Ambidextrous: When you receive an Off-Hand Bonus, your attack gains +1 Damage. In addition, each time you use a Shield, it cancels 1 additional wound.

Could One Fist use this ability adding +1 damage from an off-hand weapon when he does his additional attack with the hook?

gran_orco said:

Technically no. He isn't using two single handed melee weapons (the hook is a special attack, not a weapon).

But this is an special melee attack, so if we are applying power dices to this special attack, why cannot we add the bonus of a sword in the off-hand? We should have an useless ability (ambidextrous).

Should we treat it like a fist?

gran_orco said:

Because the requirement for off hand bonus is using two single hand melee weapons. The 'Hook attack' is not a weapon.
Ambidextrous will not be entirely useless - he can still use a shield.

Pretty much. It is basically a fist with an extra green dice.

I think the hook a weapon. That the weapon can not be sold or bought in the market, does not prevent the hook remains a weapon. The hook rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die for one melee attack in the same way that the sword. A fist is not the same as a hook, that it is a weapon.

Lordshinjo said:

In game terms, to be a weapon it must have the weapon keyword.

Take a look at all the weapons - they all have the weapon keyword on them, followed by the weapon type.

The hook isn't even called a hook - we just call it that due to the picture/model. the actual quote says "He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, in addition to his normal action." No mention of a weapon.

If it wasn't for the physical appearance we could assume that this was a mental effect. He just gets to make a melee attack, that is all. We can see he has a hook instead of a hand, but that isn't technically part if the rules.

Lordshinjo said:

Of course you do. You have a history of inventing rules to suit your fancy, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

Your reasoning is that the hook rolls the same dice as a sword, and the sword is a weapon, therefore the hook must be a weapon? I suppose you also think that beastmen reanimated with Necromancy receive an off-hand bonus from any melee weapon the necromancer may be holding, since beastmen also roll the same dice as a sword.

gran_orco said:

In terms of official rules, I completely agree with Corbon and Antistone. The hook is not a weapon officially, and so off-hand combat rules do not apply to its use. This is hardly the most illogical thing Descent has ever thrown at us.

That said, if you want to make a house rule counting it as a weapon for this specific purpose only, it probably won't shatter game balance into a million pieces. Probably. Just as long as you recognize it as a house rule, then honor will be satisfied. =P

Antistone said:

Mr Antistone at any time I have never disrespected, I beg you to be respectful with me. Do not assume what I think, because you is not me. if you only know to provide an ironic commentary and lying about me, better not comment. Should learn from Corbon, always helping and resolving doubts, always respecting others. Compare your answer with Corbon, he attempts to clarify and aid on the regulation and knowledge of the game, you on the other hand does nothing, except an ironic comment and a lie. There is this his way of helping the persons? You with your attitude and disrespect goes against the philosophy forum.

Supposing is not the same as assuming (especially when done rhetorically), and I didn't lie. If you don't want people saying that you make up rules, maybe you should stop posting made-up rules. Let's take a look at your posting history on this forum: you're in 3 threads in the Descent section:

1. A thread where you argue that Mimic is a spawn card played during the overlord's turn, despite the fact that the card explicitly says "trap card" and "play when a hero opens a chest", on the grounds that it creates a monster (without using the word "spawn" or applying anything resembling the normal spawning rules) and allows you to do something (activate a monster) that by default only happens on the overlord's turn (but is never prohibited from happening at other times).
2. A thread where you argue that the surge ability from Bash can only be triggered with surges rolled on power dice, and not surges from any other dice or other sources, through an incredible misreading of an FAQ answer that is explicitly about a completely separate issue (the subtype of power dice that Bash rolls in an advanced campaign).
3. This thread, where you argue that the special attack granted by One Fist's hero ability is a weapon, on the grounds that it involves rolling a red and green die.

I detect a pattern. If you only know to provide fractured English and lying about the rules, better not comment.

Antistone said:

I see that you persist in your lies.

