01-17-2011, 06:18 PM
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.
(01-17-2011 05:15 PM)swiftfoxmark2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it should be simultaneously for most fights given the following:
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.
- 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.
(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.
(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?
(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?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.
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!"
(01-18-2011 09:19 AM)serdel Wrote: [ -> ]And this is not only my 'stupid idea' - take a look at the FAQ pg. 21.
(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.I was referring to the 'unofficial faq' check this here(most of that is also at flyingfrogwiki):
Also, I checked the FAQ (pg 22 in my rulebook, is that what you meant?), and didn't see anything about this.
(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.