A Spell from the Blood Moon Expansion:

Feral Hunger

Cast when a character is about to engage a creature in battle or psychic combat. The creature automatically rolls a 6 for its attack roll.

If it is Night, all creatures automatically roll a 6 for their attack rolls until the start of your next turn.

Q: How does Feral Hunger interact with Basilisk and other creatures that roll 2 dice for their attack roll?

Does he roll a double 6? Does he roll a 6 and another die separately? Does he roll normally and cannot be affected by this Spell?

The_Warlock said:

IMO Basilisk automatically rolls a 6 for its attack roll instead of rolling any dice.

I would say that the Basilisk (or any other creature that rolls 2 dice) rolls 2 x 6's if Feral Hunger is cast on it!

Croonos said:

Good idea!

This means that Feral Hunger can be used as a protection from the Basilisk. He can't roll doubles if he rolls no dice.

I don't agree with you Warlock on this matter. The Basilisk auto rolls 2 x 6's for its attack roll...

I don't agree with you Warlock on this matter. The Basilisk auto rolls 2 x 6's for its attack roll...

Good to completely change ideas over time. You even bothered to edit your previous post to reflect your new opinion.

I still think Croonos nailed it with his answer.

So the Basilisk auto rolls 2 x 6's for its attack roll if Feral Hunger is cast on it. I have to say I was thinking the same thing but then I said "NO"....... Hang on hehehe. It would be nice to have it explained abit for us old picky types .

Actually after reading Feral Hunger it does imply that both dice have to be a 6. The card does not say "instead of the dice roll" it says "automactically rolls a 6" so the roll is still made but its a six.. So 2 dice is 2 6's seems strange that just because it says the roll is a 6 that the 2 dice are not even rolled and only one is rolled instead. If 2 dice ate rolled then they boyh have to be 6. Its simple when you look at it.

Given that a roll can be 1 or more dice not just one.

Here's an interpretation I thought of. Take it for what it's worth.

Feral Hunger uses the phrase "automatically rolls a 6". If you look at the word "a" and go from there, the spell would look like this:

The Basilisk rolls 2 dice. ONE of them is automatically a 6. The other is rolled normally.

It kinda goes back to that riddle "I have 2 coins totaling 26 cents. One of them is NOT a quarter." In the same vein, "A" 6 is automatically rolled; the other can still be anything.

Here's an interpretation I thought of. Take it for what it's worth.

Feral Hunger uses the phrase "automatically rolls a 6". If you look at the word "a" and go from there, the spell would look like this:

The Basilisk rolls 2 dice. ONE of them is automatically a 6. The other is rolled normally.

It kinda goes back to that riddle "I have 2 coins totaling 26 cents. One of them is NOT a quarter." In the same vein, "A" 6 is automatically rolled; the other can still be anything.

Problem is Feral Hunger does not say "One of the dice becomes a 6" or "One of the dice rolled for its attack strength a automatically a 6" its just says "a".

Feral Hunger says "The creature automatically rolls a 6 for its attack roll" my point is if creatures attack roll users 2 dice not 1 then both have to be a 6 because both dice are the creatures attack roll. Given a attack roll can be 1 or more dice (its only refereed to as being attack rolls when dealing with all creatures being effected). I think homing in on the "a" and not reading all of the spells text is misleading and causes a lot of rule issues if applied to all cards in talisman.

I agree with Topay's answer but for a different reason.

The Basilisk card says:

The Basilisk rolls 2 dice for its attack roll and uses the highest result .

The second sentence means that the highest result of 2 dice is used as the Basilisk's attack roll. So, if a Basilisk rolls 2 and 4, its attack roll is 4.

With Feral Hunger in play, the Basilisk's attack roll will always be 6.

Now, note that in the sentece "rolls a 6 for its attack roll" the number (6) is the result of the attack roll, not to the result of the dice used to achieve said result.

If an Enemy used the sum of two dice to determine its attack roll, Feral Hunger would still result in its attack roll being 6 (not 12, 6 + 6).

In the Basilisk's case, the requisite for its attack roll being 6 is that at least one of 2d6 ends up being a 6. Since attack roll = 6 is the only effect Feral Hunger has, and to get this effect you only need to roll one 6 on two dice, this is the only consequence Feral Hunger has in this situation: one of the two dice is automatically a 6. This is all that's required to satisfy the Spell's effect.

To check whether the Basilisk's ability still activates or not, you need to roll one die. If it's a 6, you rolled doubles.

