Let's put things in context:
Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations. When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location. If any character at a location succeeds, his location is temporarily closed and the villain cannot escape there this encounter (see Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes on page 16). Temporarily closing a location does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location; the location opens again immediately after the encounter.
Characters may attempt to close locations in any order they wish.
Summon and defeat a random barrier; if undefeated, each character at this location randomly chooses a location and moves to it.
Someone encounters the villain and characters A and B are located at Fringes of the Eye. They attempt to temporarily close the location. Character A summons a barrier and fails to defeat it. What happens next?
A) each character at this location randomly chooses a location and moves to it ? If so, can character B attempt to temporarily close location L where he ends up moving to or did he miss the chance because he no longer is in the location he was originally (may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location)?
or B) Temporarily closing a location does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location and thus the each character at this location randomly chooses a location and moves to it part of When Closing doesn't trigger? I always thought that sentence in the rulebook just meant that you didn't apply When Permanently Closed effects but I'm starting to wonder if it could be something else.
I'd say A. I wouldn't say B, you should definitely move. (And this isn't an effect from closing a location, it is an effect from not closing a location.)
|
I'd say A. I wouldn't consider the move another effect of closing, it's part of the requirement to close, so anyone there would move. It is now Character B's turn to temp close, and he would close the new location. The word immediately wouldn't stop this because you still always have to finish one thing before doing another, and moving was still part of Character A's temp close.
Have to somewhat disagree with you there Andrew.
I'd choose option A as well, that is part of the closing requirement. You follow all "When Closing" requirements and effects when temporarily closing, however if successful you do not do any "When Permanently Closed" effects nor flip the card over because you didn't permanently close the location. I would additionally rule that character B would not necessarily get a chance to close his new location -- it depends on the decision character B made immediately after the villain was flipped over.
Here is the full rule for clarification:
When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfull the When Closing requirement for his location. If any character at a location succeeds, his location is temporarily closed and the villain cannot escape there this encounter (see Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes on page 16). Temporarily closing a location does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location; the location opens again immediately after the encounter.
Characters may attempt to close locations in any order they wish.
So the sequencing would work as follows (Valeros is at the Harbor, Lem and Kyra are at Fringes of the Eye, and Merisiel is at Lonely Isle. It is Valeros's turn):
- 1. Valeros flips over the top card of the Harbor, it is the villain.
- 2. At this point, the other characters immediately need to decide if they are going to attempt to temporarily close their location. Lem and Kyra both decide they want a crack at Fringes of the Eye because why not, and Merisiel also attempts to temporarily close because she picked up a worthless ally the turn prior.
- 3. Now that each character has decided to temp close, they go in the order of their choosing. Merisiel goes first and banishes the ally she just picked up. Lonely Isle is temporarily closed.
- 4. Kyra decides to go next, because Lem can give her some extra dice due to sharing the location. She summons and encounters the barrier Sandbar. Merisiel and Valeros move to the Fringes of the Eye as well due to that, and Kyra attempts the check. Even with Lem's bonus die, she manages to roll all 1's and fails. Sandbar is banished since it was summoned (p14) and Fringes of the Eye is not temporarily closed.
- 5. Kyra, Lem, Valeros, and Merisiel now each go to a random location. Lem winds up at the Holy Isle, Valeros heads to the Festhall, and Kyra and Merisiel go the Harbor.
- 6. Lem is up next, and has previously decided that he also wanted to close. As such, he gets a shot at closing Holy Isle now with the Wisdom Divine 7 check. If Lem decided he was going to pass in step 2, then he would not get the chance to close Holy Isle as the decision to temporarily close would no longer fall under "immediately" (as a bunch of things have happened in the meantime).
- 7. To further illustrate that, Valeros does not get a chance to close the Festhall, as he did not decide in step 2 that he was going to temporarily close (nor could he, since he wasn't at an "other location" at the time).
- 8. Valeros now encounters the villain and goes through the rest of the steps for fighting the villain. If successful, the villain's location (Harbor) is permanently closed, despite Valeros being at the Festhall.
As a note: if Kyra succeeded at beating the Sandbar, then Lem would still need to summon another random barrier. Fringes of the Eye would be temporarily closed regardless of the outcome, but once you make the decision to temporarily close your location you have to commit to it (even if extenuating circumstances happened in the meantime).
