Under Strength and other questions

A place to read and talk about our official updates, errata and addenda for Darklands. Please post all rules queries here!
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Under Strength and other questions

Postby DrNO172000 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:04 pm

Hi,

A few questions

The first question is in regards to Under Strength

In 2.3.3.5.4 it lists Under Strenght as

"... A unit whose current strength is less than a quarter of its original strength remaining (rounding any fractions up) is under strength.

in 6.30.8.2.1 (Heavily Damaged Target) and 6.40.8.1.2 (Heavily Damaged Mark) it lists under strength as follows

"...and is now under strength (i.e., has less than half its original strength remaining after invoke damage has been applied)..."

My question is which definition of under strength is correct?

The second question is in regards to Sightless Parries, Evades, and Avoids

All three state that you only use your Constitution, worn Armour+, and natural Armour+ when figuring your Combined Consitution. Since you are not adding the Armour value of say a shield (because it's borne) does that also mean you lose the parry modifier from it?

The third question is in regards to damage rolls

Are all damage rolls fated rolls no matter the source? For example, a unit of Holumann has a continuous effect fire token attached to them. They fail immediately suffering D10 fire damage, the player then rolls a 9 for the damage. Does this a) count as a vicious wound, therefore, adding another fire token, and b) cause a second die to be rolled (with the chance of more tokens and dice being rolled if it too is a 9)?

The fourth question is in regards to Shoot, and Invoke result reaction criteria. Previously I had asked about attack result reaction criteria. In that answer, you had stated that Frenzied units even if fearless do a reaction if they fulfil the other portions obviously (in fact this is the only time a Fearless unit would have a result reaction), is that the same for Shoot and Invoke result reactions. Example a Frenzied Mantichora is shot at and becomes a Shocked Target as well as taking damage fulfiling those two portions of the criteria. Does it now roll on the Frenzied Shoot Result Reaction table applying any results it can legally?

The last question is about the sightless strike rule.

I want to confirm that a sightless strike does not count as a blind strike and therefore even if a Warrior has a weapon with the sightless strike rule they can still be blind beset, unlike a warrior with a weapon who has the blind strike rule. Is this correct?
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby DrNO172000 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:41 am

These questions came up in today's game.

1) Sweet Corruption

Sweet Corruption Invocation reads as such

"Friendly Marks: Marked unit may only be an enemy unit with the Living trait.
Continuous Effect: Marked unit immediately suffers suffers 1D10 wound dice per invoked die (the damage from which is distributed randomly amongst
its Marked warriors). The Marked unit also gains an additional 2D10 corruption effect tokens, attached to each Different Mark's wounded warrior first.
Rules: Ignores Armour; Corruption Damage"

I am fairly certain the Friendly Marks: is a typo? However, the rest of the spell was still confusing for us. The spell has the rule ignores armour but there is no Power + value for the spell only the effect. My understanding is if a spell does not have a Power+ then there is no avoid roll. After all, the spell doesn't have any power to compare combined constitution too. Is the spell supposed to have a Power+ value or is the ignores armour in error? Or am I simply missing something when it comes to avoid rolls and spells that do not have a Power+ value?

2)Invocation Actions under 6.40.5.1 Turn to Face the Mark

"The Invoker must turn to face the direction in which he is Invoking, if they are not already facing the correct way..."

The paragraph makes no mention of this needing to be a Sight invoke for this to happen. So does that mean even sightless invokes and blind invokes require the Invoker to turn and face the target?

3)Attack Actions under 6.20.8.4.2 Stalemate

"If the combat results in a stalemate the attacking and attacked units are neither Victorius nor Defeated and become Resolute units, which now have a heart state of resolute. Remove exulted, afraid, confused, or shaken tokens from the Resolute units"

Do Frenzied units also become resolute? Based on the rules stated under Frenzied (2.3.3.2.3) I am assuming they do not but just want to clarify to make sure?

4)Spells that end on a unit's next activation.

Does a reaction ever count as an activation? For example the Rose of Ker Ys invokes poison petals against a unit of Dyndraig. Later before the unit of Dyndraig activate they are attacked by a unit of Ax-Drunes. The Dyndraig choose to attack back as their reaction, an attack reaction. They now become weary. Have they activated for the purposes of ending the spell? Or would they have had to wait for their activation and then done the attack?

