|
The baykoks in scenario 2-6A have a bya power that requires every other character to make a wisdom 9 check, or they may not play cards or use powers for the rest of the encounter. I don't remember the exact wording, but the important part was that it was for the encounter.
Now, the baykoks allow you to attempt a location close if you defeat them. A question that came up was whether the location close was part of the encounter and thus disallowed others from playing cards. I said it was still part of the encounter, but Rebel thought it was not.
Other thoughts?
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Since it was just discussed Vic says it's still part of the exploration, but whether exploration = encounter, that I cannot say. I'd lean towards yes myself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that exploration = encounter.
While closing a location because you've defeated a henchman and are allowed an attempt to close may be part of the exploration, it doesn't mean that the encounter continues to include the close check. The encounter is over. It's been resolved. Now you may attempt the close check which may include another encounter.
Uncertain myself.
You can encounter a card which gives another exploration (Ambush, etc). Surely the second exploration is not part of the first encounter. So just because the power on the card grants it, doesn't mean the encounter continues.
Still, just because a close check can start a new encounter, doesn't mean you aren't still in the original encounter. We already have nested encounters (Owlbeartross, Pirate Hunting, Demonic Horde, etc.)
Intuitively, I've always thought the encounter ended after the Henchman was defeated, and the close check was a new, separate thing you are doing.
Probably a close parsing of the rulebook would resolve the question. skizzerz?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I'm not sure either, but let me give a Frenchy vision on that. Remember the long debate on the "immediately" word? The whole idea is that something gives you the opportunity to do something else AFTER but if you don't do it "immediately" you forfeit the opportunity.
Here comes my point: henchmen carry powers that say something like "If defeated, you may immediately close..."
If the closing was part of the encounter with the card, then I would assume that it would be a regular power of the card written something like: "After you act, if you defeated this card, you may attempt to close..."
The only reason you need "immediately" is because the encounter is over, the character can choose what she does next, and you want to be sure that she has the opportunity to close but only if she selects to do that and only if it's the first thing she does AFTER the encounter.
Now I fully agree with Theryon: exploration is a totally different ballgame. Typical example coming from my math background: I may have to make an encounter out of my turn, and as everyone knows by now, I can never explore out of my turn. Ergo A <> B.
Surely the encounter ends at the point where you defeat (or fail to defeat or evade) the bane? How can you have already defeated something and still be encountering it?
I think what's distracting is that it's text written on the card. But imagine if the card said "If you defeated this, draw a card at the start of your next turn". Would you think you were still encountering it until the next turn?
That's just my 2c though, it evidently needs a ruling whatever I might say.
Actually you are right, you couldn't have a sentence like "After you act, if you defeated this card, you may attempt to close..." because "After you Act" happens before the defeating.
I should have written "After you act, if you succeeded at your check to defeat, you may attempt to close...". But then the point is valid : in such a case the encounter wouldn't be over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surely the encounter ends at the point where you defeat (or fail to defeat or evade) the bane? How can you have already defeated something and still be encountering it?
Because (in this case) there's more to the encounter than just a fight.
I think what's distracting is that it's text written on the card.
But the text on the card is what DEFINES the encounter, not the Check To Defeat. It's not a distraction. It's the point of the exercise. As for your example, I don't recall any cards written like that (I'm willing to be wrong), but since the text defines the action to occur outside of the encounter, that's a different story. The Henchman does NOT say, "After the encounter, you may attempt to close the location this Henchman came from", and therefore, it is assumed to be part of the same encounter.
Frencois' suggestion implies that you should have to state when another actions IS part of the same encounter, rather than having to state when it isn't. I'd tend to assume the opposite.
I'm not sure either. If forced to make a ruling, I would choose that attempting to close is not part of the encounter, but rather something that happens immediately after it. The argument for this stance follows from the wording "If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from" with two key takeaways:
1. It says "If defeated," not "When you defeat" -- the word "when" is used to define a power that triggers or interrupts the normal flow of things, but that word is not used here. Furthermore, there is precedence for using "when" even if the condition doesn't always happen. The WotR rulebook states "If you encounter a bane that has the Mythic trait, when it is defeated, your character gets a mythic charge." -- note the "when it is defeated" even though defeating it is not a foregone conclusion.
2. If attempting to close the location was part of the Resolve the Encounter step, rather than something that happened after the encounter, then I'd argue that the "immediately" is superfluous; of course it would be immediately because you're still resolving the encounter at that point. The inclusion of the word indicates it is something you do after the encounter is over, but you have to do it right away or you lose the opportunity.
My second argument is along the lines that attempting to close a location is an entirely separate process from the process of encountering a card, and we are told Finish One Thing Before You Start Something Else. This is on shakier ground though, because the exact same rule also forms the basis for the other opinion (in that you need to finish doing all the stuff on the henchman card -- "finish one thing" -- before the encounter is over and you can start something else).
Chief Technical Officer
|
The encounter concludes when you resolve it (or if some effect specifically ends the encounter before it would normally be resolved). Effects that are triggered prior to that resolution (or prior to the encounter-ending effect) happen during the encounter; effects that are triggered by that resolution (or by the encounter-ending effect) are not part of the encounter.
So... I win?
The Baykok is defeated, that encounter ends, I immediately go to close my location (and my friends can help me again).
(This came up last night again and I think we were all super tired because your explanation made sense but didn't make sense at the same time.) :D
Yeah. You win. The resolution is the bane being defeated. The "if defeated" effect is triggered by the resolution, so it is not part of the encounter.