Polar Warbear double attack

[mitchiemasha]

2015! a big step back in time.

Because you consider the PWB rule to overrule the game system's instruction manual?

Yes... Always but I retracted my original comment.

I'm loving the idea of choosing to block the 1st or the 2nd. and yes... as written, the first Hit would auto trigger defence. BUT! How rare would the Polar Bear miss?

[Count Mohawk]

A Polar Warbear miss, with its 4 dice, will only happen 6% of the time.

[j_dean80]

Commenting on The Admiral's statement...

I don't think the PWB gets to roll 8 dice in one attack. It pretty clearly states can perform 2 attacks. So it is 4 then 4 against one Hero or 4 then 4 against 2 Heroes.

I like the option of defending the first or second but remember the PWB doesn't have to tell who his 2nd attack is going after until he is going to roll it. The Hero won't know if it will also be aimed at him, so not really giving him that option to choose.

[Maurice76]

A Polar Warbear miss, with its 4 dice, will only happen 6% of the time.

To be precise (for the math lovers among us ): each die has a chance of 50% to roll a Skull, 50% to roll something else. The chance to roll at least 1 Skull is equal to 100% minus the chance to roll no Skulls at all. With a chance of 50% (i.e. 0.5) for each die to come up with a "non-Skull", the chance of two dice equals 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 to yield no Skull. For three dice, that's 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 and for four, the result is 0.0625. Or as Count Mohawk stated, 6.25% chance that the Polar Warbear rolls no Skulls at all during its attack an as such, 93.75% chance to roll at least 1 Skull.

[arch8ngel]

A Polar Warbear miss, with its 4 dice, will only happen 6% of the time.

To be precise (for the math lovers among us ): each die has a chance of 50% to roll a Skull, 50% to roll something else. The chance to roll at least 1 Skull is equal to 100% minus the chance to roll no Skulls at all. With a chance of 50% (i.e. 0.5) for each die to come up with a "non-Skull", the chance of two dice equals 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 to yield no Skull. For three dice, that's 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 and for four, the result is 0.0625. Or as Count Mohawk stated, 6.25% chance that the Polar Warbear rolls no Skulls at all during its attack an as such, 93.75% chance to roll at least 1 Skull.

They were definitely feeling a bit sadistic when they cooked up the Rule Clarification that goes along with that one.

Especially coupled with the 6 body points.

Good thing healing potions are auto-consumed and don't require actions!

[Daedalus]

This thread gives me an idea for an artifact:

Guardian Shield



This lightweight Shield recovers
lightning-fast. Each attack from a
monster with multiple attacks
may be defended normally. May
not be used with the Battle Axe
or the Staff. May not be used
by the Wizard.

[AngusMacBaine]

It is also entirely possible for the Polar Warbear to miss with both hits. I suppose another way to defend could be for the Barbarian player to have the option to split his defense dice into 2 pools for each hit, assuming the PWB takes both attacks on him in the group quests. The designers definitely wanted this to be a challenging quest.

[Kurgan]

Reviewing the draft notes from the "lost" quest packs and cutting room floor notes (thanks Lucapaschi), it seems their intention (poorly expressed in the final product) was to clarify the rule as follows:

The one doing two attacks against a single target... rolls twice and applies the full result to the target. The target figure rolls ONCE to defend and the result counts against the full enemy result.

So let's say a Polar Warbear rolls 4 skulls then another 4 skulls, they apply 8 skulls to the Barbarian. The Barbarian rolls six defend dice... he rolls 6 white shields and so takes 2 BP of damage from this scenario.

The rule clarification would ALSO apply to the Hero using Orc's bane against a single Orc and any Hero using Heroic Brew (the debate rages on whether Heroic Brew does anything for the Orc's Bane... granted 4 attacks, 3, or has no effect... meaning still only 2 attacks, unless it's being used against a non-Orc then it would surely be 2 attacks). Do potions stack? Let's say you drink three Heroic Brews and attack a single target? This is assuming they are stacking potions of the same type... there are more than one potion that allow two attacks. Stacking spells and potions of course is no problem.

But the idea that the Monster is applying everything in a single strong attack and the hero rolls AT THE END is how they were talking about doing it in the draft notes and I think is a bit more fair in most cases.

[j_dean80]

That doesn’t make sense. If that were true they’d just say he has 8 attack dice, not 4 and 4.

[Kurgan]

Don't look at me, that's what the designers pulled out... it makes just as much sense as a Hero having two attacks, just that now a monster has the same opportunity.

The flexibility of the Polar War Bear is that he can choose to EITHER attack one single hero with 8 dice, or two adjacent heroes each with 4 dice. The same is true for the heroes.

I would consider this to be an intended revision or clarification of the previously established "two attack" rule.

Prior to the Frozen Horror, it could have been assumed (as I did at least) that if a hero attacks a monster twice, the target gets to defend normally each time. We would have naturally assumed by the same token that a monster attacking a hero twice would have the hero defend normally each time. In rare cases a target doesn't get to defend (normally only in the case of certain spells or traps), but otherwise it's always assumed a defend roll follows an attack roll. The PWB is a special case, which follows the convention of new expansions implementing new rules, just as quest notes and cards can amend the main rules at least in those cases.

So when playing the Frozen Horror, I would apply the same logic to all the Heroic "two attack" artifacts and potions. If leveling them at a single monster, that monster only gets one defensive roll at the end and it counts against whatever the Hero dished out. That's me of course...

But we're talking about their draft notes and my interpretation of them. As published it's a little vague and confusing, hence the thread.

The draft notes aren't a perfect guide. It seems that they were toying with the idea that each individual piece of furniture could be searched individually and that there was some mechanic for walking up to a treasure chest to open it, which were not really well explained (and no explanation was given in the published versions of EQP/BQP but traces of their confusion or planned revision remain). Hence we're free to ignore it, revise it or try to implement what they may have planned but failed to execute.