Elusiveness says: "When Defending, you may receive 1 stress token to choose 1 attack die. The attacker must reroll that die. If you have at least 1 stress token, you cannot use this ability."

What if the attacker already used his Target Lock to reroll his dice?

I'm thinking that the rule "card text overrides rulebook" applies here. Am I correct?

ArcticSnake said:

I'm not sure that this card will overrule the general rule. It doesn't specifically allow for a 2nd reroll… I can see this requiring an update for the FAQ though.

The golden rule is that card text always overrides the rule book unless the word "cannot" is involved….well… for LCGs. I'm too lazy to check the rule book for this.

I think the card could win if it specified that the die could be rerolled even if it already was rerolled… but since it doesn't say that I'll go with no double reroll.

I could agree to that.

I don't see the need for an FAQ- Rulebook clearly states that dice cannot be rerolled again. This card doesn't say anything about overriding that rule so no, you cannot use Elusive to force your attacker to reroll a die he rerolled with target lock. HOWEVER: Under "3. modifying attack dice" in the Combat Phase, it's the DEFENDER that gets to force the reroll of attack dice first, not the attacker. So the situation will only come up in reverse: Defender uses Elusive to mod an attack die, attacker spends Target Lock to reroll all but the Elusive'd die.

Oh lol, I totally missed that.

But wouldn't that make Elusive almost useless? Anybody care to run the numbers? I'm not that good with numbers.

A Target Lock does not force ALL dice to be rerolled. Only dice that the attacker wants. So, any hits in the initial roll won't be rerolled by Target Lock, and will be fair game for Elusiveness to reroll.

ArcticSnake said:

Not seeing how it's useless… Attacker rolls a few hits, you use elusive (before he can spend his target lock) and make him reroll a hit. It comes up blank and is not eligible for the target lock reroll.

Of course, the opposite could also happen: Attacker rolls one hit, you use Elusiveness on it, Attacker uses target lock on all other misses and rolls more hits.

So which scenario is more likely to come up, a few hits or a lot of hits? What does the probability chart (that I can't find) say?

Even if that happens, it's still one less hit than it would have been.

Ah. Basically a randomly occuring [Evade]-like effect.

Pretty much, with the added bonus that it can target a critical result even if all of the regular hits aren't canceled.

It was my understanding that the attacker resolved all of his/her rolls and re-rolls before the defender does anything. Once the attacker is done THEN the defender can chose to have the attacker re-roll something. Is that not the case?

GeekZap said:

Nope, if both the attacker and defender have effects to modify the attack roll, the defender applies all of their effects first (see pg 11, under Modifying Attack Dice).

The reverse is true for defense dice (the attacker applies modifiers first).

dbmeboy said:

hmmm good catch. Elusiveness may be even less useful than Determination now.

The lack of reading the rulebook amuses me.

R5Don4 said:

What are you talking about? Elusiveness is good. The fact that the defender applies the Elusiveness roll before the attacker applies modifiers is irrelevant. Think about it for a second and you will see how.

I keep seeing conflicting ideas in this thread. Let me see if I get it:

1. Attacker rolls their die pool
2. Defender may use Elusiveness to force Attacker to re-roll a die
3. Attack may expend Target Lock to re-roll any number of dice except the die that was already re-rolled by Elusiveness

So let's say the attacker rolls, for example, CRIT, HIT, EYE, BLANK on four dice. The Defender can use Elusiveness to force a re-roll of the CRIT. Then the Attacker can use Target Lock to re-roll the HIT, EYE and BLANK but not the re-rolled CRIT (whatever it comes up as).

Alamoth said:

I actually have a different take, but it still make Elusiveness good. I don't own the card, but I don't think it says when the card takes effect, but I imagine that it would be used after an opponant used target lock. But when you use target lock you usually only re-roll your misses. So as long as one of the original dice was a hit, you could force your opponant to re-roll that dice. Since you only get to make your opponant re-roll one dice, target lock doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

But this is incorrect - the defender uses his abilities FIRST, then the attacker. If you don't use Elusiveness, and the attacker uses his Target Lock, it is now TOO LATE for the defender to use Elusiveness.

Also, the new forum update is AWFUL.

radiskull said:

I think the problem is that Hrathen is trying to apply the ability from the card text, but forgetting that the relevant portion about the ordering of the effects is not on the card, but rather in the rule book.

magadizer said:

Yes, I haven't seen anything in the rulebook about the order.

It's already spelled out earlier in this thread. Reread the rule book. Defender effects that modify attack dice (such as elusiveness) occur before attacker effects (such as target lock) that modify attack dice.