When you fight, who rolls first?

[Wade]

When it comes to playing cards after the roll we haven't had too much trouble, because whoever loses the roll is who is going to play the first card in most instances. Then the other side has a chance to counter and so on.

[Criesto]

(01-17-2011 05:15 PM)swiftfoxmark2 Wrote:  I think it should be simultaneously for most fights given the following:

• Heroes can have hand weapons that can break sometimes. If the zombies rolls first, and wins, the hero won't use the hand weapon. This really doesn't make much sense since you want the Hero to risk breakage when in a fight.
• Zombies can have pre-roll enhancement cards that add dice. If the hero rolls first an wins (usually because they win on ties and roll a '6'), then the Zombie player won't play those cards. Again, it's about adding the risk.
• Lastly, the feel of the game isn't really all that random when you don't roll at the same time in combat. The point of this game is combine strategy and luck, not nullify the luck factor in favor of strategy.

I guess it's really up to the players. I can see how in some circumstances you may want to have the Zombies roll first or the Heroes roll first, but I think most of the time both players should roll their dice at the same time.

-Even if the heroes had a hand weapon, and the dice were rolled at the same time, the hero would see that the zombie would win anyway and wouldn't use their hand weapon. I don't see how this would affect who rolls first. Heroes shouldn't use their hand weapons right at the start, they should only use it after the dice have been rolled and they have a chance to win the fight in using them.

-If the zombie wants to play a card that has to be played before a fight, then it doesn't matter who rolls first because that card should have already been declared.

(01-17-2011 06:03 PM)serdel Wrote:  As far rolling is concerned due to rules I believe the basic dices need to be rolled simultaneously - so 2 for hero, 1 for zombie. Than the player can decide to use weapons (which imho is stupid and my game team believe it's more realistic to use a weapon every time, but that is out house rule). But than comes the problem of 'who plays the event card first'. We had a situation where the zombie was fend off and the ZP had "Uuuurrrggghh!" and hero had "Get back you devils". And now goes the question - who to answer the question 'do you accept the result of the fight'? We decided that if it is the zombie turn, ZP decides. When it's heroes turn they decide. Couldn't find any official rule for that problem.

The hero can't use "Get back you devils" until the fight is officially over. If you have heroes slapping down that card as soon as the fight is "won", then I believe your group is playing it wrong. Unless both players say they have nothing left to play, then the fight isn't actually over and the zombie player should have all the time in the world to play "Urgh!"


I'm not getting why you guys think who rolls first affects the game. It has made absolutely no difference in my group. It shouldn't affect cards played or weapons used as they can be used whenever in the fight (unless stated otherwise of course). As I stated earlier, the only time it actually matters is if the zombie rolls a 6, and there's nothing a hero can do about it, making the hero's roll pointless. And honestly, that would happen whether the hero rolled first or not.

[serdel]

(01-17-2011 08:00 PM)Criesto Wrote:  The hero can't use "Get back you devils" until the fight is officially over. If you have heroes slapping down that card as soon as the fight is "won", then I believe your group is playing it wrong. Unless both players say they have nothing left to play, then the fight isn't actually over and the zombie player should have all the time in the world to play "Urgh!"

Yes I understand that and we are playing correctly. The thing is that 'fend off' is really a tie - nobody wins, nobody losses. And the Zombie player doesn't know that the hero's card is 'get back you devils'. He might suspect it's a faith card or sth. In that situation it was really hard because the heroes had 13 Zombies on their count, and the hero had 1 wound left. So this was tough - fend off is a tie and each side wants to win, but who mus get the first declaration - I accept the result?

[mqstout]

Criesto had it right. You can't play it until all parties have decided the fight's over and they're done playing fight cards.

