Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Sword & Sorcery» Forums » Rules

Subject: "Sonic Weapon" enemy power clarification rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, all,

the Sonic Weapon enemy ability says:

Spoiler (click to reveal)


i interpret that as:

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The primary attack capability of this enemy bypasses 1 Armor and affects all heroes in AoE 0 when a Gremlin is rolled.


i'm stumbling a bit over the use of the word "inflict", as that seems to imply that
Spoiler (click to reveal)
-1 Armor
is an ongoing effect rather than simply an attack-time bonus, but i can't find anything in the rules which validates that interpretation for me, except that the Time Phase as an "Effects Cleanup" step which could account for the dissolution of such an effect.

So my questions are: is it ongoing? If so, how long does it last and does it stack if applied multiple times (it's not a Body Condition, which explicitly cannot stack)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin John
United States
Tallahassee
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe it's just saying that any enemy attacks using the primary weapon will have the defender(s) have 1 less armor for that single attack.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kand Affar
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
I agree with Kevin John, but you are right, it should actually say "gain" not "inflict."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems awfully nitpicky regarding the verbs.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
This seems awfully nitpicky regarding the verbs.


There's nothing nitpicky about it in this case: "inflict" specifically implies a longer-than-instant application of damage/effect/whatever, which is apparently not what is happening here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
This seems awfully nitpicky regarding the verbs.


There's nothing nitpicky about it in this case: "inflict" specifically implies a longer-than-instant application of damage/effect/whatever, which is apparently not what is happening here.


Why doesn't that exactly meet the definition of "nitpicky"? The meaning is clear and you're imposing a specific meaning of the words that isn't even stated in the rules, just inferred in your own mind.

in·flict
verb
cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something.


Now that I think more on it, it seems even worse than nitpicky. Where did you get the assertion that "inflict" means "a longer-than-instant application"?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Now that I think more on it, it seems even worse than nitpicky. Where did you get the assertion that "inflict" means "a longer-than-instant application"?


i didn't say "assertion" (don't misquote me). i said "implies". In common, everyday usage, "inflict" implies a longer-than-instant effect. If it didn't, i wouldn't have posted this thread. (Don't assume that the German flag on my profile has anything to do with my understanding of English.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
In common, everyday usage, "inflict" implies a longer-than-instant effect. If it didn't, i wouldn't have posted this thread. (Don't assume that the German flag on my profile has anything to do with my understanding of English.)


Something is wrong with your understanding of English. Regardless of your German flag.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kand Affar
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
DaviddesJ wrote:
sgbeal wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
This seems awfully nitpicky regarding the verbs.


There's nothing nitpicky about it in this case: "inflict" specifically implies a longer-than-instant application of damage/effect/whatever, which is apparently not what is happening here.


Why doesn't that exactly meet the definition of "nitpicky"? The meaning is clear and you're imposing a specific meaning of the words that isn't even stated in the rules, just inferred in your own mind.

in·flict
verb
cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something.


Now that I think more on it, it seems even worse than nitpicky. Where did you get the assertion that "inflict" means "a longer-than-instant application"?


For one, the "miss: AOE" is clearly an ability gained by the attacker. If that phrase were literally inflicted, the defender's dice would control whether the attack becomes AOE.

Second the intent is for the attack to gain the ability to ignore 1 armor, not the ability to damage the enemy's armor. Compare to the phrases "inflict 1 willing" our "inflict 1 damage." Do those wounds damages disappear at the end of the attack, or are they permanent? Well, then why wouldn't inflict -1 armor be a permanent effect represented by giving a -1 armor token?

The intent is to give bonuses to the attack, inflict is the wrong word for that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.

Since the card doesn't state otherwise, I have no issues with this wording.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kand Affar
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
RezardVareth wrote:
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.


If the rules state that it wouldn't be a problem for the -1 armor. But it also says inflict miss:AOE. Literally that would mean if the defender rolls a Miss the attack becomes AOE.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J P
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cozar wrote:
RezardVareth wrote:
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.


If the rules state that it wouldn't be a problem for the -1 armor. But it also says inflict miss:AOE. Literally that would mean if the defender rolls a Miss the attack becomes AOE.


