Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
48 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

The Battle of Five Armies» Forums » Rules

Subject: Add vs inflict rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
I thought hits were inflicted and damage was added, but I don't think that's the language on Bolg's card. Does Bolg cancel only dice results from combat roll and leader re-roll, or does he also cancel maneuver damage from the opponent?

I know he doesn't cancel damage from goblin maneuver or no quarter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Powhatan
Virginia
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It the effect says it "inflicts" hits or damage, it can be cancelled.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
Got it. Am I right in thinking that the universe of "inflict" damage is:

1) Combat Roll + Leader re-roll
2) Archery (Thranduil or story card)
3) Magic blast (Gandalf)
4) Eagles
5) Beorn

(I played solo today and accidentally allowed Bolg's bodyguards to cancel damage from both "Hail of Darts" and "Old Hatred" - which appears to have been incorrect. Was a slow start for SP until they captured Dale and managed to drop Bolg and the 3 Wargs. But Bolg's army won two critical engagements with 5 damage on it, so who knows what would have happened if I played correctly.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
It the effect says it "inflicts" hits or damage, it can be cancelled.


But it can't be canceled if it's "added"? For instance, if Lake Men score with their maneuver, it says to "add" an extra damage. Would this damage get through Bolg's bodyguards?? What about a fortification?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Powhatan
Virginia
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
But it can't be canceled if it's "added"? For instance, if Lake Men score with their maneuver, it says to "add" an extra damage. Would this damage get through Bolg's bodyguards??

Yes.

csouth154 wrote:
What about a fortification?

No. Any Damage from an attack that would be applied to the defending Army, regardless of the source, is applied to the Fortification instead until it's broken. The only Damage that can bypass a Fortification is Damage from a source other than an attack, such as an Event card that applies Damage to the Army, which ignores the Fortification and applies the Damage directly to the Army.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
What about a fortification?

No. Any Damage from an attack that would be applied to the defending Army, regardless of the source, is applied to the Fortification instead until it's broken. The only Damage that can bypass a Fortification is Damage from a source other than an attack, such as an Event card that applies Damage to the Army, which ignores the Fortification and applies the Damage directly to the Army.


I don't doubt you, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something in the book that would make this clear. The rules say any damage "inflicted" goes to the fortification until it's broken; they don't mention "added" at all. Is this an error of ommission or am I just missing something? Should it say "any damage inflicted or added during an attack"? Because that would cover everything that could happen during an attack but not by events that add damage outside of an attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
On page 29. In the Fortification blurp, It says Any Damage inflicted on that army is added to the fortification What might be confusing you is that you are subtracting from the fortification value. As in the fortification is at 3, then 2, then 1. When you should be adding. The fortification has 1 damage, then 2 damage, and when the damage level reaches the fortification value, the walls have fallen, and now gives no protection.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
sixtoedcat wrote:
On page 29. In the Fortification blurp, It says Any Damage inflicted on that army is added to the fortification


Right. But it has been made clear that damage "inflicted" on an army during an attack and damage "added" to an army during an attack are different things. For instance, Bolg's bodyguards can stop any damage inflicted on army during an attack, but added damage gets through. Given this fact, there seems to be something missing from the book in regards to fortifications. Krieghund has made clear that all damage from an attack, whether added or inflicted, goes to the fortification first until it's broken, but the book only says "inflicted" damage goes to the fortification. I know he speaks with authority, so I can only assume the book left out some wording that would make that clear.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
sixtoedcat wrote:
On page 29. In the Fortification blurp, It says Any Damage inflicted on that army is added to the fortification


Right. But it has been made clear that damage "inflicted" on an army during an attack and damage "added" to an army during an attack are different things. For instance, Bolg's bodyguards can stop any damage inflicted on army during an attack, but added damage gets through. Given this fact, there seems to be something missing from the book in regards to fortifications. Krieghund has made clear that all damage from an attack, whether added or inflicted, goes to the fortification first until it's broken, but the book only says "inflicted" damage goes to the fortification. I know he speaks with authority, so I can only assume the book left out some wording that would make that clear.