[serdel]

Yes I get it - the 'get back you devils' can be played only when the zombie player and the hero say - 'ok i accept the result'. I really understand that :> The problem was that the zombie player was wondering if he wants to use the urgh! card, because he was suspecting the hero might have faith or sth. Now if the hero was asked first 'do you accept' he would probably say 'yes' (because it's better for him). Than the zombie can plays his bonus easily. So the zombie is in a better position. And if it goes the other direction, the player is in better situation because the zombie might suspect that hero has sth. like 'faith' or 'just a scratch' and he can waist his last fight card. So the human player is in a better position. And it doesn't only comes with that 'combination' of zombie-hero cards. The thing is that the player who waits for the answer to the big question 'do you accept the result?' is in a better position. And since our situation was quite tense as I described it earlier it was a crucial matter. Fortunately my team is not all about winning and we agreed to a rule that's usually done in other games - the player who's turn is it, needs to answer first. In that case it was zombie turn so the ZP was asked the question. He saved the card, and accepted, than 'get back you devils' was played and zombie was killed. However we all discussed that if it was the hero turn and hero was asked, he would say 'yes I accept' than ZP plays urgh and has a chance to win. So as you see, in some cases it can give an advantage to one side.

[vikinglad]

I don't think I follow, Serdel. The Uuuurrrggghh! card lets the zombie roll 2 extra dice, and it can be played at any time during a fight. If the zombie needs it to beat the hero's initial roll, he should use it. If he doesn't need to play the card to beat the hero's roll, he shouldn't use it. How would knowing if the hero accepts the outcome of the initial rolls change whether or not this card is played? Likewise with the hero. Does he need Faith to win after the initial roll? If so, he should use it. If not, he shouldn't. This may or may not change whether the zombie wants to use Uuuurrrggghh! or not, but the decision can be made after the hero uses Faith.

As long as you want to play fight cards, I don't think there is a reason to ask the other side if they accept the result. The rules don't say the fight is over for opne player when that player says they are done, it says it is when "all players have decided not to use any more cards or abilities."

Are you trying to make it so that one side says the fight is over early because they don't know the other has cards to use? Like a zombie rolls a 2 and a hero rolls a 3 and 4. The zombie says "Are you done?" The hero says yes, even though he has a bat, because he doesn't need it at this point. Then the zombie says "Well I am not. I have Uuuurrrggghh!, so I am rolling two more die." He then rolls a 4 and 5 and kills the hero without him getting a chance to roll for the bat?

This doesn't sound like the way the game was intended to be played. I think all players must agree at the same time that the fight is over. Asking early, knowing that you are not done, seems like a cheap way to trick heroes into attacking without their weapons, or forcing them to always use them, just in case you have some card. In the example above, I think the hero could then say "Well then I am using the bat!"

[munkymuddface]

I concur with Vikinglad. It must be a mutal agreement on both sides. Once one side decides to play a card or ability, the other side always has a chance to respond (unless it is a case of 'instantly killed').

[serdel]

(01-17-2011 10:49 PM)vikinglad Wrote:  Are you trying to make it so that one side says the fight is over early because they don't know the other has cards to use? Like a zombie rolls a 2 and a hero rolls a 3 and 4. The zombie says "Are you done?" The hero says yes, even though he has a bat, because he doesn't need it at this point. Then the zombie says "Well I am not. I have Uuuurrrggghh!, so I am rolling two more die." He then rolls a 4 and 5 and kills the hero without him getting a chance to roll for the bat?

This doesn't sound like the way the game was intended to be played. I think all players must agree at the same time that the fight is over. Asking early, knowing that you are not done, seems like a cheap way to trick heroes into attacking without their weapons, or forcing them to always use them, just in case you have some card. In the example above, I think the hero could then say "Well then I am using the bat!"