1º. At the first point was a technical error in the FAQ, where the moderator Gecko was thinking the same thing that I for the above mentioned technical mistake, until Kevin replied to clarify the technical error. http://www.edgeent.com/v2/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=281&efcid=4&efidt=216583&efpag=0

2º. Welcomed and accept Corbon's attentive explanations of the doubts that had arisen by the interpretation of the FAQ in our Edge´s forum. Is it a crime to give our opinion or doubt on a rule? Is not it supposed that the forum is to expose our doubts and opinions about the rules? Do You believe that ironic and not giving any arguements or lying you help someone? http://www.edgeent.com/v2/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=170&efcid=4&efidt=217219

3º. In the previous message I you clarified it. The opinion that I gave is that of the majority of Descent's Spanish forum, therefore more I respect for your part. http://www.edgeent.com/v2/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efpag=0&efid=170&efcid=4&efidt=238796

The only pattern that you detect is a person asking his doubts or giving his opinion, and always, always, respecting the answers of the others. You can agree or not with his opinion or doubts, but it does not give right to disrespect. Therefore, if you're not going to help, and only going to make an ironic comment, better not say anything. You with your attitude and disrespect goes against the philosophy forum. If you really want to help, learn how to do it Corbon.

I could argue point by point, but it's really not relevant. Nothing you have said would imply that I lied even if I accepted your statements (your #1 is defending an argument separate from the ones I complained about, and #2 and #3 aren't even disputing the nature of the arguments you posted). It seems you just think that slandering me will bolster your own position.

Even if you were on topic, arguing with you about the reasonableness of your prior arguments is fairly pointless. If I didn't convince you in those threads, there's no reason I would do so now, and any reader who cares will just look at your actual posts to decide.

And I already have the right to respect or disrespect any opinions I choose. The mere existence of an opinion does not automatically command respect. And if it did...that would imply that you would have to respect my opinions of your opinions. The problem of reflection strikes again!

Antistone said:

Your same one you autodiscrediting these with similar intransigent arguments. If only you respect what your you want, and you do not respect the others turn into a fascist or dictator. If it bothers you that I ask my doubts or my opinion on a rule with arguments, do not answer me, because it will not help solve anything, only to make clear their bad manners with ironic commentary. If you really want to help, it answers with arguments in the same way as it does the rest. The best example that I you can put is Corbon, always argues his responses, always respectful of the opinions of others, always tries to help clarify any rules, you should learn of him. Compare your answer with Corbon, there remains clear the person who goes with intention of helping and the one that goes with bad intentions. I tell you again, your attitude and disrespect goes against the philosophy forum.

Actually Antistone has a long history of being one of the most helpful and knowledgable forum contributors by far.

He just doesn't suffer fools gladly (which is a phrase which doesn't call Lordshinjo a fool, but means he sometimes has short patience with people who make demonstrably false claims, repeatedly).
He is also the most consistently correct poster with respect to language, both in what he rights and what he interprets others to have written - which means he treats people according to what they actually write, not according to what they meant to write. And you called him a liar, which is about as rude as you can get.

Having said that, his first post in this thread was unnecessarily harsh.

To me this is clearly a second language thing for Lordshinjo, but your interjections have consistently used totally wrong explanations for their reasoning or made really wild and unrelated extrapolations from a tiny technical flaw in language. It seems clear that this is because you are operating in a second language and so not using the subtleties of language very well and getting slightly wrong meanings or subtleties coming through. Respect to you - you are far, far in advance of me, and probably many other forum goers in just being able to post at all in a second language! But still, your original statements have been supported by quite astonishingly wrong reasoning even if you had a techincal point at times.
Typically 'opinions' don't rile up Antistone nearly as much as astoundingly bad explanations or extrapolations... And i think yours might be due to language issues and subtleties as much as anything - heck, we have enough arguments here in our first language, let alone extracting the subtleties in a second language!

So I suggest that you both relax and let this one go...

