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

Gloomhaven» Forums » Rules

Subject: Making a monster attack (character ability card) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
OK so I get the mindthief has "Submissive Affliction" which allows him me get an enemy to attack. and that enemy get to use its range.

However last night we had the musical note class play a similar card which caused a monster to do attack 2. He played this card on a ranged attacker. As the card did not include range +0, we played that the monster performed attack 2 without range.

Edit: the actual attack was 3 not 2.

This raises several questions:
- Did we play this correctly?
- Does the monster get the curse/poison its monster sheet allows. (I suspect not.)
- Is there a thread covering all this already?

I'm asking as there does not appear to be a thread that covers this clearly except for the mindthief clarification, and there are several different formats for these cards which function differently.
a. Make a monster per attack 2
b. Make a monster per attack 2 range +0
c. Make a monster perform its own attack as if it's friends were enemies and enemies friends.
d. There may be a "Make a monster perform attack +0" (I don't remember seeing a card like this. So navel gazing.)

In each case the results would be different.
a. Attack 2 no range no sheet bonuses
b. Attack 2 ranged (if available,) no sheet bonuses.
c. Monster base attack + card , all bonuses, ranged and multi attacks occur)
d. (Hypothetical ?) Monster base attack, poison, curse, etc, but no multi target. (no clear idea on range.. but until I see it no need to worry.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bart_aus wrote:
As the card did not include range +0, we played that the monster performed attack 2 without range.


\If the card doesn't modify the monster's range, then why wouldn't it use its default range, whatever that is?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
because the card also did not use the monsters attack.

Edit for clarity, the card said perform attack 2.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
We play it as D.

The monster has it's base attack power, range, and any affliction it causes. However it does not use the abilities it has that round such as attack+1 or range+1 target 2. It's basically played like a summon that's immobilized and uses the monster attack deck. So go out and make those drakes wound and imps curse.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
thebrendan03 wrote:
We play it as D.

The monster has it's base attack power, range, and any affliction it causes. However it does not use the abilities it has that round such as attack+1 or range+1 target 2. It's basically played like a summon that's immobilized and uses the monster attack deck. So go out and make those drakes wound and imps curse.

That does not work.. the card played says attack 2. How does it get the base attack included?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I guess I'm a little confused. Music note has two cards that force an enemy to attack.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
There is Pull the Strings which makes an enemy within range 5 perform attack +0 or there is Shadow Puppets where enemies moved through perform attack 3. The former would use the monster's normal stays and the latter would just be the base 3. Unless I'm missing a card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Keys
Australia
flag msg tools
thebrendan03 wrote:
Spoiler (click to reveal)
There is Pull the Strings which makes an enemy within range 5 perform attack +0 or there is Shadow Puppets where enemies moved through perform attack 3. The former would use the monster's normal stays and the latter would just be the base 3. Unless I'm missing a card.
No you are correct on the amount, it must have been 3, it was not my card so I did not look closely at the value after it was read to me.

I'll edit the first post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
DaviddesJ wrote:
Bart_aus wrote:
As the card did not include range +0, we played that the monster performed attack 2 without range.


\If the card doesn't modify the monster's range, then why wouldn't it use its default range, whatever that is?


Because if it does then it makes no sense that the Mindthief has a card that says "make the monster perform Attack 2, Range +0". In this thread it was assumed that without the Range +0 it would be a mellee attack. It didn't make sense to me then because the monster ability cards of ranged monsters also don't use Range +0. But there has to be a difference between the Mindthief and Musical Note card, I guess or otherwise it should use the same wording. I hope, Isaac will chime in on this.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
therobbot wrote:
But there has to be a difference between the Mindthief and Musical Note card, I guess or otherwise it should use the same wording.


There are often many ways to say the same thing. The argument, "X must somehow be different from Y, because they use different wording," is often used in these forums, but it's generally wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
DaviddesJ wrote:
therobbot wrote:
But there has to be a difference between the Mindthief and Musical Note card, I guess or otherwise it should use the same wording.


There are often many ways to say the same thing. The argument, "X must somehow be different from Y, because they use different wording," is often used in these forums, but it's generally wrong.


Maybe. But in this case I'd consider it a flaw and wonder why it wasn't changed in the 2nd printing. Consistency is key to good rules. There was a similar thread about the use of "create an element" and "infuse an element" for the same thing. Things like this don't help for clarity.

