Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Loki - Trickster God

  1. #1

    Loki - Trickster God

    When fielded, roll an enemy character die. Deal damage to any target equal to the number of energy symbols or field cost rolled.
    How does this work I roll any number of fielded dice? If I do this what happens if they are rolled energy do they return to the same side in the field after or go to prep/used? It seems like a chore if you decide to roll several character dice and you need to remember their levels.

    Do fielded sidekicks count as character dice?

    Sorry lots of confusion on this card tonight.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by KennedyHawk View Post
    How does this work I roll any number of fielded dice? If I do this what happens if they are rolled energy do they return to the same side in the field after or go to prep/used? It seems like a chore if you decide to roll several character dice and you need to remember their levels.

    Do fielded sidekicks count as character dice?

    Sorry lots of confusion on this card tonight.
    Dice that are rolled in this manner would remain in the field if they rolled a character face (on their newly rolled level) or be moved to your opponent's Reserve Pool if they roll energy.

    Fielded Sidekicks are characters.

  3. #3
    You choose one character die and roll it.

    If it rolls a character side, your opponent places it back in the field on that side, and you deal damage to one target equal to the fielding cost of that side.

    If it rolls an energy side, your opponent places it in their reserve pool (any die that is rerolled at any point during the game, and the resulting side is ineligible for whatever zone it's currently in, gets moved to the reserve pool) and you deal damage equal to the number of energy symbols showing to one target.

    Fielded sidekicks do count as character dice.

  4. #4
    Thanks for the answers. I definitely read this wrong as choose any number of dice but it's just one character dice.

    Any clarity on whether or not a sidekick is a character dice?

  5. #5
    Yes...?

    Quote Originally Posted by pk2317 View Post
    Fielded Sidekicks are characters.


    Quote Originally Posted by alleyviper View Post
    Fielded sidekicks do count as character dice.

  6. #6
    Hey folks...Looking for a few thoughts on this...Had a discussion on a BGG thread recently and it prompted a bit of debate...

    Do we think this Loki card should be able to roll a character die that is in your opponent's reserve pool?

    Reason I ask is that the wording on the card does say "character die", and not just "character". This leads me to believe it could be similar to the Magneto global and allow you to roll a character die in reserve. This could be a way for you to really mess with your opponent's PXG ramp if it does work that way and they have saved a character die with double masks...

    ...Thoughts?

  7. #7
    I doubt that is the intent of the card, but I like where you're going with it. That would also change the ability to roll a sidekick, though. If it is in fact rolling a character die, not just a character, then sidekicks are out since they are not considered character dice. They are sidekick dice.

    Most likely, unfortunately, it's what it appears on the surface. Roll a fielded character (sidekicks allowed). The Magneto ruling does open it up for discussion, though.

  8. #8
    Hmmmm...I'm not trying to stretch the intent of the card...it literally reads just like the Magneto global except that "Villian" is replaced with "Character". So I don't know why this wouldn't function the exact same way. If a dice "knows" it is a villian while in reserve, shouldn't it also "know" it is a character?

    And for the sidekick thing...I may be wrong...but I believe Sidekick dice become character dice when they are in thier Pawn face. So I think you could still target them under this interpretation if you wanted to.

  9. #9
    There is a school of thought that the Magneto Global ruling should be read as errata applying only to that one Global.

    It is not a school of thought that I follow, however.

    I, like you, believe that there is a deeper significance to that ruling, and will continue to do so until a ruling proves the contrary.

  10. #10

  11. #11
    Every example of rerolling I have found falls into one of two categories, except Magneto, who has been ruled to be an exception.
    Type 1) effect uses language that affects dice. Some of them may say character dice, some villain dice, etc. These effects can apply to dice in a listed zone, or if none listed, applies to the prep area or(durring roll and reroll) or the Reserve Pool.
    Type 2) Effect targets a character, or a type of character. Villain, Avenger, Mask characer, etc. These explicitly effect characters that have been fielded.

    This is my first time writing out these observations, so the terminology and examples may need refinement, but should lead to others being able to see a similar trend of Dice.

  12. #12
    @Shadowmeld isn't Magneto your type #1? If not, maybe you can explain the difference between type #1 and Magneto...perhaps that is where I am gapping.

  13. #13
    Magneto is both types.

    He can affect both Reserve pool and the Field Zone.

  14. #14
    Where is it ruled that Magneto Global is an exception?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Where is it ruled that Magneto Global is an exception?
    The same place it was ruled that he is the rule.

  16. #16
    "Magneto's Global ability may be used on either fielded Villains or Villain dice in the reserve pool."

