when a monster has two checks ie; check A and than Check B. If the player fails the 1st check does he still need to do the 2nd?
Yes. Failing a check means taking damage. So check 2 might give you damage as well.
If there’s a “then” between them, you’ll need to succeed at both checks sequentially; you must attempt both checks, even if you fail the first, because failure often has consequences.
I know when a monster has more than one check a 2nd player at that location can attempt one of them. My question is, if a monster has only 1 check Player A fails takes damage, can Player B than attempt to defeat the monster?
Nope.
Only the character who encounters the card may attempt the check, with one exception: if a card requires sequential checks, the character who encountered the card must attempt at least one of the checks, but other checks may each be attempted by any one character at the same location.
When you encounter a card, the other characters aren't encountering the card. Even if they attempt one of the two checks in a 2 check card, they still aren't encountering the card, just you.
And once you get to the end of the encountering a card sequence, if you didn't defeat the bane it gets shuffled back into the location. If you didn't acquire the boon it gets banished. So the moment your encounter ends the card is gone. And there is no way, generally, to allow someone else to encounter it.
Wands: they do not use the players Arcane die, right?
So far, right. They specifically tell you dice to roll and none of those dice are the character's skill dice.
Augury spell, can not search for villain/henchmen just monster, right?
You can. You can say "Villain" or "Henchmen" if you want. But even better, say "Monster". All villains, and most henchmen are monsters. So they count for that type as well.
Type: Most banes are either monsters or barriers. Most villains and henchmen have the “monster” type and count as monsters; a few henchmen have the “barrier” type and count as barriers.
So they count as monsters for Augury. So say "monsters" then if the villain/henchman is in the top 3, put them on top. If they aren't and you get other monsters, put them on bottom.
Loot also counts as a second type as well, which Lem might want to think about.
how do you get loot cards into a location stack?
In Rise of the Runelords, you don't. But in Skull and Shackles you can. There are things that can take cards from players and put them into locations. That card might end up being loot.
But I was referencing Lem for another reason that doesn't have to do with location decks. Though, truthfully every character might care. Think about favorite card type and loot. And you'll see why it is important to consider loot to be both loot and whatever other type is on the loot card.
If your favored card type is Item and you draw a bunch of blessings and the Sihedron Medallion in your starting hand, you've met the requirements of your starting hand.
If your favorite card type is weapon and you draw a bunch of items and the Impaler of Thorns, you've met the requirements of your starting hand.
And if you give Lem the Snakeskin Tunic, and he has no other loot cards, since he can choose his favorite type of card for his starting hand...well, he can say something that would guarantee he starts with the Snakeskin Tunic.
how do you get loot cards into a location stack?In Rise of the Runelords, you don't. But in Skull and Shackles you can. There are things that can take cards from players and put them into locations. That card might end up being loot.
But I was referencing Lem for another reason that doesn't have to do with location decks. Though, truthfully every character might care. Think about favorite card type and loot. And you'll see why it is important to consider loot to be both loot and whatever other type is on the loot card.
If your favored card type is Item and you draw a bunch of blessings and the Sihedron Medallion in your starting hand, you've met the requirements of your starting hand.
If your favorite card type is weapon and you draw a bunch of items and the Impaler of Thorns, you've met the requirements of your starting hand.
And if you give Lem the Snakeskin Tunic, and he has no other loot cards, since he can choose his favorite type of card for his starting hand...well, he can say something that would guarantee he starts with the Snakeskin Tunic.
RotR Lem can also discard one loot to get back another.
|
Yeah, double-checking the rulebook Loot cards count as the Type on the card, as do Villains and Henchmen.
So I don't think you can Augury for Loot, Villain, or Henchmen, as their Type is replaced by the specifics of the card.
EDIT: And Lem cannot replace one Loot with another, unless they are both Items or whatever.
Yeah, double-checking the rulebook Loot cards count as the Type on the card, as do Villains and Henchmen.
So I don't think you can Augury for Loot, Villain, or Henchmen, as their Type is replaced by the specifics of the card.
EDIT: And Lem cannot replace one Loot with another, unless they are both Items or whatever.
We started playing villain and henchman as types but switched to not counting that as the type after thinking about it more. The card says what type it is (monster or barrier). I always viewed the villain/henchman type as purely there to prevent you from mixing them with the other monsters and barriers. It never even occurred to us to treat Loot as a type, since they aren't a type in your deck list...
Villain's count as two types of card. They count as villains, and they count as monsters. So if you play Augury and say "villain" you can only place the villain on top or bottom. But if you say "monster" you can place any monsters, including the villain, on top or bottom. If they didn't count as both types, the wording on Detect Evil would be irrelevant.
