f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Feb 16, 2011 - 15:25 |
 
|
| zakatan wrote: | | oh well, i guess zombis then could be apoed if they had an available apo... |
Absolutely ... if they play for say a High Elf team or so.  |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2011 - 15:26 |
|
| f_alk wrote: | | zakatan wrote: | | oh well, i guess zombis then could be apoed if they had an available apo... |
Absolutely ... if they play for say a High Elf team or so. |
birthday zombies, or crown of sand skelletons for instance |
|
|
Metadone
Joined: Jun 02, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2011 - 18:34 |
|
Gosh, I didn't mean to stir things that much. Glad to see people are passionate about the game and try to be that much involved .
The way I read the rules is: if a player gets injured (KO or more), 1st roll for the apo (if it's allowed (not an eaten player for example), if it's available and if you want to use it) then roll for regen if the apo failed or you're unhappy with its result.
I thought the client was doing the check the other way round (1st the regen, then the apo if regen failed). According to Carnis, I was incorrect and the client is implemented the right way. I'm sure I remember seeing it the other way round but I guess I'll witness a few more matches and come back to confirm my point or bash my brain to a pulp in shame in public
At the end of the day, I do agree that even if it's implemented the wrong way, it's not a major issue. Sure it would tip the balance in favour of the teams concerned but there aren't many around (I can only think of vampires and trolls in regular teams (orcs, gobos)), so overall, not a make or break situation.
Meta |
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
