Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Mage Knight Board Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: The word "attack" needs more clarity rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh A
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is just something that has come up while playing the game. Its not a big deal, but can be improved on.

Sometimes the word "attack" is used to mean different things. Perhaps different words should be used in the future to seperate the different definitions of "attack". Sometimes it means ALL types of attack. Sometimes it means attacks excluding ranged and siege. Here's an example:

Narowas LEADERSHIP SKILL says:

Once a turn: When activating a Unit add + 3 to its Block or +2 to its Attack or +1 to its Ranged (not Siege) Attack, regardless of its elements.

So here it is clear that the word attack excludes ranged and siege Attack. But what if I play a ranged attack during the "Attack" phase. Is it still considered a ranged attack? I assume that it is*. This skill implies that the word "Attack" is EXCLUSIVE of "Ranged Attack".

(*EDIT: After reading Daniel's reply below, I think I'm wrong, and that +2 would apply to ranged attack played during the attack phase.)


Advanced Action INTO THE HEAT:
Play this card at the start of the combat. All of your Units get their Attack and Block values increased by 2 this combat...

Now after reading the LEADERSHIP skill, you would think that the word Attack excludes ranged and siege attacks.

I was uncertain so I read the forum for guidance. It seems that this card allows you to increase range and siege attacks as well. Therefore this card implies that the word "Attack" is INCLUSIVE of "Ranged Attack".

The point was that I had to read the forums to find this out, because the use of the word "Attack" is not consistent.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LargeGoblin
msg tools
I wish they had used melee, ranged, and siege attack.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since the rulebook states that during the attack phase of combat, "there is no difference between regular, Ranged and Siege Attacks", I play that Leadership would increase any type of attack.

As for Into the Heat, it is my opinion that the card is simply worded incorrectly. I play with the official interpretation, but the card text should to be modified in future printings.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
Since the rulebook states that during the attack phase of combat, "there is no difference between regular, Ranged and Siege Attacks", I play that Leadership would increase any type of attack.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I suppose you mean that Leadership can give +2 to ranged or siege attacks during the normal attack phase (not the ranged/siege phase)? This is something I've been wondering about as well, but I think I played that it never gives +2 to ranged or siege.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I take it a different way from the OP. I think it is clear on attack. If the cards says it doesn't include limits on what it can be used on (into the heat for example) then there are none. The cards that list exclusions are pretty clear. I see no problem and it seems to be working as intended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think the language is inconsistent, it's just that the English word "or" can be inconsistent. Sometimes it's inclusive and sometimes it's exclusive.

If Norowas's Leadership skill had said, "add +3 to its Block or +2 to its Attack", then you could use it for Ranged and Siege Attack values also. By adding the words "or +1 to its Ranged (not Siege) Attack", the card overrides that and says you can only add +1 to Ranged Attack, and nothing to Siege Attack.

The rulebook says that during the Attack phase, there is "no difference between normal, Ranged, and Siege Attack". I would take that to imply that if you use Leadership during the Attack phase, then you get +2 regardless of what type of Attack is shown on the unit. I'm not 100% certain of this ruling, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironJames wrote:
I suppose you mean that Leadership can give +2 to ranged or siege attacks during the normal attack phase (not the ranged/siege phase)?

Yes, sorry I wasn't totally clear. That is exactly what I meant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Blaiberg
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As others have said, once you are in the attack PHASE then all types of attacks are considered the same, the only difference being elements they might use.

This is why if an enemy is fortified, you can't use ranged attack in the ranged phase, but you can use ranged attack in the attack phase.

So in these examples:

Leadership: I'd play that it gives +1 to Ranged Attack in the Ranged Phase, but once in the Attack phase it would give the +2 bonus.

Justification of this (aside from the above) is that Ranged Attack is more powerful as it allows you to negate the need to block / take wounds - once you are past the block phase, then ranged attack has lost it's advantage.

Into the Heat: I'd assume that all types of attack are increased.

Of course, I'm possibly wrong, but that's how I'll play it until I hear an official ruling.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Grogan
United Kingdom
Cullompton
Devon
flag msg tools
designer
Check out all my instructional How to Play videos at youtube.com/GamingRulesVideos
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheRiddler1976 wrote:
Leadership: I'd play that it gives +1 to Ranged Attack in the Ranged Phase, but once in the Attack phase it would give the +2 bonus.


