PDA

View Full Version : Lore of the Wild



Mr_Rose
16-02-2010, 11:35
The beastman spell #4 (the one that makes a mount attack its rider); I have noticed an ambiguity in the wording where it defines the strength of the attacks.
Specifically, it says you get a number of hits equal to the mount's attacks characteristic "at the same strength" but does not say whether this is meant to be the same strength as the mount or as the number of attacks.
Personally, I'm assuming the strength of the mount, but it is not really very clear cut.

Is there a general consensus on what the strength of the hits is meant to be based on?

mightygnoblar
16-02-2010, 12:00
i think this it is pretty clear in context that it is meant to be at the strength of the mount

Mr_Rose
16-02-2010, 14:35
Anyone else?

Veloxnex
16-02-2010, 16:23
stop over reading

JackBurton01
16-02-2010, 19:32
Definitely the mounts strength.

giner
16-02-2010, 20:44
I am honestly struggling to see how it could be interpreted any other way, do you want needlessly klunky rules? There are other things eg distribution of hits from Aura of Madness that need sorting first (can cannons go made from looking at Jabberslythes)

Yellow Commissar
16-02-2010, 21:53
Is there a general consensus on what the strength of the hits is meant to be based on?

You're kidding right? :shifty:

Even if this were an ambiguous rule, of what use is a general consensus of Warseer rules forum users in an actual game?

"Well, 67% of the rules nerds on Warseer say to play it this way." :rolleyes:

I doubt such an argument would go over very well with anyone that I play.

decker_cky
17-02-2010, 01:09
You're kidding right? :shifty:

Even if this were an ambiguous rule, of what use is a general consensus of Warseer rules forum users in an actual game?

"Well, 67% of the rules nerds on Warseer say to play it this way." :rolleyes:

I doubt such an argument would go over very well with anyone that I play.

Well there's built-in support against anyone who argues. They're arguing against democracy, so they're obviously dirty communists and can't be trusted. Disregard their opinion.

:D

Yellow Commissar
17-02-2010, 02:36
Well there's built-in support against anyone who argues. They're arguing against democracy, so they're obviously dirty communists and can't be trusted. Disregard their opinion.

:D

Where I live, we are almost all dirty hippy communists. :D