But I'd still like to have an authorative answer that the cards really mean the same thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
therobbot wrote:
I'd consider it a flaw


You can consider that. Even diamonds have flaws. I would say you're being unreasonably demanding, myself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
DaviddesJ wrote:
therobbot wrote:
I'd consider it a flaw


You can consider that. Even diamonds have flaws. I would say you're being unreasonably demanding, myself.


I'm not saying that it's a bad flaw. I adore this game and think it's probably the best gaming experience I ever had. And if the cards mean the same, it's not a big problem for me. However I don't understand why we should *assume* that things that are worded differently on the cards, mean the same and I think things like this could be changed in a future edition. Do you believe that Isaac intentionally used to different wordings on the cards to mean the same thing? From everything I seen from him, he's pretty exact in his wording so I'd assume if they mean the same thing, the different wording wasn't intentional. Things like this are to be expected in a game of this scope and in Gloomhaven there are surprisingly *few* of them. However I don't see why it's bad to point them out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, even though I am fairly confident of the answer (but I've been wrong before). I mostly just disagree with the argument, "there has to be a difference between the Mindthief and Musical Note card," just because they use different phrasing. I think that argument is logically unsound.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cards that let you control monster or summon actions follow these rules:

Attack +0
means it performs a melee attack with its base attack value

Attack +0
Range +0

means it performs a ranged attack with its base attack and range value; if it doesnt has a range value, it performs a melee attack instead.

Attack 3
Range +0

means it performs a ranged attack with attack 3 and its base range value; if it doesnt has a range value, it performs a melee attack instead.

Attack 3
Range 3

means it performs a ranged Attack 3 at (up to) Range 3

there is a clear distinction between each case.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
there is a clear distinction between each case.


It's certainly not "clear", because adding 0 to something is the same as not adding 0 to it.

It could be the intention, but I'd like to hear a more convincing reason than, "because I say so". And, in line with the comments above, if this is really the intention then the language is flawed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:


It's certainly not "clear", because adding 0 to something is the same as not adding 0 to it.

hahaha! Every mathematician will probably have a good laugh at you over this. Jokes aside:

In gameterms it is clearly different if you use the base value or don't use it.
Just look at the deep horrors, they are melee monsters, but if you have the following ability:
attack +0, attack +1 range 3
only the second ability has a range value and both use different attack values derived from its base value.

then look at the following hero abilities:
one says "an enemy at range 4 performs: attack +0"
that is clearly also a melee attack
while another says "an enemy at range 4 performs: attack 3 range 3"
that is clearly a ranged attack even if the deep horror does not have a range value.

now lets say a ranged monster has: Attack 3, Range 3
"an enemy at range 4 performs: attack +0"
= melee Attack 3
"an enemy at range 4 performs: attack 2, range +0"
= ranged Attack 2, Range 3

cleary distinct. Otherwise you would not use 2 different wordings here.

in game terms different wordings = different meaning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
hahaha, every mathematician will probably have a good laught at you here.


I do have a PhD in mathematics....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Stiles
United States
Brandon
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:


It's certainly not "clear", because adding 0 to something is the same as not adding 0 to it.

hahaha, every mathematician will probably have a good laught at you here.


Hahaha! Every mathematician will probably have a good laugh at you over this.

It's not nice to laugh at things we think are mistakes in online forums.


Morthai wrote:
...
then look at the following hero abilities:
one says "an enemy at range 4 performs: attack +0"
that is clearly also a melee attack


That clearly uses the monster's default range/attack type.

Why not use Range +0?

In the rule book, pg. 19 wrote:

Ranged attacks are accompanied by a "Range Y", which means...


There for, Range +0 now fills the Range Y criteria and all attacks are a ranged attack, even if range is now 0/1. Every programmer will tell you that Range=NULL is not the same as Range=1 (or zero for that matter).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SaintHax wrote:

Morthai wrote:
...
then look at the following hero abilities:
one says "an enemy at range 4 performs: attack +0"
that is clearly also a melee attack


That clearly uses the monster's default range/attack type.

Why not use Range +0?

In the rule book, pg. 19 wrote:

Ranged attacks are accompanied by a "Range Y", which means...


There for, Range +0 now fills the Range Y criteria and all attacks are a ranged attack, even if range is now 0/1. Every programmer will tell you that Range=NULL is not the same as Range=1 (or zero for that matter).

a game is not a program. It is a set of rules that are applied in a set of situations, and other set of rules are applied in exception to a certain situation.

Attack +0 ONLY uses the base value of the attack not the range as it is not accompinied by Range +0

there is a difference in game terms from
attack +0, range +0 to attack +0
one uses the range value, the other doesn't.

