Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Gloomhaven» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ranged attack from adjacent hex vs cragheart rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ethan Sams
msg tools
mbmb
One of Cragheart's abilities:

Spoiler (click to reveal)
(paraphrasing because I don't have card in front of me)
For each of the next 6 melee attacks you are a target of, gain Retaliate 2.


Does this interact favorably with ranged attacks from an adjacent hex? I'm leaning toward no because they are still "ranged".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No. It has to be melee attacks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Schofield
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter345 wrote:
No. It has to be melee attacks.


Actually no, the rules (p26) say that retaliate works from adjacent hex attacks, not melee attacks. So the retaliate would work.

Edit: Corrected below
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bonneau
United States
Brimfield
MA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
scooph81 wrote:
Dexter345 wrote:
No. It has to be melee attacks.


Actually no, the rules (p26) say that retaliate works from adjacent hex attacks, not melee attacks. So the retaliate would work.


The issue isn't witht he Retaliate rules, its with the card rules. The card specifically says "next 6 melee attacks" not just attacks or sources of damage like other cards say.

We have kept to only melee attacks being retaliated with that card.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Schofield
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh.. wow you're right.. I hadn't even noticed that!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Desroches
Canada
flag msg tools
Pretty sure it is just to make the card read easier. I don't believe the intent is for this card to work differently then a normal retaliate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bonneau
United States
Brimfield
MA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
Pretty sure it is just to make the card read easier. I don't believe the intent is for this card to work differently then a normal retaliate.


Then why wouldn't it just say Retaliate 2 on the next six attacks, like how other similar cards are worded?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Desroches
Canada
flag msg tools
MajorPWNage wrote:
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
Pretty sure it is just to make the card read easier. I don't believe the intent is for this card to work differently then a normal retaliate.


Then why wouldn't it just say Retaliate 2 on the next six attacks, like how other similar cards are worded?


Are there cards worded like that? The spellweaver card also says "next five melee attacks targeting you, gain retaliate 3."

Pretty sure it was simpler to say "next five melee attacks" as opposed to "next five attacks targeting you from an adjacent hex, gain retaliate 3."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gutripper
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If Retaliate doesn't say 'Range X' underneath it's always assumed to affect enemies adjacent to the character with Retaliate.

Hence the text on the specific card relating to it only affecting 'melee attacks' would otherwise be irrelevant unless it was specifically written to make certain ranged attacks from adjacent spaces should not suffer the Retaliate for this action.

That's my take...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bonneau
United States
Brimfield
MA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
MajorPWNage wrote:
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
Pretty sure it is just to make the card read easier. I don't believe the intent is for this card to work differently then a normal retaliate.


Then why wouldn't it just say Retaliate 2 on the next six attacks, like how other similar cards are worded?


Are there cards worded like that? The spellweaver card also says "next five melee attacks targeting you, gain retaliate 3."

Pretty sure it was simpler to say "next five melee attacks" as opposed to "next five attacks targeting you from an adjacent hex, gain retaliate 3."


Any of the brutes retaliate cards just give him retaliate, no need for added text. And for the one that gives him exp it says "all attacks" not melee.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philipp Schuster
Austria
Innsbruck
Tirol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The brute's retaliate cards simply give him the standard retaliate which works until the end of the turn, no matter how many attacks come in.

The Cragheart's card actually triggers, and only six times. So if it were simply worded:

Quote:
On the next six attacks targeting you, gain Retaliate 2.


... it would also lose a charge every time a ranged attack comes in, without doing damage to the attacker.

With the actual wording

Quote:
On the next six melee attacks targeting you, gain Retaliate 2.


... it only triggers on melee attacks, so ranged attacks from adjacent hexes are not retaliated against.

To do so too, it would have to be worded:

Quote:
On the next six attacks targeting you from adjacent hexes, gain Retaliate 2.


... but it isn't. So I think the case is clear.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Desroches
Canada
flag msg tools
Complex wrote:
Quote:
On the next six melee attacks targeting you, gain Retaliate 2.


... it only triggers on melee attacks, so ranged attacks from adjacent hexes are not retaliated against.

To do so too, it would have to be worded:

Quote:
On the next six attacks targeting you from adjacent hexes, gain Retaliate 2.


... but it isn't. So I think the case is clear.


Ask yourself this,

"Do you believe it is possible Isaac wrote "melee attacks" instead of "attacks made from an adjacent hex" on the card to save space and make it less confusing for new players?

The answer to that should be yes, while I am not 100% certain, it is at least possible (and I think probable) that he worded it that was for space/simplicity.