I've not had chance to 100% confirm with Vlaada, but I think this is wrong.

EDIT: Confirmed with Filip. I am wrong.

Ranged Attack used in the Attack phase is still a ranged attack. It just means you can also use it in the regular attack phase of combat.


If you use Siege / Ranged in phase 4 of combat, it does indeed become a normal attack, and therefore gains a +2 for leadership.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ilias Sellountos
United States
Henrico
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
The rulebook says that during the Attack phase, there is "no difference between normal, Ranged, and Siege Attack". I would take that to imply that if you use Leadership during the Attack phase, then you get +2 regardless of what type of Attack is shown on the unit. I'm not 100% certain of this ruling, though.


My memory may be fuzzy, but I think this partly contradicts what your opinion was in another discussion, involving claims that "Siege Attack" was just a better version of "Ranged Attack" and therefore a card that increases Ranged Attack should also increase Siege Attack.

In any case, my opinion is that if a card says it increases Ranged Attack, it increase Ranged Attack and nothing else, it cannot be used on any attack that is not Ranged, regardless of what combat phase it is. So,
Quote:
Once a turn: When activating a Unit add + 3 to its Block or +2 to its Attack or +1 to its Ranged (not Siege) Attack, regardless of its elements.

To me means if you play a regular attack you get +2 but if your only attack card is a Ranged attack you only get +1 and if your only attack card is a siege attack you get nothing.

Edit for better precision: Substitute 'attack card is' with 'attacking unit has'.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
that Matt
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.
badge
I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.
Avatar
mbmbmb
LargeGoblin wrote:
I wish they had used melee, ranged, and siege attack.

I just wanted this to be said again in the thread.

zombie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alexandre Boureau
France
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But then, what does increasing any attack by +2 (as per advanced effect of concentration if I recall) means exactly?
Does it mean it increases "melee" attack from any element, or does any refers to siege, ranged, (and ice/fire siege, ice/fire ranged) during the corresponding phases too?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Powered Concentration increases move, influence, or any type of attack or block by two. For instance, if Arythea uses powered Concentration on Battle Versatility, she can get Attack 6, Block 6, Ranged Attack 5, Fire Attack 5, Fire Block 5 or Siege Attack 4, her choice.

Leadership gives a +3 bonus to block, or specific bonuses for specific types of attack. The phase in which you choose to use the attack does not matter, just the type of attack. The attack or block element is unchanged. For example, if you use Leadership on the Ranged Fire Attack 3 ability of Fire Mages, you get Ranged Fire Attack 4, even if you use this attack during regular (melee) Attack Phase. Edit: I just read the new ruling, this paragraph is wrong!

Edit: According to the latest ruling, the phase in which you choose to use the attack does matter. In the example above, if you use leadership on the Ranged Fire Attack 3 ability of Fire Mages in the Ranged Attack Phase, you get Ranged Fire Attack 4. If you use Leadership on them in the regular (melee) Attack Phase, you get Fire Attack 5.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Murmak
Czech Republic
Prague
flag msg tools
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
I don't think the language is inconsistent, it's just that the English word "or" can be inconsistent. Sometimes it's inclusive and sometimes it's exclusive.

If Norowas's Leadership skill had said, "add +3 to its Block or +2 to its Attack", then you could use it for Ranged and Siege Attack values also. By adding the words "or +1 to its Ranged (not Siege) Attack", the card overrides that and says you can only add +1 to Ranged Attack, and nothing to Siege Attack.

The rulebook says that during the Attack phase, there is "no difference between normal, Ranged, and Siege Attack". I would take that to imply that if you use Leadership during the Attack phase, then you get +2 regardless of what type of Attack is shown on the unit. I'm not 100% certain of this ruling, though.


This is 100% correct. I've played many games with Vlaada and clarified this long time ago. Also in Czech version it was a lot clearer, the translation is not always perfect (MK is a monsterous game to translate, especially when you have so limited time to finish everything).