Naaah, Lorshinjo "fights" with me in same terms, and in our first language I had a big argue with him because I said that heroes with guard could not attack to the mimic, and I told him that this question had been clarified here a long time ago, so he called me liar because I had no enough evidences of it . But Lordshinjo doesn't suffer fools gladly, too, and I am sure that neither he nor Antistone wanted to be disrespectful, as Lorshinjo is one of the most active members in our forum and he wants to help us, too. I think that all should relax; we only need a clear solution, as the hook is not a weapon, but the rules do not say the opposite. However, I will do what you say beacause it has sense to me... for now

Well, regarding to the question of the type of extra attack of One Fist, it must be one of the attack described in the rules (armed, unarmed, distance or magic attack). To me its not enough to say, that its just a melee attack, because there are 2 types of Melee attacks (armed and unarmed), and neither the rules nor One fist's card specify what kind of Attack One fist do. Its only an attack with the red dice and a green one, so we can assume its a melee attack, but the question is if this melee attack is armed or unarmed to decide if the bonus of a secondary weapon can be applied. Is the attack of One fist in your opinion an unarmed attack? (the rules neither say that it is an unarmed attack)

Sorry if Im not using the subtleties of the English language, but yes I am writing in a second language, and I think that my question is clear enough, to be understood. Thank you for your answers.

"Well, regarding to the question of the type of extra attack of One Fist, it must be one of the attack described in the rules (armed, unarmed, distance or magic attack)."

I disagree. Technically, it's neither an armed attack nor an unarmed attack. Like most abilities, it's an exception to the basic rules. Also, armed and unarmed aren't the only kinds of attacks defined in the rules - monsters don't follow the rules for either, instead using the dice printed on the monster reference card. So it's not like this is unprecedented.

Normally, "Heroes can only attack with an equipped weapon (or their fists, see “Unarmed Attacks,” page 19)." (p.9)

Even if the "hook" were a weapon (and I see no evidence to support that), there's nothing to indicate that it is "equipped." It can't be unequipped, and it doesn't take up an equipment slot. (Yes, thematically it's taking up one of his hand slots, but in game mechanical terms One Fist simply has only one hand slot, and it's not used for the hook - "One Fist only has one hand for the purposes of equipping items.")

But it's also not an unarmed attack as described in the rulebook, because such an attack grants only the red die, not a red and a green. "This is a melee attack that grants one red die and has no special abilities." (p.19)

The hook doesn't fall into either category; it's an exceptional attack that follows the rules printed on the hero card.

Antistone, I find your explanation very coherent with the rules, but I disagree with some details. I would say that it is an undefined attack, because the rules or the hero's mentions what kind of attack is this one. I think you try to answer the question with the following argument: if the rules dont say its a type of Attack, its because this "undefined" attack is not one of the attack types defined in the rules, so its an extra attack. Can you tell me, where are technically described extra attacks? I dont think that your example with the attacks of the monsters is right, because in the monsters´ cards you can read what kind of attack every monster can do. (Ok, not if they are armed or unarmed, but its clear that monsters´ attacks dont work the same way heros' do, and therefore its not necesary to define this question, a monster attack is a monster attack) But in this particular case, we are talking about a hero, One fist, not about a monster, a hero with an "extra" attack, who can hold a weapon in the other hand, for example a long sword, and may be he has the skill card ambidextrous.

I respect your conclusions because you give an explanation trying to be as respectful with the rules as possible, and avoiding extrapolations and assumptions, but I think the rules dont say that this attack is a melee attack or not, and assuming it is a melee attack, if it is an armed or unarmed attack. In my opinion this question could be answered in a FAQ, so that we all can say the question is oficially sorted out.

(...) because neither the rules nor the hero's card mentions what kind of attack is this one what kind of attack is this one(...)

Kaiser Karl said:

+1. I think that One fist needs an aclaration.

Kaiser Karl said:

I can tell you where this extra attack is technically described: One Fist's hero card. It tells us to use dice described in the hero ability, in violation of the rules for determining the dice to roll either for a weapon attack or an unarmed attack. Ergo, it has explicitly defined a class of attack that is different from either of them; applying the rules for either weapon attacks or unarmed attacks requires a direct violation of the instructions on the hero card.

Kaiser Karl said:

The rules DO state that it is a melee attack.

