Well, it's just that in Classic Edition it was explicitly stated that Supernatural Strength was applied only to HtH attacks. So it seemed logical to me

These answers bring too confusiuon, too contraddictions... I'm not able to play any more.

Extra ammonitions are applied to extra hand-to-hand attack: I think this is illogical.

Supernatural Strength is applied to ranged attack: I think it's very illogical too.

To throw grenade is not subjected by smoke... I'm very lucky: my grenade hits always the target(s) when I throw it randomly! But Doom (that hits out of path without need to see the target) is affected by smoke... it's too illogical for me: I really disagree with these answers.

I will not apply this changes: this isn't the game I loved, this is an unimaginative application of twisted rules, what a pity.

Supernatural strength could be understand as the ability to aim with your weapon if wounded as well as unwounded, so it's not that illogical for me.

Extra Ammunation if also can used for Hand-to-Hand-weapons maybe should be renamed as "Second Chance" or something like that. Otherwise you get another pair of fist to attack with?!?

But if Doom could not target in smoke, the Patmos Amulett also does not. Also possible is, that Karl gets the malus of two dice if he attacks while standing in smoke, but still can target anyone in or outside.

And throwing a grenade in smoke or even throw a circle full of smoke is not possible, because smoke blocks LOS and so you can just see the circle adjacent to you and throw a grenade one circle out of path, so you get while standing in smoke a range of two with grenades (regardless wich kind of). That's my opinion about this and I'll keep on play it like this.

I also think it's quite strange. Some answers contradict older answers, some even contradict the Revised rules. I really hope there will be a new FAQ soon that will sort these things out. Still, thanks to everybody who posts here.

Carlos Castaneda said:

I think that's the beauty of boardgames- if you don't like how things are officially, you just change them to make it more fun.

We play with a number of things not in the rules, but just feel right.

But about the things mentioned, for our games:

-We never let people use extra ammo for melee attacks

-Supernatural Strength we apply to ranged attacks, but because we've just overlooked it for sake of fun (Ozo doesn't have a melee weapon, so him having it would be terribly useless- I would just rename it, because i think it's purpose is to make Doom a dangerous gun even when he's almost dead.

-Grenade throwing: we reason that smoke effects a room, thats what paths are. If you're coughing and hacking, yea it might be hard to attack someone with a gun or a knife- but really even in smoke if you can see light pouring in from a doorway- and you don't really have to be that accurate for a grenade. So we've not let smoke effect grenades.

But regardless, play whatever way feels right. Its a huge reason why I love this game- If something feels off we make a rule to fix it- and continue playing. Other games are too big to do this with (Magic the Gathering) or too out of your control (World of Warcraft or other video games because I can't reprogram them), but board games are able to be modified to what your game group likes.

I can accept the somewhat illogical rulings on Extra Ammo and Supernatural Strength, but this one really bothers me:

Macallan said:

If the rules for a weapon clearly state that it targets a circle or circles (instead of a character), why is it ruled now that it targets a character? If certain weapons have special abilities and function different from other weapons, why are these differences ignored later? Or generally: Why do you write a special rule if you contradict it later?

Some more official answers from Adam Sadler:

1: Mizu had a Celerity token in her package, but no card or description in her rules - is it a bonus token, get we a card for it?
Answer: Mizu had space in her pack, which is why there was an extra token included. Currently there are not a card for it but players may use it as a bonus token using the existing Celerity rule.

2: If Hoss Harbinger uses Prescience to dodge an attack, can he move to a circle with a movement penalty?
Answer: No, he must be able to legally move into the adjacent circle. Since this is not a movement, Hoss cannot pay the extra movement point to enter that circle.

3: If Mizu uses her Shadowflash ability, can she move to or over a circle with a movement penalty? Can she move over a circle with an opponent (without a bullrush, as indicated by the text)?

Answer: Using Shadowflash essentially gives Mizu three movement points. She can enter movement modifier circles as long as she has enough movement points to pay the cost of the circle. She cannot move through enemy figures during this movement.

And here comes more good news:

Hi,

I have many questions about the 2 abilities bellow:

1- About Reichdoktor ability.

1a - When do you activate this ability? After an attack roll? Before an attack roll? After the opponent's shock roll? Before the opponent's shock roll? Can it be used on a duel?