(EDIT: changed encountered barrier to better illustrate the difference between opting to temp close or not in step 2)
So, you are basically saying you have to all decide before anyone attempts and that you are locked in once you decide? I've never read it that way. If I've had multiple characters at the same location, we just say "Who is going to try first?" And someone goes.
I'm pretty sure I've been at a location with someone else who failed to close and as a result I lost a lot of my hand (a monster that dealt damage to all or something as the closing requirement or a ship and we took so much damage I gave up cards to save the ship). I'd been planning on trying originally, but with my depleted hand, I opted not too.
If you took what you are saying a step further, wouldn't you also be saying that even if the first character at the location succeeds, the second character still has to try because they already decided to do so?
I'm not sure the decision has to be so divorced from the action.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. I can see it either way, honestly, but for me immediately = before anything else happens. Other characters attempting to temp close would count as other stuff happening. With my method, taking it a step farther (as you said) would indeed force you to make duplicated checks -- I already indicated such in my post above.
If the decision step didn't happen first, how would you rule for Valeros at the Festhall? Does he get a chance to temp close the Festhall despite being the one that encountered the villain to begin with?
As written, maybe. It could definitely be argued that way. Though given the sequence you laid out and the spirit of the rule, I wouldn't be surprised to see that temporary closing rule tweaked to say "each other character at any location" in the future.
But, I think I could also reason that the only characters that get to attempt are the characters at other locations when the villain is encountered. In other words, the characters that get to attempt are the ones at other locations when the villain was encountered. They get to attempt at the location they are at when they make the attempt. And they go in the order they choose by decide-attempt, decide-attempt.
One other problem with having them all decide before anyone attempts, but then forcing them to attempt at the location they end up at is this: What if they end up at a permanently closed location? They've already decided they would attempt it, but now they are at a location where they can't attempt it.
We are definitely in a unique corner case here, but one that is possible.
If they end up at a permanently closed location, then nothing happens. There are no "When Closing" requirements on the closed side of locations, so you'd ignore that rule per the golden rules.
Going decide-attempt, decide-attempt, etc can also work (and is simpler to manage since you don't have to keep track of who decided what at the beginning), but it allows exploiting loopholes like this one or other movement cards/powers (provided they can be used during checks or encounters) with no downsides, whereas deciding first adds a negative drawback to attempting such shenanigans in case it doesn't pan out exactly the way you want. That is the main reason I'm arguing my stance.
The intent of the rule to me seems to simply be that they don't want to let you temp close the villain's location, otherwise you could win even if losing the encounter. I just personally also feel that no character should be pulling double duty in both closing a location and fighting the villain, although there is no notion of that being explicitly forbidden in the rules. If the decide-attempt decide-attempt cycle does turn out to be correct, I would begrudgingly say Valeros would get a chance to temp close the Festhall in my hypothetical scenario above, because he is no longer at the villain's location.
Let's put things in context:
Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations. When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location. If any character at a location succeeds, his location is temporarily closed and the villain cannot escape there this encounter (see Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes on page 16). Temporarily closing a location does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location; the location opens again immediately after the encounter.
Characters may attempt to close locations in any order they wish.Summon and defeat a random barrier; if undefeated, each character at this location randomly chooses a location and moves to it.Someone encounters the villain and characters A and B are located at Fringes of the Eye. They attempt to temporarily close the location. Character A summons a barrier and fails to defeat it. What happens next?
1. Fringes is not temporarily closed.
2. Characters A and B randomly move.3. Character B may not attempt to close her new location. The immediate opportunity has passed.
"Other effects of closing a location" refer to anything that is not the when closing line - Ranzak's klepto power, the permanent-closed effect on the location, etc.
I'm not so sure the immediate opportunity has passed. I don't think we can take "immediate" here to mean "the very next thing that must happen". If it did, then only the first character to make an attempt to temporarily close would be doing it immediately. Everyone else would be doing it after that character.
Picture this:
Character A at location 1.
Character B at location 2.
Character C at location 3.
Character A explores and encounters the villain. Character B attempts to close location 2 by summoning and defeating some henchmen. She is successful. Can character C attempt to close location 3? It isn't "immediate" anymore. Clearly they can, otherwise you'd only ever get to attempt at one location. So immediate can't mean "you must do this before anything else happens" because lots of stuff is likely to happen before you get to attempt it.
