Please help with combat question.

		HeroClix Realms > Games > World of Warcraft TCG > Rules
Please help with combat question.

Notices

You are currently viewing HCRealms.com, The Premier HeroClix Community, as a Guest. If you would like to participate in the community, please Register to join the discussion!

If you are having problems registering to an account, feel free to Contact Us.

Thread Tools

12/14/2007, 00:18

Taco

Member

Offline

Online Status:

Dec 2007

Join Date:

Posts:

0 (0%)

iTrader:

Please help with combat question.

Okay, so I just got done arguing with a friend of mine over MSN over the combat in WoW.

His argument: One at a time is unfair/They are the same so it doesn't matter.
(He switched from unfair to same then back again.)
(For the same argument he says to stop "complaining".)
I believe that I provide a good bit of proof proving it is fair and yes they are the same but they are also different.

All I want is some feedback.
IE: "You did present your evidence clearly and it does support fairness and difference." "Tell him <insert text here>."

Here is the argument.
(Sorry, I do know it is long, but any help would be extremely appreciated.)

PHP Code:


			
 Josh says:

Yo.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

yar

 Josh says:

WoW?

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

farming for my new weapon

 Josh says:

kk

 Josh says:



 Josh says:

And it's not all allies at once.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

it is, and you've already told me that today

 Josh says:

No, it isn't.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

yeah.

 Josh says:

Nope.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

if you've found something that says it isnt then i'll believe you

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

its just like magic. attacking player chooses his attacks, and then the defending player acts upon them

 Josh says:

No.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

prove it.

 Josh says:

Trying to find it again now.

 Josh says:

"During a player’s action phase, that player may propose any number of combats, proposing and

concluding each of them one at a time."

 Josh says:

"To propose a combat, a player must choose a character in his or her party to be the proposed

attacker, and something else to be the proposed defender."

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

well then thats ######## and I will no longer play the card game. thats not really fair towards the defending person.

 Josh says:

Yes it is.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

explain how and i'll believe you

 Josh says:

Explain how it isn't fair.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

alright, heres a scenario

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

I have 1 armor piece that blocks for 3.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you have 2 allies, one attacks for 2, the other 3.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you attack with the 2 first, but I dont know if your going to attack with the 3 or not, so I save my armor and wait.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you choose not to, and get the free 2 points

 Josh says:

And if you did block the 2 you would take 3 instead.

 Josh says:

The reason the person didn't attack with the second one is because it would be futile and would give you a chance to chain it in order to destroy the 3.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

not destroy, stop the damage.

 Josh says:

-.-

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

oh and btw, everyone else ive played with has had no problems doing it this way, your the only one whos complaining about it

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

because I guess you think its putting you at some huge disadvantage

 Josh says:

"...it would be futile and would give you a CHANCE to chain it in order to destroy the 3."

 Josh says:

Your doing it that way for what you just said above.

 Josh says:

I'm doing this way because it's what the rules state.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you know very well thats stupid

 Josh says:

Um...no.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

and I know you udnerstand what I said

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

understand*

 Josh says:

Yes, you think the only reason why I say it's 1 at a time is because I think it's putting me at a huge disadvantage.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you do.

 Josh says:

No, I don't.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

then quit complaining

 Josh says:

I'm doing it this way because it's the way the rules say it works.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

and you know very well thats unfair

 Josh says:

Besides doing it 1 at a time gives the defender a chance to counter.

 Josh says:

Otherwise once I start attacking you can only block or take the damage.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

so does doing it all at once...its NO different.

 Josh says:

Yes, it is.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

afraid not

 Josh says:

Afraid so.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

no, it isnt. if you would think about it for a minute you'll see it isnt.

 Josh says:

One at a time:

Player designates proposed attacker.

Player designates proposed defender.

Proposed attacker exhausts and starts attacking.

Priority check.

Other player chooses to use Protector or not.

Damage calculations are done.

Any effects added.

Priority check.

Any cards destroyed go to discard.

Combat ends.

 Josh says:

All together:

Player designates attackers.

Player designates defenders.

Other player uses armor or protectors.

Damage calculations.

Cards destroyed to discard.

Combat ends.

No chance for priority.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you can type out anything you like, i'm still sticking to what I think, and i'm not gonna argue with you about it anymore

 Josh says:

Even though I just proved them different, you changed your argument, and what I show says that you have a higher advantage with One at a time.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

so you think theres no chance for priority with all at once.

 Josh says:

I'm checking on that now, but I'm pretty sure considering Jieff'f said that in magic you can't use a spell after something has already started attacking. And he said you would have to use it before it started attacking.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

I'm pretty sure my priorities are pretty clear when im on the recieving end, and thats stopping as much of the damage as I can. I don't see how all at once henders priority.

