The Asterisk Anomoly
by Tom Baumbach and Darth Trumpetus
There are eight cards with asterisks in the core Epic Duels game. The asterisks mark an attack or defend value, and draw your attention to corresponding text, informing you of some effect associated with the value marked. But is the asterisk more than just an attention grabber? To date, there has been no quantifiable rule about when a card should have an asterisk, and when it should not, which has resulted in an abundance of asterisks appearing in custom decks, and apparent confusion about their use. To discover the meaning behind the asterisk, we must first explore which cards use it, and the effect the asterisk references. The following cards make use of the asterisk:
*
All Too Easy (ATE): A3* [If this card is not blocked, the attacked character receives 20 damage instead of 3.]
*
Battlemind (BM): A*/D* [The attack and defense values of this card are equal to the number of cards in your hand after this card is played.]
*
Blinding Surge (BS): D0* [After taking the attacker’s damage, Darth Maul does 3 points of damage to the attacking character.]
*
Desperate Shot (DS): A7* [If you do not destroy the defending character with this card, destroy Greedo.]
*
Gambler’s Luck (GL): A4* [If Han does damage with this card, choose an opponent to discard a card at random.]
*
Justice (J): A4* [If Leia has been destroyed, the attack value of this card is 10.]
*
Kyber Dart (KD): A9* [After attacking, if you destroy the defending character, draw 3 cards.]
*
Sniper Shot (SS): A3* [If this card is not blocked, Zam does 6 damage instead of 3.]
The asterisk cards – at first glance – all contain an "if x, then y" conditional effect. There are two variations on the "if, then" conditional effect: if x has happened, then y is the new combat value, or if x is the combat result, then y happens. All cards with an asterisk fit into one of these categories, save one: "Blinding Surge" Furthermore, two cards – "Missle Launch" and "Dark Side Drain" both have an "if, then" conditional effect, but no asterisk. Therefore, a second – more encompassing – theory must define the asterisk. Rather than existing solely as an "if, then" function, an asterisk marks a change in the normal resolution of combat, or, a "combat phase modifier."
Combat Phase Flow Chart:
- Attacker plays attack card face down, and announces the attack.
- Defender plays defense card face up.
- The attack and defend values are compared and damage is dealt.
- The attacker's secondary effects (if any) occur.
- The defender's secondary effects (if any) occur.
All cards with an asterisk have a secondary effect that forces that effect to be resolved at some other point in the combat, rather than Step #4 or #5. How the asterisk is handled depends on the specific text, because the effect may be resolved before, or after the attack damage is dealt. The default resolution of secondary effects as described in the rulebook (where the attacker’s secondary effects are resolved first), does not necessarily apply.
Let’s work through a few examples. Here is “Gambler’s Luck” run through our theory. Changes to the standard order are highlighted in italics.
- Player plays “Gambler’s Luck” face-down.
- Opponent plays a defense card.
- Attack/Defense values are compared taking note of the asterisk effect. Here, the text says “If Han does damage with this card, choose an opponent to discard a card at random.” So, after damage is dealt, this secondary effect is applied.
- Attacker’s secondary effect (nothing happens because it is already resolved).
- Defender’s secondary effect (if any) is resolved.
So, in this case, “Gambler’s Luck” functions the same with or without an asterisk. In this instance, the asterisk has no bearing on the flow chart. However, if we look at a card like “Battlemind,” we get a very different picture:
- Opponent plays attack card.
- You play “Battlemind” face-up.
- Attack/Defense values are compared taking note of asterisk effects. If the attack card has an asterisk, resolve it accordingly; also resolve “Battlemind” prior to damage being dealt (count your hand).
- Attacker’s secondary effect (if it didn’t have an asterisk).
- Defender’s secondary effect (here “Battlemind” has already been resolved).
With “Battlemind,” the asterisk has a direct impact on when you calculate the defense value. If there wasn’t an asterisk, or the asterisk didn’t function as a combat phase modifier, then it would be impossible to defend or attack with “Battlemind” – it absolutely must be resolved before damage is dealt during step #3.
Why then, do “Gambler’s Luck” and similar cards carry an asterisk, if they don’t alter the standard combat resolution? For the answer we turn to Rob Davaiu, a co-creator of the Epic Duels game. In the official Epic Duels FAQ, Rob admitted, "Yoda was one of the first decks made. At the time we didn't know how high other character's attacks may be, so we thought 15 was high enough. Even when the others were done, we left room for expansions." So, despite the lack of concurrent deck development, we must assume there was some final editing when all the decks existed together. Thus, if certain cards with an asterisk appear to be redundant (or useless) it is for the same reason “Serenity” has an over-whelming defend value; we don’t know what potential expansions were planned.
It is worth noting here, that BS and BM are the only Power Defense cards with asterisks. “Counter Attack” and “Force Rebound” have stars, an eight-pointed icon, not a five-pointed asterisk. The star represents “infinity” as a value, and is explained in the first line of the card’s text, “/[This character/] takes no damage from the attack.” As such, the resolution of these cards falls into the normal combat resolution.
The same logic that changes normal combat resolution for asterisk cards explains why “Missile Launch” and “Dark Side Drain” don’t have asterisks; these cards weren’t designed to be resolved out of order. The specific example of “Dark Side Drain” versus “Blinding Surge” illustrates the necessary change in combat resolution an asterisk brings. If Vader, with 3 HP, attacks Maul, with 5 HP, using “Dark Side Drain,” and Maul defends with “Blinding Surge,” the end result is Maul winning, 2 HP to 0 HP. Because “Blinding Surge” has an asterisk, its secondary effect is resolved in Step #3 (see the Flow Cart), before “Dark Side Drain” is resolved, and thus before Vader can heal.
The asterisk as phase modifier does present one difficulty for game play when two asterisk cards meet in combat at the same point during step #3; which order are they resolved? Each card presents a different situation. Many cards, like “Gambler’s Luck,” designate when in Step #3 of the flow chart they’re to be resolved. Cards that change the attack or defend value, like ATE, BM, J and SS, must be resolved before damage is dealt, but cards like GL, KD, DS, and BS all are resolved after damage is dealt, but technically still in Step #3. It is possible then, that two cards with asterisk effects can occur in the same phase of Step #3 (Such as ATE, J, SS being played against BM). If such is the case, follow the standard rule of attacker’s secondary effects coming before the defender’s. In the case of Battlemind vs ATE and SS, simply playing the card during step #2 is sufficient to stop the conditional effect of a higher attack value at the start of Step #3.
The asterisk often represents an “if, then” function, but it doesn’t always have to. An asterisk simply informs the players to resolve the secondary effect earlier in the combat resolution. Attacker’s asterisks are not necessarily resolved before the defender’s asterisks if both cards have an asterisk; they are resolved on a case by case basis following the instructions on the card. It is only when two cards with an asterisk meet at the same point in step #3, would you apply the “attacker’s effects before defender’s rule.” More than an attention grabber, no longer an anomaly, the asterisk represents a hidden sophistication in Epic Duels, and serves to spark new ideas for expansion.
Comments (2)
Anonymous said
at 4:37 pm on Apr 19, 2007
What a ridiculous article! Who wrote this crap?
Anonymous said
at 5:09 pm on Apr 19, 2007
No doubt...what a couple of morons...
You don't have permission to comment on this page.