I take "immediate" to mean that the only actions you can perform are related to temporarily closing the location. No playing cure or a card that lets you move.
In the rules you are required to declare if you are going to attempt to close before anyone actually attempts the check (I don't remember the exact rule, but I'm confident I did read that). Based on that, I feel that no matter what order the close checks resolve in, both player get an opportunity to close the location they are at, even if they are no longer at the location.
So, from my perspective, the player moves, but still must attempt to close the Fringes of the Eye, in the same vein as when you encounter a monster but are moved to another location, you still encounter the monster.
Character A explores and encounters the villain. Character B attempts to close location 2 by summoning and defeating some henchmen. She is successful. Can character C attempt to close location 3? It isn't "immediate" anymore. Clearly they can, otherwise you'd only ever get to attempt at one location. So immediate can't mean "you must do this before anything else happens" because lots of stuff is likely to happen before you get to attempt it.
I take "immediate" to mean that the only actions you can perform are related to temporarily closing the location. No playing cure or a card that lets you move.
I see B and C's actions as being simultaneous - you choose the sequence for resolving them though.
With Fringes, if B and C are both there, then their immediate opportunity is there. If B fails and C is moved as a result, C doesn't get a chance on the new location. (I'm not sure if C would still get a try on Fringes if moved away from Fringes. Or, for that matter, if randomly "moved" to Fringes by this effect.)
In the rules you are required to declare if you are going to attempt to close before anyone actually attempts the check (I don't remember the exact rule, but I'm confident I did read that). Based on that, I feel that no matter what order the close checks resolve in, both player get an opportunity to close the location they are at, even if they are no longer at the location.
So, from my perspective, the player moves, but still must attempt to close the Fringes of the Eye, in the same vein as when you encounter a monster but are moved to another location, you still encounter the monster.
I quoted the entirety of the rule in my first post, there is no explicit mention of a separate declaration step for temp closing (although that is my favored interpretation). I'll give the rulebook, FAQs, and forums a more thorough searching for similar rules once I get home from work though to see if there is precedent elsewhere that can be applied here.
Using my constructed scenario above, at first I also thought with my interpretation that Lem would attempt to close Fringes despite being at Holy Isle, but decided against it at the time by reading "his location" as a loose concept meaning "the location the character is at when they make the attempt" rather than fixing it to the location they were at when they made the decision. After considering this again, and considering what I believe to be the intent of the rule (aka temp closing the villain's location is a no-no), I think I now favor your reading more in that Lem would attempt to close Fringes (assuming that the separate decision step was the way it works). If there is no separate decision step as Hawkmoon is arguing, then Lem would get to close Holy Isle and Valeros would get to close Festhall.
Once I get home I'll make a more well-researched post by evaluating precedent elsewhere for things like what immediately means, and how location hopping in medias res affects what happens after.
The rules don't pointedly say that 'the players that chose to attempt to temporarily close their locations may do so in any order they wish.'
The "Characters may attempt" part still remains as a 'may;' even if a character wished to try to close and then things changed, the 'may' is still there, so it still remains a choice at that character's point in the order.
|
I think the problem is thus ...
The rulebook says "immediately attempt" but in the next paragraph says "in any order". That's not immediately. The true execution of immediately would be everyone attempting their location close at the same time and any consequences would occur after that attempt.
But that's not what is happening. The "immediately" is not really immediate, it is sequentially. And the impact of the sequence impacts the attempts of the rest of the party.
I don't remember ever having to make a conscious decision whether to attempt the close prior to the attempt. It was simply a choice. (Given that I've participated in more that one scenario where two or more characters were at a location when a temp close was needed. One character tried and failed. The other then attempts and succeeds. I have never played where a character decides to attempt the close and the other decides not to then the first fails but the second cannot because he decided beforehand. That doesn't make sense to me.)
Since the impact results in moving to a new location, and it is actually a sequence of events happening, that "immediately" should still apply to the new location. I would play it that way.
The idea of "immediately" and "in any order" really don't go hand-in-hand and you need a bit of leeway to make it work.
Regarding skizzerz's interpretation, I cannot believe the design team intends anyone to attempt to temporarily close a location which is already temporarily closed.