5)Attack Actions under 6.20.6.4.1 Disengaging and Re-Engaging

Second paragraph

"Move to Re-engage"
Should this occur any remaining Attack actions yet to be performed by the Attacking unit may still take place, but the Attacking unit must re-engage the Attacked unit..."

Does that mean a re-engage only occurs when you have more attacks to make? Or do you always re-engage if you end up out of the engagement?

I ask because the situation we had was a unit of Brutes killed the Prifdyndraig who was joined with Dyndraigs. It was the final attacks that did it. We read it as re-engaging only occurs when you still have attacks to make. Since those where the last attacks to be made, we went on to calculate results. While there where 4 Brutes left and only 3 Dyndraig the Dyndraig still got the strong token as the killing of the Prifdyndraig disengaged two of the Brutes. This felt sort of wrong, as the Brutes were essentially punished for killing a little too well.

Then again perhaps the Ysian player should have attacked move so that his Brutes would have engaged multiple units.

5) Chase reaction

Does a Chase reaction trigger an attack reflex reaction if the chasing unit leaves an attack range of an enemy? I could not find anything that said it did.
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby Rob Lane » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:33 am

DrNO172000 wrote:Hi,

A few questions

The first question is in regards to Under Strength

In 2.3.3.5.4 it lists Under Strenght as

"... A unit whose current strength is less than a quarter of its original strength remaining (rounding any fractions up) is under strength.

in 6.30.8.2.1 (Heavily Damaged Target) and 6.40.8.1.2 (Heavily Damaged Mark) it lists under strength as follows

"...and is now under strength (i.e., has less than half its original strength remaining after invoke damage has been applied)..."

My question is which definition of under strength is correct?


Quarter - bloody good spot, thank you.

DrNO172000 wrote:The second question is in regards to Sightless Parries, Evades, and Avoids

All three state that you only use your Constitution, worn Armour+, and natural Armour+ when figuring your Combined Consitution. Since you are not adding the Armour value of say a shield (because it's borne) does that also mean you lose the parry modifier from it?


Correct. If you can't use a shield, you can't use any benefits of it. I'll add something in to the rules there.

DrNO172000 wrote:The third question is in regards to damage rolls

Are all damage rolls fated rolls no matter the source? For example, a unit of Holumann has a continuous effect fire token attached to them. They fail immediately suffering D10 fire damage, the player then rolls a 9 for the damage. Does this a) count as a vicious wound, therefore, adding another fire token, and b) cause a second die to be rolled (with the chance of more tokens and dice being rolled if it too is a 9)?


See p14, 1.3.4.6 - FATE ROLLS AND LUCK ROLLS. If it doesn't state it's a fate roll, it's a luck roll by default.

DrNO172000 wrote:The fourth question is in regards to Shoot, and Invoke result reaction criteria. Previously I had asked about attack result reaction criteria. In that answer, you had stated that Frenzied units even if fearless do a reaction if they fulfil the other portions obviously (in fact this is the only time a Fearless unit would have a result reaction), is that the same for Shoot and Invoke result reactions. Example a Frenzied Mantichora is shot at and becomes a Shocked Target as well as taking damage fulfiling those two portions of the criteria. Does it now roll on the Frenzied Shoot Result Reaction table applying any results it can legally?


Yes, it's the same principle as the attack results.

DrNO172000 wrote:The last question is about the sightless strike rule.

I want to confirm that a sightless strike does not count as a blind strike and therefore even if a Warrior has a weapon with the sightless strike rule they can still be blind beset, unlike a warrior with a weapon who has the blind strike rule. Is this correct?


That is correct. A blind strike is also a sightless strike, but it's not vice versa - a sightless strike is not a blind strike.

Cheers
Rob
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby Rob Lane » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:02 pm

DrNO172000 wrote:These questions came up in today's game.

