Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hedge

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 22, 2014, 08:32:07 PM »

Quote from: sIKE on January 22, 2014, 08:23:43 PM

Quote from: Hedge on January 22, 2014, 08:19:04 PM
Once Most Agree I will continue With an Interesting Hypothysis which contains something I think we all have overlooked.
Really? From the guy who loves to be the devils advocate? I have to agree for you to proceed? Here we go, I hereby use my scepter of OP ownership and decree that everyone agrees with you. This time. Don't get used to it.

It really wasn't your agreement I was waiting for, because from the discussions you had here and in other threads I can Reasonable conclude that you already agree with all three. Also I don't have time at this minute to type it all out I will have the time in a few hours though.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 22, 2014, 08:19:04 PM »

Before I get into this discussion lets get a few things out of the way.

First we all agree that the Dice/Armor statistic table in General discussion is what everyone in this discussion is using to assert their reasoning that +X dice is better than +X piercing.

Link- http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13562.0

Second We all agree that Statistically +X Dice will roll and inflict more Damage After Armor deductions than +X Piercing will inflict, Following Said Table.

Third we agree That some Players expierence anecdotal evidence that seems to support that +x Piercing maybe at least as good, if not Better, than +X Dice.

Once Most Agree I will continue With an Interesting Hypothysis which contains something I think we all have overlooked.

Hedge

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 21, 2014, 02:29:54 AM »

Quote from: Aylin on January 21, 2014, 02:21:03 AM

Quote from: Hedge on January 21, 2014, 01:49:18 AM
You were talking in extremes, extremes are rarely true. Even if there is only a single instance that it is at least equal your statement is incorrect, and extremly condescending to say the least. In the current set of 6d6 against 4d6 p+2 there are many instances that is is equal, because in game we deal with whole numbers. How many attacks will it take for each to kill a 2 armor character with 8 HP on average? Would you agree that both are two. I don't have a PhD in math, but I am pretty sure 2=2. There is a whole host of 2 armor and X HP combinations that it will take the same number of strikes to kill the target. In your statment you were not talking about what was available because of your use of "always." That is all encompassing. If you use such a term you must account for all posibilities or be prepared to get questioned.

What makes extra dice superior is that, given some number of rounds, giving an attack extra dice has a higher probability of killing the target than giving it an equal amount of piercing. The fact that occasionally they will roll the same damage after armour is irrelevant.

Quote
I was mainly showing my contemp for your stament of "always" and the condescending /failmath

Actually it was /mathfail, but I can see how you'd be confused.

Occasionally excludes Always from being appropriate. I do not deny that over the course of a game it is better, But that is not always.

Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is your argument so weak that you must resort to such base behavior?

Hedge

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 21, 2014, 01:49:18 AM »

Quote from: Aylin on January 21, 2014, 12:19:06 AM

Quote from: Hedge on January 20, 2014, 11:03:09 PM
+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.

*Sigh.*

Average damage for a 4-die/2-pierce attack is ~4.00 against 2 armour and ~3.20 against 3. Average damage for a 6-die attack is ~4.31 against 2 armour and ~3.74 against 3 armour. I assume you can see that 4.31 > 4.00 and 3.74 > 3.20

The only cards that would give a creature "multistrike" right now are Battle Fury and Whirling Strike, the latter one seeing hardly any use. However, those are only relevant when you're talking about enchantments or equipment that give either a piercing +X or melee +X benefit that persists through multiple attacks in the same action. There are exactly two cards that do this: Lion Savagery and Vorpal Blade (neither of which are currently in the game). That one case doesn't make piercing better than extra dice in general.

Where the heck did this ridiculous idea that piercing is equal to or better than extra dice come from? It's just basic math for ****'s sake!

You were talking in extremes, extremes are rarely true. Even if there is only a single instance that it is at least equal your statement is incorrect, and extremly condescending to say the least. In the current set of 6d6 against 4d6 p+2 there are many instances that is is equal, because in game we deal with whole numbers. How many attacks will it take for each to kill a 2 armor character with 8 HP on average? Would you agree that both are two. I don't have a PhD in math, but I am pretty sure 2=2. There is a whole host of 2 armor and X HP combinations that it will take the same number of strikes to kill the target. In your statment you were not talking about what was available because of your use of "always." That is all encompassing. If you use such a term you must account for all posibilities or be prepared to get questioned.

In sets of +x dice against +x piercing the average results will overlap a great deal just because of significant figures. This alone removes "always."

I was mainly showing my contemp for your stament of "always" and the condescending /failmath

Hedge

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 20, 2014, 11:03:09 PM »

+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.

General Discussion / Re: Help me find a box to carry my Mage Wars!

« on: January 20, 2014, 10:38:52 PM »

go to your local stores fishing department and get a tackle box.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 26, 2013, 12:47:45 PM »

Quote from: aquestrion on December 26, 2013, 10:47:58 AM

They should erratta all the cards then. malacoda and moonglow amulet need to be errated all cards should be errated.

I want to say they released new version which would make them fall under an MRP(most recent printing) rule. I don't know if they have that rule anywhere though.