The only thing I'm claiming the design team intended is that they don't want you to be able to temp close the villain's location, everything else I've said is my own personal speculation and interpretation of the Rules as Written (If RAW and intent clash, I go with RAW in most cases). That said, the rules leave open the possibility of multiple people attempting a close check on the same location with "If any character at a location succeeds" -- granted this is to make it clear that you don't need everyone at that location to individually succeed and not a hard indication that my favored interpretation is correct where you may be forced to perform the check on a location that has already been temporarily closed. There are no hard indications to either interpretation with the rule in question, and this is why I want to research what precedents exist elsewhere.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I haven't discussed with Mike, but I would say that the answer is in this sentence:
When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location.
"When" is perhaps even more important than "immediately" here. When the character encounters the villain, the other two characters are at Fringes of the Eye, so that's "his location" for this effect.
I haven't discussed with Mike, but I would say that the answer is in this sentence:
When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location.
I would say that too.
I think the problem is thus ...
The rulebook says "immediately attempt" but in the next paragraph says "in any order". That's not immediately. The true execution of immediately would be everyone attempting their location close at the same time and any consequences would occur after that attempt.
But that's not what is happening. The "immediately" is not really immediate, it is sequentially. And the impact of the sequence impacts the attempts of the rest of the party.
The sequence is a way of preventing chaos where several characters need to do simultaneous actions, such as temp closes. It's still immediate, because helping other characters with their sequenced simultaneous actions isn't taking an action that would forfeit your immediate option.
So, if moved, they could temp close the Fringes?
Definitely if moved from the Fringes to the Fringes. Not sure (and I'm leaning toward yes now) if moved to another location.
So I looked through the forums, trawled the FAQs, and gave the rulebook a good perusing, and as far as I can tell temporarily closing locations is the only time in the game that multiple characters need to do something "immediately." Taking cues from Vic and Mike, and focusing instead on the flavor of what is happening rather than precedent from elsewhere, I still believe that there is a separate "decision" step implied when temporarily closing, due to the emphasis on "When" as well constraining the scope of the "immediately". I'll post a revised version of my example scenario above with my reasoning to that end.
Precedent: There are plenty of other cards that make use of the word "immediately" that are well-agreed on. Most henchmen let you immediately attempt to close your location upon being defeated. At the Sea Fort, you can immediately explore again if you defeat a monster during your exploration. It is well-understood by the community that in these instances, "immediately" indicates that you cannot do anything else in the meantime (such as play a Cure or move), if you do the thing you must do it as the next thing you do.
However, this is tempered by the "Finish one thing before you start another" rule. If you're at the Sea Fort and you encounter Owlbeartross, you also get to fight a Riptide Grindylow. Let's say you win against the Grindylow. You defeated a monster during your exploration so you may immediately explore again, except there's still that pesky Owlbeartross in the way. So you fight it and lose horribly because Owlbeartross sucks. It's not in the art but his hands are probably made of Galvos and he is most certainly riding a shark that quite possibly has lasers attached to its head. You don't even know what a laser is, that's how much he sucks. Still bitter about this, you realize that your exploration is now over but you did manage to defeat a monster during it, so you still get your free explore if you want to. The "immediately" opportunity hasn't been passed up because the scope of it encompasses your entire exploration.
Now, let's say we're no longer at the Sea Fort, but we're playing Cleric Class Deck Kyra with the Fireflower role. Magically, Kyra has every single power feat checked off, her player promises this is due to the secret-yet-official S&S Gaiden scenarios, each of which gives a feat of the player's choice as a reward. You've never heard of them, but take the player at her word because that should totally be a thing anyways, so it seems obvious Paizo gives them out to a select few elite players. Besides, the blatant cheating doesn't actually matter right now for the purposes of this illustration so we continue onwards without further comment. Super-Kyra is at the Safe House and encounters that thrice-cursed Owlbeartross after it escaped the clutches of the Sea Fort, so much for that house being safe. Super-Kyra deftly dispatches the Riptide Grindylow with her Keen Rapier +3 and notices that she gets to recharge a card to immediately explore again if she wants to. Except wait, she is in the middle of an encounter and must finish that before she does anything else, so she actually can't. She moves on to the Owlbeartross proper and fails; perhaps she should have cheatily given herself some more skill feats instead. She cannot use her power to explore again because the immediate opportunity passed by doing another thing.