1) Sweet Corruption

Sweet Corruption Invocation reads as such

"Friendly Marks: Marked unit may only be an enemy unit with the Living trait.
Continuous Effect: Marked unit immediately suffers suffers 1D10 wound dice per invoked die (the damage from which is distributed randomly amongst
its Marked warriors). The Marked unit also gains an additional 2D10 corruption effect tokens, attached to each Different Mark's wounded warrior first.
Rules: Ignores Armour; Corruption Damage"

I am fairly certain the Friendly Marks: is a typo?


Yeah, good spot. I'll amend that.

DrNO172000 wrote:However, the rest of the spell was still confusing for us. The spell has the rule ignores armour but there is no Power + value for the spell only the effect. My understanding is if a spell does not have a Power+ then there is no avoid roll. After all, the spell doesn't have any power to compare combined constitution too. Is the spell supposed to have a Power+ value or is the ignores armour in error? Or am I simply missing something when it comes to avoid rolls and spells that do not have a Power+ value?


Yeah, looks like a copy and paste error here - it should state invoke damage rather than wound dice; I'll amend it all. Ignores armour doesn't apply with just damage of course.

DrNO172000 wrote:2)Invocation Actions under 6.40.5.1 Turn to Face the Mark

"The Invoker must turn to face the direction in which he is Invoking, if they are not already facing the correct way..."

The paragraph makes no mention of this needing to be a Sight invoke for this to happen. So does that mean even sightless invokes and blind invokes require the Invoker to turn and face the target?


Correct.

DrNO172000 wrote:3)Attack Actions under 6.20.8.4.2 Stalemate

"If the combat results in a stalemate the attacking and attacked units are neither Victorius nor Defeated and become Resolute units, which now have a heart state of resolute. Remove exulted, afraid, confused, or shaken tokens from the Resolute units"

Do Frenzied units also become resolute? Based on the rules stated under Frenzied (2.3.3.2.3) I am assuming they do not but just want to clarify to make sure?


No. See p34 under Calming Frenzied Units - you can only remove frenzied tokens under the circumstances mentioned.

="DrNO172000"]4)Spells that end on a unit's next activation.

Does a reaction ever count as an activation? For example the Rose of Ker Ys invokes poison petals against a unit of Dyndraig. Later before the unit of Dyndraig activate they are attacked by a unit of Ax-Drunes. The Dyndraig choose to attack back as their reaction, an attack reaction. They now become weary. Have they activated for the purposes of ending the spell? Or would they have had to wait for their activation and then done the attack?


No, reactions never count as activations - see p318, 7.1.1: REACTIVATIONS.

DrNO172000 wrote:5)Attack Actions under 6.20.6.4.1 Disengaging and Re-Engaging

Second paragraph

"Move to Re-engage"
Should this occur any remaining Attack actions yet to be performed by the Attacking unit may still take place, but the Attacking unit must re-engage the Attacked unit..."

Does that mean a re-engage only occurs when you have more attacks to make? Or do you always re-engage if you end up out of the engagement?


Only if you have more Attacks to make (otherwise you'd never get out of combat); but see 6.20.10: Resolving the Attack Action subsection and the 6.9: Reform action too. As well as Chase, and Breakthrough... etc. etc.

DrNO172000 wrote:I ask because the situation we had was a unit of Brutes killed the Prifdyndraig who was joined with Dyndraigs. It was the final attacks that did it. We read it as re-engaging only occurs when you still have attacks to make. Since those where the last attacks to be made, we went on to calculate results. While there where 4 Brutes left and only 3 Dyndraig the Dyndraig still got the strong token as the killing of the Prifdyndraig disengaged two of the Brutes. This felt sort of wrong, as the Brutes were essentially punished for killing a little too well.


It's not quite as simple as that; you can read it as momentum spent, for one thing, or poor unit positioning; and only tight formations gain strength from everyone in the combat rather than those engaged.

This is tough for game mechanics; do you allow re-engagements every time (thus causing issues where nobody ever gets out of combat ) or do you only re-engage if there's still attacks to be made? We plumped for the former simply because we wanted there to be some occasions where units do get out of combat, and because of one vicious gamey tactic used by underhanded nonces: the conga line, where one warrior contacts a unit at extreme bind distances and stops an enemy in its tracks without being totally destroyed itself.

Anyway: With the death of a Prifdyndraig, surely the blood tokens of the frenzied unit ensured victory?