Quote:
Ranged attacks are accompanied by a "Range Y", which means...

that is clear as a bright sky.

(and it should be obvious that every standard melee attack has a range of 1 and that 1+0 still equals 1;
unless that melee attack has a aoe effect; which would still consider it a melee attack.)

as said before, these hero ability cards follow these rules:
Morthai wrote:

Attack +0
means it performs a melee attack with its base attack value

Attack +0
Range +0

means it performs a ranged attack with its base attack and range value; if it doesnt has a range value, it performs a melee attack instead.

Attack 3
Range +0

means it performs a ranged attack with attack 3 and its base range value; if it doesnt has a range value, it performs a melee attack instead.

Attack 3
Range 3

means it performs a ranged Attack 3 at (up to) Range 3

there is a clear distinction between each case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Spaulding
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, if you look at the enemy cards, an "Attack +0" means the monsters would use their default range.

I see no reason why the monster cards which cause the enemies to perform an attack and the players cards that cause an enemy to perform an attack would function differently.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pneuma08 wrote:
Well, if you look at the enemy cards, an "Attack +0" means the monsters would use their default range.

I see no reason why the monster cards which cause the enemies to perform an attack and the players cards that cause an enemy to perform an attack would function differently.

as monster cards and player cards do function differently by the rules as written and there is a distinct intended difference on the two cards in question to make them functionally working differently?

attack 2 and attack +0 range +0 are two different wordings that have a different meaning and attack 2 doesn't has the indicator of "range +0" for the only reason that the range value of the monster is not used in that ability (so it is a melee attack).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
DaviddesJ wrote:
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, even though I am fairly confident of the answer (but I've been wrong before). I mostly just disagree with the argument, "there has to be a difference between the Mindthief and Musical Note card," just because they use different phrasing. I think that argument is logically unsound.


OK, I give you that. What about "in a game system that relies on concise language, two different wordings should mean two different things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Spaulding
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
there is a distinct intended difference on the two cards in question to make them functionally working differently
Really? They have the exact wording, the only difference is the origin of the command, and nothing else in the game that I'm aware of has an exception to a command based on its origin. (Mostly because it's rare; monster commands tie into monster logic and hero commands tie into hero logic, with some shared logic in the middle.)

Heroes and monsters have different attack rules because heroes don't have monster stats and thus can't use the same logic (no hero has a ranged trait, for instance), and that's why hero attacks need to specify ranged explicitly but monster attacks don't. Whether we ought to be applying hero rules to monster logic or not is what results in this ambiguity. Personally, I see no reason to since it's a monster making an attack thus it should use the monster rules, regardless of the fact that it's a hero giving the monster the attack. (Edit: if the effect came from another monster, would that result in a different outcome?)

To muddy the waters even further, are there any summons with the ranged trait? How would that interact with the Mindthief card that gives an ally an attack?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pneuma08 wrote:
Really? They have the exact same wording

no they do not have the exact same wording.

Submissive Affliction:
Force one enemy within Range 5 to perform:
Attack 2, Range +0 targeting another enemy with your controlling the action.
= Attack 2, using the Range value of the monster adding +0 to it.

Pull the Strings:
Force one enemy within Range 5 to perform:
Attack +0 targeting another enemy with you controlling the action.
= Attack X+0, using the Attack value of the monster stat card, but not the Range value, such it is a melee attack.

and as another example, Call to Action:
One ally within Range 3 may perform Attack 4.
= e.g. an allied summon may peform a melee attack with a value of 4 (ranged value is not used here even if the summon has a range.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
Morthai wrote:
pneuma08 wrote:
Well, if you look at the enemy cards, an "Attack +0" means the monsters would use their default range.

I see no reason why the monster cards which cause the enemies to perform an attack and the players cards that cause an enemy to perform an attack would function differently.

as monster cards and player cards do function differently by the rules as written and there is a distinct intended difference on the two cards in question to make them functionally working differently?

attack 2 and attack +0 range +0 are two different wordings that have a different meaning and attack 2 doesn't has the indicator of "range +0" for the only reason that the range value of the monster is not used in that ability (so it is a melee attack).


Sorry Morthai, like the others I don't think that this is clear. These cards basically work like monster ability cards. They also use stat cards abilities of the monsters like poison, wound or pierce. So why do they have different syntax in this case? On a monster ability card an attack without a range means that they use their base range. I can imagine that you're right that your description is the intended way. But it's certainly not clear or unambiguous.

 
 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.