I might be completely reading this wrong, but this is a small, slightly heated discussion I had with a fellow gamer, and it's regarding the skill "Counter Attack", from the Berserker skill set.

It reads;

"After an adjacent monster resolves an attack that affects you, exhaust this card to perform an attack with a Melee weapon against the attacking monster." etc etc.

My qusetion is, If the attack MISSES , does the hero get to counter attack?

The way I'm reading the card is…

If the attack MISSES, the hero did not recieve any EFFECTS from the attack, therefore, the attack DID NOT AFFECT the hero, therefore the hero CANNOT counter.

The way my fellow gamer is reading the card is..

If the attack MISSES, the EFFECT was a MISS, therefore the hero was AFFECTED, and CAN counter.

If the card read "an attack that TARGETS you", then I wouldn't have a problem, but it reads "an attack that AFFECTS you".

How do you read it?

I would allow the counter attack even on a miss. It doesn't say 'after an attack damages you' or 'after an attack successfully hits you', just that it 'affects' you. Granted, a miss won't really do anything, and they probably could have used a better word like 'target', but thematically and mechanically it makes more sense to allow counter attack on a miss.

One definition of "affect" is "to attack". If you read the breakdown of combat in the rules it says things like "If multiple figures are affected by the attack, each affected figure rolls its defense pool separately, keeping track of its own results." or "Any damage not canceled by defense dice or other effects is applied to each affected figure." Which leads me to believe that just the act of attacking the player allows him to Counter-Attack, whether the attack is a hit or miss.

I'd have to agree with you and state that the hero wasn't hit there for he wasn't affected by the attack. (On a video game side note, I've never seen a counter attack come from a missed attack)

Well, the debate could be made for both schools. So, looks like a question for the FAQ sticky.

lenatural said:

I'd say no, as with an X roll the hero remains unaffected by the attack. I'd even agree with the ruling that the hero has to take at least 1 damage since he also remains unaffected if he takes 0, even though it is not the usual wording and even though I'm going to be a hero in our next campaign.

Thematically, see it as the Berserker being kind of like Fezzik the Giant: if an attack doesn't do anything to him, he doesn't bother.

=> FAQ indeed.

If they had said "targeted", then the counter would (at least arguably) not work with abilities whose area-of-effect is increased after the attack roll by spending surges, and maybe not with any area attacks if you're not at ground zero. So I can imagine a scenario where someone originally wrote "targeted", and then changed it to "affected" just to try to include those things, without any intention of making it not work against misses.

But going strictly as written, I would say it does not work if the attack is a miss, because a miss does not affect anyone. I can find no justification in the rulebook for wootersl's proposed definition of "affect"; all of his quotes are taken from sections of the attack sequence after the point where it says "if an X is rolled on the blue attack die, the attack is considered a miss and all other results are ignored".

I would say that you count as affected even if you block all the damage, though, because (by the same quotes) you have to be "affected by the attack" to even roll defense dice in the first place.

Coldmoonrising said:

Really? I can think of several video games where counters are only triggered when an attack misses.

If you want to get thematic about it. I look at it as any sword fight I've seen where the guy is being attacked by multiple opponents. He's fighting one guy, another comes up to attack him, he doges to the side to avoid being hit and quickly lunges forward to kill that guy then turns back to the guy he was fighting. Why does it have to do damage? You attacked me, I attack back. Again, it's going to require an official ruling, but I don't see why it has to do damage for an attack to affect you. Effect, yes. But, not affect.

Antistone said:

There is a difference between AFFECT and EFFECT. You affected me by attacking me. You got my attention. I had to roll to defend. However, had you done damage to me, then you would have effected me. If I defended against all the damage, you failed to effect me, but you still affected me by attacking me and making me respond to it.

wootersl said:

Effect is not a verb, at least not how you're using it. Everywhere you use the word "effected" should still be "affected". Affecting something causes an effect.

wootersl said:

There is a difference between "affect" and "effect". But it has nothing to do with anything you just said.

jjcole said:

Although I most certainly said it wrong, the idea is correct.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

This web page gives a perfect example with the aardvark. You attack affected me. The effect was that you damaged me. So, just by attacking me, you are affecting me. Whether you do damage or not, is irrelevant for Counter Attack.

Antistone said:

However…

2. Roll Dice: The attacking player rolls his dice pool while the defending player rolls all necessary defense dice (Rulebook p. 9).

Defense dice are rolled at the same time as the attack dice, so they would also be rolled with an X result. If rolling defense dice is being affected, then the hero is also affected if the monster rolls an X.

What the heck: FAAAQ!!!

I don't agree with the 'must receive damage' idea, since, if I attack you, hit, you roll defence die, and soak it all, you still had to do something in responce to my attack, therefore you were AFFECTED.

The aardvark image… The arrow's EFFECT was eye-opening, if the arrow AFFECTED him, ie hit.

If the arrow DID NOT AFFECT him, ie missed, then there would be no EFFECT.

And this is, more or less, the basis of my arguement.

Also, just to clear things up, I did roll an 'X' on the blue dice during this exchange.

Page 9: "2. Roll Dice: The attacking player rolls his dice pool while the defending player rolls all necessary defense dice. If an attack affects multiple figures, each figure rolls its defense dice separately."

No mention of X there. The more detailed Combat rules on page 12 discuss attack and defense in separate paragraphs, but there is nothing to indicate a sequence -- first this happens (attack), then that happens (defense). The example on this page also reinforces the earlier statement: "Both players roll their respective dice pools." The attack affects a figure, even if it has no effect (missed or blocked).

wootersl said:

You're drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from that page you linked. Yes, there is a cartoon where they talk about an arrow affecting someone and then the effect that produces, but they're not making a semantic distinction, they're making a syntactic one. If the arrow hadn't produced an effect, then it wouldn't have affected anyone either. They are NOT saying that all attempted attacks affect people regardless of their outcome, nor are they saying that being hurt by an attack is the only possible effect that can ever occur.

Triu said:

Fair point. I think that's a very poor way for them to use the word "affect", but I guess I have to concede that the rules do imply that that's how the authors are using it…

Seconding the "Triu Defense". Have fun gaming!

Ispher said:

I don't see the act of rolling armor dice as an example of "being effected" by an attack. Armor is passive, even if it's effect is variable. The hero doesn't have to put it on every time a monster attacks him. It's always on. It just happens to be stronger in some places than others. The result of an armor roll determines if the attack has any effect. There's just no way that a missed attack affects the proposed target. I would like this card to be corrected to specify the conditions under which it is triggered.

An attack is still an attack whether it misses or hits. The attack is made and then it is countered, whether it hits or misses, in my opinion. I think if the designer had wanted to place such an emphasis on whether the attack hit or missed, and had it all hinge on that issue, then he/she would have used the word "damaged" as opposed to "affected" (which I agree is an unfortunate choice of words since it has led to this debate). However I believe that FFG is nearly legendary for the use of such dubious wording, and I don't believe they meant to have the entire matter hinge on whether the attack hit or missed. Just my opinion, certainly I could easily be wrong, but that's how I'd interpret it.

You were forced to roll defense die, so you already was affected by an attack.

In our group we let counter attack on a miss.

Monsterberger said:

You think heroes just stand still waiting to be hit and expecting their armour to absorb the damage? Combat isn't static, even if miniatures are. The defense dice also represent the heroes trying to dodge out of the way.

Since defense dice are rolled simultaneously with the attack dice, even in the case of miss, I'd let the berserker counter-attack.