GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
10,565 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
13 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

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

Subject: Another Shield Bash Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Berry
United States
Denver
CO - Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
please see the expansion rule book for the statement that all attacks of an enemy must be blocked for the creature to be considered blocked. see the FAQ for your other shield bash questions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pekka Kärkkäinen
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Antaa mennä, KYLLÄ JÄÄ KESTÄÄ!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to make sure I understand the now official interpretation: I (as Norowas) attacked a storm dragon (4 ice attack, swift, elusive, armor 7/14) with concentration + shield bash & fire block 4 (Guardian golems). Storm dragon's armor value should be reduced by 3 to 4?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Feroz Azim wrote:
Just to make sure I understand the now official interpretation: I (as Norowas) attacked a storm dragon (4 ice attack, swift, elusive, armor 7/14) with concentration + shield bash & fire block 4 (Guardian golems). Storm dragon's armor value should be reduced by 3 to 4?


The Storm Dragon's attack value is doubled to 8 for the purpose of blocking (Block Phase, rule 6(a)).

The 4 points of Fire Block are fully effective, so they count as 4.

The 7 points of Block from Concentration + Shield Bash are ineffective but count double against Swift enemies, so they count as 7.

Thus you seem to have 3 more than you need. I concur with your logic, although I'm not certain this is the intent.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pekka Kärkkäinen
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Antaa mennä, KYLLÄ JÄÄ KESTÄÄ!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, I guess I have the rule under my belt after all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Again, while I read it the same way as you do, it's possible that you are only supposed to get 1 point of armor reduction (1.5 rounded down).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevin Beattie
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Again, while I read it the same way as you do, it's possible that you are only supposed to get 1 point of armor reduction (1.5 rounded down).


And there you see the confusion I have with Vlaada's response to the question of Shield Bash vs. Swiftness, where the intent “was not to really double the block, but to let it reduce the swift attack”.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pekka Kärkkäinen
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Antaa mennä, KYLLÄ JÄÄ KESTÄÄ!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vlaada wrote:
So, the surplus point does not double for purposes of armor reduction.


Doesn't this indicate that in my example the reduction would, indeed, only amount to 1 (1.5) instead of 3?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Bulacz
Poland
Kraków
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The same amount we get, if we change the order of playing those cards.

First Shield Bash and then Golems Fire Block.
Extra Fire Block 3 is left.

I agree this Block can only block 1,5 more Ice Swift Attack.
But is Swiftness still working when the creature is dead?


edit:
But thinking it over...
Let's move back to the order Fire Block 4, Shield Bash.
If the double amount of Block for Swift enemies is only when the creature is alive, then the remaining 3 Block from Shield Bash, which now is not doubled, could block only 0,75 Ice Swift Attack.
I think we need more clarification
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
Sorry for the thread resurrection but I came across this and while Vlaada's comment in context answers the question, this thread seems to confuse the issue. I thought I'd try to clarify this thread (since it shows up in searches anyway, and to make sure I understand how this is supposed to work).

Feroz Azim wrote:
Vlaada wrote:
So, the surplus point does not double for purposes of armor reduction.


Doesn't this indicate that in my example the reduction would, indeed, only amount to 1 (1.5) instead of 3?


No it doesn't because when taken in context the question as stated had already divided the block by 2 for being inefficient. The question was 'If I don't use 1 point of my doubled anti-swiftness attack, does it get doubled back up again and count as 2 surplus block?' to which the answer is surely no, as Vlaada says.

In this thread we have kept it a bit simpler and avoided that question, I think. So reducing the dragon's armour by 3 is correct.

My own example was fighting a Storm dragon with Utem Guardsmen and Shield Bash's powered ability. This provides 9 block in total, all of which is doubled against swiftness.

So I have a total of 18 block against the Storm Dragon, which has Ice Attack 4 plus swiftness. I need to block 8 Ice Attack, I have 18 block but it's inefficient. Therefore it is halved and counts as only 9 block. I have 1 surplus, so the Storm dragon loses 1 armour.

Is this correct? Thanks.

I think the confusion arises because on the surface swiftness and inefficiency have the same effect, but in this case if we simply divide the total block by 4 we get a different result for the amount of surplus block. But swiftness doesn't say the block is inefficient, it says the enemy's attack counts twice. Which is subtly different in some situations.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Has anyone mentioned that Shield Bash is a blue card, so it can't reduce the Storm Dragon's armor, anyway? Of course, that doesn't answer the general question. You could also ask, "What if a different effect had removed the Storm Dragon's Ice Resistance?"