For me to understand more clearly. Give me some examples of added damage, that would effect a fortification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
sixtoedcat wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
sixtoedcat wrote:
On page 29. In the Fortification blurp, It says Any Damage inflicted on that army is added to the fortification


Right. But it has been made clear that damage "inflicted" on an army during an attack and damage "added" to an army during an attack are different things. For instance, Bolg's bodyguards can stop any damage inflicted on army during an attack, but added damage gets through. Given this fact, there seems to be something missing from the book in regards to fortifications. Krieghund has made clear that all damage from an attack, whether added or inflicted, goes to the fortification first until it's broken, but the book only says "inflicted" damage goes to the fortification. I know he speaks with authority, so I can only assume the book left out some wording that would make that clear.


For me to understand more clearly. Give me some examples of added damage, that would effect a fortification.


Any damage added during an attack (Hail Of Darts, for example.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I see now. You are just throwing out theoretical stuff, not true issues with game situations. Since it would be very rare that Lakemen would storm a fortification. As a playtester of the game, I would play this situation, that Hail of darts would be added to the damage of the fortification. I also would suggest that you just play the game, and not focus so hard in breaking the rules set, but each to his own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Lol..um, thanks for your opinion? I do play the game and this has nothing to do with pretty much anything you just said.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
sixtoedcat wrote:
OK, I see now. You are just throwing out theoretical stuff, not true issues with game situations. Since it would be very rare that Lakemen would storm a fortification. As a playtester of the game, I would play this situation, that Hail of darts would be added to the damage of the fortification. I also would suggest that you just play the game, and not focus so hard in breaking the rules set, but each to his own.
Wow, where the hell did this come from? Other examples are Fell Race or Goblin Charge. But if you were trying to help rather than be mean about it and brag about your playtester status, you would have thought of this. In fact, someone else asked about it recently in the rules forum.

Krieghund already weighed in. I'm not sure we need another "expert" (and a mean-spirited one at that) to repeat his ruling. The wording in the rule does seem to be unclear as to how "add" works.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Lol..um, thanks for your opinion? I do play the game and this has nothing to do with pretty much anything you just said.

Sorry if I miss read your intent. We have all played with rule lawyers, who just try to find loop holes in the rules. I would still add the damage to the fortification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
sixtoedcat wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Lol..um, thanks for your opinion? I do play the game and this has nothing to do with pretty much anything you just said.

Sorry if I miss read your intent. We have all played with rule lawyers, who just try to find loop holes in the rules. I would still add the damage to the fortification.


Read the entire thread again. If you haven't already.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
RezardVareth wrote:
sixtoedcat wrote:
OK, I see now. You are just throwing out theoretical stuff, not true issues with game situations. Since it would be very rare that Lakemen would storm a fortification. As a playtester of the game, I would play this situation, that Hail of darts would be added to the damage of the fortification. I also would suggest that you just play the game, and not focus so hard in breaking the rules set, but each to his own.
Wow, where the hell did this come from? Other examples are Fell Race or Goblin Charge. But if you were trying to help rather than be mean about it and brag about your playtester status, you would have thought of this. In fact, someone else asked about it recently in the rules forum.

Krieghund already weighed in. I'm not sure we need another "expert" (and a mean-spirited one at that) to repeat his ruling. The wording in the rule does seem to be unclear as to how "add" works.
Yes, those are better examples, and they probably would not have gotten the same response from me. It has been several years since I have playtested this game. No one is bragging! We just spend hours of our own time to have a set of rules that everyone can use to enjoy a game, and there are people out there that just want to nit pick, and after all of the effort you have already invested in this game, one might find it annoying. If you played a game with me, you would find that I am not that mean-spirited. Most of the time

I would still add these damage to the fortification to.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
I have to admit, I'm finding this whole thread pretty confusing - including Kevin's response that Hail of Darts, for example, would not be included when you use Bolg's bodyguards.

It says:

Quote:
You may discard a Bodyguard token to prevent all Damage inflicted in one round of combat, or by any other type of attack, to an army containing Bolg.


