Each player activates one of their characters, starting with you. Then each player totals the value of the character dice they just rolled, and each player with the lowers combined value removes theirs.

This is such a gambler card that it really should be yellow and not blue. However what happens in the case of a tie? Nothing? One who played the event wins? One who controls the battlefield wins? Both remove their dice?

It is such a gutsy card to play, it would be fun, specially with Palp, but it is just too unclear what happen in case of a tie. If you can win a battle of the wills, that right there could be game.

Our assumption was that nothing happens. Since it's legal to play card that has no effect we assumed that the play of a card could result in no effect. That being said, we could be completely wrong; my groups are all fairly non-competitive but it honestly never occurred to us that there had to be a winner.

"...each player with the lowest combined value removes theirs."

If you have 3 total, and I have 3 total, we both have the lowest combined value (3), and we both remove the dice.

Overconfidence makes a good precedent for this one. If both dice show the same value, they both meet the "lowest value" criteria, and you get to choose because it's your effect (which is what the italic text is referencing).

I would tend to agree with Buhallin’s ruling here. I think in the case of a tie, both players remove their dice.

That being said, I think this card is still good for an Obi-Wan or Mace Windu deck. Both are cheaper than Palpatine, and have high dice values, so they can really mess with him. Also a good counter to FN-2199 (prevents him from using all the weapons a second time, when he rolls in).

4 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

That being said, I think this card is still good for an Obi-Wan or Mace Windu deck. Both are cheaper than Palpatine, and have high dice values, so they can really mess with him. Also a good counter to FN-2199 (prevents him from using all the weapons a second time, when he rolls in).

I've used it with Grievous with some success. Even if it's a gamble, it can often be worthwhile.

It doesn't do much to hurt FN though. The ability references character dice all the way through, so whoever loses removes only their character dice, not all their dice.

49 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

"...each player with the lowest combined value removes theirs."

If you have 3 total, and I have 3 total, we both have the lowest combined value (3), and we both remove the dice.

Overconfidence makes a good precedent for this one. If both dice show the same value, they both meet the "lowest value" criteria, and you get to choose because it's your effect (which is what the italic text is referencing).

Yeah, but with overconfidence you are only removing one die, not both, so by using this case, the one controlling the effect chooses one of the character's dice to be removed.

I doubt nothing happens. I get the feeling everyone tied for the lowest amount, even if there is only the one amount, removes their dice.

Guess this one needs FAQed but it gets so little buz, we may not get a ruling on it. Also Coercion makes this card not playable as it can be targeted when the Coercion player has all their characters rolled in and the Wills owner still has one to go. Coercion is just a bad card that destroys too many other cards.

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

I've used it with Grievous with some success. Even if it's a gamble, it can often be worthwhile.

It doesn't do much to hurt FN though. The ability references character dice all the way through, so whoever loses removes only their character dice, not all their dice.

It doesn't destroy FN, but it slows him down. He's usually only run with one character dice, so it usually doesn't backfire against him, and it forces him to roll in before he plays all the upgrades, so he only gets to use the upgrades once that round instead of twice. Not a huge deal, but just that little dip in his speed might tip the balance of the game.

I don't think it's unclear at all. Everyone who has the lowest total removes their dice; the only way I think it could be seen as confusing is that it has to account for multiplayer. But the intent of 'each player with the lowers combined value removes theirs' is pretty clear, specifically that the card can potentially effect multiple players.

7 hours ago, Mep said:

Yeah, but with overconfidence you are only removing one die, not both, so by using this case, the one controlling the effect chooses one of the character's dice to be removed.

What does removing one or both have to do with it? The only thing at question is whether ties count as all possibilities meeting the condition. Overconfidence shows you do. The fact that the player chooses which to remove when they're equal says that both meet the criteria for lowest, and can be removed. Same for Battle of Wills. If you tie, both meet the criteria for being the lowest total value, and both are removed.

7 hours ago, Mep said:

Also Coercion makes this card not playable as it can be targeted when the Coercion player has all their characters rolled in and the Wills owner still has one to go.

No. Battle of Wills says " Each player activates one of their characters, starting with you. Then ..." Since it's a 'then' effect, if any player fails to activate a character for any reason, nothing else happens. If you want to spend a resource and a card to turn an opponent's character into Jango for a turn, that's up to you, but it doesn't contribute to the brokenness of Coercion.

Why there is even discussion about this? The card is as clear as it can only be with ties:
"and each player with the lowest combined value removes theirs."

Overconfidence got nothing to do with Battle of Wills, since overconfidence handles ties in its own way that also is clearly stated on a card. You rolled 2 resources on palp and that stormtrooper managed to roll 2 ranged? Shame, you remove all palps dice. No one gets to choose, the card does not care.

Nothing to discuss here.