• Multiple WizKids Rules Forum Updates going on now!


    If you haven't already seen, the WKRF is updating with quite a few rulings right now. Make sure to check them out here:

    http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewforum....d786d5dba1191e

    What do you think about them so far?
    Comments 28 Comments
    1. bahamut7's Avatar
      bahamut7 -
      A little surprised on the Batcave ruling and that they are reconsidering how VS damage is applied. Everything else seemed like common sense to me.
    1. SarkhanMad's Avatar
      SarkhanMad -
      Did anybody see the original response to viscous struggle question?

      It now reads:
      This ruling has been deleted and is pending review to ensure accuracy. Thanks for your patience.
      -The Dice Masters Rules Team
    1. archivist's Avatar
      archivist -
      deleted
    1. SlapsterMcFlash's Avatar
      SlapsterMcFlash -
      Foot Ninja woooo

      and I can't see how else Batcave would be ruled
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by SarkhanMad View Post
      Did anybody see the original response to viscous struggle question?

      It now reads:
      This ruling has been deleted and is pending review to ensure accuracy. Thanks for your patience.
      -The Dice Masters Rules Team
      Yes. Another ruling, later edited, indicated that you could come back from zero life. I don't know what's happening over there but it's not correct.
    1. Necromanticer's Avatar
      Necromanticer -
      Everything is consistent except for the Vicious Struggle ruling...
      I don't know what's happening with that one, but the rest are very clear and follow from the other rules and rulings in the game.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
      Everything is consistent except for the Vicious Struggle ruling...
      I don't know what's happening with that one, but the rest are very clear and follow from the other rules and rulings in the game.
      This one said very specifically that Captain America could bring people back from 0 or less health after they had already been there. Of course, the game ends immediately when a player reaches zero, so that answer given as a ruling breaks things.

      That ruling was later ninja-edited, which is also a bad call, because it essentially gaslights your player base. Give the mistaken text strikethrough and then say below it that the change has been made or make the correction. Some people look at a ruling one time, and that should be all you need to do. Shouldn't have to check back to make sure that they didn't change their minds and do an in-place edit.
    1. Necromanticer's Avatar
      Necromanticer -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      This one said very specifically that Captain America could bring people back from 0 or less health after they had already been there. Of course, the game ends immediately when a player reaches zero, so that answer given as a ruling breaks things.

      That ruling was later ninja-edited, which is also a bad call, because it essentially gaslights your player base. Give the mistaken text strikethrough and then say below it that the change has been made or make the correction. Some people look at a ruling one time, and that should be all you need to do. Shouldn't have to check back to make sure that they didn't change their minds and do an in-place edit.
      Okay, they had already changed the ruling by the time I got to looking at it. I'm glad to know there's no issue and they fixed the problem promptly.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
      Okay, they had already changed the ruling by the time I got to looking at it. I'm glad to know there's no issue and they fixed the problem promptly.
      I'm glad too, but it's concerning that it was put there in the first place. That and the VS ruling in tandem are problematic just for having happened. The lack of codification of game terms, despite some improvements, continues to be a hindrance to understanding for many, especially casual players. There's nothing to alert someone who only saw it the first way that it was a mistake, and the substance of that mistake and the capacity to correct any assumptions that go along with that is now gone since they ninja edited it.
    1. bahamut7's Avatar
      bahamut7 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      I'm glad too, but it's concerning that it was put there in the first place. That and the VS ruling in tandem are problematic just for having happened. The lack of codification of game terms, despite some improvements, continues to be a hindrance to understanding for many, especially casual players. There's nothing to alert someone who only saw it the first way that it was a mistake, and the substance of that mistake and the capacity to correct any assumptions that go along with that is now gone since they ninja edited it.
      This is why I am troubled. We are potentially seeing a major change to the core rules. It may no longer be, first to 0 loses...this could make VS teams lead to draws more often. Hopefully, this will be avoided. Only time will tell.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by bahamut7 View Post
      This is why I am troubled. We are potentially seeing a major change to the core rules. It may no longer be, first to 0 loses...this could make VS teams lead to draws more often. Hopefully, this will be avoided. Only time will tell.

      For me it's more that whoever is answering didn't give it enough consideration before posting it. I want rulings to be thought out, not cavalier. I don't think that kind of drastic change would truly happen, as it would make games go much longer than they already do.
    1. pk2317's Avatar
      pk2317 -
      Take this for what you will...my undestanding is that what was posted today (and recanted) was a "mistake/miscommunication" - thankfully one that was very quickly identified and corrected.
    1. bahamut7's Avatar
      bahamut7 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      For me it's more that whoever is answering didn't give it enough consideration before posting it. I want rulings to be thought out, not cavalier. I don't think that kind of drastic change would truly happen, as it would make games go much longer than they already do.
      Hopefully as PK put it, it was just merely a mistake, but a mistake like that shouldn't need a day or more to answer.
    1. CeeQue's Avatar
      CeeQue -
      jthomash2: I really like Ronin. Can I put a ring on it?
      dmrulesteam: No!
      jthomash2: To the turtle van!
    1. pk2317's Avatar
      pk2317 -
      Also, aside from the goof, I have no issues with any of the other rulings. Batcave was 50-50 for me, and I think it's the most logical (and provides a little risk to using the card - if you don't get all your stuff out in time, you lose all the characters you stashed there).
    1. bahamut7's Avatar
      bahamut7 -
      Quote Originally Posted by pk2317 View Post
      Also, aside from the goof, I have no issues with any of the other rulings. Batcave was 50-50 for me, and I think it's the most logical (and provides a little risk to using the card - if you don't get all your stuff out in time, you lose all the characters you stashed there).
      I had originally thought it was the other batcave, so the ruling now makes sense to me.
    1. TheConductr's Avatar
      TheConductr -
      Quote Originally Posted by bahamut7 View Post
      I had originally thought it was the other batcave, so the ruling now makes sense to me.
      This is the one that I didn't really fully get. In every other instance of interrupting transit it seemed like the die eventually went to where it was supposed to go (used or prep). This ruling goes against that. Since the die had to be KO'd to be put in the cave, I just assumed it would go to prep if batcave was removed. It does make it a tad bit more risky now I guess.
    1. bahamut7's Avatar
      bahamut7 -
      Quote Originally Posted by TheConductr View Post
      This is the one that I didn't really fully get. In every other instance of interrupting transit it seemed like the die eventually went to where it was supposed to go (used or prep). This ruling goes against that. Since the die had to be KO'd to be put in the cave, I just assumed it would go to prep if batcave was removed. It does make it a tad bit more risky now I guess.
      Oh wait...it is the common they are referring to...yep I don't get it either. If the dice are originally going to prep, why would they now go to used?
    1. JustK's Avatar
      JustK -
      I have never seen any one use the bat cave unless in draft so I do not see an issue with it. It does make me wonder if an ability that removes an Action Die, Blink or Oni, Bleez, would do the same thing. Constantine actually makes you reroll the die, you could roll it again and get it back.