I don't see where this distinction between damage from scoring hits and the extra damage added by Hail of Darts comes from. Bolg's card seems unambiguous in stating "all damage inflicted in one round of combat".

I realise Kevin speaks with authority, but I'm also curious where this ruling comes from and whether it's actually in the rules somewhere (so I can point it out should it arise in future games) or if it's just somethinkg Kevin happens to know was the designer's intent.

Since I haven't found or seen mentioned any clear rule as to why it wouldn't count, I understand why Craig is asking for clarification on this.

Literally the only thing that seems to support Kevin's ruling, is the use of the word 'inflicted' on the Bolg card (and the identical wording in his Rules section). But, to me, stating 'cancel all damage in one round of combat' seems to include damage coming from any source that occurs during a round of combat, which certainly appear to include Hail of Darts and other manoevers etc.

With regards to rules-lawyering, it seems to me that the obvious, common-sense approach here is that Hail of Darts would be cancelled, and that quibbling over 'inflicted vs adds' would be the attempt to rules-lawyer.

The fortification question was an aside I think, presumably because it uses the same language of 'inflicted damage' in the rules.

So, I think it's a valid question; why would Hail of Darts not be cancelled by Bodyguards, but would be added to a Fortification? Is this an omission from the rules? Or is there actually some confusion here?

Or, maybe I'm just totally missing something here... if so, I apologise in advance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion3T wrote:
I have to admit, I'm finding this whole thread pretty confusing - including Kevin's response that Hail of Darts, for example, would not be included when you use Bolg's bodyguards.

It says:

Quote:
You may discard a Bodyguard token to prevent all Damage inflicted in one round of combat, or by any other type of attack, to an army containing Bolg.


I don't see where this distinction between damage from scoring hits and the extra damage added by Hail of Darts comes from. Bolg's card seems unambiguous in stating "all damage inflicted in one round of combat".

I realise Kevin speaks with authority, but I'm also curious where this ruling comes from and whether it's actually in the rules somewhere (so I can point it out should it arise in future games) or if it's just somethinkg Kevin happens to know was the designer's intent.

Since I haven't found or seen mentioned any clear rule as to why it wouldn't count, I understand why Craig is asking for clarification on this.

Literally the only thing that seems to support Kevin's ruling, is the use of the word 'inflicted' on the Bolg card. But, to me, stating 'in one round of combat' seems to include damage coming from any source that occurs during a round of combat, which certainly appear to include Hail of Darts and other manoevers etc.
I agree, and that is why I chimed in, but I seemed to have just made it worse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
Orion3T wrote:
I have to admit, I'm finding this whole thread pretty confusing - including Kevin's response that Hail of Darts, for example, would not be included when you use Bolg's bodyguards.

It says:

Quote:
You may discard a Bodyguard token to prevent all Damage inflicted in one round of combat, or by any other type of attack, to an army containing Bolg.


I don't see where this distinction between damage from scoring hits and the extra damage added by Hail of Darts comes from. Bolg's card seems unambiguous in stating "all damage inflicted in one round of combat".

I realise Kevin speaks with authority, but I'm also curious where this ruling comes from and whether it's actually in the rules somewhere (so I can point it out should it arise in future games) or if it's just somethinkg Kevin happens to know was the designer's intent.

Since I haven't found or seen mentioned any clear rule as to why it wouldn't count, I understand why Craig is asking for clarification on this.

Literally the only thing that seems to support Kevin's ruling, is the use of the word 'inflicted' on the Bolg card. But, to me, stating 'in one round of combat' seems to include damage coming from any source that occurs during a round of combat, which certainly appear to include Hail of Darts and other manoevers etc.
The distinction is between inflicting damaging and adding damage.

Fortifications work against both inflicted and added damage, despite the language in the rules.

Bolg only works against inflicted damage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
sixtoedcat wrote:
I agree, and that is why I chimed in, but I seemed to have just made it worse.


Well, we can put the previous comments down to a misunderstanding.

