Kaiser Karl said:

The card does mention this possibility, though not directly. The card states that the attack is a melee attack . Therefore it follows all rules specific to melee attacks (except any that it explicitly changes - and it doesn't change any melee specific rules), which includes the rule about melee attacks adding melee trait power dice.

DJitD pg11
When a hero makes a melee attack, he adds a number of power dice to his roll equal to his melee trait .

One Fist is a hero making a melee attack so per the melee rules he adds power dice, just as he must be adjacent and ignores range rolled (which are both part of the same paragraph).

As for Ambidextrous, it still gives him a boost with a shield. Not every skill is useful for every hero. Many skills are almost entirely useless for most heroes! Indeed, given he only has one hand , ambidextrous really should thematically do nothing at all for him!

So, the Hook attack is an special attack, because One fist´s card does not state, that it is a weapon, and we must accept that the power dices are rolled when the special attack is carried out, even when the hero´s card doesn´t states it explicitely? Man, that is too much for me. I would say, if the rules had wanted that the power dices are rolled with the hook atack, this could stay in the card the same way it could stay, that the hook attack is an special attack, that can not receipt bonuses from off hand weapons.

Corbon, you have written before: "The point is that special abilities are always, or at least often, outside the 'normal' rules"

The rule about the power dices from page 11 is a "normal", I would say "general" rule, and the statement of One fist card "He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, in addition to his normal action", following your argument, represents an exception to the before mentioned general rule. If this were so, it should stay in the heros card, that "He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, and the black dies he rolls by melee attacks , in addition to his normal action" . This is not the case. Can you tell me how do you make the diferences between exceptions to general rules? I can not see how you determine that the general rule goes first in the case of the power dices of the hook attack, and not in the case of the subsumption of the hook attack into one of the attack categories of the rules.

I assume ( and hope) there is some logic under the rules of the game, and therefore I try to be systematic, that means to find solutions to the problems that help to understand the structure of the game. May be this is flaw of the game, may be not, but I would like to have an official answer after all. Thanks again for your answers.

Kaiser Karl said:

No. The hook attack is a special attack that is neither an equipped weapon nor an unequipped attack because the One Fist Card gives explicit instructions that don't fit with either of those rules. This has nothing to do with being a melee attack or not.
The Hook attack is explicitly a melee attack, and so follows all melee attack rules that aren't explicitly changed.
Adding power dice according to the melee trait is an explicit melee attack rule.
Therefore the card, because it tells us that the attack is a melee attack, tells us to follow all rules for a melee attack .
Adding the power dice is a rule for a melee attack.
"Using an equipped weapon (or being an unarmed attack)" is a general attack rule, which is implicitly excluded by the One Fist rule about rolling a red and green dice - by telling us those dice it shows there is no weapon involved (when you use a weapon you use the dice on the weapon card, when you use an unarmed attack you use the unarmed attack dice (1 Red (+ melee trait dice, incidentally))).

Thus one rule is broken (because we get explicit instructions to do something contrary to it) and the other rule is not (because we do not get any explicit instructions to do anything contrary to it, and indeed are instructed that it follows this set of rules.

Kaiser Karl said:

No. There is so much extra text required to cover all the necessary rules and special cases, that it would never fit. Instead it is very simple. We get an explicit instruction to follow, and a reference that tells us all the other rules we should use, that aren't being broken by the specific instruction.

Kaiser Karl said:

Kaiser Karl said:

Unfortunately the main underlying structure to the game is of lots of exceptions and special rules, and sometimes logic is dropped in favour of simplicity (see the Soar rules, and pit LOS for classic examples).

I too make all attempts to systematicise the game (for example the actual combat sequence is truly 9 or 11 steps or something, although not all of them are named or declared steps (and few people get hot under the collar when I posted what I felt was the true combat sequence). You can look also for the Rapid Fire/Guard debate there, where 'timelines' and 'simultaneous events' are discussed in some depth at times.
I actually believe that the game does systematicise quite well, when you really dig deep, but it simply isn;t spelled out well in the rules.

However, you still can't go past a bit of 'common sense'. Just because something can be systemised doesn't make the systemization correct!
In this case I think you are mis-systemising by adding 'only' is places where it is not written.