"Armed attack" is a term that you made up for describing an attack that uses a weapon, but the official rules don't use those words or define that as an explicit category of attack. You just seem to be arguing that it must use a weapon because "attacks with weapons" are the only attacks (other than special unarmed attacks) that are mentioned (for heroes) in the basic rules. But your assumption that every attack that doesn't follow the "unarmed attack" rules must involve a weapon is just that: an assumption, not supported in any way by any rule that I can find.

It is not reasonable to simply assume that every attack must fall into one of several categories that you have defined, when they are not explicitly called out in the rules. It is even less reasonable to expect the official rules to explicitly tell you which of the categories (that you made up) something should fall into.

Insofar as the categories you describe do exist in the actual rules, I have already argued that One Fist's bonus attack contradicts the specifics listed for both of them. Your assumption that it must fall into one or the other does not constitute a counter-argument; you're begging the question.

One fist´s card says:

"One Fist only has one hand for the purposes of equipping items. He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, in addition to his normal action"

Its a melee attack, but you deduce from the fact, that the card does not concrete, whether it is one of the attack categories of the game or not, that it is an special attack that can not be included in one of the categories the rules DEFINE:

Page 11 of the rules

Types of Attacks
There are three types of attacks in the game.
Melee Attacks: Melee attacks can only be declared
against adjacent spaces. However, a melee attack only
misses if a miss result is rolled. Range results are
ignored during melee attacks. When a hero makes a
melee attack, he adds a number of power dice to his roll
equal to his melee trait.
Ranged Attacks: Ranged attacks can be declared
against any space to which the attacker has a line of
sight. The attack misses if either a miss result is rolled
or the rolled range is less than the range to the target.
When a hero makes a ranged attack, he adds a number
of power dice to his roll equal to his ranged trait.
Magic Attacks: Magic attacks can be declared against
any space to which the attacker has a line of sight. The
attack misses if either a miss result is rolled or the
rolled range is less than the range to the target. When a
hero makes a magic attack, he adds a number of power
dice to his roll equal to his magic trait.

In the page 19 of the rules you can read:

Unarmed Attacks
If a hero attacks without
a weapon, he attacks
with his fists. This is a
melee attack that grants
one red die and has no
special abilities.

So these are categories I´m not making up, they are in the rules and are officials, not like your assumption that the attack with the hook does not fit in one of this categories. These are the attacks that the rules define, and you are inventing a new categoriy to support your argumentation. The attack of One fist must fall into one of the attack kinds of the rules, but may be the Author of the game didnt think about it. In my opinion we are in front of a clear rules flaw, and neither what you say nor what I say regarding this issue can be considered better, except if you are the Creator of the game, or FFG staff. They are the only ones who can give an official answer. Everything else leads to an endless discussion.

The armed attack category I have used has been used in other threads, and can be deduced easily from page 9 of the rules:

Step 1: Declare Attack
The attacking player declares which space his figure is
attacking. If the attacking figure is a hero, the player
must also state which equipped weapon the hero is
using. Heroes can only attack with an equipped weapon
(or their fists, see “Unarmed Attacks,” page 19). For
more information on the types of attacks heroes and
monsters can make, see “Types of Attacks,” page 11.
Note that the attacking player designates a space to
attack and not necessarily another figure. This is important
for weapons with the Blast ability. See pages 22 and
23 for a summary of special abilities, including Blast.

Kaiser Karl said:

Note that this attack does fit within one of the 4 attack categories - it is a Melee attack.

The only rule that it appears to be 'breaking' is the rule about only attacking with an equipped weapon or as an unarmed attack. But since the One Fist rule specifically tells us what to do here, and what it tells us to do doesn't fit within those rules, then the One Fist rule is allowed to break the normal rules - that is what special abilities can do.

I understand your argumentation, and I find it coherent with the rules, and in terms of game balance I see it also right (except if you are playing one fist with the ambidextrous skill) . If this is an special melee attack, something between an unarmed and a normal attack with a weapon, for me an armed attack, and One Fist´s card only says "He may always make one Melee attack, rolling 1 Red and 1 Green die, in addition to his normal action", do you think is right to roll also power dices with this special attack? even if the hero´s card doesn´t mention this posibility?