|
During scenario, all players start at "Junk Beach" and cannot move until closed.
When you encounter a bane with Goblin trait, roll 1d6 - Roll a 3 that states, "After you act, move to a random location"
Do you move or does scenario rule prevent this?
If you do move by rolling a 3, can you move back to Junk Beach to help close it?
Testing scenario out, 3 players, first two both rolled a 3 on the Goblin Raiders on top of the Junk Beach Deck and we played that they moved then didn't know if they could move back to Junk Beach to help close it...
Help!
|
|
We played it that the Goblin table moved us. We interpreted the "cannot move" meaning from Junk Beach. We did allow players to move back and help close.
I agree that the specifics aren't clear. Usually when you cannot move, it will state "cannot move or be moved from" rather than just "cannot move". Also, does the "cannot move" apply to characters outside of Junk Beach if they're allowed to be moved from the location.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cannot move stops you from moving.
So, rolling a 3 shouldn't send you away. Which is good, since you _definitely_ can't move back, since the move restriction isn't tied to being at the Junk Beach.
|
|
Overall I am enjoying Season of the Runelords, but 2 of the four scenarios have serious need to be clarified. Further, I don't understand why the clause in the revised Guild Guide under the Earning Scenario Rewards indicates rewards are to be Class Decks when so far the first four scenarios explicitly contradict this by stating to use "the Game Box".
At first, I felt that the rules were being cleaned up for the Adventure Card Guild, but there seems to be a significant problem with either playtesting or proofreading, possibly both.
|
|
Or add, "reroll 3's if Junk Beach is open" to the Goblin Trait chart?
Because there are other cards that make you move after you act or if you fail a combat. Plus the table is a duplicate of the 2-1A table. So the issue isn't the table, it's that other cards (including the scenario "card") won't move you either.
|
|
Overall I am enjoying Season of the Runelords, but 2 of the four scenarios have serious need to be clarified. Further, I don't understand why the clause in the revised Guild Guide under the Earning Scenario Rewards indicates rewards are to be Class Decks when so far the first four scenarios explicitly contradict this by stating to use "the Game Box".
2-1A: Reward is a Loot item. That's been around for all seasons. Not to be confused with drawing cards from the Game box.
2-1B: The Reward is drawn from the Game box and is a point of contention right now.2-1C: An additional card drawn from the Game box to act as an additional upgrade.
2-1D: Again, similar to 2-1B's reward.
The clause in the revised Guild Guide doesn't just apply to the current season, it applies to previous seasons where the wording is just "the box". Some people were confused whether it meant the Game box or the Class Deck box. Now the default is the Class Deck box according to the guide. In SotRu, the rewards are specified to come from the Game box (which still are turned in to use as upgrades from your Class Deck). They don't contradict; they overrule.
At first, I felt that the rules were being cleaned up for the Adventure Card Guild, but there seems to be a significant problem with either playtesting or proofreading, possibly both.
I do agree that a couple of the scenarios need to be cleaned up. The rewards for 2-1B and 2-1D need to be defined whether they count towards the single upgrade or should be an additional upgrade as in 2-1C. Also, the movement issue in 2-1D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but 2 of the four scenarios have serious need to be clarified.
There's no clarification that can make "Cannot move" allow moving back to the Junk Beach, and yet it happens. More rules text can't be the solution to every issue, because we have another thread begging for less rules text. :)
Adding "or be moved" goes along with prior precedent set by other cards and may be helpful since you're very likely to run into that situation, but it's not a term that appears or differentiates in the rulebook, so weirdly it's just that prior precedent that makes it a good idea to include. Odd, right? Hardly _serious_, but probably good and worth doing.
And, in the end, the tables that did it a different way still played and had fun. So, it's all good.
|
|
I agree that we worked through it and had fun and completed the scenarios. And even though we allowed the table and another card (I can't remember which bane it was) to move us from Junk Beach, we headed back in order to close it first. (So it really didn't change the dynamic of the session.) And the only reason I requested that text to be added is that it is used elsewhere in cards and scenarios and follows the precedent.
It's early in the season and helping fix these "misunderstandings" makes those that will be playing it soon less confused.
Yep yep. I entered a ticket, and all that :)
I'll admit, I was a lot more worried about problems with too many exploding goblins in this scenario than the run away mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the other minor issue is that the golden rule says that when two cards conflict, go with the one that says cannot.
Despite this hierarchy, if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot.