Flavor: To me, this sounds like all of the chaos of temporarily closing locations is happening simultaneously, however you resolve it in the order of your choosing so that there isn't actually mass chaos at the table. Flavor-wise, if two characters are at the same location and they both decide to close, they're doing so simultaneously. One isn't waiting to see if the other succeeded before attempting it themselves in such a scenario.
Scenario: Same as before, we have Valeros at the Merchant Marina, Merisiel at Lonely Isle, and Lem and Kyra (the not cheaty one) at Fringes of the Eye. It's Valeros's turn and he just flipped over the villain at the Merchant Marina. It's Owlbeartross, it seems the shuffling of the decks caused the faux coating of orange ink on the card to wear off and reveal the true maroon underneath, and also tentacle-y Galvos hands (totally a word). You KNEW something was up with that guy, and now you feel vindicated. *cough* Ahem, anyway, moving right along...
The villain was flipped as the exploration, so we go through the steps in the rulebook in order. First up, temp closing! We just encountered the villain, so obviously this is when we encountered a villain. As such, each character at any other location (aka not the Merchant Marina) gets to immediately attempt to temporarily close their location. If you followed my not-tangent above in the precedent section, you'll notice I talked about the scope of the immediately, and how for Sea Fort it encompassed the entire encounter yet for Fireflower Kyra it did not, so the latter sadly couldn't explore again since the opportunity passed. Here, the scope of the immediately is "When a character encounters a villain," aka right when the card is flipped over. You don't get to immediately temporarily close your location after a margarita and relaxing nap on the beach while the other person there is doing the hard work for you; you get to do it now or never. If you wait for another character to finish their check, you're no longer at "when a character encounters a villain," you're at "when you wake up from your sandy siesta." The immediately opportunity has passed, its scope long gone.
Lem, not wanting to be seen as lazy, and knowing for a fact that he can entertain pirates better than Kyra can, decides he is going to try closing Fringes of the Eye. Kyra is no slouch and decides she is going to do it as well, no matter what that funny short man says her capabilities are or aren't. Merisiel is eyeing that Coral Capuchin that started following her around recently, and isn't a fan of the big flying pink arrow saying "HEY THERE IS SOMEONE HERE" when she's trying to do sneaky stuff, and is wondering how to rid herself of the nuisance. She realizes temporarily closing Lonely Isle would work wonders for that, plus she'd get yelled at by that meanie-pants Valeros if she didn't anyway, so it's a win-win in her books.
Lem decides to go first this time, and gets Pirate Entertainments, which he tries to handle with his wit and musical talents. The pirates were having none of it, however, so he beats them all up with his surprisingly good strength (and a blessing or two) and leaves. Pirates these days just don't appreciate a good shanty when they hear it. Anyway, Fringes of the Eye is now temporarily closed, but Kyra decided she wanted to be a hotshot earlier so she gets a barrier. She manages to pull out Sandbar and fails spectacularly. Her player suspects this is karma coming back to bite her for overtly cheating so much earlier, even though she already erased all the excess feats off her card.
Merisiel with Capuchin in tow magically teleported to the Fringes of the Eye as well when it ran aground on the sandbar in the middle of the ocean next to the raging hurricane, apparently it was all a dream and she was on the ship all along or something, except that annoying pink thing managed to transcend time and space and join her in the real world from the dream world. How aggravating. The Sandbar magically disappears just as it appeared at first (due to the card having been summoned, it is banished after the encounter is over regardless of what the card says. Besides, even if you wanted to put it on top of the location deck, it didn't come from any so there's no valid location to grace with its presence). This happens to coincide with the howling winds picking up the ship's inhabitants and tossing them somehow unharmed into arbitrary other places. Lem finds himself at the Holy Isle, Merisiel in the Murder Hole because fierce winds can apparently send you inside of buildings, Kyra at the Merchant Marina so she can share with Valeros's pain against the villain that damages everyone at his location as part of the Before You Act step (must be the karma). Or, would share with Valeros's pain if he didn't get flung to the Festhall instead. Looks like Lady Luck Sarenrae is looking out for her after all!
Merisiel, still wondering how the heck she got inside of this Murder Hole place, looks up. That flying pink monstrosity is still with her! As it is her turn now to close, and she was originally at the Lonely Isle when the villain was encountered, she gets a shot at temporarily closing the Lonely Isle by banishing an ally. Figuring outright murdering something isn't all that out-of-place in a place called "Murder Hole," she gleefully draws her dagger and makes short work of the bumbling pink nuisance. Sure, she wasn't at the Lonely Isle, but you can apparently fight monsters that are 100 miles of ocean away so why not apply that to closing locations?
Speaking of fighting monsters that are 100 miles of ocean away, Valeros now begins his magical long-distance fight against the villain. He hopes that it goes quickly because his telecombat provider charges onerous per-minute rates for long-distance combats and he forgot to bring his combat card with him. Valeros takes some tasty damage (tastes like chicken) in the Before You Act step, but then grinds the villain into a paste. The villain's location (Merchant Marina) is now permanently closed. Oh, and Kyra needs to discard a card now due to the When Permanently Closed effect, so I guess she didn't catch a break after all. Serves her right for cheating earlier!
tl;dr
- The scope of "immediately" for temp closing is when the card is flipped over. This to me implies there is a decision step where each character says whether or not they plan on temp closing before any characters attempt their checks. Once characters start doing checks, it is no longer "immediately" because it is no longer "when a character encounters a villain."
- This means you need to keep track of what people said before they start doing checks, but you needed to keep track of what location people started at when the villain was flipped anyway per Mike and Vic, so asking for one other bit of info doesn't hurt much.
- If you decide to temp close, you attempt the check or whatever other requirements regardless of if another character already successfully temp closed the location.
- Long-distance temp closing is fine.
|
|
Flavor: To me, this sounds like all of the chaos of temporarily closing locations is happening simultaneously, however you resolve it in the order of your choosing so that there isn't actually mass chaos at the table. Flavor-wise, if two characters are at the same location and they both decide to close, they're doing so simultaneously. One isn't waiting to see if the other succeeded before attempting it themselves in such a scenario.
First, thanks for the enjoyable reply! Brought a smile to my face ...
I do agree that both characters are at the same location and both trying to close it simultaneously. But as stated in your response, you're not actually doing it at the same time. There's no reason why both players have to state up front that they're both trying to close the location. One can try ... and fail ... and the other can try. There is no rule stating that you have to verbally say you're going to make the attempt before you actually perform it. And therefore, there isn't a rule that you have to perform a Temp Close check if the other person has been successful. (In your example, if Lem was successful, Kyra wouldn't be required to make the attempt even if she planned on trying. Nor would they be required to say they were both going to make an attempt beforehand. Lem said he would and started the process.)
We've had instances where characters were teleported during the Temp Close phase of encountering which actually ruined the temporary closures (i.e. the way we played it!). I'd be interested in hearing officially whether having characters teleported or moved from their locations during the Temp Close phase of Encountering a Villain still allows them to make the attempt to close the original location.
PS-I've had a couple scenarios played where the Owlbeartross has ruined the party's chance at success because of cocky players thinking he wasn't all that!
True, but there is also nothing in the rules to indicate that isn't the way it works either, I think it hinges on how you interpret that initial sentence.
To be honest, I'm mostly arguing this for academic reasons; my method requires more in-depth decision making at the outlay for "do we think are chances are good enough to close these locations so that it is worth closing this other location with a really nasty When Closing requirement", whereas if you get to choose after other checks are made that line of thinking is excised from the game -- just try the not-nasty ones first and see if you succeed or not. Whether or not this is a gameplay element that should be promoted, I have no idea. Example would be if the only ally Merisiel had was awesome, or someone was at the location where the When Closing requirement is discarding the top 1d4 cards of the blessings deck. If you had to weigh your chances before seeing if the other locations are closed, you may not commit to that particular one and as a result drag the game on a bit longer. If you already know all the locations are closed due to successful checks, then you'd go for it since its for the game.
At the table, I'd probably have ruled it in your and Hawkmoon's way because I like resolving ambiguities at the table in the way that makes the game run smoother, and not having to remember decisions beforehand certainly fits that bill. As such, I would not be surprised nor upset if that ends up being the official resolution. I just also feel the other way makes gameplay a bit more challenging, and I like challenges :)
As for remotely closing, I feel like it should be allowed if it comes up. It's possible to remotely encounter a card and also remotely permanently close a location, so remotely temp closing fits in with that precedent.
|
|
As for remotely closing, I feel like it should be allowed if it comes up. It's possible to remotely encounter a card and also remotely permanently close a location, so remotely temp closing fits in with that precedent.