 Josh says:

306.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that

would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don’t remove the creature from

combat.

306.4b Tapping or untapping a creature that’s already been declared as an attacker or blocker

doesn’t remove it from combat and doesn’t prevent its combat damage.

 Josh says:

Once you start attacking you can't stop them even with other cards.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

whats your point right there.

 Josh says:

All at once they start attacking you can't stop it.

 Josh says:

One at a time you have a chance to play a spell or ability to stop it.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

...Josh

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

all at once:

Attacker declares all attacks he is going to make

Defender selects how to deal with attacks.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

its not hard.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

armor stops damage, not combat. I know that, i'm not saying I want to stop combat

 Josh says:

I'm saying that it's not unfair or exactly the same.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

but you can't prove that, where as I can

 Josh says:

I just proved it!

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

no, you didn't

 Josh says:

Not unfair: You have a perfectly good chance to use a card to stop it.

Not the same: Obvious reasons.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

you don't understand what i'm saying then

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

its unfair, because you can fool me. Do I need to explain how?

 Josh says:

"fool"

 Josh says:

?

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

trick.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

just look at this scenario again.

 Josh says:

One at a time: I attack with 2 you don't block. I don't attack with 3.

All at once: I attack with both you block 3.

 Josh says:

Both : You -2 damage

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

alright, then what don't you understand about it being unfair?

 Josh says:

But 1 : You have an exhausted armor.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

your right, in both I would take 2.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

except your forgetting something

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

if you had to declare all attackers before I selected my defense, and you only used your ally with 2, I could use my card to block the 2. so I would take no damage

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

whereas if you did it one at a time, I don't know if your going to use the other ally

 Josh says:

if I attacked with the two and you blocked and I didn't attack with the three you take no damage.

 Josh says:

Both of those statements are based on IFs.

 Josh says:

And the only reason I wouldn't attack with the 3 is if I was going to use him for something or I wanted to try to sike you out by making you think I was going to use him for something drawing attention away from my hero onto him.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

Josh, your just getting too deep into it. its very simple, you dont have to break down my statements. If your still not convinced then I don't know how to do it.

 Josh says:

How do you think I feel?

 Josh says:

Even though both ways are fair. The only difference is they are different.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

I don't really care how you feel, I feel i've made my point, whereas im still in the dark as to why your arguing.

 Josh says:

Your point: Unfair

My arguing: Showing it's not unfailr.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

even though you've failed to do that so far, right?

 Josh says:

Are you blind?!

 Josh says:

Have you even been reading what I've been saying?!

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

No, far from it.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

Yes I have

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

I'm don't want to argue about it anymore, doesn't matter which one of us is right, it's aparently in the rules that its 1 at a time.

Kyle  <-- that one guy says:

I don't*

 Josh says:

Politically Correct:

I feel I have stated my case thoroughly, but am willing to accept this disagreement and move on.



 Josh says:

Translation:

I've told you it's fair, and have proved evidence it is fair, but if your going to be stubborn about it then w/e.

12/14/2007, 11:04

EvilBaby

Member

Offline

Online Status:

Aug 2006

Join Date:

437

Posts:

0 (0%)

iTrader:

wow that was long and hard to read

Basically if you are quoting from the comp rules then you are probably correct, and shouldn't be worried about being mistaken.

The only mistake I see in the conversation is that you missed a priority point after the declaration of attack. There is a spot for either player to play abilities between when the declaration of attack is made and when the attacker exhausts and begins attacking. This allows for things like Hammer of Justice to be effective in nerf'ing attacks.

12/14/2007, 14:26

rjrt

Member

Offline

Online Status:

Mar 2003

Join Date:

435

Posts:

19 (100%)

iTrader:

Just wow....... your friend has issues......

12/15/2007, 11:02

SuperPaul

Registered User

Offline

Online Status:

Nov 2006

Join Date:

174

Posts:

0 (0%)

iTrader:

Smack your friend with the rulebook from one of your starter decks.

12/19/2007, 12:41

imported_webtroll

Member

Offline

Online Status:

Apr 2007

Join Date:

Posts:

0 (0%)

iTrader:

Actually it might be better to fill a starter deck box with dice and those glass beads we use for counters, wrap it in duct tape, attach a rule book from the starter to the outside and hit him in the head with that. Repeat until he gets the rules right. Have several of these starter boxes on hand -- you will need to swap out fresh ones.

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is Off HTML code is Off Forum Rules

Forum Jump