But in this case (unless I'm misunderstanding) it isn't two separate cards that are conflicting, it is technically one "card" that is conflicting with itself, the scenario card.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other examples of cards limiting themselves. For example, several cards say you cannot play them during an encounter.
I think the other minor issue is that the golden rule says that when two cards conflict, go with the one that says cannot.
Despite this hierarchy, if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot.But in this case (unless I'm misunderstanding) it isn't two separate cards that are conflicting, it is technically one "card" that is conflicting with itself, the scenario card.
Are you actually arguing that because the Golden Rule says "one card" and "another card" that "cannot" doesn't beat "can"?
Chief Technical Officer
|
Keith, would it be possible to have that extra language "or be moved" added?
"All characters start at Junk Beach and cannot move or be moved until it is closed."
That way we know that it's not just our movement but any card that would move us including the Goblin encounter table and banes.
Actually, that's a deliberate template change. We have determined that there are no cases where we want to stop you from choosing to move while allowing you to be forced to move, or vice versa, so "move or be moved" is simplifying to just "move." As in, at Junk Beach, you can't move, for any reason, until it's closed.
Actually, that's a deliberate template change. We have determined that there are no cases where we want to stop you from choosing to move while allowing you to be forced to move, or vice versa, so "move or be moved" is simplifying to just "move." As in, at Junk Beach, you can't move, for any reason, until it's closed.
I feel like part of the test with Season of the Runelords is going to be using new wording with old cards, most of which haven't been updated to new templating.
It's already going to be somewhat tough with the Class Decks and RotR, because we don't have an Oracle that tell us the newest text of each card like in Magic.
|
|
Actually, that's a deliberate template change. We have determined that there are no cases where we want to stop you from choosing to move while allowing you to be forced to move, or vice versa, so "move or be moved" is simplifying to just "move." As in, at Junk Beach, you can't move, for any reason, until it's closed.
If "for any reason" was included in the text it would completely clarify the intent. Not sure why there seems to be pushback implying the text in the scenarios is fine and needs not be changed. Further, the golden rule is stated as applying to cards prioritization. If it applies to scenarios as well, then what about the "card's don't have memories" clause?
Are you actually arguing that because the Golden Rule says "one card" and "another card" that "cannot" doesn't beat "can"?I think the other minor issue is that the golden rule says that when two cards conflict, go with the one that says cannot.
Despite this hierarchy, if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot.But in this case (unless I'm misunderstanding) it isn't two separate cards that are conflicting, it is technically one "card" that is conflicting with itself, the scenario card.
Well, what I'm saying is that when I saw Anaba Boeska's post I started to respond with a copy and paste of the Golden Rule. It was the first thing that popped into my mind. But, when I read what I'd pasted, I saw it talked about a conflict between two cards. In my hear, I knew that "can not" should trump "can" was a core principle. But, I wasn't sure I could argue that from the Golden Rule alone. The Golden Rule (or at least this part of it) is about two cards conflicting. The situation discussed wasn't really two cards conflicting. So, it at least made me gun shy.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I don't understand why the clause in the revised Guild Guide under the Earning Scenario Rewards indicates rewards are to be Class Decks when so far the first four scenarios explicitly contradict this by stating to use "the Game Box".
In games like this, it's the job of the cards—especially scenarios—to break the rules. That's the point of the very first sentence of the Golden Rule: "If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct."
If "for any reason" was included in the text it would completely clarify the intent.
Actually, that's a deliberate template change. We have determined that there are no cases where we want to stop you from choosing to move while allowing you to be forced to move, or vice versa, so "move or be moved" is simplifying to just "move." As in, at Junk Beach, you can't move, for any reason, until it's closed.
Well, there is actually a way that you can move, and that's if you use a power that lets you ignore movement restrictions. I shouldn't have said "for any reason"—I should have said "whether you want to or not, whether other things want you to or not."
Not sure why there seems to be pushback implying the text in the scenarios is fine and needs not be changed.
We don't have the room to load our game full of hand-holding reminder text. It's a game that often has complex card interactions that reward a solid understanding of the rules. In this case, if you remember that the Golden Rule says "...if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot," then the statement "you cannot move" tells you exactly what you need to know.
(And if you're wondering why you can use powers that let you ignore movement restrictions, that's also in the Golden Rule: "if a card tells you to ignore something, the thing you’re ignoring never has any effect," and "When the rulebook uses the word 'never,' no card can overrule it." So "ignore movement restrictions" trumps "cannot move.")