This what I'm curious about. We never really considered it possible to "remotely" close a location during this phase of the Encountering a Villain. We got moved and basically got scr*wed over during the process.
Beginning search.
So far, I've not found anything conclusive. There was some talk about it in this thread which I think was the first one to really bring up the "long distance encounter" idea. But everyone there talking about closing the location is:
A. Saying you DO close the villain's location even though you are no longer at that location.
B. Not Vic.
I'll see if I can find more.
That's just applying the general rule that defeating a villain closes (or temp-closes, if it would remain open due to other villains) its location, combined with the idea that an encounter can continue at long distance.
There isn't a general rule pertaining to temp-closing that would (or would not) allow someone to long-distance temp close a former location like this. :)
I've found that the question came up in a different discussion we had, but our solution ended up going a different direction, so we never answered it. Please hold.
Holding... Not really knowing what I'm holding (Mike is already holding all my thoughts so I have to lend something else to Vic), but holding it tight on this one.
More seriously this is something I'd like to add to the discussion on multiple characters trying to temp close the same location: As far as we did search, nothing prevents from choosing in which order and nothing says it has to be simultaneous. This is important even out of the "Fringes" specific case.
Suppose you have a Arcane 6 check to close, and one character has d12+2 and the other d6. We would first try the d12+2 because there is a good chance, and if failed only we would burn blessings to secure closing via multiple d6s.
So if a potential future ruling on Fringe somehow breaks that possibility, better make it clear because the impact is much much larger.
I would say that too.I haven't discussed with Mike, but I would say that the answer is in this sentence:
When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location.
So in effect, if you like rolling dice, nothing prevents you from trying to close a location again even if someone at the same location has already closed it, right?
(I did that yesterday to harvest boons at the Shipwreck Graveyard, where you need to summon and acquire random plunder to close the location.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I would say that too.I haven't discussed with Mike, but I would say that the answer is in this sentence:
When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location.
So in effect, if you like rolling dice, nothing prevents you from trying to close a location again even if someone at the same location has already closed it, right?
(I did that yesterday to harvest boons at the Shipwreck Graveyard, where you need to summon and acquire random plunder to close the location.)
Whoa, hey, I totally missed that. No, you can't do that. While each character at the location may attempt to close it, the first one who succeeds closes it, then nobody else can. Once it's flipped, it doesn't *have* "When Closing" text.
Whoa, hey, I totally missed that. No, you can't do that. While each character at the location may attempt to close it, the first one who succeeds closes it, then nobody else can. Once it's flipped, it doesn't *have* "When Closing" text.
Do you flip temp closed locations?
Do you flip temp closed locations?
A lot of people just rotate the location card 90 degrees. Vic was probably speaking metaphorically. And it does seem a little cheaty to have multiple characters temp close repeatedly.
Hum, tell me if I got all that right and if my conclusion below is the definitive one.
Main rules :
1) Characters may attempt to close locations in any order they wish.
2) You can never close a location you're not at.
3) Finish one thing before starting the other.
Now when Vic 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."
"When" is perhaps even more important than "immediately" here...
I fully agree but it seems I end up with the opposite conclusion.
For me "When" just means that "temp close" has to be done during the first step of the villain encounter (i. e. it cannot be done later).
Now the rules 1 and 3 above tell me that tentatives to temp close have to be done one after the others, in order, and one tentative should be finished before you start the other.
Thus, when comes your turn to temp close:
A) you can decide AT THAT TIME to attempt to temp close or not the location you are at AT THAT TIME (e. g. if someone else at another location already failed, you may decide that it's not worthwhile depending of the cost/benefit at your location);
B) you cannot anymore attempt to temp close if the location you are at AT THAT TIME is already closed (permanently or temporary)
But then it means that if the attempt to temp close by another character
attempting before me actually moved me, then my opportunity to attempt to temp close will be at my new location (else I broke one of the above golden rules. And I don't see at all why we wouldn't follow golden rules (I hate multiplying exceptions, especially when I feel it's no more fun than following golden rules).