The Bat is not a good example because it is an item that is revealed and ZP knows the hero has it. But if the hero has no such items and ZP asks, he can get some clue about the event cards the hero has (same the opposite). However if the hero says 'yes I accept', than the ZP plays urgh! we do not prevent the hero to play faith if he has it. In this case it is sort of a 'reverse psychology' the hero can use when being asked. Hero claims that he accepts the fight giving the ZP a false hint that he doesn't have any combat bonus events, but in fact he does and want the zp to use his fight cards. Off course he might regret it because urgh! can cause ZP to roll 6,6 and than the hero is screwed and faith won't help him. On the other hand he might play 'just a sracht' so nothing happens and ZP wasted urgh!. It's not about creating sophisticated situations sth. like rules traps- 'Ha! I asked you before so now you can't use it and I win!' - that's not how we are playing. This all 'asking thing' gives the game a little element of poker bluffing which we (my friends) like. However for that to work properly the order of 'asking' needs to be set up. And this is not only my 'stupid idea' - take a look at the FAQ pg. 21.

[vikinglad]

(01-18-2011 09:19 AM)serdel Wrote:  And this is not only my 'stupid idea' - take a look at the FAQ pg. 21.

Oh no. I hope you don't think I was criticizing your idea on this level, I really didn't (and still don't) understand your dilema. Didn't mean to insult you.
Also, I checked the FAQ (pg 22 in my rulebook, is that what you meant?), and didn't see anything about this.

In the example you gave, I can't tell where the bluff happens. I must be missing something. If the hero lost, and the zombie asks if he accepts, and he bluffs, then he lost anyway. What is gained? If he doesn't accept, but plays a card and wins, the zombie is in the same position. If he has a card, he must play it to stay alive, or concede the victory. How can he bluff? I would say the question is always implied to the current loser in the fight, until all cards are played (except in the case of the bat, when going for a kill).

Are you fighting by starting out with both people rolling their base amounts, then playing cards after the fact to augment the results, or are you calling your cards before the rolls? Enticing people to overplay their cards is an interesting idea; I want to know how it works for you.

[serdel]

(01-18-2011 11:35 PM)vikinglad Wrote:  Oh no. I hope you don't think I was criticizing your idea on this level, I really didn't (and still don't) understand your dilema. Didn't mean to insult you.
Also, I checked the FAQ (pg 22 in my rulebook, is that what you meant?), and didn't see anything about this.

I was referring to the 'unofficial faq' check this here(most of that is also at flyingfrogwiki):

http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/26998/...-earth-faq

And I didn't mean that I felt insulted or sth. - no, no such thing :> I hope that I am not insulting anybody, cause english is not my native language and I know that something can 'sound' hash when written in a inappropriate form.

(01-18-2011 11:35 PM)vikinglad Wrote:  In the example you gave, I can't tell where the bluff happens. I must be missing something. If the hero lost, and the zombie asks if he accepts, and he bluffs, then he lost anyway. What is gained? If he doesn't accept, but plays a card and wins, the zombie is in the same position. If he has a card, he must play it to stay alive, or concede the victory. How can he bluff? I would say the question is always implied to the current loser in the fight, until all cards are played (except in the case of the bat, when going for a kill).

The problem is that in the situation I was describing the Zombie was fend off - so no zombie dies, no wound for the hero right? However as I described the heroes had 13 zeds kills and the ZP had killed 1 hero. So although the fight was a tie, both sides wanted to win badly.

(01-18-2011 11:35 PM)vikinglad Wrote:  Are you fighting by starting out with both people rolling their base amounts, then playing cards after the fact to augment the results, or are you calling your cards before the rolls? Enticing people to overplay their cards is an interesting idea; I want to know how it works for you.

No, the only difference that we use (or we want to start using) is forcing the heroes to always use weapons. For us it is illogical to use weapons after the basic roll. What does it mean in 'real' situation? That the hero firstly throws punches at the zombie, than thinks 'hmmm that didn't went well... oh my, silly me I forgot I have a chainsaw...' In the FAQ I posted at top, there is an explanation to that 'real' situation. But for us it is just ridiculous... When that first question appear at our early games and I had red the explanation out loud there was a short silence afterwards, followed by a burst of laugh :P Ok for some it may be satisfying, but I consider this a little bit 'stretched' :P Moreover we all agreed that hero's weapons are overpowered and giving them another privilege of not risking to break them but still able to use them is just too much.