Further, the golden rule is stated as applying to cards prioritization. If it applies to scenarios as well, then what about the "card's don't have memories" clause?
I don't see how "cards don't have memories" applies here. The point of that is that the cards you use don't remember how they have been used. If a monster was undefeated when it was shuffled into a location deck, it's not still undefeated when you encounter it again. If you had to roll dice the last time you used a power, you don't use the same result the next time—you have to roll again. (*Players* do have memories—you might sometimes be expected to remember things like whether this is the first exploration of your turn, or the first time you encountered the villain this scenario.)
|
|
I don't understand why the clause in the revised Guild Guide under the Earning Scenario Rewards indicates rewards are to be Class Decks when so far the first four scenarios explicitly contradict this by stating to use "the Game Box".In games like this, it's the job of the cards—especially scenarios—to break the rules. That's the point of the very first sentence of the Golden Rule: "If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct."
If "for any reason" was included in the text it would completely clarify the intent.
Actually, that's a deliberate template change. We have determined that there are no cases where we want to stop you from choosing to move while allowing you to be forced to move, or vice versa, so "move or be moved" is simplifying to just "move." As in, at Junk Beach, you can't move, for any reason, until it's closed.
Well, there is actually a way that you can move, and that's if you use a power that lets you ignore movement restrictions. I shouldn't have said "for any reason"—I should have said "whether you want to or not, whether other things want you to or not."
Not sure why there seems to be pushback implying the text in the scenarios is fine and needs not be changed.We don't have the room to load our game full of hand-holding reminder text. It's a game that often has complex card interactions that reward a solid understanding of the rules. In this case, if you remember that the Golden Rule says "...if one card tells that you cannot do something and another card tells you that you can, comply with the card that tells you that you cannot," then the statement "you cannot move" tells you exactly what you need to know.
(And if you're wondering why you can use powers that let you ignore movement restrictions, that's also in the Golden Rule: "if a card tells you to ignore something, the...
Dear Mr. Wertz,
A solid understanding of the rules is required to play a game meant for 13-year-olds according the the game packaging. The golden rule states that it applies to card, but also applies to scenarios, fine. Card (which would apparently also mean scenarios) don't have memories, and players are asked to finish things before they start something else per the Things to Keep in Mind. Following this guide in conjunction with the Turn Overview so clearly laid out on the back of the game manual, you Move after advancing the blessings deck and optionally giving a card. In scenario 2-1D while following the turn order, you cannot move during the move step per the special scenario rules, understood. Next, you explore, and if you find a Goblin trait, you roll 1d6. If you roll a 3 the scenario requires the player to move to a random other location. Cards don't have memories, the move step has passed, you have finished something and started something else, now the scenario (card) without any memory tells you to move. BUT, you state that you cannot move as in the case of a conflict between can and cannot, comply with the cannot, even though the conflict was in a different step of the turn, and therefore a different action, only not. Then again, you can ignore the cannot if a power lets you ignore movement restrictions...got it, I move, or don't, but can, but cannot, unless i can ignore, which I cannot, um, what?
Okay, sorry, I guess I need to have my hand held to play this game; thank you so much for pointing out this mental deficiencies I was previously unaware of as I am incapable of follow instructions that are clearly meant for a 13 year old. Cheers.
|
|
Dear Mr. Wertz,
A solid understanding of the rules is required to play a game meant for 13-year-olds according the the game packaging. The golden rule states that it applies to card, but also applies to scenarios, fine. Card (which would apparently also mean scenarios) don't have memories, and players are asked to finish things before they start something else per the Things to Keep in Mind. Following this guide in conjunction with the Turn Overview so clearly laid out on the back of the game manual, you Move after advancing the blessings deck and optionally giving a card. In scenario 2-1D while following the turn order, you cannot move during the move step per the special scenario rules, understood. Next, you explore, and if you find a Goblin trait, you roll 1d6. If you roll a 3 the scenario requires the player to move to a random other location. Cards don't have memories, the move step has passed, you have finished something and started something else, now the scenario (card) without any memory tells you to move. BUT, you state that you cannot move as in the case of a conflict between can and cannot, comply with the cannot, even though the conflict was in a different step of the turn, and therefore a different action, only not. Then again, you can ignore the cannot if a power lets you ignore movement restrictions...got it, I move, or don't, but can, but cannot, unless i can ignore, which I cannot, um, what?
Okay, sorry, I guess I need to have my hand held to play this game; thank you so much for pointing out this mental deficiencies I was previously unaware of as I am incapable of follow instructions that are clearly meant for a 13 year old. Cheers.