Bottom line, if 2 characters are at Fringes, and the attemp to temp close from character A moves character B elsewhere, then B can now attempt to temp close (if he so wishes and if that location is open) his new location (this is actually exactly following Vic 's rules).
Yes, in theory that means that you could take the opportunity of your own attempt to close to move someone else that didn't attempt yet to a more suitable location (providing you have the right powers available). Don't have any idea on whether it's possible with the existing characters and cards, but that could be possible in the future... and why not.
We like it because then deciding in which order you make temp close attempts starts to be a real classy puzzle to maximize effect. And we know Not-this-Mike loves puzzles.
Hawk, Mike, Vic... where am I wrong?
No, that isn't quite what is said above.
"When" is perhaps even more important than "immediately" here. When the character encounters the villain, the other two characters are at Fringes of the Eye, so that's "his location" for this effect.
When the villain is encountered, A and B are at Fringes. That means "his location" for the rule refers to Fringes for both A and B. That is "locked in" at this point.
So, say A goes first and tries to temp close Fringes, and in doing so moves B elsewhere.
When it is B's turn, "his location" for the purpose of the temp close effect is still Fringes of the Eye. However, we have a rule that you cannot attempt to close a location that you aren't at (see linked FAQ above). This means that B is not allowed to temporary close any locations; his location when the villain was encountered was Fringes and he isn't at Fringes so he isn't allowed to close it.
Yes I understood that in what Vic was saying, but my point is that it's not following the golden rules and i'd like to understand why we are making an exception since the game isn't IMHO broken without that exception.
If we play it as you say, then not only we are breaking the "Finish one thing before starting the other" rule, but you also have to "remember" where you come from so somehow also making an exception to the "no memory" rule.
My question is "why making all those exceptions since the game works very well without?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not going to write the words "You can't temporarily close a temporarily closed location" in the rulebook.
Absolutely Mike.
This said that doesn't answer the question on whether, if I'm moved as a result of another charcater trying to temp close before I did my own attempt, when it's my turn to decide whether or not I try to temp close, does it relate to the loc I come from or the one I'm now at.
I'm still thinking "you can only close a loc you are (now) at"
|
|
Frencois, that's how we played it.
While the temporary closing step is supposed to happen simultaneously, it actually doesn't. The way we've handled it is that we start at a location (rather than any player order) and try to close it. If there are more than one person trying to close the location, one person tries then the next if it is unsuccessful. If there is a teleport involved, then we move the player(s) and try at that location.
What would also be interesting is if there are 4 locations, A through D. Player 1 and Player 2 are at A. Player 3 is at B. No one at C. Player 4 encounters the villain on her turn at D. Attempt to (temp) close A by Player 1. Unsuccessful. Attempt to close A by Player 2. Successful. Player 3 attempts to close B and triggers a teleport. Player 2 is teleported to C.
Is Player 2 able to attempt to (temp) close C? They've already done that with location A.
Frencois, that's how we played it.
While the temporary closing step is supposed to happen simultaneously, it actually doesn't. The way we've handled it is that we start at a location (rather than any player order) and try to close it. If there are more than one person trying to close the location, one person tries then the next if it is unsuccessful. If there is a teleport involved, then we move the player(s) and try at that location.
What would also be interesting is if there are 4 locations, A through D. Player 1 and Player 2 are at A. Player 3 is at B. No one at C. Player 4 encounters the villain on her turn at D. Attempt to (temp) close A by Player 1. Unsuccessful. Attempt to close A by Player 2. Successful. Player 3 attempts to close B and triggers a teleport. Player 2 is teleported to C.
Is Player 2 able to attempt to (temp) close C? They've already done that with location A.
Yes but in your situation I would have Player 3 try to close B first. If succesful and able to teleport Player 2 in C, then you have a potential wining scenario.
Or let's say teleport possibility is in A. Then if 1 succeeds and teleports 2 in C you are game to.
BTW players can attempt to close location in the order they chose, so nothing requires that all players in a single location must do their attempt before those at another location.
|
|
Silly, silly Ron ...
Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations. When a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location. If any character at a location succeeds, his location is temporarily closed and the villain cannot escape there this encounter
Yeah, each can attempt.
Frencois, the question I was asking with all the extra words was: Can one player temporarily close a location then get teleported by some condition of another closing and temporarily close another location? (Effectively closing two locations!)