Likewise with henchmen or loot. They count as both types. So Lem can replace Loot/Weapon with Loot/Item. Or a Loot/Item with another Item.
EDIT: And Lem cannot replace one Loot with another, unless they are both Items or whatever.
Why not? Loot is a card type. Most (all?) loot just also happens to be another type as well.
EDIT: Missed that part of Hawkmoon's post. Don't mean to seem like I'm ganging up on you.
Huh. Interesting. Calling monster/barrier is still the better bet for augury. But good to know. Another example of the game sometimes being unintuitive.
Note that ships are another card type as well.
Not that they can be Augury'd, pseudo-Mend'd, or Favorite Card Type'd.
|
|
No problem, Orbis.
I had not seen the previous thread and ruling from the devs.
My reading of
Also, loot cards list a type, such as “weapon”; apart from the way loot cards are acquired, they behave just like other boons of that type and count as cards of that type.
(bold mine) was that Loot was not the "Type" of the card, but only what is under the nice little graphic which says "Type" is.
I have no problem with the ruling, but for clarity the rules could say "additionally" or "as well".
Ah, I see. I assumed it was "cards of that type [as well]" and you assumed it was "cards of that type [instead]."
I hadn't remembered the exact wording. I interpreted it my way, and, seeing the official ruling going with it, I never thought about the exact wording again. It does appear to be an easy mistake, now that I consider the wording.
From a player's perspective, I can't see why you'd Augury for "villains" or "henchman." Now, if I could search for "bane" or "boon," that would open up an extra layer of flexibility.
|
|
From a player's perspective, I can't see why you'd Augury for "villains" or "henchman." Now, if I could search for "bane" or "boon," that would open up an extra layer of flexibility.
If you're down to the last few cards in the Blessing Deck, and have to close locations fast, I can see using Augury to bring those Henchmen up.
The only case where using Augury for Villian/Henchman makes more sense than Monster/Barrier is if you don't know what type the Villians/Henchmen are. My group tried not to "peek" when building the decks and once we Augured for Monsters to come across a Henchman that was a Barrier and couldn't place it where we wanted, frustratingly. But since 90% of Villian/Henchman cards are Monsters, its generally a safer bet to just pick Monster and see what happens. If you don't find the Villian/Henchman, at least you get to shove the monsters to the bottom of the deck.
Ranzak, on the other hand, should clearly get (in the future where we have alternate versions of Ranzak, as we clearly should) favored card type: loot. Preferably with an upgrade to be able to recover other players' loot out of their discard piles, or to get dibs on any loot acquired.
|
Ranzak, on the other hand, should clearly get (in the future where we have alternate versions of Ranzak, as we clearly should) favored card type: loot. Preferably with an upgrade to be able to recover other players' loot out of their discard piles, or to get dibs on any loot acquired.
Being able to pull discards from other players' discard piles could be interesting, but getting first pick goes not only against the spirit of the game, but the spirit of the character. He's a scavenger, he takes whatever he can get. If anything, it would be that he wasn't allowed to take loot at the time you got it as a reward.
Not player's arcane die, no. But there are a few things that would add to it. It is still and arcane check, since the arcane trait is on the card and you are playing it to determine which skill you're using. So Ezren's Evoker power would apply. As would the Acolyte and Pyromaniac Magee allies, if I am remembering them correctly.
You know, I personally think that IF a card could NOT count as two different card types (villains and henchmen also being monsters, loot also being weapons or whatnot), it would make more sense for you to have to say Villain, Henchman, or Loot. The only way I could see it as being seperate is if you were ignoring the card text and looking at the type of card. So, if we were to say that each card can only be one type, I find the argument that all Loot cards are just Loot and nothing else and all Henchmen are Henchmen and not monsters or barriers etc a more compelling argument.
That being said, I see no problem with cards being dual type.
In fact, I think it would be cool to see other hybrids. Like the Belaying Pin (I think it is - it's a weapon that lets you evade instead of perform combat), that could be a Weapon/Item.
You know, I personally think that IF a card could NOT count as two different card types (villains and henchmen also being monsters, loot also being weapons or whatnot), it would make more sense for you to have to say Villain, Henchman, or Loot. The only way I could see it as being seperate is if you were ignoring the card text and looking at the type of card. So, if we were to say that each card can only be one type, I find the argument that all Loot cards are just Loot and nothing else and all Henchmen are Henchmen and not monsters or barriers etc a more compelling argument.