    I see nothing there saying it is an exception.

  17. #17
    Again, this is my interpretation of how the two classes of abilities are defined. If he were "the rule" that means many cards we believe we have defined uses for work differently that be believe. SR Scarlet witch would work like Maria Hill and allow us to add EVERY CHARACTER we have fielded to our roll. SHIELD Agent rares would allow us to reroll all Avengers dice, including the ones that our opponent has fielded or sitting in his reserve.

    Using Magneto as an example of precedent is a very difficult slippery slope.

  18. #18
    Finding absurd counters to an argument does not make that argument false.

    The wording Scarlet Witch SR makes it clear that you are getting an "additional" reroll. It says nothing that even implies that you add dice to that reroll.

    And it's not at all clear what the rare Agents do at all. So maybe you can reroll your opponent's dice. There is nothing to in their card text that says you can't. All we can actually say for sure about that ability is that it is not clear how it works.

  19. #19
    From every rulebook to date:

    Unless otherwise stated, game effects can only target character dice that are in the field.

    (In at least 2 rulebooks, this text was bolded and in red.)

    Magneto's card does not specifically state anything to counter this fundamental game rule. However, the WKRF stated that his effect can be used on dice in either the Field or the Reserve Pool.

    Why? That's the question. Until we get further information, I cannot see anything in that ruling that I can apply to other cards, only to Magneto's global specifically. They did not explain why that Global should be able to break the fundamental game rule.

  20. #20

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by pk2317 View Post
    From every rulebook to date:

    Unless otherwise stated, game effects can only target character dice that are in the field.

    (In at least 2 rulebooks, this text was bolded and in red.)

    Magneto's card does not specifically state anything to counter this fundamental game rule. However, the WKRF stated that his effect can be used on dice in either the Field or the Reserve Pool.

    Why? That's the question. Until we get further information, I cannot see anything in that ruling that I can apply to other cards, only to Magneto's global specifically. They did not explain why that Global should be able to break the fundamental game rule.
    The only part of that where I differ is the idea that we cannot apply anything in that ruling to other cards.

    I agree that it is not clear how to apply the ruling to other cards. And I would agree that we need more information.

    However, I think that taking any ruling and saying "that only applies to the card the question in the ruling is about" doesn't help us to gain a deeper and more complete understanding of the game in any way.

    If we treat the game like that then we end up needing explicit rulings on almost every single card.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    The only part of that where I differ is the idea that we cannot apply anything in that ruling to other cards.

    I agree that it is not clear how to apply the ruling to other cards. And I would agree that we need more information.

    However, I think that taking any ruling and saying "that only applies to the card the question in the ruling is about" doesn't help us to gain a deeper and more complete understanding of the game in any way.

    If we treat the game like that then we end up needing explicit rulings on almost every single card.
    Without further information, I don't see any way to (effectively) apply that ruling elsewhere. In some rulings they explain why they ruled the way they did, and have helped us further understand nuances in the rules and how/when/why they are broken.

    In this ruling, they didn't. They just said "this card breaks the rules because we say it does." While this is perfectly within their rights, it isn't helpful.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by pk2317 View Post
    Without further information, I don't see any way to (effectively) apply that ruling elsewhere. In some rulings they explain why they ruled the way they did, and have helped us further understand nuances in the rules and how/when/why they are broken.

    In this ruling, they didn't. They just said "this card breaks the rules because we say it does." While this is perfectly within their rights, it isn't helpful.
    I certainly understand where you are coming from.

    I just approach a situation like this differently.

    Rather than seeing the lack of information as restricting us to applying this knowledge only to the one card, I see it as giving us the freedom to explore what this might mean for other cards.

    Or, in other words, where you say "there is nothing within the ruling saying it does apply to X, Y, and Z", I say "there is nothing within the ruling saying it doesn't apply to X, Y, and Z".

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Or, in other words, where you say "there is nothing within the ruling saying it does apply to X, Y, and Z", I say "there is nothing within the ruling saying it doesn't apply to X, Y, and Z".
    The Rulebook says it doesn't apply :P

    To me, when the Rulebook directly contradicts the WKRF, the Rulebook should be the go-to source. If WKRF clarifies what the Rulebook means (like, say, removed blockers + Overcrush, or how Retaliation works) then we can take that further knowledge and apply it to relevant situations. But if just says the Rulebook is wrong, then I can't take that and apply it to every card or what's the point in having a Rulebook?

  25. #25
    Card text overrides rules text, though.

    So if Magneto Global overrides that particular rule, why is it not reasonable to infer that other similarly word effects override it too?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •