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

Thunderstone» Forums » Rules

Subject: Combining Attack and Magic Attack rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dennis Mills
United States
Tyronza
Arkansas
flag msg tools
mbmb
To what degree, or at what level, to Attack and Magic Attack combine?

Consider the following cards in the party:

Feast (all attackers gain Strength +3 and Attack +1).

Militia A, with a Dagger, plus Feast bonus, for an Attack of 3 and no Magic Attack.

Militia B, with a Flaming Sword, plus Feast bonus, for an Attack of 2 and Magic Attack of 3.

Disease (-1 to either Attack or Magic Attack).

I've heard the following possibilities:

(1) The entire party must choose between Attack and Magic Attack. So either everybody uses Attack, or everybody uses Magic Attack. Furthermore, Disease counts against whichever choice you make. If this is the case, then if the party above uses Attack, its Attack value would be 4 (3 from Militia A, 2 from Militia B, and -1 from the Disease), or its Magic Attack value would be 2 (0 from Militia A, 3 from Militia B, and -1 from the Disease).

(2) The entire party must choose between Attack and Magic Attack, but you may choose to have Disease count against either so long as it has something to deduct. If this is the case, then if the party above uses Attack, it would choose to have Disease count against the (unused) Magic Attack, for an Attack total of 5. On the other hand, if the party above uses Magic Attack, it would choose to have Disease count against the (unused) Attack, for a Magic Attack total of 3. However, if the party did not have the Flaming Sword, then Disease would have to count against Attack since Magic Attack is already zero and cannot be deducted further.

(3) The individual heros must choose between Attack and Magic Attack, then they combine the results of their choices. If this is the case, then Militia A would choose Attack for 3, and Militia B would choose Magic Attack for 3, giving the party a total of 5 after deducting for the Disease.

(4) The individual heros get to combine all their attack values regardless of source. This would give Militia A an attack value of 3, and Militia B an attack value of 5, giving the party a total of 7 after deducting for the Disease.

Could somebody please clarify (and the more official the clarification, the better). Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristan Hall
England
Manchester
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
badge
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Option 4.
The only time you would separate Attack and Magic Attack is if a Monster is immune to or has an effect on one or the other.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Sallwasser
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4 is the correct answer. The only time attack vs. magic attack makes a difference is if something specifically affect one or the other (ie. magic attack only, Half damage from magic attack) the disease doesn't subtract from attack or magic attack but rather from you total attack the formula is Attack + Magic Attack = Total Attack - Attack Penalties
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Lawton
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Attack + Magic Attack = Total Attack - Attack Penalties


Or Attack (-attack penalties) + Magic Attack (-attack penalties) = Total Attack
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis Mills
United States
Tyronza
Arkansas
flag msg tools
mbmb
OK. Based on this, how should the following phrase on page 14 of the Dragonspire rulebook be applied?

Quote:
Attack Values are divided into Attack and Magic Attack. Each type of Attack Value is calculated separately.


Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Bolme
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They are calculated separately (only necessary when a monster has Half Magic Attack or something), then added together to find a final total.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis Mills
United States
Tyronza
Arkansas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Thank you. This helps a lot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Brooks
United States
West Hills
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edbolme wrote:
They are calculated separately (only necessary when a monster has Half Magic Attack or something), then added together to find a final total.


If I have attack +5, magic attack +3, a disease card and am facing a monster which is immune to magic attack may I apply the disease card to my magic attack potential, or does the immunity prevent that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
beehive23 wrote:
edbolme wrote:
They are calculated separately (only necessary when a monster has Half Magic Attack or something), then added together to find a final total.


If I have attack +5, magic attack +3, a disease card and am facing a monster which is immune to magic attack may I apply the disease card to my magic attack potential, or does the immunity prevent that?


Yes, your total attack then would still be 5. You can't go negative on magic attack, though; you have to actually have some to reduce.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Trombik
Switzerland
Zuerich
flag msg tools
badge
Have I answered all your Questions and provided good Customer Service? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! That's the Paradox, my Friend!
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
So I walk into the Dungeon...and if a Negative Modifier reduces my Attack Value by One, and the Monster is a Regular, not Immune Monster, not Magic-Immune, and I have enough light to Zero the Monster's Light Penalty:

If I have 4 Attack and 2 Magic Attack, then my Total Attack Value is 5.

Now the same Scenario, but the Monster is Immune to Magic-Attacks:

My Total Attack Value is 4...2 Magic Attack minus 1, and Monster Immune to Magic-Attacks nullifies the Magic-Attack.

