Rabble rabble rabble!

@player2142998
"It’s ‘Identity’ in the new RRG v2

“Overkill — If an ally is used to defend against an attack with overkill, any excess damage from the attack (damage beyond the ally’s remaining hit points) is dealt to the identity of the player controlling the ally, if able.”"

Interesting, at least they didn't go the other way and say that you can't block for someone with an ally unless you're also in hero mode.

On 2/27/2020 at 8:03 AM, Assussanni said:

I don’t think that’s the case, you need to be the target of the attack to play Preemptive Strike but you don’t need to have used the basic defend action to do so.

However, if you just play Preemptive Strike (i.e. without also taking the basic defend action) you are now not considered to have defended against the attack for anything that cares about such things, such as Counter-Punch’s response trigger.

The new RRG (version 12a) is confusing in the paragraph of "Defend, Defense" on page 5 to 6. It starts with a paragraph "When an enemy makes an attack, the players have the option to defend against the attack. There are a few different ways this can occur:", which is followed by 5 pullet points. It would seem that all of the 5 bullet points are "different ways of defend against the attack", but the 4th bullet point is considered undefended, so I am not sure if the 5th bullet point (using a triggered ability that is labeled as Defense) is one of the option to defend against the attack.

I think I will play as using a triggered ability that is labeled as Defense will be considered as having defended against the attack, thus allowing the play of e.g. Counter-Punch.

3 hours ago, Angus Lee said:

I think I will play as using a triggered ability that is labeled as Defense will be considered as having defended against the attack, thus allowing the play of e.g. Counter-Punch.

That is how the old rules worked, before v1.2.

i think the first two bullet points are how you can defend, and the last three (starting with “If ...”) are clarifying points which should be separate as they are not ways to defend.

3 hours ago, zeezeeman said:

That is how the old rules worked, before v1.2.

i think the first two bullet points are how you can defend, and the last three (starting with “If ...”) are clarifying points which should be separate as they are not ways to defend.

That is not how it worked.

Isn't really the only thing that changed a clarification on how you become the target of an attack?

You can't just play a (Defense) card any time anyone else is the target. You only play it when you're the target of an attack.

If you are not the target of the attack you must make yourself a target by either exhausting your hero to defend or exhaust an ally to defend.

The logic that it differs from (Attack) and (Twart) is false because they were always different.

Twart and Attack are performed proactively by the hero.

Defense is always reactively.

The nice thing about a game being cooperative (or even competitive, if you aren't participating in organized play and everyone at the table agrees) is that when errata is pants-on-head stupid, you can just choose to ignore it.

53 minutes ago, The Gas said:

The nice thing about a game being cooperative (or even competitive, if you aren't participating in organized play and everyone at the table agrees) is that when errata is pants-on-head stupid, you can just choose to ignore it.

Yeah, I suppose it's stupid that a character has to be the target of an attack to play a card where they defend against it in some way.

4 hours ago, Majushi said:

Yeah, I suppose it's stupid that a character has to be the target of an attack to play a card where they defend against it in some way.

That's all it is?

*goes back to check*

Ah, I misread. I was under the impression you were now required to *actively* defend (i.e. exhaust your hero or an ally to subtract their defense value from the damage) in order to play any card with the "defense" label.

Only heroes have defense (allies take all the damage from attacks). Though there is one change I find suspicious: the section that said playing a (defense) card made you defend has been removed.

2 hours ago, The Gas said:

That's all it is?

*goes back to check*

Ah, I misread. I was under the impression you were now required to *actively* defend (i.e. exhaust your hero or an ally to subtract their defense value from the damage) in order to play any card with the "defense" label.

That's kind of true. The only time you can play a (defense) card without exhausting your hero or an ally, is if you were the original target of the attack.

3 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Only heroes have defense (allies take all the damage from attacks). Though there is one change I find suspicious: the section that said playing a (defense) card made you defend has been removed.

That section never existed mate.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

That section never existed mate.

It originally had a similar description to those of attack and thwart, that "if a triggered ability is labeled as a defense... resolving that ability is considered a defense", which has been removed in the new revision. I assume this is what @Khudzlin was referring to.

This can be seen in the v1.1 Rules Reference (third bullet point under defend, defense) which is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200104010906/https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/4e/cd/4ecda1b3-22b0-4eb8-a2e3-7236afd92aa3/mc_rulesreference_v11.pdf

Yes, but it is silly that cards like Shield Block can't prevent damage from Treacheries or indirect damage like from Norman Osborn's flip to Green Goblin. Now, those cards can only prevent damage from attacks... or am I reading too much into it?

9 minutes ago, HirumaShigure said:

Yes, but it is silly that cards like Shield Block can't prevent damage from Treacheries or indirect damage like from Norman Osborn's flip to Green Goblin. Now, those cards can only prevent damage from attacks... or am I reading too much into it?

You're not reading too much into it. Cards like Cosmic Flight, Wiggle Room, Shield Block cannot prevent damage from a non-attack source, and can only prevent damage from an attack, if you are the target of the attack - because they have the (defense) label.

9 hours ago, Assussanni said:

It originally had a similar description to those of attack and thwart, that "if a triggered ability is labeled as a defense... resolving that ability is considered a defense", which has been removed in the new revision. I assume this is what @Khudzlin was referring to.

This can be seen in the v1.1 Rules Reference (third bullet point under defend, defense) which is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200104010906/https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/4e/cd/4ecda1b3-22b0-4eb8-a2e3-7236afd92aa3/mc_rulesreference_v11.pdf

Yes, and crucially that was distinguished from Defend (and still is)

On 3/13/2020 at 4:12 PM, HirumaShigure said:

Yes, but it is silly that cards like Shield Block can't prevent damage from Treacheries or indirect damage like from Norman Osborn's flip to Green Goblin. Now, those cards can only prevent damage from attacks... or am I reading too much into it?

I don’t see a problem with that. Just consider Cap having his shield up in a fight and defending, but having it over his back chillin’ when he gets surprised by a treachery.

That's probably how I'll keep playing it, it's more intuitive that way. It's just that I try to follow the rules, but co-op and all and I'm playing for enjoyment.