Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Recherche
Forums » BattleLore - English » lord card, FIRST STRIKE
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
patrix1976
Junior Member

Messages: 4
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2007
lord card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 29 October 2007 03:27
the text says,

target melees first,
if it's attacker was not killed or forced to retreat, it may then battle as originally declared...

what?? can someone explain this card please.

so I cast this on my unit that's under attack, if the attacker is not dead...

an example perhaps?

thank you very much.

my wife draw this card and we had no idea what it meant Smile
      
andrewgr
Junior Member

Messages: 28
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2006
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 29 October 2007 06:07
Let's say it is your turn. You are about to attack one of your wife's units in melee.

She plays the "First Strike" card.

That means that she rolls her melee dice with that unit BEFORE you roll your melee dice, even though it's your turn.

Now, let's say she kills you or makes you retreat. Then you don't get to swing at her at all!

But, if she doesn't kill you or make you retreat, then you go ahead with your attack, just like she hadn't played the card (and she doesn't get to Battle Back with that unit, it's used its attack for the turn).
      
patrix1976
Junior Member

Messages: 4
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2007
  Re:lore card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 29 October 2007 22:22
THANKS for explaining it to me!! Very Happy
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1004
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2007
Re:lore card, FIRST STRIKE Tue, 30 October 2007 18:29
gameing tip if your playing your wife....let her win it makes life easyer Laughing
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 19 November 2007 22:26
Got another question - and this has to do with the text of the card.

Here it is : "Target melees first.
If its attacker was not killed or forced to retreat, it may then battle back and attack as normal." (italics added for emphasis)

I understand the point of the card - that the defender will attack 1st and if the original attacker doesn't die or retreat, it can still attack as normal.

But have 2 items with the card (plus an unanswered question by Todd - that I wish to point out!)
1) I presume the words "battle back" is an oops - in the fact that it is not the same as battleback from a bold position.

2) Let's say the original attacker does retreat due to the first attack card but is still next to ANOTHER defender. Can it still attack THAT defender then ? Based on the text of the card, I would think no. But the text could be referring to the original attack still attacking that unit?!?

3) I see there is a question by Todd in the compendium about being able to play Ambush/First Strike together - and neither one (in the respective cards) been answered. I thought I saw somewhere the answer was a No, since both card text's say "Play before opponent's dice roll". But I forget where I saw it!

Cab

[Mis à jour le: Mon, 19 November 2007 22:27]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 19 November 2007 22:59
Caboose wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 14:26

1) I presume the words "battle back" is an oops - in the fact that it is not the same as battleback from a bold position.


I can't, at the moment, recall where, but yeah, there was an admission that that was a poor choice of words - the "battle back" in the text of the card is just referring to the original attack.

Quote:


2) Let's say the original attacker does retreat due to the first attack card but is still next to ANOTHER defender. Can it still attack THAT defender then ? Based on the text of the card, I would think no. But the text could be referring to the original attack still attacking that unit?!?


Unless you get a different answer (did I just type that? Laughing ), I think you're correct that if the attacker retreats, no attack on any unit may be made.

Quote:


3) I see there is a question by Todd in the compendium about being able to play Ambush/First Strike together - and neither one (in the respective cards) been answered. I thought I saw somewhere the answer was a No, since both card text's say "Play before opponent's dice roll". But I forget where I saw it!



As far as both players being able to play first strike/ambush in succession on the same battle, that one was ruled on in the compendium before (need to check to see if it's still there...), and it was ruled that it was permitted and would just "cancel each other out", I think is how it was worded. I had a further question (and maybe that's the one that you're referring to) about whether the first play of first strike/ambush would entitle that originally defending player to battle if not forced to retreat.

My other unanswered question about these cards is if it is a legal play on a battle back. I don't think it is, but just curious.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Fri, 23 November 2007 00:07
toddrew wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 14:59



My other unanswered question about these cards is if it is a legal play on a battle back. I don't think it is, but just curious.



