Support with Last Chance

[NeverEasy]

Do you think defensive support has an effect when rolling to see if Last Chance succeeds? What about if the attacker has cleave (and you have shield defense)?

So for example if my fighter is being attacked and about to be taken out of action and I have one defensive support, will it reduce the chances of succeeding at Last Chance, or should "not normally be a success for this fighter" be read as if you rolled a dice with no outside modifiers (support, cleave...)?

My guess would be that support/cleave does affect Last Chance. 

[Requizen]

Yeah, it's not really clear. "Normally in general" would only mean Crits or whats on the card. "Normally for this attack" would mean all modifiers are applied. Definitely needs an FAQ. 

[Biboune]

I think you don't care about  supports or cleave for the roll. That is what "normal" means in my opinion. I noticed that is written "roll a dice", i understand that even with a inspired Stormacast or Skaven (for example) you roll 1 dice and not 2 as if it were a "real" defense roll. The idea is not to have re roll like card for defense like those for attacks; it is a card like Daylight Robbery, Cruel Taunt but it is 66% succes chances for dodge model and 50% for shield model.

Acrobatic works the same way: the bonus is different if your defense characteristic is dodge or shield.

[Sleboda]

I think they count. If you were making a roll to defend the attack and that roll would fail, you get the last chance. If the roll would normally ( as in, without Last Chance) pass, you fail. 

 

Basically, the worse your chances would have been normally, the better they are for Last Chance.

[Hesa_First]

I thint the phrase "for this fighter" is key. It doesn`t say "for this attack".

So I assume the only important thing is  the defence characteristic of that fighter. The wording doesn't take the attack on the whole into account, so support and even On Guard is not considered.

Which makes this card not that great imo. 16,7% or 33,3%  (as mmimzie pointed out this is ******, it's 50% and 66%) success rate is bad for just damage prevention. Inferior to cards like Rebound imo.

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, Hesa_First said:

I thint the phrase "for this fighter" is key. It doesn`t say "for this attack".

So I assume the only important thing is  the defence characteristic of that fighter. The wording doesn't take the attack on the whole into account, so support and even On Guard is not considered.

Wich makes this card not that great imo. 16,7% or 33,3% success rate is bad for just damage prevention. Far inferior to cards like Rebound.

I dont get your math here??? It's either 50%  for a shield defender (shields+ crit) or a 66% for an avoid defender. 

[Hesa_First]

2 hours ago, mmimzie said:

I dont get your math here??? It's either 50%  for a shield defender (shields+ crit) or a 66% for an avoid defender. 

Oh wow, nightshifts mess my brain up. You are surely right.

 

[ReynakZhen]

My group and I agree with Sleboda's interpretation of the card. So, if I had Steelheart get taken out by inspired Fjul (who has cleave) then for Last Chance the only roll on a defense die that is not a failed result is a critical. Any other roll would save Steelheart from being removed from play.

[MBaxOne]

We had a Judges ruling at the Grand Clash in favour of ignoring situational successes and counting the typical successes bases on their stats. I think that makes the most sense, especially if you considering the use of "normally" in the wording. 

Hope that helps.