Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Mage Knight Board Game: The Lost Legion Expansion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Dueling vs. summoners rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trevin Beattie
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wolfhawk's Dueling skill says:

Quote:
Once a turn, during the Block phase: Block 1. Attack 1 versus the same enemy in the Attack phase.


When facing a summoner, ordinarily you are blocking the summoned brown token and then attacking the summoner which are two different enemies. Is this skill unusable against a summoner, or can you skip the block part of the skill (or say that you're blocking the summoner even though it has nothing to block) and just use its attack benefit?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mirror, Mirror
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You use the skill during the Block phase.

Since the enemy that is attacking you during the Block phase is the summoned creature, that is the creature that you would get Attack 1 versus in the Attack phase. Of course, since that creature is no longer around in the Attack phase, the attack bonus is essentially wasted.

Summoners are tricksy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I had this problem. I have come to think this is a terrible skill. It doesn't do much against summoners. It doesn't do anything against enemies you prevent from attacking (you can't even get the Attack +1 or the Fame +1). I played a game the other day and time after time after time it turned out to be completely worthless. It's going to be a long time before I choose it over anything else.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
das Andere wrote:
Summoners are tricksy.


Like hobbitsessss!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say you use it against the summoner because the attacker/the creature you are fighting is still the summoner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Limboldt wrote:
I would say you use it against the summoner because the attacker/the creature you are fighting is still the summoner.


I would like to think so---it would certainly help the balance---but I can't really convince myself of it. I keep circling back to the question and keep coming to the same conclusion, the way the rules are written, if you use Dueling against a summoned enemy then you don't get the 1 Attack or the +1 Fame.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
to play the lawyer of the opposite :
there is an explanation in the "step-by-step"-rules that leaves room for my approach, sth. like "the summoned monster replaces the enemy during block and damage-phase...afterwards in the attack-phase you attack the originally enemy".
so because it is not possible to attack the summoned monster, it can not be the meaning to give a bonus against it.
I always see the attack of the summoned monster as an suprising and ambiguous attack of the summoner. I do not really see them as two different enemys.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, the problem is

Block 1. Attack 1 versus the same enemy in the Attack phase. If you do not use any Unit ability to block, attack or affect this enemy nor assign damage to any Unit, you gain 1 more Fame for defeating it.

You get Attack 1 against the same enemy, but that enemy isn't present any more.

I would like to play it the way you suggest---I think it would be more balanced---but I find it hard to find support for that in the text of the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1.The enemy attacks you with a "summon-attack" (there are several kinds of attacks that an enemy can use in Mage Knight and they can always be found on the left side of the enemy-token)
2.You block the attack of the enemy.
3.you attack the enemy.
Always the same enemy you are fighting with...

Sorry, for me that works well together with the rules

I can prove it with math
x attacks you.
the attack of x = the attack of y.
The skills says: you get 1 block when x attacks you and then 1 attack vs. x.
you block the attack(y) which is = attack(x) with +1 and get +1 attack vs.x because x=y



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Limboldt wrote:
1.The enemy attacks you with a "summon-attack" (there are several kinds of attacks that an enemy can use in Mage Knight and they can always be found on the left side of the enemy-token)
2.You block the attack of the enemy.
3.you attack the enemy.
Always the same enemy you are fighting with...


The same argument would suggest that if you're fighting an Orc Summoner, that summons a Minotaur, you can use Ice Shield to block the Minotaur and reduce the Orc Summoner's armor. But we know (or at least we've been told, by semi-official sources) that it doesn't work that way. Why is this situation different?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting point I have to admit!
Perhaps these sources should read THIS thread again and then give us either a new interpretation of fighting against summoners or an alternative skill for Wolfhawk
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom H
Australia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah good old summoners again. When it comes to summoners we have contradictory clarifications.

First from a semi-official FAQ answerer (Re: Exploding Shield vs. Summoners) emphasises the summon as it's own creature: "Exploding shield destroys the blocked enemy - the one you blocked - i.e The summoned monster. However, you do not get Fame for it as you can only get fame for killing the summoner.".