To summarize:

- One Fist's hook attack is a melee attack because the card says so, and thus he adds his melee dice to his hook attack;

- One Fist's hook attack is not an attack with an equipped weapon, because the card doesn't say the hook is an equipped weapon, and thus he does not get any bonus from Ambidextrous.

So simple.

If you disagree however, don't forget your group can still house rule that the hook is an equipped weapon; but then be prepared for your OL arguing he can Crushing Blow your hook!

I apreciate your answer very much, Corbon.

I can not avoid to think on Descent like a board-RPG, and trying to complete from logic the diferent problems that can arise when the rules are not very clear in some questions, but trying always to respect the rules of the game.

It is clear that the "extra" attack of One fist is a melee attack. The question discussed is not this one but if according to the rules this attack can be considered a unarmed attack or an attack with a weapon. You defend, that it is an special attack that dont fit in the standard melee attack categories of the rules. We can discuss about this question for a long time, supporting our diferent points of view, with arguments extracted from our interpretations of the rules, and from small mistakes in the name we give to the concepts we are using. I see we also interpretate the rules using diferent criteria. You interpretate the rules to the letter, inclusive omissions of the rules, in this case apelling to your "creative" interpretation of the omission of the term Weapon on One Fist Card. From my point of view that could be just an omision in the card, may be because the creator of the game just didnt pay attention to the endless combinations of hero´s special abilities with skills and weapons.

You wrote in your previous post:

However, you still can't go past a bit of 'common sense'. Just because something can be systemised doesn't make the systemization correct!
In this case I think you are mis-systemising by adding 'only' is places where it is not written.

A systemization is the best way to understand the mechanisms of the rules, and to answers the questions, like this one, that can arise. In this point I agree with you, but I dont agree, when you think I´m mis-systemising by adding "only" in places where it is not written. I remember, you stated in one of your first post in this threat, that the extra attack of One fist is not with a weapon, because the keyword Weapon should be included in the card, and in fact it is not. The card neither states what kind of melee attack it is. Well, where can you read in the rules, that "only" objects for attacking with the keyword weapon are weapons, even if there is no keyword. And why do you assume that the loophole in the attack description of the card was deliberate.

I have detected another similar system flaw with Steelhorns. The card of this hero states that Steelhorns can make one Melee attack when he declares a Run action. He must move in a straight line and end his movement after making the attack. The card doesnt say neither which dies are to roll nor what kind of attack it is. (I must make an effort for not saying an attack with their horns). Can you please tell me, which dies would you roll for this attack, and why? and In your opinion what kind of attack it is?

Im not adding "only" to places where its not written. The card says what it says: "He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, in addition to his normal action" 1 RG nothing about Power dices, but you say ok for the purposes of the Power dices we must use the rule of melee attacks, because the hook attack is a melee attack. And I agree there with you. The only question that in my opinion should be cleared is, whether the omision of the type of melee attack is a flaw in the rules, or we must interpretate it according to the assumption that its a special melee attack, as you defend. In my opinion an oficial explanation should be the best solution to this question, because as one old roman principle of the Law says:

"In claris non fit interpretatio"

If you are FFG staff, please tell it, and I will accept your arguments, if not please include this question of One fist for the next FAQ in your "ad hoc" thread, Corbon.

Alhough now I think that Corbon and Antistone are right, maybe an explanation from Kevin could help us better to resolve this definitely.

Ispher said:

That's exactly why I included "for the purpose of ambidextrous only" when I mentioned house ruling it in one of my earlier replies, btw. CB, Frost, Lodestone and God knows how many other game effects that target an equipped weapon or item could become very difficult to manage if you just call One Fist's hook "a weapon."

Kaiser Karl said:

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but as far as I can tell your logic flows like this.

1. Rules state that hero attacks must be with equipped weapons or unarmed attacks.
2. Therefore a hero attack cannot be anything else.
3. Therefore One Fist's special attack must be with an equipped weapon or unarmed.
4. Therefore either there is a mistake on his card or his attack is with an equipped weapon even though it doesn't say so.

The flaw in this otherwise perfect logic flow is that this attack is a special ability and is allowed to break rules if necessary . Special abilities demonstrably do this. They are special, they are sometimes outside the normal rules a little bit. I've already demonstrated this with Tahlia, Silhouette and Kirga.

