by Vlaada
Hello all, I will try to answer those questions. The answers will be given according to the original intentions, not according the best interpretation of what we wrote on the cards. Sometimes, it may not be the same. Sorry for inconvenience, and of course, you have full right to play according of what you feel is better interpreation of the written text.I will occassionally also add comments from my programming Alter Ego. The point is - there was a digital prototype of base Mage Knight I used for personal playtesting, so I had a very good idea how things work - if you have to implement it, there are no questions left (although there still may be inconsistences between what was meant and what was written). However, the expansion was created without digital prototype, and it shows on higher amount of unclear combinations. But I still have to think this way, for the case there will be ever a digital implementation of the game.
Ambush + Shield of the Fallen King - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/961823/ambush-and-shield...
When playing the SofFK after Ambush, if the player chooses the 2nd effect of the artifact (Block 4 against two different enemies), does he add the +X Block given by Ambush to just the first enemy blocked (thus gaining 4+X against the first and just 4 against the second), or to both the blocks (thus 4+X against both enemies)?
When playing the SofFK after Ambush, if the player chooses the 2nd effect of the artifact (Block 4 against two different enemies), does he add the +X Block given by Ambush to just the first enemy blocked (thus gaining 4+X against the first and just 4 against the second), or to both the blocks (thus 4+X against both enemies)?
Was meant as 6, 4. Sorry for unclarity. The fact is the simplified text "Block 4 against two different enemies" is kind of against rules. You cannot block two enemies at once. You declare which enemy to block, and then you play effects. So more exact wording should be something like: "Choose one: Block 8, or Block 4 and you can use Block 4 when blocking another enemy later this turn."
And this is how it would work in an eventual digital implementation
Shield Bash - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/946075/reducing-attacks-...
When using the advanced effect against an enemy with Swiftness, is the "counts twice" effect applied before calculating the final block value? For example, against an enemy with Swiftness and Ice Attack 2, the player plays only advanced Shield Bash. He gets Block 5 which counts twice, thus Block 10. The final block value is 10/2=5 (ineffective against Ice Attack), the player needs Block 4 (due to Swiftness), so the enemy is blocked. Is the enemy's armor reduced by 5-4=1? Or does the counts twice applies to any single block point remaining after blocking, so the player only uses 4 of the Block 5 counted twice to block the attack, and the last block point is counted twice for a -2 to the enemy's Armor?
The original intention was it gives special anti-swift block, which ignores the fact you need two points of block per point of swift attack. It had to replace the previous "enemy loses swiftness" for two reasons:
because of multiple attacks, and to weaken it so a small block of this type cannot remove swiftness completelly from a huge attack. So, the original intention was not to really double the block, but to let it reduce the swift attack by 2 (in fact, to let only this portion of block to ignore swiftness). So, the surplus point does not double for purposes of armor reduction.
I am ashamed here, as this card is unclear by itself, not in combo with others. The probable reason why no tester mentioned it was that these changes were made separately, in several steps. We made Shield Bash with "blocked attack loses Swiftness" (a wording that handled the multiple attack issue). Later, we decided weaken Utem/Altem Guardians (using the opportunity to add a bit balance, when we had to change the text anyway). And in final touches, we decided to change effect of Shield Bash, to unite mechanics, not realizing part of the advanced effect will be unclear because of that.
Sorry for unconvenience.
A special type of block? My future me will hate me for this explanation if we will ever implement digital version of MK :)
Shield Bash vs mutliple attacks - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/973779/interesting-cases...
For multiple attacks blocked by multiple sources including SB stronger effect, which is true:
a) surplus block points for all attacks accumulate to reduce the enemy's armor; or
b) armor reduction is applied only to the attack that SB is actually blocking.
Answer b) is correct. It takes effect during the block in which the card is played.
Concentration + Shield Bash/Into the Heat + Altem Guardsmen - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/12431582#12431582
Is the +2 Block given by Concentration applied to the Block 5 before doubling when facing an enemy with Swiftness (thus giving 14 Block) or after doubling (thus giving 12 Block)?