To sum up - Siege/Ranged attack is simply an attack when played during Attack phase of combat. When a card says its modifying an attack of something (other card, unit, ...), unless specifically mentioning ranged/siege attack, it's meant to increase all attacks.

So Into the Heat increases attacks in both Ranged and Siege Attack phase and Attack phase, while Leadership skill increase your Unit's attack value as it says - by 1 in Ranged and Siege Attack phase or by 2 in Attack phase.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So for instance, if I had Catapults but no mana (Siege Attack 3), and the Leadership skill, I could not use Leadership on them in the Siege/Ranged Attack Phase. However, I could give use Leadership to give them Attack 5 in the regular (melee) Attack Phase, is this correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Grogan
United Kingdom
Cullompton
Devon
flag msg tools
designer
Check out all my instructional How to Play videos at youtube.com/GamingRulesVideos
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That is the way I now understand it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
So you can use Ranged or Siege attacks as melee attacks during the regular attack phase to benefit from the full bonus of Leadership.
Can you also use Siege attacks as Ranged attacks during the Ranged/Siege phase (provided you don't need to penetrate fortifications) if you need an extra +1? (sort of like a general rule that you can always choose to "downgrade" any attack type if needed)
I don't really think so, but it can't hurt to ask...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Mistiaen
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironJames wrote:
Can you also use Siege attacks as Ranged attacks during the Ranged/Siege phase (provided you don't need to penetrate fortifications) if you need an extra +1?


According to Paul's answer just before, apparantly not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
Corwin1980 wrote:
ironJames wrote:
Can you also use Siege attacks as Ranged attacks during the Ranged/Siege phase (provided you don't need to penetrate fortifications) if you need an extra +1?


According to Paul's answer just before, apparantly not.

What answer? I don't see anything addressing this particular question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The word "attack" needs more clarity
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
Well, that post doesn't answer my question.
Although his reply to this:
MikePustilnik wrote:
So for instance, if I had Catapults but no mana (Siege Attack 3), and the Leadership skill, I could not use Leadership on them in the Siege/Ranged Attack Phase. However, I could give use Leadership to give them Attack 5 in the regular (melee) Attack Phase, is this correct?

PaulGrogan wrote:
That is the way I now understand it.

might.

However, while I will take Paul's word on just about any MK ruling, in this case it seems he's not certain. I mean, until Filip's clarification, Paul's assumption about Leadership (which was the same as mine) was apparently wrong. No offense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironJames wrote:
However, while I will take Paul's word on just about any MK ruling, in this case it seems he's not certain. I mean, until Filip's clarification, Paul's assumption about Leadership (which was the same as mine) was apparently wrong. No offense.


I think Paul's rulings are official unless overruled or corrected. Of course that doesn't mean they are always 100% right, he's had to correct them a few times, but we all still really appreciate having official rulings.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
ironJames wrote:
However, while I will take Paul's word on just about any MK ruling, in this case it seems he's not certain. I mean, until Filip's clarification, Paul's assumption about Leadership (which was the same as mine) was apparently wrong. No offense.


I think Paul's rulings are official unless overruled or corrected. Of course that doesn't mean they are always 100% right, he's had to correct them a few times, but we all still really appreciate having official rulings.

I absolutely agree, and I really appreciate the effort he's put into answering rules questions, that level of support is very rare indeed. I just think that if this ruling turns out to be wrong (I don't think it will, but if), it's better if we find out sooner than later.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironJames wrote:
I just think that if this ruling turns out to be wrong (I don't think it will, but if), it's better if we find out sooner than later.


To be clear, in this thread, Paul gave the wrong ruling on July 21, and then today he was corrected/overruled by one of the few people who knows the rules better, so he acknowledged his mistake and changed his answer.

I don't see much chance of a double-reversal here, the answer seems definite now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iron James Rackham
msg tools
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
ironJames wrote:
I just think that if this ruling turns out to be wrong (I don't think it will, but if), it's better if we find out sooner than later.


To be clear, in this thread, Paul gave the wrong ruling on July 21, and then today he was corrected/overruled by one of the few people who knows the rules better, so he acknowledged his mistake and changed his answer.

I don't see much chance of a double-reversal here, the answer seems definite now.

I'm not talking about any double reversals here, it's a different, but related, question.
 
 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.