Dunca: Hugh Fitzcairn

[jamesmcmurray]

1) Richie says that he can't be played if your opponent is Richie. hugh doesn't say this. Does that mean that Hugh can be both your ally and your enemy if you're playing against him?

2) If they dodge your attack does it count as "avoiding" it?

[silas73]

Good spotting; the old "does avoid = dodge" question. I don't remember the ruling here, but it rings a bell as a phrasing question that came up in the old days. Did I read that Mr. Sager plans to use Beta to iron out any outstanding problems? I hope so, from this board to his ears.

[prowler7]

jamesmcmurray said:

1) Richie says that he can't be played if your opponent is Richie. hugh doesn't say this. Does that mean that Hugh can be both your ally and your enemy if you're playing against him?

2) If they dodge your attack does it count as "avoiding" it?

Well, that would depend. In the old days, "avoiding" was used in reference to damage, not the actual attack. So, if you asked this question according to the old rules, the answer is "No, Dodge does not avoid damage, so it doesnt meet the requirement.". However, with the new rules, we shall see, but I have a feeling this is one rule that wont change.

[jamesmcmurray]

Me too, but it never hurts to ask. The beta edition is meant to test the rules out, so if it gets clarified in the next version of the rulebook it could avoid (or dodge) some future confusion.

[prowler7]

Heya!

I just read the card in question, and I have to retract my earlier statement. According to the text I saw (leaked text, no guarantee it is correct) a dodge WOULD meet the requirement.

[Tim Small]

I dont know what text your looking at...but a dodge should not avoid like a Holy Ground.

[prowler7]

xiomburg said:

I dont know what text your looking at...but a dodge should not avoid like a Holy Ground.

So avoid is going to apply only to non-defense cards? Sounds good to me.