Legal OP combo?

[Santar]

Hi Mages!

My Beastmaster with Felella want to know, is it legal to use combo:

Izimbila + Badger Franzy + BattleFury = 4 attacks with 4 dices and piercing 2?

Badger Franzy must be destroy at the end of attack: at step 10: attack ends? After BattleFury resolve it's attack or befor? Or mb chant destroy after second attack in step 7: additional strikes?

One more question: piercing strike for Hydra works only for 1st attack or on all attack action?

[exid]

piercing strike affects only the "next melee attack", you will have the piercing only once.

I would say:
-> badger frenzy triggers during the additionnal strikes -> it's destroyed
-> battle fury triggers for a second attack
you will have only 3 times your 4 dices!

[Zuberi]

Badger Frenzy is destroyed at step 10, just like Santar thought. If you cast Battle Fury as well, then you will indeed get 4 attacks. Doubling up on Doublestrike is absolutely very powerful, and something that we watched during playtesting. It's also a good strategy with the Deptonne Berserkers, which you'd have a harder time arguing against since their Doublestrike definitely doesn't go away.

exid is correct about Piercing Strike though.

[Santar]

Thanks for answers! 

[exid]

i don't understand: badger frenzy is destroyed "at the end of the attack", and the battle fury attack takes place "at the end of the attack".

do you mean that both taking place during the same step (10), the player (who controls both) chooses to make the attack befor destroying badger frenzy, hence gets the doubble strike again?

but badger frenzy sais: the next attack gains doublestrike (am I supposed to read: the next attack action?)

[Zuberi]

You hit the nail on the head. They both happen at the same time, so the order can be chosen and you'd really always choose to do Battle Fury first because why not.

[Coshade]

You can also use Sweeping Strike in a similar way (all you Academy players )

Also giving Zuberi a sticker for being the rules guru.

[exid]

you'd really always choose to do Battle Fury first

[SirJasonCrage]

So, uh, can we clarify this:

We can stack, for example, Badger's with BattleFury and stack a sweeping or even a whirling strike on top? Meaning, we could have tge hypothetical Izimbila strike 2x2x3 times, spreading those attacks over everyone in the zone?

Another one: Does marked for Death apply to every attack?
Darkfenne Asp: Please don't mind me, just taking away all of your fucking damage with a quad attack.

I understand the rule and why things work this way, but I've got a ton of dumb ideas right now...

[Santar]

 "Badger's with BattleFury and stack a sweeping or even a whirling strike on top? Meaning, we could have tge hypothetical Izimbila strike 2x2x3 times, spreading those attacks over everyone in the zone?"

It will be like this: 2 attacks for 4 dices for 3 different targets + another 2 attacks 4 dices for one more target, wich can be one from above.

Another one: Does marked for Death apply to every attack?
Only for the 1st.

[Kelanen]

Another one: Does marked for Death apply to every attack?

If you read Marked for Death's text - it specifies only the first attack per creature per round gets the bonus.

[drmambo23]

If you wounded prey 1, mfd another, and straywood scout another you would get 1 extra die on 3 targets

[Zuberi]

I like the thought process, but it's actually not clear if this plan would work. It brings up an old discussion that hasn't been fully answered regarding Quick Attacks. The whole definition of a quick attack is that it is an attack that requires a quick action to make. So, if you change it to where the attack requires a full action, is it still a quick attack or has it changed into a full attack?

I'm on the side that believes it is now a full attack. Again, this isn't completely clear, so I'm not saying that I'm definitively right. But if that is the case, then neither badger frenzy nor battle fury would activate in conjunction with a sweeping strike / whirling strike.

[Kelanen]

It brings up an old discussion that hasn't been fully answered regarding Quick Attacks. The whole definition of a quick attack is that it is an attack that requires a quick action to make. So, if you change it to where the attack requires a full action, is it still a quick attack or has it changed into a full attack?

I'm on the side that believes it is now a full attack.

I'm definitely of that opinion. I'll be honest, I thought that had been ruled so, I guess I lost sight of the fact that it was never made it into the rules document (I know there are a few others that have not yet been formally ruled).

[Zuberi]

It's definitely not explicitly said in any rules document. Maybe it got an official ruling on the forums, but I don't think so. I'll be honest, I haven't really searched for it and am just going off memory.