Also note that the chance of rolling doubles on two dice is the same as the chance of rolling a 6 on one die (6/36 = 1/6), meaning that, fittingly enough, Feral Hunger has no effect whatsoever on the Basilisk's special ability. It only affects the Basilisk's attack roll.

I agree with Topay's answer but for a different reason.

The Basilisk card says:

The Basilisk rolls 2 dice for its attack roll and uses the highest result .

The second sentence means that the highest result of 2 dice is used as the Basilisk's attack roll. So, if a Basilisk rolls 2 and 4, its attack roll is 4.

With Feral Hunger in play, the Basilisk's attack roll will always be 6.

Now, note that in the sentece "rolls a 6 for its attack roll" the number (6) is the result of the attack roll, not to the result of the dice used to achieve said result.

If an Enemy used the sum of two dice to determine its attack roll, Feral Hunger would still result in its attack roll being 6 (not 12, 6 + 6).

In the Basilisk's case, the requisite for its attack roll being 6 is that at least one of 2d6 ends up being a 6. Since attack roll = 6 is the only effect Feral Hunger has, and to get this effect you only need to roll one 6 on two dice, this is the only consequence Feral Hunger has in this situation: one of the two dice is automatically a 6. This is all that's required to satisfy the Spell's effect.

To check whether the Basilisk's ability still activates or not, you need to roll one die. If it's a 6, you rolled doubles.

Also note that the chance of rolling doubles on two dice is the same as the chance of rolling a 6 on one die (6/36 = 1/6), meaning that, fittingly enough, Feral Hunger has no effect whatsoever on the Basilisk's special ability. It only affects the Basilisk's attack roll.

Yeah sure the basilisk uses the highest result of the two dice but this is not its attack roll its attack roll is still 2 dice (you just take the highest to add). This does not take away the fact that it does roll 2 dice for its attack roll. I think a lot of the debate is on the "a" being only 1 but I'm saying in this case it does not mean just 1. If 2 dice are rolled for a attack roll then both are effected given that both are its attack roll. you said it yourself really Loudo: The Basilisk card says: The Basilisk rolls 2 dice for its attack roll and uses the highest result.

I can see the misunderstanding indeed and poor wording of the spell.

The Basilisk uses the highest result of 2 dice to determine its attack roll. This is the stricter interpretation, because the card does not mention the attack score anywhere.

Also note that the attack roll is a value, not "2 dice". It is used in an equation.

Attack_Score = (Strength/Craft) + Attack_Roll + other

If I were a computer and you told me "I rolled 2 and 4 for the attack roll", I would answer "Great. Now please insert value for Attack_Roll". Which would be 4.

The Amazon rolls 2 dice as well to determine her move, but then she uses only one result. The one she uses is the only result that matters to determine whether the Grim Reaper moves or not.

If the Amazon rolls 1 and 3 and she chooses 3, her move is 3 (and the Grim Reaper doesn't move despite the fact that she did roll "a 1 for her move" according to your interpretation). Likewise, if the Basilisk rolls 1 and 3, its attack roll is 3 (that is the result used for the attack roll).

Just like Amazon's move is not 1 and 3 in the first case, the Basilisk's attack roll is not 1 and 3 in the second. Just 3.

EDIT: About the indeterminate article, note that if you roll 2d6 and you get 3 and 6, you can say that you "rolled a 9". http://www.freemathhelp.com/rolling-dice.html

Where does it say "the attack roll is a value" sure it uses a value, but I see nowhere saying "its a value".. Its a roll Hench being a "Attack Roll" sure you roll 2 dice then take the highest but you roll 2 dice for your "Attack Roll". it even says so on the Basilisk card:

"The Basilisk rolls 2 dice for its "Attack Roll" and uses the highest result".

Sure you use only the highest roll of the 2 dice but the highest roll does not "become" the Attack roll its just the number you use. But for the purpose of the Basilisk rolling a double if you read Feral Hunger it says:

"The creature automatically rolls a 6 for its attack roll"

So if 2 dice are rolled they both have to be a 6 because the Basilisk automatically rolls a 6 for its attack roll. It does not say "the attack roll becomes a 6" or "the result of the attack roll becomes a 6" it says "automatically rolls a 6".

It even says so under Resolving Battles vs Creatures page 10 Talisman rulebook

"rolls a die for the creatures attack roll" the die being the attack roll just like the Basilisk attack roll being 2 dice. not taking what it says under Characters Attack Roll ether because that's the "characters attack roll" not the "creatures attack roll".

As for the Amazon well of course you cant use both rolls as your movement because you have to pick one to be the result but you still roll 2 dice for your movement though. Anyway the Reaper has special rules to its movement which are all spelled out and special just for the Reaper.