Correct?

Other Scenario:

The Monster goes with Half-Attack. No additional Negative Modifiers.

If I have 4 Attack and No Magic. Therefore my Total Attack Value is 2.

If I have 4 Attack and 2 Magic. Therefore my Total Attack is 3. This because the Total Attack is reduced 1/2, equals 3. OR is only the Attack reduced 1/2, but Magic not, and I have a Total Attack left of..4?

Does Half-Attack mean half of the Total Attack so far, or is it Half of the Attack, and after this calculation has been done, added the Magic Attack to calculate the Final Attack Value?

Sorry to address this again, but the Question is a tricky One.

I hope I was able to write my Question in a clear way.

Any Clarification is appreciated.:p

Edit: Typo.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Metzler
United States
Glendale
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
badge
"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bansko wrote:

Now the same Scenario, but the Monster is Immune to Magic-Attacks:

My Total Attack Value is 4...2 Magic Attack minus 1, and Monster Immune to Magic-Attacks nullifies the Magic-Attack.

Correct?


**Sigh** No, not correct. Sorry for being frustrated, but I've been over it so many times now that I just don't understand why its so hard to grasp.

You have 4 attack and 2 magic attack. The monster is immune to magic attack, so you immediately nullify ALL magic attack. Now you have a -1 modifier, which must modify your 4 attack. Your Total Attack Value is thus 3.

Bansko wrote:

Other Scenario:

The Monster goes with Half-Attack. No additional Negative Modifiers.

If I have 4 Attack and No Magic. Therefore my Total Attack Value is 2.

If I have 4 Attack and 2 Magic. Therefore my Total Attack is 3. This because the Total Attack is reduced 1/2, equals 3. OR is only the Attack reduced 1/2, but Magic not, and I have a Total Attack left of..4?

Does Half-Attack mean half of the Total Attack so far, or is it Half of the Attack, and after this calculation has been done, added the Magic Attack to calculate the Final Attack Value?


It reduces your Total Attack Value.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slaqr wrote:
**Sigh** No, not correct. Sorry for being frustrated, but I've been over it so many times now that I just don't understand why its so hard to grasp.


What I can't understand is how the rules can be up to version 1.4 and still be contradictory and largely incomprehensible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Metzler
United States
Glendale
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
badge
"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Peristarkawan wrote:
slaqr wrote:
**Sigh** No, not correct. Sorry for being frustrated, but I've been over it so many times now that I just don't understand why its so hard to grasp.


What I can't understand is how the rules can be up to version 1.4 and still be contradictory and largely incomprehensible.


There is nothing contradictory in the v1.4 rules. There are only people who interpret them in ways which they aren't written.

Additionally, many people find absolutely NOTHING incomprehensible about them at the 1.4 status. Hell, I understood them at the 1.0 status pretty well.

The trick to most games, especially those with less than perfect rules, is to interpret them in the way that makes the most LOGICAL sense. If a monster is immune to magic attack, do you really think that you should be allowed to reduce your magic attack rather than your physical attack, or are you merely trying to circumvent having to lose your physical attack in order to make the game easier for you.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slaqr wrote:
There is nothing contradictory in the v1.4 rules. There are only people who interpret them in ways which they aren't written.


Page 7. "Heroes are Village cards." Clear, concise, bolded for emphasis, and also completely wrong. Perhaps in v1.5 they will fix this by removing that sentence, leaving the rest of the paragraph which simply says that heroes can be bought like village cards, which is apparently all that was meant in the first place.

Quote:
Additionally, many people find absolutely NOTHING incomprehensible about them at the 1.4 status. Hell, I understood them at the 1.0 status pretty well.


Well, bully for you.

Quote:
The trick to most games, especially those with less than perfect rules, is to interpret them in the way that makes the most LOGICAL sense.


I'm actually pretty good at that with most games, but not with Thunderstone for some reason.

Quote:
If a monster is immune to magic attack, do you really think that you should be allowed to reduce your magic attack rather than your physical attack, or are you merely trying to circumvent having to lose your physical attack in order to make the game easier for you.


I don't know. If a monster halves magic attack, do you really think that you should be allowed to reduce your magic attack in order to effectively halve the reduction? As I understand it, that one is legal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Metzler
United States
Glendale
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
badge
"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Peristarkawan wrote:
slaqr wrote:
There is nothing contradictory in the v1.4 rules. There are only people who interpret them in ways which they aren't written.


Page 7. "Heroes are Village cards." Clear, concise, bolded for emphasis, and also completely wrong. Perhaps in v1.5 they will fix this by removing that sentence, leaving the rest of the paragraph which simply says that heroes can be bought like village cards, which is apparently all that was meant in the first place.



I think you have contradiction within the rules confused with contradiction on rulings introduced by new rules. There are no contradictions within v1.4 of the Thunderstone rules, as I stated.

I'm not sure what Ed's basis was for making this ruling, but alas, he is in charge of the project at this point and I must consider it the definitive ruling on the matter.

You'll be glad to know that the rules are going a major overhaul to make them compliant with all expansions, past and *hopefully* future.

Peristarkawan wrote:
If a monster is immune to magic attack, do you really think that you should be allowed to reduce your magic attack rather than your physical attack, or are you merely trying to circumvent having to lose your physical attack in order to make the game easier for you.


There is an inherent difference here. In one the attack is eliminated from the calculation prior to applying any other reductions, precluding it from being reduced further. In the other, it isn't.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Trombik
Switzerland
Zuerich
flag msg tools
badge
Have I answered all your Questions and provided good Customer Service? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! That's the Paradox, my Friend!
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thanks for answering, anyway.

Peristarkawan wrote:
If I have attack +5, magic attack +3, a disease card and am facing a monster which is immune to magic attack may I apply the disease card to my magic attack potential, or does the immunity prevent that?

Yes, your total attack then would still be 5. You can't go negative on magic attack, though; you have to actually have some to reduce.

U wrote:
**Sigh** No, not correct. Sorry for being frustrated, but I've been over it so many times now that I just don't understand why its so hard to grasp.

You have 4 attack and 2 magic attack. The monster is immune to magic attack, so you immediately nullify ALL magic attack. Now you have a -1 modifier, which must modify your 4 attack. Your Total Attack Value is thus 3.


So...

Thats why I thought, if its a Minus Modifier, that I can assign it either to Attack or Magic Attack, as stated in another Post by Someone I dont have the Post at Hand right now, but more important, JimPinto said YES Exactly, u can assign Minus Modifier either to Attack or Magic Attack it not explicit stated otherwise.

Dear Slaqr, I try to see ur Point in this. But all these questions just show that some players ARE unsure. Im just one among them, no big deal. So any comment from u guys is anyway appreciated, not to mention JimPinto's and Peristarkawan(what a name haha) helpful work.

Bansko




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Metzler
United States
Glendale
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
badge
"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bansko wrote:
Thanks for answering, anyway.

Peristarkawan wrote:
If I have attack +5, magic attack +3, a disease card and am facing a monster which is immune to magic attack may I apply the disease card to my magic attack potential, or does the immunity prevent that?

Yes, your total attack then would still be 5. You can't go negative on magic attack, though; you have to actually have some to reduce.

U wrote:
**Sigh** No, not correct. Sorry for being frustrated, but I've been over it so many times now that I just don't understand why its so hard to grasp.

You have 4 attack and 2 magic attack. The monster is immune to magic attack, so you immediately nullify ALL magic attack. Now you have a -1 modifier, which must modify your 4 attack. Your Total Attack Value is thus 3.


So...

Thats why I thought, if its a Minus Modifier, that I can assign it either to Attack or Magic Attack, as stated in another Post by Someone I dont have the Post at Hand right now, but more important, JimPinto said YES Exactly, u can assign Minus Modifier either to Attack or Magic Attack it not explicit stated otherwise.

Dear Slaqr, I try to see ur Point in this. But all these questions just show that some players ARE unsure. Im just one among them, no big deal. So any comment from u guys is anyway appreciated, not to mention JimPinto's and Peristarkawan(what a name haha) helpful work.

Bansko


Indeed, you may assign it to either. However, the value you assign it to MUST not be 0, and when dealing with Immune to Magic Attack monsters, or Magic Attack only monsters:

Immune to Magic Attack = Reduce Magic Attack to 0 before applying modifiers

Magic Attack Only = Reduce Attack to 0 before applying modifiers

With no other qualifiers, you may remove it from either as long as the value isn't 0 before applying the modifier.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Trombik
Switzerland
Zuerich
flag msg tools
badge
Have I answered all your Questions and provided good Customer Service? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! That's the Paradox, my Friend!
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Good Explanation, and thx for taking ur time. Got It...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slaqr wrote:
I think you have contradiction within the rules confused with contradiction on rulings introduced by new rules. There are no contradictions within v1.4 of the Thunderstone rules, as I stated.