Second from the publisher (Re: Official Rules FAQ Thread) categorically says the summon is merely an attack, an extension of the summoner and not a separate enemy: "The [summoning] attack itself isn't an enemy. If you want to cancel summoner's attack, you have to do it before you draw the summoned token. If you do draw, you have to block/assign damage. In retrospect, I would say Summon Attack isn't the best name for it. It gives an impression you are facing 2 enemy tokens, which isn't true."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Conceptually, it's easy to think that effects like Exploding Shield or Ice Shield that happen during the Block phase would affect the summoned token, while effects like Dueling that have subsequent benefits in the Melee phase would give those benefits against the summoner once the summoned token is gone. So I would like to play that way, but it's hard to see it clearly justified by the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lawyers final speech
OK, the confusing point is that the whole sommon-concept is a little bit inconsequent then.
On one hand it should only be a (virtual) dangerous and ambigous attack of the summoner (summon attack / "It replaces the enemy in the Block and Assign Damage phases, then it is discarded."), on the other hand it should be a (real) second enemy/token, but then it is strange that it disappears after attacking when it is a real and present enemy, thematically that could not be on behalf of the summoner
OK, after all the main idea is shoot/prevent or deal with a heavy attack that you also do not can calculate exactly and that it is not the summoners defense which makes them dangerous.
Otherwise it would have not destroyed the game balance when there are three or four effects that reduce their defense, because the outcome would have been the same: you use valuable ressources against them (preventing them to attack or ranged attack or special abilities) or have a more heavy fight. And that Wolfhawk skill would work perfect here, because what is more worth one fame extra than the decision to really fight (and block) ? So I would tend to an acquittal for that skill when fighting summoners in a different way from ice shield.
But as I sayed, regarding the numbers of effects currently in the game, I think it wouldn`t matter when all the arguable effects would apply to the summoner and it would even work thematically as negative magic feedback to the summon-spell.

Alan Shorehawk
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On reflection, I'm going to endorse the view that the summoned token(s) replace the summoner during the Block and Assign Damage phases, and the way to apply this is: effects that defeat or modify the characteristics of the summoned tokens, have no further effects once they disappear, but effects that give an effect against the "same enemy" during the Melee phase should be usable against the summoner after the summoned tokens disappear.

As far as I can see, this only affects the Dueling skill. Everything else that gives additional benefits when played in the Block phase, either gives general Attack (that can be used against anything anyway), or directly affects the summoned token (which means its effect would be irrelevant after the summoned token disappears).

Given no clear statement from the rules either way, this seems to me more in keeping with the intent. Of course, you can argue it both ways, but I'm swayed. It also improves the Dueling skill, which can certainly use it, although that isn't my sole reason for feeling this way.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For me also the logic structure of the rules and "binding precedents" by "rule-judges" ("ice shield - no" leads to "duelling - no") competes against a feeling that dueling should work here and as mentioned that the summoner-concept is not "impermeable" concerning the whole concept of block/attack and respective effects.
As a rules-lawyer I also would argue here that the "accent" of Ice shield is a more direct effect on the attack itself, which is gone together with the summon, and the accent of dueling is a bonus in every phase of the combat which is still going on when the summon is over.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
On reflection, I'm going to endorse the view that the summoned token(s) replace the summoner during the Block and Assign Damage phases, and the way to apply this is: effects that defeat or modify the characteristics of the summoned tokens, have no further effects once they disappear, but effects that give an effect against the "same enemy" during the Melee phase should be usable against the summoner after the summoned tokens disappear.


I like this way to see it. Sounds like the way they explained "arcane immunity".

It was a pleasure to argue with you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lord Limboldt
Germany
Köln / Cologne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terah wrote:
Ah good old summoners again. When it comes to summoners we have contradictory clarifications.


I would add another point that backs alternative perceptions and expose the base of the contradictions concerning combats against summoners:
You can use an effect that prevents "the enemy from attack"
So the summoner is the enemy and the summon/attack of the summon is the attack as deduction.
Even more special would be a summoner with arcane immunity.
Because i can not use effects, that affect the enemy.
But when the summoned attack/token would be handled as a new enemy, so it would be consequent when I could use effects that were not possible due to arcane immunity now, like preventing the (new) enemy from attacking.
But the enemy that defines the rules of combat is always the summoner itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal Kazimierczuk
Poland
Sulejówek
mazowieckie
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, such situation just happened in one of my games. I've read this thread carefully and I'd be supporting the view that the summoner and his creature are two different enemies.

I am aware that MK rules system is particularly nourishing for the "rule judge" attitude, still, as it seems to fail to produce an unambiguous explanation, I'd employ another method of thinking.

Let's take for example, duelling: I block an old orc crone fighting me with his stick and in a second I'm facing a hydra, who knows nothing about my superior fencing skills, as it's simply not the creature I blocked moments ago.
Same with Ice Shield - the frozen guy is slowed, but his friend from netherland is not. Besides, Ice Shield advanced effect's wording is clear enough in that matter.
 
 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.