I concur with your answer (ignoring the issue of Ice Resistance), but I wouldn't say I'm 100% sure.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magnesi
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why not? I think that with Vlaada's answer the issue is clear. But I may miss something.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Has anyone mentioned that Shield Bash is a blue card, so it can't reduce the Storm Dragon's armor, anyway? Of course, that doesn't answer the general question. You could also ask, "What if a different effect had removed the Storm Dragon's Ice Resistance?"


Yeah good point. Thankfully it actually made no difference in my game as I had the 7 attack required anyway - once I realised that I ignored the problem and just decided to seek clarification afterwards.

So good point, but I'm glad it didn't invalidate my win in any way.

The same issue would crop up with the Amotep Freezers though as they have swift ice attack but no cold resistance. So the issue is still worthy of clarification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
syzygia wrote:
Why not? I think that with Vlaada's answer the issue is clear. But I may miss something.


I am fairly confident our interpretation is correct when it's written down and analysed in isolation. The problem is in being certain enough to correctly assess and calculate it in your head with the board and 10+ cards in front of you. Any element of doubt increases the difficulty of analysing this situation exponentially.

Mostly I think this situation becomes confusing because swiftness and inefficient attacks operate in very similar but different ways. I would agree the rules are quite explicit about the difference, and Vlaada clears up the issue with Shield Bash I think. However the difference is subtle enough that it feels like we might have missed some important detail.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magnesi
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, I agree that is really easy to make a mistake with this card. If you look at PBF, you'll see that it has been used incorrectly several times. It's like the "grouped enemies share armor" thing... it isn't the correct way to play it, but it works most of the time. When it doesn't work, you may miss a mistake.

I was just intrigued by David comment, which suggests that the rule isn't clear. To me, it seems clear (while easy to misunderstand it).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
I think we're on the same page on this matter. However, this seems self-contradictory to me:

syzygia wrote:
I was just intrigued by David comment, which suggests that the rule isn't clear. To me, it seems clear (while easy to misunderstand it).


If it's 'clear' then it would by definition be easy to understand, and therefore not easy to misunderstand.

The rule is made explicit when all the relevant rules are scrutinised, but not in a clear and concise manner (rules for swiftness and resistances are in different places, the card words in another, and Vlaada's explanation yet another) nor are there any examples which have been thoroughly, clearly and concisely explained.

So if by 'clear' you mean 'made explicit' then I agree. If you mean the more usual sense of 'easy to understand' then I would disagree. I would disagree even more if 'clear' rules are assumed to be easy to follow in practise, and this is evidenced by how many people get it wrong.

I'll be honest and say I am rarely a fan of people saying rules are 'clear' when someone asks for clarification. It can come across like an insinuation the person is stupid for asking. A bit like when someone expert at something describes an advanced skill as 'easy' meaning 'easy for me'.

I think it's often just difference in semantics though and completely unintentional. It's often used to mean 'made explicit' but that's not how I think most people interpret the word.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magnesi
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry, I said that the rules were clear meaning that "only one interpretation is consistent with the rules". I think that's a valid meaning of the word "clear", but you're right, there are better (and clearer ) ways to say that.

Orion3T wrote:
I'll be honest and say I am rarely a fan of people saying rules are 'clear' when someone asks for clarification. It can come across like an insinuation the person is stupid for asking. A bit like when someone expert at something describes an advanced skill as 'easy' meaning 'easy for me'.
As said, there must be other ways to say it. But, for me, when someone asks for a rule, it's important to say if your answer is the only possible way to play according to the rules, or if it is one of the interpretations of an ambiguous situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
syzygia wrote:


Orion3T wrote:
I'll be honest and say I am rarely a fan of people saying rules are 'clear' when someone asks for clarification. It can come across like an insinuation the person is stupid for asking. A bit like when someone expert at something describes an advanced skill as 'easy' meaning 'easy for me'.


As said, there must be other ways to say it. But, for me, when someone asks for a rule, it's important to say if your answer is the only possible way to play according to the rules, or if it is one of the interpretations of an ambiguous situation.


I suppose unambiguous or unequivocal would work better for me, meaning no room is left for interpretation.

Something can be unambiguous yet very difficult to understand, for example a lengthy logical proof which many people wouldn't be able to follow but when properly understood leaves no room for interpretation - which in this case is not all that dissimilar!

Anyway I didn't mean to single you out, but I see this a lot on these forums.

I am also curious whether David meant the same sort of uncertainty as I did, that it's just difficult to get your head around and calculate the right result sometimes, or if there's still something about these rules he thinks is ambiguous.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't care to discuss it further.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
I don't care to discuss it further.


No worries, I appreciate your comments and it seems from Magnesi's comments we have it right.
 
 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.