Search found 2347 matches

by Bandobras Took
Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:43 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Dragon's Hunger
Replies: 2
Views: 32

Re: Dragon's Hunger

No. In order for the Dragon/Drake attack to exist, the hazard must have already resolved. Once a hazard is successfully resolved, the hazard limit is not checked for that hazard again, as checking the hazard limit is part of the resolution process. So: Hazard Declared (limit is checked here to make ...
by Bandobras Took
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:28 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Allies using Resources
Replies: 36
Views: 299

Re: Allies using Resources

But I believe untapping in the context of affecting the prowess modification from the strike sequence is a purpose of combat, and therefore valid to do to allies, regardless of the source of said untapping (barring the condition prohibition).
by Bandobras Took
Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:36 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: (Un)happy Blows
Replies: 2
Views: 29

Re: (Un)happy Blows

I believe when you play the card, you must choose which "company" you are playing it on, so to speak. You can play it on a company containing Elves and Dwarves, or you can play it on a company containing Orcs and Trolls. The rest of the effects of the card proceed from that choice. While a high roll...
by Bandobras Took
Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:31 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Allies using Resources
Replies: 36
Views: 299

Re: Allies using Resources

Right. But that still doesn't answer the question of why not allow a card whose action is untapping to be used on an ally facing a strike.
by Bandobras Took
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:25 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Many Foes He Fought
Replies: 1
Views: 22

Re: Many Foes He Fought

If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack. The character suffers a cumulative -1 prowess/-1 body for each additional strike faced. The character faces a separate strike sequence for each st...
by Bandobras Took
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:01 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: When To Tap In The Strike Sequence
Replies: 6
Views: 55

Re: When To Tap In The Strike Sequence

I get your point, but I think everyone knows the answer. If your untapped sage is assigned a strike, there is no problem in Marvelingtelling anything before, but he will get the -1 for the strike... Why?... eeeerh... well... because!! Granted that this has often been the process for providing rulin...
by Bandobras Took
Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:13 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: When To Tap In The Strike Sequence
Replies: 6
Views: 55

Re: When To Tap In The Strike Sequence

Actually, I'm wondering because a tapped character may have fewer resource options than an untapped character (playing resources comes after this tapped/untapped prowess modifier). I haven't gone through the cards to check if there are ones I might want to play. As for the -1 for being tapped, that ...
by Bandobras Took
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:55 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: When To Tap In The Strike Sequence
Replies: 6
Views: 55

When To Tap In The Strike Sequence

3. A target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap following the strike sequence. 3) If an untapped character is facing a strike, he must tap or take a -3 modification to prowess. Which of these is correct? One taps after the play of resources to affect ...
by Bandobras Took
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Allies using Resources
Replies: 36
Views: 299

Re: Allies using Resources

What about Many Foes He Fought? Do you deem this usable with a Warrior Ally? Yes. Allies face a strikes from an attack as though they were a characters. For the same reasons Motionless Among the Slain allows a player to assign an ally a strike. Both cards are not played on character (nor on ally). ...
by Bandobras Took
Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:54 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Allies using Resources
Replies: 36
Views: 299

Re: Allies using Resources

What about Many Foes He Fought? Do you deem this usable with a Warrior Ally? If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack. It is not played on anything; it merely creates an effect that will ap...
by Bandobras Took
Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:26 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Allies using Resources
Replies: 36
Views: 299

Re: Allies using Resources

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable before strikes are assigned on a character facing an attack in a shadow-magic using character's company. Target character cannot be assigned a strike from the attack. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow-magic using character makes a corruption check modified by -4. I...
by Bandobras Took
Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:19 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Great Ship
Replies: 5
Views: 633

Re: Great Ship

Card Erratum: Add "Tap a character in target company during the organization phase to play Great Ship on that company." Replace "...contains a coastal sea region..." with "...contains a coastal sea region and no consecutive non-coastal sea regions..." until the end of the turn any character in the ...
by Bandobras Took
Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:15 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: SoF, again.
Replies: 5
Views: 88

Re: SoF, again.

@ Konrad:

Okay, I understand what you're saying now.
by Bandobras Took
Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:18 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: SoF, again.
Replies: 5
Views: 88

Re: SoF, again.

An act of playing (declaring) of a card that "may not be duplicated on some XYZ" is not the same as effect of the card in play that "may not be duplicated on some XYZ". Player may declare multiple copies of such card in the same chain of effects, but second and next to resolve copy will fizzle. Pla...
by Bandobras Took
Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:47 am
Forum: Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas
Topic: LeadFact, What's the deal? (nerfing)
Replies: 7
Views: 128

Re: LeadFact, What's the deal? (nerfing)

3 or more factions controlled by the same leader give 2 extra faction marshalling points. In other words, the group of factions collectively gives 2 extra faction MPs. The fact that the wording can be misinterpreted is why they clarified it. ICE was probably erring on the side of caution in the mat...

Go to advanced search