That being said, I see no problem with cards being dual type.
In fact, I think it would be cool to see other hybrids. Like the Belaying Pin (I think it is - it's a weapon that lets you evade instead of perform combat), that could be a Weapon/Item.
If they could only be one type, I don't see how you could go Loot/Villian/Henchman when the card specifically calls out a Type (Monster, Barrier, Item, etc). I always thought that would be the only type for the card because, for exampele, the Sihedron Medallion card specifically says "Type: Item" on it. If it had said "Additional Type" or something along those lines I would have thought "ok, Loot & Item".
Also if you only consider Loot cards as Loot rather than the Type listed on the card you could never hold them in your deck as there aren't any (and likely will never be any) characters that have Loot listed as a card type for their decks (another reason that considering Loot as a type is unintuitive). In fact, in the Between Games deck building instructions it says:
Loot cards count as cards of their type. For example, if your character’s Cards List specifies 3 items, and you keep 1 loot card with the item type when your rebuild your deck, your deck must contain exactly 2 other items.
And in the card type descriptions it says:
Also, loot cards list a type, such as “weapon”; apart from the way loot cards are acquired, they behave just like other boons of that type and count as cards of that type.
And
Type: Most banes are either monsters or barriers. Most villains and henchmen have the “monster” type and count as monsters; a few henchmen have the “barrier” type and count as barriers.
So, despite the fact that Mike & Vic are both on record saying that Loot, Villain and Henchman cards have two types, every time the rule book refers to them it says they count as the type listed on the card. I don't see how this could be read as "They count as henchmen and monsters", since that clearly isn't what it says, even though it is what was intended.
My argument for them being Loot/Henchmen not Item//Monster goes into that it is basically an effect giving them their second card type. But I'm willing to yield there.
I still don't see why it couldn't be considered both, even without Mike and Vic's sayso.
Is there anywhere in the book where it says that they no longer count as loot/villain/henchmen? No. The book says "they count as monster." That does NOT mean they no longer count as henchmen. It's not mutually exclusive.
My argument for them being Loot/Henchmen not Item//Monster goes into that it is basically an effect giving them their second card type. But I'm willing to yield there.
I still don't see why it couldn't be considered both, even without Mike and Vic's sayso.
Is there anywhere in the book where it says that they no longer count as loot/villain/henchmen? No. The book says "they count as monster." That does NOT mean they no longer count as henchmen. It's not mutually exclusive.
Agreed. But it is not intuitive. If they had come out and said that it went the other way (Villian cards count as Monster only for the purpose of things like Augury, Loot cards count as Item/Weapon/Spell/Armor only for the purpose of abilities like Lems (much like they do for deck building)) would it have been shocking? Would that have even required changing the wording of any of the rules?
It would have surprised me, and required an addition to the FAQ, but the wordings are indeed close enough that I think a FAQ entry would be all that's strictly needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cards can have more than one type. So:
1) Lem can choose loot as his favored card type.
2) You can only play one loot on a check.
3) If a loot item says you can use another item on a check, you can use another item, including another loot that is an item, but not another loot that's not an item.
4) You can Augury for henchmen or villains.
5) Y'know, everything else about cards.
Ahhh #2 hadn't even occurred to me!
So if I use a Loot weapon I can't use a Sihedron Medallion to mitigate the damage!
Cards can have more than one type. So:
1) Lem can choose loot as his favored card type.
2) You can only play one loot on a check.
3) If a loot item says you can use another item on a check, you can use another item, including another loot that is an item, but not another loot that's not an item.
4) You can Augury for henchmen or villains.
5) Y'know, everything else about cards.
Number three seems hokey to me...
You bypass the "one [item] per check" rule but you have still already played a loot on the check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoops, good catch. Pretend I said:
3) If a loot item says you can use another item on a check, you can use another item, but not another loot.
|
|
Again...I am mystified at the logic behind this. Perhaps it's just me, but there you have it. Each loot card HAS a type. I can't see any reason why they should behave as if they have two. Obviously this is just me ranting, at this point. I certainly don't expect you to change your mind...but I know how I am house ruling this one.
We actually have been playing it as Loot is of the type specified a little lower on the card ... like weapon or item or armor. We have allowed Villain or Henchmen for Augury but not Loot. (And other powers, etc. that specify a card type.) I don't like the idea that you can't use a Loot weapon and a Loot item in the same check. (Impaler and Medallion) Going to house-rule that as well.
It makes Loot a little less valuable overall if all the cards are of Loot type as well as the other type.