Same question for second combo: 12/14 Block or 10/11 Block?
The bonuses are applied before doubling (counting twice). It gives bonus to this special anti-swift block. Please see Shield Bash above.
Into the Heat + Shocktroops - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/972389/into-the-heat-and...
After playing Into the Heat, how is executed the Reduce one enemy attack by 3. Any damage from that attack must be assigned to this Unit first, even if that enemy had Assassination. Shocktroops' ability?
a) Enemy attack is reduced. Damage is dealt to Shocktroops even if Into the Heat is active;
b) Enemy attack is reduced. Damage is dealt to the Hero due to Into the Heat effect that supersecedes Shocktroops second effect.
c) The ability cannot be used at all.
Was meant as a). We forgot about this combination. And it was stupid from us anyway, we should have written "even if not allowed otherwise" instead of "even if that enemy has Assassination", also for sake of future features.
Disbanding Units - When
Can a unit be disbanded at any time, or only when recruiting a new Unit with all the Command tokens already occupied? (It matters for Wolfhawk's coop skill that gives bonuses based on unused command tokens)
Only when you cannot recruit more. There is no rule about disbanding units other than this one.
Approved. I do not want to add "disband" to popup menu every time you click/tap a unit :)
Attacking Volkare on a space with an unconquered fortified site - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/967465/attacking-volkare...
Is it possible? The rules states that when entering a space with an unconquered fortified site, we must assault it. But, at the same time, if we enter a space with Volkare we start a combat against him, and a player can't execute 2 actions in a single turn. So, which is true in this case:
a) No player may enter a space with an unconquered fortified site and Volkare;
b) A player may enter such a space, and must assault the unc. fortified site, then executes a combat sequence as if attacked by Volkare (without being able to use a full turn).;
c) The site defenders joins Volkare army for a single combat against Volkare, if the defenders are eliminated, the site is considered conquered;
d) Volkare presence trumps everything else: the player faces Volkare's Army and disregard any fortified enemy present in the space;
e) Anything else to be specified.
This question, of course, is valid even with regards to adventure sites.
This is a tricky question, we changed it a lot, I had to take a look to rulebook to see what was the final version... and found there is none. Sorry for that. The problem is some rules for Volkare are generic and some are scenario specific. We had more scenarios in mind than the ones that made it into the rulebook, so we kept the generic part thin.
However, the way we played the current scenarios is d). The space features are used only to count movement cost (and you cannot attack Volkare if you are unable enter the terrain), the enemies and sites on the space are ignored, except for a fortification effect. If you end up on an unsafe space after defeating Volkare, you have to withdraw. Not that it matters in these scenarios, as they end if you defeated Volkare. Might be specified more exactly in eventual future scenarios.
Yeah. The amount of special cases in other cases was too big. Ignoring them all (except for rampaging, but they act as they always do) is non-problematic. Actually, strictly logic way would be you cannot attack Volkare when he is standing on rampaging enemies (you would have to challenge them first)...
... but to lose your scenario because of single orc diggers, although you have strength to defeat 30 of them, would be kind of anti-climactic :)
New Cold Toughness vs ColdFire attacks - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/990196/how-do-you-play-c...
When using the advanced effect of Cold Toughness against a monster with ColdFire attack, do we get +2 or +1 Ice Block?
Was meant as +2. Sorry for shortcut "color of attack", the text is very long on this card.
Not enough tokens available - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/982873/volkares-tokens
It may happen that, when revealing Volkare's army, there're not enough tokens in the pool (mostly for Green tokens): what should we do in this case?
Please improvize. Component shortage was not part of design, and it was impossible prevent all extreme cases. Since the scenario where it happens are usually cooperative, find a way that fits your taste: whether it is a way that affect the game least (withdraw most distant orcs from the map), or not at all (use proxy), or makes thematically sense (withdraw the closest orcs). I do not recommend to give him no orcs, as it would lead to non-thematical meta-tactics (do not kill orcs so Volkare cannot recruit them).
Creating proxy is the easiest way... for a digital version, of course :)