I would think no, but I would think it would be correct to play if it was done for a mounted pursuit move though.

Cab
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3326
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Sat, 24 November 2007 17:45
Caboose wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 17:07

toddrew wrote on Mon, 19 November 2007 14:59



My other unanswered question about these cards is if it is a legal play on a battle back. I don't think it is, but just curious.



I would think no, but I would think it would be correct to play if it was done for a mounted pursuit move though.

Cab

No. You cannot use it for any follow-on moves. First Strike is played before your opponent attacks. A mounted pursuit is not a new attack but part of the original attack.

If you are playing it before a battle back, it implies that you were the attacker and already played a card. Playing first strike would make it your 2nd card of the round and that is not a legal move.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Messages: 830
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2006
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Sun, 25 November 2007 00:52
ColtsFan76 wrote on Sat, 24 November 2007 09:45


No. You cannot use it for any follow-on moves. First Strike is played before your opponent attacks. A mounted pursuit is not a new attack but part of the original attack.


I hope the tone of this post comes through as I intend - not as quibbling, but really trying to get to a consistent ruling (or a static non-consistent ruling, I'm fine with those too Wink ). I think that as long as First Strike is the only lore card a particular player plays during the turn in progress, it could be played on a follow-up action.

(No one is required to read the following, mostly it's me typing aloud to myself Wink ) First Strike is a reaction card. Early on in the lore compendium it was stated that reaction cards may only be played during an opponent's turn. That was later recanted. What is true is that only a reaction card may be played during an opponent's turn (as well as one's own turn, assuming the triggering condition(s) may occur). From this it is certainly possible that the card may be played during an opponent's turn, and, depending upon the meaning of "defending unit", may be played during one's own turn too. Nothing there restricts it being played during a follow-on bonus attack.

The card must be played during a combat phase. A follow-on bonus attack occurs during a combat phase, no restriction there.

The card is played before an opponent's dice roll. No restriction there.

I don't see any reason why the card couldn't be played before a follow-on bonus attack. That said, because I don't see it doesn't mean it's not there Laughing

Quote:

If you are playing it before a battle back, it implies that you were the attacker and already played a card. Playing first strike would make it your 2nd card of the round and that is not a legal move.


Why does it necessarily imply that a lore card has already been played?

The reason I never even thought of playing this during a battle back before was that I assumed that this reaction card could not be played during one's own turn because the target is a "defending unit", and even though that unit may be the target of a battle back it was initially the "attacking unit" and would remain so throughout the duration of that particular battle. However, when I read the ruling that it was allowed for First Strike/Ambush to be played in response to Ambush/First Strike, it lead me to believe that that is not the case. Rather, the attacking unit is just whichever unit is rolling the dice and the defending unit is whichever unit is effected by that roll. If First Strike or Ambush is allowed to be played to counter the other, unless that is a special case, I don't see anything (other than another special case Very Happy ) that would make playing First Strike/Ambush against a battle back illegal. It would be like an inverse Bonus Attack card, if you will.

Anyway, however all the above is resolved is fine with me. As always what is important to me (and maybe I should reconsider that fundamental principle Laughing ) is that everybody is expecting the same results from the rules, whatever they may be.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1597
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2004
Re:lord card, FIRST STRIKE Mon, 26 November 2007 05:51
Todd I would tend to agree, even if it is a PURSUIT attack. First Strike card says play BEFORE opponent rolls dice. Just because it is a pursuit attack, only implies, it is mounted unit doing the attack.

And thus one could use the card for that attack or ANY other attack...as LONG as it is BEFORE opponent rolls the dice. And also don't forget that a pursuit attack COULD be on a TOTALLY different unit that the initial unit that was attacked.

I would have to agree with Todd on this one...I see no reason why it couldn't be used on a pursuit or any other type of attack.

Cab
      
    
Sujet précédent:hill giant
Sujet suivant:Adventures Sort - not working for Sort by Author
Aller au forum: