on rolls. We understand that the revised season 2 rules state that after the crit and armor rolls, you add up the total. You would then either add +1 if there is more crit or 1 if there's more armor... Can this affect the initial automatic damage points on the characters card? That is, if the action deals 1 damage automatic, and a critical hit roll produces only one more hit (for a total of 2 damage...1 auto and 1 from roll) but the defender who with armor can rolls 2 die and gets 2 armor, are both points removed, the automatic damage point also?
Thanks in advance for any help


K
United States Oakland California

The most attack damage will be increased by from the rolls is 1. The most attack damage will be reduced by is 1.
To figure it out, start by looking at how much damage the spell does (on the character card)
Then (only one of these things can happen):
* If attacker rolled more crits than the defender rolled armor, add +1 to that number
* If defender rolled more armor than the attacker rolled crits, subtract 1 to that number
* If number of crits rolled by the attacker equals the number of armor rolled by the defender, do nothing
So for example, if I attack you with a 1 damage spell, and I roll 1 critical, while you roll 2 armor, the modifier will be 1. So I will do 0 damage.




Got it
Thank you so much!


J Ry
United States Florida

I myself have not played with the newer rules.
I know it makes the damage more streamlined, and less swingy.
But why is this better?




ropya wrote: I myself have not played with the newer rules. I know it makes the damage more streamlined, and less swingy.
But why is this better?
It makes game less random and thefore tactics becomes more important


K
United States Oakland California

ropya wrote: I myself have not played with the newer rules. I know it makes the damage more streamlined, and less swingy.
But why is this better?
I myself have played like 95%+ of my games with the original rules (not by choice, just because I haven't played as much since the new ones came out). I have to admit that there is something really satisfying about rolling double criticals and getting 2 extra damage and part of me misses that.
But I speculate that the new rules are healthier for the game. The obvious thing is that it is less swingy, which is a matter of preference, but probably makes less games decided too early by a decisive stroke of luck that snowballs. It makes getting critical rolls during inspiration less important. And probably makes more teams and characters viable, and slightly nerfs AOE attacks.




SirHandsome wrote: The most attack damage will be increased by from the rolls is 1. The most attack damage will be reduced by is 1.
To figure it out, start by looking at how much damage the spell does (on the character card)
Then (only one of these things can happen):
* If attacker rolled more crits than the defender rolled armor, add +1 to that number
* If defender rolled more armor than the attacker rolled crits, subtract 1 to that number
* If number of crits rolled by the attacker equals the number of armor rolled by the defender, do nothing
So for example, if I attack you with a 1 damage spell, and I roll 1 critical, while you roll 2 armor, the modifier will be 1. So I will do 0 damage.
I'm confused.. Wouldn't it mean you do at least 1 damage? Not 0. If it only does a 1 or +1 and you are attacking with a base damage 1 spell, and roll a crit and they roll 2 armor, it just cancels out the crit damage, right? Not the base damage of the spell? I'm still learning the season 2 rules, so am a bit confused by some of this.


J Ry
United States Florida

Blake1989 wrote: SirHandsome wrote: The most attack damage will be increased by from the rolls is 1. The most attack damage will be reduced by is 1.
To figure it out, start by looking at how much damage the spell does (on the character card)
Then (only one of these things can happen):
* If attacker rolled more crits than the defender rolled armor, add +1 to that number
* If defender rolled more armor than the attacker rolled crits, subtract 1 to that number
* If number of crits rolled by the attacker equals the number of armor rolled by the defender, do nothing
So for example, if I attack you with a 1 damage spell, and I roll 1 critical, while you roll 2 armor, the modifier will be 1. So I will do 0 damage. I'm confused.. Wouldn't it mean you do at least 1 damage? Not 0. If it only does a 1 or +1 and you are attacking with a base damage 1 spell, and roll a crit and they roll 2 armor, it just cancels out the crit damage, right? Not the base damage of the spell? I'm still learning the season 2 rules, so am a bit confused by some of this.
I want to say, 1 armor cancels the 1 crit. The remaining armor modifies damage by 1. So a damage of 1 would end up 0.


K
United States Oakland California

ropya wrote: I want to say, 1 armor cancels the 1 crit. The remaining armor modifies damage by 1. So a damage of 1 would end up 0.
The procedure you listed is how it works with Season 1 rules, not Season 2. But your conclusion is correct. Which means that the example I used was poorly chosen, as it is a scenario where the damage ends up the same regardless of which ruleset you are using.
Blake1989 wrote: I'm confused.. Wouldn't it mean you do at least 1 damage? Not 0. If it only does a 1 or +1 and you are attacking with a base damage 1 spell, and roll a crit and they roll 2 armor, it just cancels out the crit damage, right? Not the base damage of the spell? I'm still learning the season 2 rules, so am a bit confused by some of this.
First step is to completely forget any concept you have from the Season 1 rules of "cancelling out" Crit damage. There are only 3 results:
Either:
Spell does its base damage (Because equal number of crits and armor were rolled)
Spell does +1 damage to its base (because more crits than armor were rolled)
Spell does 1 damage to its base (because more armor than crits were rolled)
So all this really means is that gone are the days when you could get +2 or 2 on a particularly good roll.
A couple more examples:
* Player 1 attacks with 3 base damage spell. He rolls two criticals. Player 2 defends and rolls zero armor. Since player 1 rolled more crits than Player 2 rolled shields, the spell does +1 damage, 3+1 = 4 damage.
* Player 1 attacks with a 2 base damage spell. He rolls zero critical. Player 2 defends and rolls two armor. Since more armor were rolled than critical, the spell does 1 damage, so 21= 1 damage.




Okay, so I know I have this right I'm going to give a few examples.. If I cast a spell with a base damage of 1 and I roll no Crit, but my opponent roles 1 Shield, I do 0 damage. Right? And if I cast a spell of base damage 2 and roll a Crit, but my opponent rolls 2 Shields, I'll only do the 2 damage?


K
United States Oakland California

Blake1989 wrote: If I cast a spell with a base damage of 1 and I roll no Crit, but my opponent roles 1 Shield, I do 0 damage. Right?
This one is right
Blake1989 wrote: And if I cast a spell of base damage 2 and roll a Crit, but my opponent rolls 2 Shields, I'll only do the 2 damage?
no, you will do just 1 damage in this example. Your opponent rolled more shields than you rolled crits, so you lose 1 damage from your base.




SirHandsome wrote: Blake1989 wrote: If I cast a spell with a base damage of 1 and I roll no Crit, but my opponent roles 1 Shield, I do 0 damage. Right? This one is right Blake1989 wrote: And if I cast a spell of base damage 2 and roll a Crit, but my opponent rolls 2 Shields, I'll only do the 2 damage? no, you will do just 1 damage in this example. Your opponent rolled more shields than you rolled crits, so you lose 1 damage from your base.
Okay, thank you so much. We have been tryin to figure this out for a while now.