1b - When does the damage from the ability kick in? You get the right to finish your current action? Does it get interrupted? What if your action heal you? (Like Strosstruppen with command pack)

1c - Can Hass use this ability on himself?

2 - About Watch My Back ability.

1a - When the friendly unit that was attacked is also killed, does Commando Alpha still get the counterattack?

1b - What if the friendly unit receives no wounds from the attack (because of his shock roll), does Commando Alpha still get the counterattack?

1c - Is there a limit on how many times Commando Alpha get to use this counterattack?

Regards,

Gilberto.

Now the answers:

Hello Gilberto,

1a - This ability is used immediately after the friendly character's roll, before any other rolls.

1b - The character suffers the damage immediately, before any other rolls or abilities.

1c - Yes.

2a - Yes.

2b - No, the ability states "after a friendly character is wounded by an attack."

2c - No.

Thanks,
Adam Sadler
Managing Game Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]

pumpkin said:

I think Mr. Sadler is indeed suggesting just that. The questions boils down to which section of the rulebook is correct, the bit about sighting on page 17 or the bit about attacking on page 21. They can't both be right. One of those sections is right and the other is a mistake. Now, which section is more likely to be in error? The rules on page 21 are clear, no more complicated than necessary, and intuitive. I strongly believe they reflect the designers' intentions. Mr. Sadler's response seems to bear this out. The section about sighting on page 17 is --in a word-- a disaster. Let's take a look. The rule books is quoted in bold, my comments are in regular type.

Sighting: It is sometimes [why sometimes? It's either important or it's not. If you think it needs to be in the rulebook then it's important] important to know which characters can SEE each other. One character who can see another character is sometimes said to have Line of Sight to that character. [Again, why sometimes? Is it sometimes called something else? Just tell us what Line of Sight is.]

Two characters who share a path CAN ALWAYS SEE EACH OTHER. (Exception: Certain equipment, such as Smoke Grenades, can limit this. See Smoke Grenades on page 23.) [so here's a universal pronouncement about Line of Sight reciprocity which is immediately undermined by an exception which requires turning to page 23 to understand. But wait, it gets worse.]

The only [!] exception to this is Hand to Hand attacks. [Wait, what about the exception you just made? Did you forget about that already? And what is this section doing here anyway? The rulebook hasn't even discussed combat yet. There is only aspect of the game that has any relevance to Line of Sight, and that is combat. If you're going to bring up Line of Sight you need to talk about combat now and not four pages later.] Hand to Hand attacks may target a character on the other side of a door, regardless of Line of Sight . The target must still be in an adjacent circle, as indicated by the tactical maps on page 80-82. [Great, so I can punch someone on the other of a door but I can't shoot them. How is this supposed to make sense?]

The whole section just sucks. Fortunately, the rules for attacking on page 21 are a model of technical writing by comparison, so I'm playing that you can always target an adjacent circle. I think official statements from FFG will probably continue to confirm that this is how they intended the game to be played and that the apparent exception spelled out on page 17 will vanish from any future revisions of the rulebook.

Nah, it's just an unclear answer.

You CAN always attack an adjacent target because you always have the option of attacking unarmed (which is a melee attack).

The only exception to making attacks to units off path is with melee attacks.

It's a pain bouncing back and forth on the pages, but reading the text there is no contradiction, the issue is that it doesn't re-state that you can only make ranged attacks on units you share a path with. (need line of sight to shoot)

It may not make the best sense- you might just duck your head in and shoot- but for the mechanics of the game it makes the weapon types have some substance.

In fact, the only issue with this from a mechanics standpoint is with "Surprise Attack" on the Shin Agent. Since you can block a doorway with her and melee someone on the other side of a door repeatedly, and maintain being off-path each activation. Go-Go Shin Agent! Zorka didn't see her coming for 3 turns! And with smoke in Zorka's room, those 2 dice magnifiers were a joke =)

new question, which been answered

Q: Hello once again. I just wondered if a character can attack him- or her-self.

A: No, unless specifically noted otherwise, a character cannot attack himself.

This is important to know since it means you can't "cheat" with Zor'ka by attacking herself and let the AoE effect of her magnifier spread out and damage surounding characters. It is also kinde of bad for the Matriarchy since it othervise woulde have been a cool tactic for them and an easy way to damage an invisble Hoax.

MeisterH said:

Zorka usually wins in a bullrush vs Hoax

Noahboa, you're absolutely right. Great analysis of that poorly written rules section!