If you actually agree with Craig and I that this seems inconsistent, then I'd be interested to hear Kevin's thoughts on it.

At the moment I can only assume Kevin knows something not mentioned in the rules, which results in an apparent inconsistency between Bolg and Fortifications. Which is fine while reading this forum, but not great if it comes up during a game and I can't explain it to my opponent using the rules.

In that situation, for the sake of argument it would be easier to ignore Kevin's ruling (and possibly designer's intent) and rule them both the same way. Since the wording seems identical to me. Again I include the caveat I have missed something which Kevin is taking into consideration.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
RezardVareth wrote:
Fortifications work against both inflicted and added damage, despite the language in the rules.


According to Krieghund, exactly. I was just attempting to get a clear answer on whether there is actually an ommission in rules or I was simply missing something, but it seems clear an ommission is the answer.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Orion3T wrote:
sixtoedcat wrote:
I agree, and that is why I chimed in, but I seemed to have just made it worse.


Well, we can put the previous comments down to a misunderstanding.

If you actually agree with Craig and I that this seems inconsistent, then I'd be interested to hear Kevin's thoughts on it.

At the moment I can only assume Kevin knows something not mentioned in the rules, which results in an apparent inconsistency between Bolg and Fortifications. Which is fine while reading this forum, but not great if it comes up during a game and I can't explain it to my opponent using the rules.

In that situation, for the sake of argument it would be easier to ignore Kevin's ruling (and possibly designer's intent) and rule them both the same way. Since the wording seems identical to me. Again I include the caveat I have missed something which Kevin is taking into consideration.


What seemed intuitive to me, before learning of Kreighund's ruling, is that ANY damage, added or inflicted, goes to fortification AND is blockable by bodyguards IF it happens during an attack. It seems that the game plays just fine if "added" and "inflicted" are consididered to be interchangeable terms. I was surprised to learn that they aren't meant to be. I will probably just house rule it that way, honestly...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
Orion3T wrote:
sixtoedcat wrote:
I agree, and that is why I chimed in, but I seemed to have just made it worse.


Well, we can put the previous comments down to a misunderstanding.

If you actually agree with Craig and I that this seems inconsistent, then I'd be interested to hear Kevin's thoughts on it.

At the moment I can only assume Kevin knows something not mentioned in the rules, which results in an apparent inconsistency between Bolg and Fortifications. Which is fine while reading this forum, but not great if it comes up during a game and I can't explain it to my opponent using the rules.

In that situation, for the sake of argument it would be easier to ignore Kevin's ruling (and possibly designer's intent) and rule them both the same way. Since the wording seems identical to me. Again I include the caveat I have missed something which Kevin is taking into consideration.
What's interesting to me here is that I think under a very strict reading of the rules neither Bolg nor the fortifications are protected against "add" effects.

Your read seems to be the opposite, that Bolg/fortifications should work against everything...

Anyway, I assume this was just an oversight in the rules as written.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
When you use a bodyguard, NO damage is applied to Bolg's army. So I could not tell you what Kevin is talking about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
csouth154 wrote:
RezardVareth wrote:
Fortifications work against both inflicted and added damage, despite the language in the rules.


According to Krieghund, exactly. I was just attempting to get a clear answer on whether there is actually an ommission in rules or I was simply missing something, but it seems clear an ommission is the answer.


Right - me also.

There is another possibility though - as useful as Kevin's comments nearly always are, and as much as I appreciate that he helps out so much, he has also occasionally been known to acknowledge that even he had got something wrong or was unsure enough to go and check with the designer in case he misunderstood or misremembered something.

It's possible in this case that he gave these 2 rulings without directly comparing the language used and realising they appear to be identically described in the rules (so far as I can tell). So, I think it's worth pointing out how inconsistent this seems to be and asking him to confirm it's an error/omission.

If I were going to tell my opponent these work differently despite the identical wording, I would want to be absolutely sure it was a confirmed error in the rule book. There's no way I would have ruled these differently based on the rules.*

*And I wouldn't entertain an argument that they ought to be from anyone except Kevin.
2 
 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.