Tone aside, your first paragraph implies you think that moving is associated with a step. That's an incorrect concept. Movement can happen any time a power allows it and/or your Move step. This is not about card memories. This is about the fact that the scenario states that you cannot move from Junk Beach until it is closed. This means not only your free movement near the beginning of your turn but when you encounter cards that are forcing you to move, (in this case) a scenario power that is forcing you to move, and powers utilized by players through character powers and cards.
As far as the wording, this game has evolved as it's been played. Just like Magic. Certain phrases and word templates are utilized to provide a common base of understanding. In this case, it had evolved to be "cannot move or be moved" which meant that you could not voluntarily move or be forced to move. Now the team is changing the template to simply "cannot move". So adding the extra text you asked for does not fit the new template. That's part of the evolution.
The only way around this movement restriction are using powers that negate said movement restriction. And those are stated specifically on cards and in powers.
We all have questions from time to time. And sometimes you don't get your way or don't like the answer given. But that's what happens when you ask questions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Tone aside, your first paragraph implies you think that moving is associated with a step. That's an incorrect concept. Movement can happen any time a power allows it and/or your Move step. This is not about card memories. This is about the fact that the scenario states that you cannot move from Junk Beach until it is closed. This means not only your free movement near the beginning of your turn but when you encounter cards that are forcing you to move, (in this case) a scenario power that is forcing you to move, and powers utilized by players through character powers and cards.
That.
If the scenario power said "During your move step, you cannot move," then yes, rolling 3 on the table would move you. But that power isn't limited to your move step. So unless you have a power that lets you ignore movement restrictions, you can't move from Junk Beach until it's closed—simple as that.
Also, as for the distinction between "scenarios" and "cards," keep in mind that the game was created long before organized play, when all of the scenarios were exclusively on cards. So everything in the rulebook tells you that scenarios are on cards, therefore OP scenarios are considered cards. I know you don't seriously think that changing "cards" to "cards (or in the case of organized play scenarios, printouts or other visual displays)" would make the game better.
I feel like part of the test with Season of the Runelords is going to be using new wording with old cards, most of which haven't been updated to new templating.
It's already going to be somewhat tough with the Class Decks and RotR, because we don't have an Oracle that tell us the newest text of each card like in Magic.
This is something I am hyper-vigilant about. Especially with Pathfinder Adventures using the same card text. It's a bit like traveling back in time. But we'll make it all work out.
This is something I am hyper-vigilant about. Especially with Pathfinder Adventures using the same card text. It's a bit like traveling back in time. But we'll make it all work out.I feel like part of the test with Season of the Runelords is going to be using new wording with old cards, most of which haven't been updated to new templating.
It's already going to be somewhat tough with the Class Decks and RotR, because we don't have an Oracle that tell us the newest text of each card like in Magic.
This begs the question, why don't we have an Oracle telling us the newest text of each card like MTG does ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This begs the question, why don't we have an Oracle telling us the newest text of each card like MTG does ?This is something I am hyper-vigilant about. Especially with Pathfinder Adventures using the same card text. It's a bit like traveling back in time. But we'll make it all work out.I feel like part of the test with Season of the Runelords is going to be using new wording with old cards, most of which haven't been updated to new templating.
It's already going to be somewhat tough with the Class Decks and RotR, because we don't have an Oracle that tell us the newest text of each card like in Magic.
It'd be nice, but I see at least two things that prevent it:
1) It doesn't exist yet. This means the web team would need to code something up to allow for it, and that takes a lot of time. PRD updates already take a huge chunk of time, adding a card database on top of that (and on top of whatever other work those people may need to do) may have been determined to be infeasible.2) Copyrights/piracy/legal stuff. In MTG, simply knowing the card text (and even having the card images) doesn't really let you get away with not purchasing boosters and other decks -- many opponents would refuse to play with you if your deck has too many proxies in it. It'd be fine for a small group of friends (or when doing things like playtesting new decks you're thinking of building), but it is not a solution that works at large. In PACG, it is a cooperative game instead of competitive and only played with small groups at a time; having the full card text/images would let you reproduce and play the game with your small group of friends without purchasing it. The downsides that exist against proxy cards for MTG don't apply to PACG.
I don't know the true reason, but those 2 are the first things I thought of. Hopefully it's simply a matter of 1 more than 2, which means that the project is on a backlog somewhere ready to be worked on when time is freed up to do so.