Tiebreaker Change

[Dam the Man]

Question mark there because I do want to verify that there has been a change to the tiebreaker in the Mercenaries set in comparison to the four previous sets. Granted, having to use a breaker is rather rare, I think today's need for it was the second in 90+ plays of RE, but since it's fresh in mind (and stings more so due to losing on it ), thought I'd post about it. As per the Mercenaries rulebook:

"If Players are tied for most Decorations, then the Player with less Damage on their
Character at the moment the game ended is declared the winner." (p. 7)

What happened today was that Chris Redfield (Mercenaries) went up against Mysterious Mask (Nightmare). While Chris had the majority of the kills, he was tagged with poor luck and kept drawing 1 Decoration Infected, while the Mask struggled early, even getting knocked out (-20 Max Health), but once she hit her stride, kept flipping 2 and 3 Decoration Infected. Killing the Red Executioner to finish the game saw Mask end with 26 Decorations (from 9 Infected), same total Chris had (from 16 Infected). But while Mask had no dmg on her, Chris had 30 dmg on him. Under previous rules, Chris has more Health (120-30=90) than Mask (60 Health, 80 start and -20 for KO, no dmg on her), yet as I read the Merc rules, Mask wins.

Just wanted to ask about two things:

#1: Someone verify that there has indeed been a rule change regarding the tiebreaker and that it's not just my reading that's changed? -20 Max Health isn't considered damage, is it?

#2 (if point 1 is true): Someone have any insight as to why said rule was changed, especially given that all previous four sets shared the same breaker, most Health left wins. I guess it just boils down to those very rare, extreme cases where a character starting at 70 Max Health gets knocked out three times during a game (-60 Max Health, leaving him with 10 Health) gets the breaker over a character with 120 Max Health who isn't knocked out during the game, but has 5 dmg on him when the game ends (still 115 Health).

[dolphinsays]

i believe damage is more fair.
because you shouldnt be punished just because your character happens to start with less max health.
while avoiding damage has its fair share of luck it also is a measure of skill in itself.
more often then not it is the more skilled player who avoids damage.(though due to the nature of the game it may be the other way around).

[Dam the Man]

Hmm, but it would also benefit to be actually dead, KOd so many times you're out of the game as you can't have dmg on your character then .

Also, characters with more max health might be more inclined to take risks, knowing they aren't going to get one-shotted, but then you have someone like Premier Chris who simply can't even be healed. So if you take damage as Chris, you have to get KOd at least once to hope to have the breaker go your way ?

OT: While on the subject of Premier Chris, how exactly does he work with the way the rulebooks word returning after losing all your health:

"When your turn comes around, flip your Character face up. Reduce the
maximum Health of your Character by 20, Heal your Character to your
new Maximum Health amount, draw 5 new cards from your Inventory,
and end your turn." (Mercenaries, p. 11)

emphasis added

Since his character is face up again, doesn't that mean his lvl-abilities are effective, and his lvl 1 (0 Decoration req) states: "Chris cannot be Healed..." Nightmare rulebook (only other I did check) has the same wording.

[Khrest]

I am going to say that was unintentional. Tyler has made errors in the rulebook before so don't take it as the final say. Do what you think is reasonable. The game is flexible enough to include your own rules as long as you make sure everyone is aware of them.

[Dam the Man]

Oh, I wouldn't play it as is, intent is fairly clear. Just caught my eye, especially since I added the Mercenaries and one of the cards in it (Resuscitate) specifically uses the term "set health".

While on the subject of intent and Mercenaries, is there a difference between "give" and "take" when it comes to damage? Reversal lvl 1 and lvl 2 Skills both require you to give your character dmg to get their effects. Is giving damage considered taking damage for damage reduction effects? I think what might be throwing me off is Toughness lvl 2, which reduces dmg character takes by 10, while the master FAQ on said Toughness Skill mentions:

"Q: So this skill reduces any instance of damage by 10?
A: Yes, no matter what the source is." (p. 34)

[Khrest]

Giving damage is the term used to imply you have Done the damage to yourself. The term "take" implies that the damage is being given so its just different tenses for the same thing.

In the case of Reversal Lvl 1 you will give yourself 10 damage, therefore you will take 10 damage.
Just some wordplay and really doesn't effect gameplay.