That may be. I haven't noticed any internal contradictions, and I certainly haven't gone looking for them. I never said that was what I was referring to, though.

Quote:
I'm not sure what Ed's basis was for making this ruling, but alas, he is in charge of the project at this point and I must consider it the definitive ruling on the matter.


If you want to blame it on Ed, fine. Maybe the v1.4 rules were absolutely perfect when they were compiled, and AEG has since messed things up by contradicting them in the more recent expansions. Either way, the rules fail to accurately describe the game, which is the basis of my complaint.

Quote:
You'll be glad to know that the rules are going a major overhaul to make them compliant with all expansions, past and *hopefully* future.


Sounds promising, but you'll have to forgive me being skeptical about the success and/or durability of the result.

Quote:
There is an inherent difference here. In one the attack is eliminated from the calculation prior to applying any other reductions, precluding it from being reduced further. In the other, it isn't.


Sure, from the legalistic standpoint of somebody who has carefully read each of the relevant rules and connected the dots. From the intuitive, "logical" view I thought we were talking about, "immune to magic" and "half damage from magic" are the same sort of thing, with one just being more effective than the other. One might even extrapolate and speculate that future expansions will have "absorbs magic", whereby the quantity of magic attack present actually makes the monster that much harder to kill.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Metzler
United States
Glendale
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"
badge
"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually it certainly sounded like you were making reference to internal rules conflicts and incomprehensibility...and I quote:

Peristarkawan wrote:
What I can't understand is how the rules can be up to version 1.4 and still be contradictory and largely incomprehensible.


Nowhere does it reference rules aside from v1.4, which were rules prior to expansion. I don't believe you ever said that the continuum of rules were inconsistent, merely that 1.4 was.

Peristarkawan wrote:
If you want to blame it on Ed, fine. Maybe the v1.4 rules were absolutely perfect when they were compiled, and AEG has since messed things up by contradicting them in the more recent expansions. Either way, the rules fail to accurately describe the game, which is the basis of my complaint.


As for blame, I'm not BLAMING anyone. Expansions come out, adding/changing/removing/confusing/confounding rules explanations. As to whether or not they are consistent, the answer is an obvious no.

Peristarkawan wrote:
Sure, from the legalistic standpoint of somebody who has carefully read each of the relevant rules and connected the dots. From the intuitive, "logical" view I thought we were talking about, "immune to magic" and "half damage from magic" are the same sort of thing, with one just being more effective than the other. One might even extrapolate and speculate that future expansions will have "absorbs magic", whereby the quantity of magic attack present actually makes the monster that much harder to kill.


We obviously just have different points of view here. I see no real reason to associate Immune and Half Damage, especially as the effects of both are clearly outlined in the rules. As for your idea on "Absorbs Magic", I like it...hasn't been used, AFAIK hasn't been planned, but is an interesting concept none-the-less.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Bolme
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slaqr wrote:
I'm not sure what Ed's basis was for making this ruling


The various Siege and Raid effects in Thornwood.

If all hero cards are also village cards, and a Siege card destroys two card from the least expensive village stack, then it destroys cards from the limitless Militia stack.

In addition, other Siege cards specify that they hit hero stacks. So it appeared to me that the change had already been made, at least in the minds of someone in the process (designer, developer, who knows?).

That's why Jeff and I are working to codify everything.

In a way, I am not a game designer, I am a game engineer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Bolme
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As for the original purpose of the thread, immunity and halving attack values are traits, not Battle effects.

Traits are applied instantaneously and continuously. Thus as soon as you declare an attack againat a critter with immunity, your Attack value in that category goes to zero.

According to the rules, light penalty is the last modifier applied, and by the time you apply it, you must apply it to a nonzero number (which would be the attack type against which the monster in not immune).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Trombik
Switzerland
Zuerich
flag msg tools
badge
Have I answered all your Questions and provided good Customer Service? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! That's the Paradox, my Friend!
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
What means limitless Milita stack? I assumed the limit was 30 cards. Now without house ruling, what do you recommend when playing TS+WotE+DL+DS+TS? Thx for clarification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Bolme
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bansko wrote:
What means limitless Milita stack?


Whenever a Militia card gets destroyed, it is not removed from the game. Instead, it goes back onto its village stack.

The same is true for Torch, Dagger, and Iron Rations.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Bolme
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
*** Mea Culpa! ***

I was wrong; I was channeling a rule change we were considering, but never implemented.

Basic stacks, unlike Diseases, are limited.

I am sorry for any confusion I have caused.
 
 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.