Maybe it's supposed to. The Impaler of Thorns is the best weapon until, what, AP 4? And you don't have to find and acquire it. Likewise, the Medallion is much better than Bracers or Amulet of Life. It could be a balancing thing.
And while you're keeping it from being a little lame if you run a Loot weapon and a Medallion, you're making it a littl lame for the Bards with a favorite card type and especially RotR Lem.
Lastly, what if they come up with a card that specifies loot on it? Like a card that returns a Loot from your discard to your hand or something. Or if they make an Augury for character decks or something.
IDK. It baffles me why you'd bother to house rule something like that.
Yeah, I never thought Loot would be part of the "only one of each type" restriction. It really doesn't make sense to me, either.
-You can only use one Armor: Okay, you can't wear two suits of armor at once.
-You can only use one Weapon: Okay, you can only swing with one weapon (unless you have some kind of two weapon fighting powers).
-You can only use one Item: Okay, you only have enough time to pull out and use one item (items that are easy to wear are fine because you're probably already wearing them).
-You can only use one Spell: Okay, spells take time to cast.
-You can only use one Blessing: Takes time to pray and be answered? Okay.
-You can only use one Loot, even if one Loot is Armor and one is Weapon: ....Your armor and weapon are both so shiny and cool that you can't utilize that much awesome at one time???
I really don't get it.
|
|
Mainly because we've already used Loot/Loot in encounters. And honestly, we've never played that Loot was a card Type. It was a Meta-type. And none of the groups I've played with ever considered Loot as a card type. So the "house rule" I'm talking about is not saying anything.
And while there are better boons in the game, doesn't mean you have them in your deck or hand. And I'm not suddenly going to tell the others that this boon can't be played with this boon even though it's a weapon and this is an item.
|
|
Yeah, I never thought Loot would be part of the "only one of each type" restriction. It really doesn't make sense to me, either.
-You can only use one Armor: Okay, you can't wear two suits of armor at once.
-You can only use one Weapon: Okay, you can only swing with one weapon (unless you have some kind of two weapon fighting powers).
-You can only use one Item: Okay, you only have enough time to pull out and use one item (items that are easy to wear are fine because you're probably already wearing them).
-You can only use one Spell: Okay, spells take time to cast.
-You can only use one Blessing: Takes time to pray and be answered? Okay.
-You can only use one Loot, even if one Loot is Armor and one is Weapon: ....Your armor and weapon are both so shiny and cool that you can't utilize that much awesome at one time???
I really don't get it.
Me either.
You need to think about Sage's Journal too. It specifically helps to defeat henchmen and villains, with no reference to any other type (barrier or monster). So if they are considered at "type" there, would you not consider them a type in other circumstances?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly fine with Loot, Henchmen, and Villains all being considered to be types. I just don't think Loot should be part of the "only one of each type" restriction. This is the only instance that I can think of that having these cards using two types makes the game less fun and illogical. There might be some other cases, but for now this is the only one I see. Case in point:
How would the "only one Loot" rule work with a card like this? If I have the Runeforge Weapons and come up against a Transmuter, I now can't use any of the Loot cards in my hand during the encounter?
During playtest I got the impressing that the developers wanted Loot to be cards that players would want to use. This makes them much less attractive. It is especially bad for single character games when there is only one character to hold all of the cool Loot cards. At a point, Loot would start to become a burden.
How would the "only one Loot" rule work with a card like this? If I have the Runeforge Weapons and come up against a Transmuter, I now can't use any of the Loot cards in my hand during the encounter?
This specifically is a non-issue since you don't play the Runeforged Weapons. I agree that this feels like it swings the pendulum into both being very limiting for Loot cards and also kinda OP for characters who can pick their card type, but you won't likely ever play a Loot card on a check involuntarily (barring some weird bane power)
It seems like another one of those rules that's just sort of a by-product of how the game is designed. The developers *could* make a specific rule separating what qualifies as a card type under which situation (or introduce "sub-type" or something), but why bother if the current system works? Maybe it's a false read, but I get the feeling since this game is somewhat complex already, the designers try not to add additional rules that complicate gameplay if they aren't necessary. Sort of like the caltrops vs skeleton situation: it doesn't make sense that a skeleton would be affected, but forcing every situation to make sense would cause an absolute mess of specific interactions being imposed on cards and in the rules.
Personally, though, I don't think loot should be an equal to weapon/spell/item etc, just because it doesn't describe what type of card it is; all it means is how the card is acquired. If a spell loot card reduces damage, why should it also matter if an armor you're also playing to reduce damage is loot or not?