DrNO172000 wrote:Then again perhaps the Ysian player should have attacked move so that his Brutes would have engaged multiple units.


Exactly so. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't - frenzied units MUST attack engage (i.e., contact bases) so either there's something off regarding rules played or the game naturally extended the Brute unit somehow.

DrNO172000 wrote:5) Chase reaction

Does a Chase reaction trigger an attack reflex reaction if the chasing unit leaves an attack range of an enemy? I could not find anything that said it did.


Yes; see p109, Enemy Attack Ranges.

Additionally, you do have to be careful if the Chasing unit is already engaged - if the enemy (that is not Fleeing) is stronger than them, unless they're compulsorily Chasing.

Cheers
Rob
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby DrNO172000 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:32 pm

Thanks for the answers Rob!

With the Brutes vs the Dyndraigs the Brutes had actually lost, I'm not even sure the strong token would have caused them to win. What happened was the Brutes were charged and Dyndraig unit did a whopping 105 points of damage. After the charge, the Ysian player did his attack move with the Brutes and since he had two guys engaged with just the Prifdyndraig they both attacked him, and the rest were engaged with the others (terrain played a roll in how they ended up). He killed the Prifdyndraig which resulted in 55 damage (since you can't spill over to different class and skill), but only did 10 more damage with the other Brutes. So the blood tokens before removal were 10 for Dyndraigs and 12 for Brutes. After removal the Brutes had 2 tokens and the Dyndraig had 4 (because frenzied still only removes 1 per 10 damage caused correct?). Then the Dyndraig had a banner, and the Brutes had a frenzied token obviously, so Exult tokens before the strong was attached was 5 to 3 in the Dyndraig favor. So the strong token wouldn't have tipped it anyway.

It just felt weird that the Dyndraig got the strong token even though there were more Brutes left, just less in combat. However, that conga line thing sounds awful, so I agree with the design here for sure.
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby Rob Lane » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:29 pm

DrNO172000 wrote:Thanks for the answers Rob!

With the Brutes vs the Dyndraigs the Brutes had actually lost, I'm not even sure the strong token would have caused them to win. What happened was the Brutes were charged and Dyndraig unit did a whopping 105 points of damage. After the charge, the Ysian player did his attack move with the Brutes and since he had two guys engaged with just the Prifdyndraig they both attacked him, and the rest were engaged with the others (terrain played a roll in how they ended up). He killed the Prifdyndraig which resulted in 55 damage (since you can't spill over to different class and skill), but only did 10 more damage with the other Brutes. So the blood tokens before removal were 10 for Dyndraigs and 12 for Brutes. After removal the Brutes had 2 tokens and the Dyndraig had 4 (because frenzied still only removes 1 per 10 damage caused correct?). Then the Dyndraig had a banner, and the Brutes had a frenzied token obviously, so Exult tokens before the strong was attached was 5 to 3 in the Dyndraig favor. So the strong token wouldn't have tipped it anyway.

It just felt weird that the Dyndraig got the strong token even though there were more Brutes left, just less in combat. However, that conga line thing sounds awful, so I agree with the design here for sure.


Not really - why is it weird, when there's more Dyndraig engaged? I confess I'm not agreeing with you very much - sounds to me like the combat worked out pretty well. The Dyndraigiau Charged, after all... I'd need diagrams and such really.

Anyway, wiping out the Prifdyndraig is a bloody good result for two Brutes, by the way...

Cheers
Rob
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby DrNO172000 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:19 pm

Well, what I mean, is in our imaginations it felt weird (imagining the battle happening), not from a design standpoint. I like your momentum explanation though and after you explained the conga line issue I also understand the design choice.
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby DrNO172000 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:56 pm

To be sure though it was quite the exciting battle and we enjoyed it a lot. The Brutes ended up winning in the end as the Dyndraig ran at the end of the battle hour too disheartened to carry on without their General. It was only 500 gold so there wasn't much else on the table.
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Under Strength and other questions

Postby Rob Lane » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:06 am

Sounds like a cool battle to be honest! Poor old Dyndraig ;o)

Cheers
Rob

Return to “Darklands Rules and Musters - Updates, Errata and Addenda”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests