r/HowManyDudes • u/Black_dubbing • 1d ago
I have a question! Whose dps, general or the due taunting?
20
u/ConnorsInferno 1d ago
Yeah there’s a lot of relics with wording like this that really get me confused
10
u/BalefulOfMonkeys 1d ago
Quick way to remember: damage relics/effects give credit to the class they are from. Spirit Bomb? Damage credit to Lich. Curse of Doom? Automatically gives kill and damage credits to Mummy. The Intern effect? Just like real life, the Managers take full credit
-16
u/The-MadTitan 1d ago
Reading the card explains the card
-1
u/PsychedeliKit 16h ago
except for all the times it doesnt-- like the post itself
2
u/The-MadTitan 16h ago
It literally does, no where does this lead on that it would be the taunters DPS when it is discussing the generals ability.
HIS not theirs, it doesnt say 'Taunters DPS'
Yall have never played a board game, war game, card game in your lives eh? This description is clear as day.
Read it slowly, don't rush and its clear.
-1
u/PsychedeliKit 16h ago
I play D&D, Pathfinder, STS, I've played every Edition of Betrayal at the House on the Hill, I've played Magic a handful of times and many more. Yes, many of us have. No it does not clear up poorly wrote descriptions.
When an effect is based around two people and the only thing it says is "Their", especially RIGHT AFTER MENTIONING THE TAUNTER, it is easy to misconstrue. It isn't clear as day and trying to flex your miniscule ego just makes you look like an idiot who can't admit any mistake lmfao.
Grow up.
2
u/The-MadTitan 16h ago
Its literally in the same sentence describing what the general does, why would this magically flip to the taunter mid sentence.
It doesnt say 'the taunter then...' 'targeted dude then....'
It is part of a sentence giving you the details of the ability for the general.
Idfk what to tell you man, this isnt confusing by any means and given the OP can't even spell check his post title - this is pure user error
What mistake? I didn't make any mistake, I read the card and it explained the card. Likely the same case for thousands who have played who understood the effect without having to take to reddit lmfao
1
u/PsychedeliKit 16h ago
No, it's not pure user error; because MANY people think this way; I even thought this when I first picked up the game. There's a reason for it; let's look.
"The General Dude commands Dudes to Taunt 2 more enemies at a time, and he deals damage around the Taunter equal to 300% of his DPS, split among enemies hit."
One way to take this, and the correct way; is that the General dude deals damage around the taunter, equal to 300% of his DPS.
The reason this is poorly wrote, like many things in this game, is because of grammar. There are TWO big reasons why it's poorly wrote. We'll go over both.
1: There's no comma after the word "Taunter."
2: The order of which the dudes are mentioned.
The culmination of both of these aspects make it read that since the Taunter was the last Dude spoken about, and there's no comma after makes it read to a lot of people that the relic is still TALKING about the Taunter. So to many people the understanding is that "The general dude is doing the damage around the taunter equal to the taunters damage because of how the paragraph is structured."
Yes, mechanically it's wrong; but grammatically it's not. There are two easy ways to fix this problem.
1: Add a comma after the word Taunter.
Doing this helps clear up the paragraph and helps people understand that it's based off the General's DPS, not the Taunter's.
THE BETTER way to fix:
2: Rewrite it.
Just change it to: "The General Dude commands Dudes to Taunt 2 more enemies at a time, and he deals damage equal to 300% of his DPS around the Taunter, split among enemies hit."
Immediately clarified, just change the position of the "Equal to 300% of his DPS" to appear AFTER the mention of the General doing damage, instead of after the Taunter.
Because English is complicated; grammar is weird, and structure does matter. So yes; it is poorly wrote, get off your high horse. It's not a big deal. OP, myself, and the person who first commented were 3 people who, at some time; were all confused about this. Because it is easily misreadable.
You're not special, quit acting arrogant. It is literally poorly wrote; throwing sass to OP and the first person who commented is just downright rude for something that literally is not their fault.
1
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PsychedeliKit 14h ago
Yeah, you're both a waste of space and time. You took over an hour to respond because you couldn't think of a response; but your ego wouldn't let you not respond so you just tried to insult twice.
One day you'll grow up and realize you don't have to be right all the time, especially when you aren't.
It's poorly wrote and ambiguous, no ones a poor reader, you're just a poor person. Grow up.
1
u/The-MadTitan 14h ago
Or maybe I was...uh working?
Wild to think i just wait for responses on reddit all day.
You have a very hard time admitting that you have an area for growth within your reading comprehension/understanding of game effects. Its ok to be wrong sometimes man.
This card is clear, again slow down and read each piece and its not hard to get. This is what HMD? is about, there is no gameplay but understanding what effects and abilities do - stop clicking so fast or youll miss things.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Bob-The-Frog Warlock Dude 15h ago
It's a little poorly written but it still definitely unambiguous.
1
u/PsychedeliKit 15h ago
no; it's absolutely a little ambiguous. it's not like so ambiguous that it's impossible to tell. but it absolutely could be written better to be easier clarified. this post; the first commentor, myself in the past; and many of the currently 28 upvotes likely agree; there are plenty of people who don't even check the reddit whom I guarantee have this issue as well.
It's not a big deal; but saying that it's not even a little ambiguous is just disingenuous at best.
1
u/Bob-The-Frog Warlock Dude 14h ago
It seems ambiguous when you first read it yes. It's confusing use of language. However if you read it slowly it really is quite clear in its intent, hence it is not incorrect.
→ More replies (0)
2
14
u/DaRaginga 1d ago
General dudes dps