Chief Technical Officer
|
The scenario says "...if you would encounter Kerdak Bonefist, summon and encounter the Filthy Lucre instead; Kerdak Bonefist is undefeated."
The first sentence of Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations says "When a character
encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location."
The key here is in the "would... instead" construction on the scenario card. When you "would" do A but "instead" do B, it means A does not happen. In this case, you did not encounter the villain, and so anything that begins with the condition "When a character encounters a villain" cannot happen. So no, no temp closing for you.
|
Wow, I didn't even think about that Ferrell. I'd say yes, since it does specify he is undefeated. That's brutal. If course, it is the final scenario (if I remember right), so I expect brutal. Heck, the last scenario of Runelords ended one of two ways. You won, or every character was dead, there was no alternative.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you're not actually encountering him, you don't ever get to the "Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes" portion of the "Encountering a Villain" rules. His being undefeated just means that you just shuffle him back into the deck he came from.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Hmm... so really, Bonefist is a sort of combination of undefeated and evaded. This might need some text clarification, cuz I was also thinking that you'd have to shuffle blessings in from the blessings deck and hide him. If he shuffles back into the same deck, then you've learned where he is, which is a HUGE advantage as well.
Seems like evaded would've been the better word choice here. When I see undefeated regarding a villain, I think 'shuffle blessings from the deck.' I get that 'would' has a codified meaning in Pathfinder, but in that case why specify the villain is undefeated at all? Using "undefeated"was a lot of people's issue with Bizarre Love Triangle too, making the scenario much harder than it should've been.
By the undefeated wording I too thought that he would escape and thus you'd automatically lose a bunch of blessings from the blessings deck. Which is pretty brutal, but this is the final scenario so such a thing would not exactly be unprecedented.
If otherwise, I think a proper FAQ entry would be in order clarifying the card text that he is evaded rather than undefeated (as evaded would mean he shuffles back into his deck with no other ill effects from him, whereas a villain that is undefeated means it escapes somewhere).
Personally, I'm more of a fan of my initial reading where he does actually escape and you lose a chunk of blessings from the blessings deck. It puts more on the line and makes it truly seem like a final scenario where you barely eke out a win (which is the best kind of winning imo as it gives you stories to talk about later). This would put value on cards like Augury/Scrying/Farglass/Spyglass/etc. that let you examine location decks so that you aren't suddenly screwed and I think would still be very doable although I haven't tried it.
I'm with everyone here; my group also assumed that the scenario was specifically worded in order to make you burn blessings from the blessings deck. Seemed appropriately vicious for the final scenario of the adventure path.
Add me to the list of people who believed the guy was eating blessings and escaping to another location. But of course, Vic's explanation makes sense. Maybe a note about the "would… instead" construction could be added to the rulebook? It seems it has to be cleared up on the messageboards every few months.
We'll try to beat the Hurricane King for the third time this evening, but this time we'll play it by the rules. With 6 characters and 8 villains, it should definitely be easier.
Yeah, if he's undefeated, then you're going to lose blessings. That's how undefeated villains work.
Otherwise, it needs to be errata'd to say "Kerdak Bonefist is evaded."
It doesn't need errata because the "would encounter... instead" construction means Kerdak is never encountered and thus the steps when encountering villains never trigger. You never get to the "check to see whether the villain escapes" step because there is no encounter with the villain. The undefeated therefore just follows the regular rules for undefeated cards, which means it is shuffled back into the location deck.
I do agree that changing the wording to being evaded makes it more obvious, but the wording as-is supports what Vic wrote above and as such doesn't need a change.
|
Yeah, if he's undefeated, then you're going to lose blessings. That's how undefeated villains work.
Otherwise, it needs to be errata'd to say "Kerdak Bonefist is evaded."
It doesn't need errata because the "would encounter... instead" construction means Kerdak is never encountered and thus the steps when encountering villains never trigger. You never get to the "check to see whether the villain escapes" step because there is no encounter with the villain. The undefeated therefore just follows the regular rules for undefeated cards, which means it is shuffled back into the location deck.
I do agree that changing the wording to being evaded makes it more obvious, but the wording as-is supports what Vic wrote above and as such doesn't need a change.
That's kind of the point of the errata. We understand that you don't actually encounter Kerdak Bonefist. But as it stands with the wording "; Kerdak Bonefist is undefeated.", people assume that the Undefeated makes you perform those steps. Changing it from undefeated to evaded is the only errata that is needed.