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 23, 2013, 04:10:51 AM »

Quote from: aquestrion on December 23, 2013, 03:19:36 AM

Just a point that they did erratum it in the FAQ. And that not all rules make sense...example of how plants DONT bleed but trigger BLOODthirsty. Which is why the rules don't always make sense.

The entry for Mind control does not have an erratum. No where in the FAQ does it change the text of the card. That is what an erratum is. Improper Rulings don't make sense because they don't follow the rules. Rules don't have to make sense. They are the physics that define how the text of the cards interact. You seem to be utterly confused on the definitions of Rules, Rulings/Clarification, and erratum as they pertain to a customizable card game.

Since Arcanus made a contrary Ruling in March of this year I would like to hear his thoughts on the subject.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 23, 2013, 03:14:10 AM »

Quote from: aquestrion on December 23, 2013, 02:49:01 AM

Probably because of it uniquely being a creature that doesn't belong to you. First you either choose to continue controlling the creature or not. Then choose any other upkeep effects in any order. If you choose not to control the creature any longer then the player gets it back and they get to choose any additional upkeep effects... making it unfair to the mind controller is the only way to make it fair for any future controling cards (which of course should have this timing specified).

Then Mind Control needs an Erratum to make it function the way they want within the rules.

Quote

Why do plants trigger bloodthirsty but they cannot have the bleed condition???

Bleed condition is not needed to trigger Bloodthirsty. They just need to be a wounded living creature, Which they are as defined by the RULES.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 23, 2013, 02:39:00 AM »

Quote from: aquestrion on December 23, 2013, 12:26:16 AM

Its is a clarification.

No it isn't. it is a complete circumvention of the rules. Why should this one object's upkeep be paid before any one other? I have five object's in play which must i pay first. the standard rule is I get to choose. Why is this one different?

That is one of the problems with the ruling. There is no reason why given.

Also Arcanus ruled on this very question in March of this year and contradicts this ruling.

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=8757.msg8759#msg8759

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Nullify VS. X Mana Cost spells and Encantments

« on: December 22, 2013, 09:00:46 PM »

Quote from: abyssalstalker on December 22, 2013, 08:00:56 PM

Interesting indeed. I always thought casting on the creature had the 0-2 restriction. I don't believe i've ever had a game that was 15+ mana but i thought it would work if the situation arose.

Thanks for the insight!

On the 3X4 arena mat the only zones that are 5 zones away from each other are opposite corners. Every other zone is 4 or less zones from all the others.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 22, 2013, 08:51:06 PM »

That is not enough reason to change the way the rules work for a single card. This follows the same problem I posted in another thread. Casrds should work the way they are written inside the frame work of the rules. I shouldn't have to reference a 50+ page FAQ for interactions that are already defined clearly by the rules. If a card interacts in some manner that is OP it should be errated. Not clarified with a Ruling that is at its simplest "It doesn't work thay way because we say so."

Now for any card that has an upkeep cost I must search the FAQ to make sure that they have not changed the way it works. When subsequent sets are released any cards that have upkeep costs must be clarified if they follow the normal rules or are special cases like this one. Because I cannot know until a ruling is made if the cards will perform as thier text dictates.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

« on: December 22, 2013, 05:14:57 PM »

This ruling makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules or the text of mind control that would make it go first.

Rules Discussion / Re: Nullify VS. X Mana Cost spells and Encantments

« on: December 21, 2013, 01:51:01 AM »

Quote from: ringkichard on December 19, 2013, 12:33:42 PM

#1, Yep, Nullify happens in step 2 of casting a spell, after choices are made and costs are paid in step 1. There's nothing more satisfying than nullifying a 15 mana teleport.

Some one it cheating, or can't multiply/add, if it costs 15, the max is 12. because the target creature cannot be 5 zones away from the target zone as that would have to place the mage out of range of one of the targets.

Hedge

Rules Discussion / Re: Demonhide armor vs Veteran's Belt

« on: December 21, 2013, 01:30:08 AM »

Quote from: Kharhaz on December 20, 2013, 09:59:21 AM

Critical Damage is calculated, and applied, first in the damage equation.

I don't believe this is correct unless it has been clarified in the FAQ.

Quote

First, add up the value of all critical hits showing on the attack
dice. This damage ignores Armor, so it is applied directly to
the target. Then, add up the value of all normal hits showing
and subtract the target’s Armor from this total. If the result
is more than zero, the target also suffers that much damage.
Note: Critical damage always affects the target, even if it has
a high Armor value.
Mark the damage on the defender. The Mage records his
damage on the status board, while a creature will use damage
counters (see “Life and Damage” on page 14).

It appears that it is dealt first, but the italics part is only describing that the critical damage ignores Armor. Not that you mark the damage right away. The first paragraph tells you how to calculate the Damage, be it Critical or regular. The second paragraph tells you to mark the damage, since it does not specific which kind it must mean both at the same time or the total after calculating. Also in the Brogan vs the Hydra Walk through it shows that the total damage is marked on the creature, not the the critical and then the regular.

Hedge

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12