Assume that I encounter a villain, my party members temporarily close all other locations and I either I fail to defeat him or there is another villain in the deck. I explore again for a second encounter with a villain. Are all the locations still temporarily closed for the second encounter in both cases? The rules say that temporary closures are good for the rest of the turn, but they do state 'the villain cannot escape there' instead of 'no villains may escape there'.
This may be relevant to Under Jorgenfist.
That bit on temporarily closing locations should probably say "this encounter" rather than "this turn," since it then later says "the location opens again immediately after the encounter." Thanks for pointing that out.
|
Wow, how has this one gone undiscovered for so long? Nice job, mivanbie
I suspect it's because this is the first scenario that has the situation come up (namely two Villans in a location). I suppose it's possible it could have come up from someone failing to defeat the villan, then getting him back in the same location, but then having a remaining card to explore, and him coming on top, but that would be quite an unlikely series of occurences.
I have two follow-up questions to mlvanbie's (to avoid opening a new thread.)
1. I believe it is stated that when encountering a villain, attempt to temporarily close locations prior to resolving the villain encounter. Does it matter which order you do it in? I've found the process is more exciting to resolve the villain first, then try to "block" the avenues for escape, regardless of whether the villain is repositioning after victory or fleeing.
2. More for curiosity, why "temporarily close" rather than "blocking". From other posts from Mike, I'm going to assume it's because you don't want to add more terminology than you need to. But I found it easier to explain to my players that they are trying to block the villain from escaping.
|
|
I have two follow-up questions to mlvanbie's (to avoid opening a new thread.)
1. I believe it is stated that when encountering a villain, attempt to temporarily close locations prior to resolving the villain encounter. Does it matter which order you do it in? I've found the process is more exciting to resolve the villain first, then try to "block" the avenues for escape, regardless of whether the villain is repositioning after victory or fleeing.
2. More for curiosity, why "temporarily close" rather than "blocking". From other posts from Mike, I'm going to assume it's because you don't want to add more terminology than you need to. But I found it easier to explain to my players that they are trying to block the villain from escaping.
On 1, it should be before. You have to commit the resources to closing before fighting the Villan.
1. Yes. Not only is it the rules requirements, but knowing the outcome of the temporary closings might influence what you do with the villain. If, for instance, Merisiel encounters the villain and locations fail to get temporarily closed, she might decide to evade the villain.
Ah, good points I had not thought of.