I can't possibly see how you could argue that it is clear that ranged attacks from melee range don't count as melee for triggering retaliate and that there is no possible way Isaac chose to word it the way he did for space/less wordiness on the cards.


MajorPWNage wrote:
Any of the brutes retaliate cards just give him retaliate, no need for added text. And for the one that gives him exp it says "all attacks" not melee.


I am sorry but there are no Brute cards remotely like the one we are discussing. These are the only experience tracking cards the Brute has,
-Gain shield when attacked
-Next 3 sources of damage

Neither of those cards have any relevance what so ever in the discussion. Experience tracking cards in general have to be configured in special ways to make it so they don't trigger and get wasted too much and fit in a greatly reduced space.

If you can find an experience tracking card that grants non-ranged retaliate when attacked from an adjacent hex only I will believe that Isaac intended that one to give retaliate when attacked in melee by a ranged attacker and that the CH and SW cards are not supposed to.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Johnson
United States
Cedar Falls
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
Ask yourself this,

"Do you believe it is possible Isaac wrote "melee attacks" instead of "attacks made from an adjacent hex" on the card to save space and make it less confusing for new players?

Possible? sure.
It's also possible that the wording on this card was preached to him by the angel Moroni. Who knows? (other than Isaac and possibly Moroni).

Last time I tried to insinuate the intention of a card
Spoiler (click to reveal)
the sun demon health one
, Isaac later responded that the literal interpretation of the card was correct. But this instance may be different.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Desroches
Canada
flag msg tools
My point was that if it is possible(and in my opinion it is probable), then it isn't clear. I don't think it is an unreasonable "Moroni the Angel" level of possible.

There are plenty of examples of Isaac making rulings that go against the strict rules as written interpretation, or even go beyond them to introduce something affecting an edge case that was not in the rules book at all.

While I'd like a ruling on this it is hardly important, especially as retaliate is generally awful anyways(especially at the lower levels where you might use these cards) and the difference between the two interpretations has minimal overall effect on the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bonneau
United States
Brimfield
MA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flamingcloud83 wrote:
Complex wrote:
Quote:
On the next six melee attacks targeting you, gain Retaliate 2.


... it only triggers on melee attacks, so ranged attacks from adjacent hexes are not retaliated against.

To do so too, it would have to be worded:

Quote:
On the next six attacks targeting you from adjacent hexes, gain Retaliate 2.


... but it isn't. So I think the case is clear.


Ask yourself this,

"Do you believe it is possible Isaac wrote "melee attacks" instead of "attacks made from an adjacent hex" on the card to save space and make it less confusing for new players?

The answer to that should be yes, while I am not 100% certain, it is at least possible (and I think probable) that he worded it that was for space/simplicity.

I can't possibly see how you could argue that it is clear that ranged attacks from melee range don't count as melee for triggering retaliate and that there is no possible way Isaac chose to word it the way he did for space/less wordiness on the cards.


MajorPWNage wrote:
Any of the brutes retaliate cards just give him retaliate, no need for added text. And for the one that gives him exp it says "all attacks" not melee.


I am sorry but there are no Brute cards remotely like the one we are discussing. These are the only experience tracking cards the Brute has,
-Gain shield when attacked
-Next 3 sources of damage


They have everything to do with it. When the Brute gains Retaliate he just gains Retaliate, not Retaliate from melee attacks. If he didn't want it to be melee only it would have been gain Retaliate on the next 6 attacks, not melee attacks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Desroches
Canada
flag msg tools
MajorPWNage wrote:
They have everything to do with it. When the Brute gains Retaliate he just gains Retaliate, not Retaliate from melee attacks. If he didn't want it to be melee only it would have been gain Retaliate on the next 6 attacks, not melee attacks.


Completely disagree, the difference in what you are suggestion and what is on the card is massive compared to what I am suggesting.

The Brute has no persistent retaliate cards only "I play this and retaliate for the rest of the round based on the rules of retaliate" (which by the way let you retaliate against a ranged monster doing an attack from melee range).

It is very obvious why the CH card doesn't say "Gain retaliate on the next 6 attacks" and that is because it would be wasted every time you get hit from range(which is like >50% of the time) and the card is already not that good to begin with and would become complete unplayable garbage.

I can see someone saying "he said melee so he must mean melee" super strict interpretation but your comparisons with the Brute make no sense whatsoever. You can't compare cards with persistent effects and special triggers that don't exist normally to cards that just activate when you go and are active all turn.
 
 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.