We break the rules the minimum amount necessary, but if what the special ability tells us doesn't follow the normal rules exactly, that is ok.

Kaiser Karl said:

The same place that you read that only objects with the Rune 'keyword' are Runes, only objects with Armour keyword are armours (ie not Ghost armour, which has the Rune keyword but not the armour keyword and object with the 'Other' keyword are 'other's - ie nowhere. That is just a standard gaming convention. If there is a keyword or icon that defines something, and it is present on most somethings, then somethings without that keyword are not part of that group.

I simply don't care if it is an accidental error. There is no terrible rules problem created, no balance issue created. One Fist is already a very good hero. There are already skills that are all-but useless on certain heroes.
Simply put, either his attack is an equipped weapon or it is not, it doesn't matter one way or the other. As the rules currently stand, it is not. If it gets changed, then it will be, so be it. But it simply isn't worth the 'cost' in effort and in precious FFG staff time to agitate for a change to the status quo here. There is potential for loss, and no appreciable potential for gain (in fact, if it were changed arguably that would be negative as it would mean yet another thing that was 'wrong' in the base rules - another straw added to the camels back of "these rules are not worth the effort needed to sort them out").

Kaiser Karl said:

The type of attack it is is stated clearly - it is a melee attack.
In the absense of other rules on the card, it must be a 'normal' attack - ie with an equipped weapon or an unarmed attack. So the dice he rolls will be determined by the weapon he is equipped with (if he is equipped with a melee weapon - if not he must make an unarmed attack), plus his melee trait.

If One Fist's attack didn't give us explicit dice instructions, that proved it was not an equipped weapon or unarmed, then we would also assume his was a 'normal' attack. We make the minimum deviations from 'normal' rules possible to follow what the 'special' rules say.

Kaiser Karl said:

I have nothing to do with FFG, except loving a few of their games.

If you want this rule included in the FAQ lobby in the FAQ forum (ideas for FAQ sticky thread). I am not in favour of including it because it is clear and simple as it is, even if one person cannot see that. I am not in favour of 'unnecessary' FAQ questions because I consider that FFG staff time is a limited resource , so I prefer not to 'waste' that resource when there are so many more pressing questions or issues that are not clear at all.
However I am just a lone individual, nothing official, so if enough people agree it should be FAQed then it will probably be included.

Corbon, I think this is just a game that we like and we should not waste so much time discussing minor issues like this one with One fist´s attack. Thank you for solving my doubts regarding to Steelhorns before a new discussion like this one starts. This is Descent as it is, we can accept it or not, with its system and its exceptions. I thank you very much your effort to explain the rules of the game and I will follow your conclusions about them, because you are doing an exceptional contribution to the systematizing of the game. For me the question could be included in a FAQ, but if you think this question is so clear that it doesnt need an explanation, then do not include it into the questions to solve by the next FAQ. Its right that everyone can houserule this kind of open questions. You give a good explanation about how it could be oficially designed, however many players will think the question of the attack type of One fist's extra attack is a rule' s flaw and therefore they will houserule this question. Best regards.

Kaiser Karl said:

I like this game enough that I don't consider time discussing it 'wasted'!

Thank you for a most civil discussion.

I'll just repeat, if you want it FAQed, then go to the FAQ subforum and post in the thread there. My opinion (that it doesn't need FAQing) doesn't carry any more weight than yours.

As it happens, we actually do play this as a house rule (I think - it is so long since it actually mattered it is hard to be sure). But it basically makes no difference, because there are three main circumstances in which our One Fist is usually using his special attack.
1. to 'sweep chaff' - attacking something weak enough that an occasional Off Hand Bonus makes no diffference. RGbb(+, from training or potions or fatigue), usually +2 from Mighty and often +1 from Belt of Strength etc (in a campaign), means most minor monsters go down on any not-miss anyway.
2. to 'finish off' bigger stuff with only a few wounds left after a really bad roll with the main attacks. Again, usually any extra from OHB is usually irrelevant.
3. When running ahead to clear a minor monster off a chest or Glyph. Again, the OL usually uses 'minor' monsters for this job - better monsters are probably fighting, so if the special attack is good enough at all, it's usually good enough with any OHB anyway - and because One Fist is Running, and therefore not attacking with his normal attacks, his other equipped item is usually a Shield anyway!