That's not how I read it. To me, it literally says if the attacker rolls a Gremlin on their attack roll, it becomes an AOE.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Cozar wrote:
RezardVareth wrote:
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.


If the rules state that it wouldn't be a problem for the -1 armor. But it also says inflict miss:AOE. Literally that would mean if the defender rolls a Miss the attack becomes AOE.


Insofar as i can find in the rules, a Miss (Gremlin) face only means that that particular die missed (i.e. is a "non-success"), not that all of the dice. The word "miss" only appears twice in the manual, and i can find no mention of a Miss result on a single die affecting the outcome of the whole roll. (i seem to remember that GD had such a thing, but i haven't played it in so long that i'm no longer certain.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin John
United States
Tallahassee
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
(i seem to remember that GD had such a thing, but i haven't played it in so long that i'm no longer certain.)


Sort of, there was an alien symbol that you couldn't reroll and would make an attack fail if you used an alien weapon and didn't have the alien knowledge skill...

...and people say that S&S isn't more streamlined.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kand Affar
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
DancingFool wrote:
Cozar wrote:
RezardVareth wrote:
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.


If the rules state that it wouldn't be a problem for the -1 armor. But it also says inflict miss:AOE. Literally that would mean if the defender rolls a Miss the attack becomes AOE.


That's not how I read it. To me, it literally says if the attacker rolls a Gremlin on their attack roll, it becomes an AOE.


It doesn't say if Gremlin then inflict AOE, it says inflict "if Gremlin then AOE." Since the entire phrase is inflicted, literally the gremlin symbol portion must be applied to the defender, not the attacker.

If the attacker gets to apply AOE based upon the hit dice showing a gremlin result, then the attack has gained an ability to inflict AOE, not inflicted the ability to inflict AOE.

Imagine if the developer's had intended to have some powers that add bonuses based on attack dice and some that add bonuses based on defense dive. The easiest (not the only) way to distinguish between those abilities would be to use gain/inflict followed by symbol: effect.

I understand the developer's intent based upon how the other cards work, but I definitely noticed it isn't proper wording to state "inflict symbol:effect" because only the effect is inflicted, the "symbol:" portion applies to the attack so it is gained.

I think that is about as clear as I can state it, and since I understand the intent of the rule regardless of whether they choose to include formal errata for the word choice, I will do my best to resist the urge to further post on this topic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rezard Vareth
United States
flag msg tools
Cozar wrote:
DancingFool wrote:
Cozar wrote:
RezardVareth wrote:
Could just be inflict upon defender -1 armor. Which I believe the rules say go away at the end of the attack unless otherwise stated.


If the rules state that it wouldn't be a problem for the -1 armor. But it also says inflict miss:AOE. Literally that would mean if the defender rolls a Miss the attack becomes AOE.


That's not how I read it. To me, it literally says if the attacker rolls a Gremlin on their attack roll, it becomes an AOE.


It doesn't say if Gremlin then inflict AOE, it says inflict "if Gremlin then AOE." Since the entire phrase is inflicted, literally the gremlin symbol portion must be applied to the defender, not the attacker.

If the attacker gets to apply AOE based upon the hit dice showing a gremlin result, then the attack has gained an ability to inflict AOE, not inflicted the ability to inflict AOE.

Imagine if the developer's had intended to have some powers that add bonuses based on attack dice and some that add bonuses based on defense dive. The easiest (not the only) way to distinguish between those abilities would be to use gain/inflict followed by symbol: effect.

I understand the developer's intent based upon how the other cards work, but I definitely noticed it isn't proper wording to state "inflict symbol:effect" because only the effect is inflicted, the "symbol:" portion applies to the attack so it is gained.

I think that is about as clear as I can state it, and since I understand the intent of the rule regardless of whether they choose to include formal errata for the word choice, I will do my best to resist the urge to further post on this topic.
You're translating the symbols into English wrong. It means: inflict Aoe {0} if a gremlin is spent. The symbology is not English, it doesn't have to follow English ordering.
1 
 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.