|
The location Precinct of Left Eyes has as closing condition "When Closing: Succeed at an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma 6 check, then succeed at a different one of those." Considering that this is two sequential checks, can another character at the location take the second check? I think the answer is no, but I would like to hear any thoughts others have. In particular, I'm curious what was intended here in terms of multiple characters.
The Attempting a Check section of the rules is separate from the Encountering a Card section. And while the example in the Attempting a Check section is an encountered card, the wording of the rule doesn't exclude locations. Also, the section on Closing a Location doesn't provide explicit rules otherwise, implying that the normal rules for attempting a check apply. So I'd allow another character to attempt one of the sequential checks to close a location (unless/until there is official explanation otherwise).
The paragraph of the rule book that explains when you can split the checks uses the word "encounter" so many times that I read it as only being applicable during an encounter.
But Precinct is a pretty rare exception where it's even possible to have a sequential check outside of an encounter, so maybe the rule isn't intended to be limited to encounters.
Short answer to OP: The character who is making the closing attempt must attempt both checks. The checks cannot be split between characters.
As MorkXII mentions:
Only the character who encounters the card may attempt the check, save for one exception: if a card requires sequential checks, the character who encountered the card must attempt at least one of the checks, but any other checks may each be attempted by any character at the encountering character’s location.
Contrary to what good Brother Tyler says, this is not merely an example: this is the only rule permitting the splitting of checks between characters. It only applies to cards that a character encounters. Nothing in the rulebook says a character attempting a closing check is encountering the Location card. Without a FAQ or a ruling the contrary, the rules do not permit splitting multiple checks necessary to close a location.
It only applies to cards that a character encounters. Nothing in the rulebook says a character attempting a closing check is encountering the Location card.
One might credibly argue that the rulebook (strongly) implies such a limitation because of the use of “encounter,” but that section (Attempting a Check) applies to all checks, including those to close locations. One could also argue that the "encounter" verbiage of the rule, if applied to closing a location, means the character that is eligible to attempt to close the location (either the character that defeated the henchman or who emptied the location deck). Granted, this is a much more tenuous argument, but it follows the theme of numerous discussions in these forums. If the design intent is that such a limitation exists, then the rulebook should clearly state this exclusion. As it is, I think that there is room for a reasonable interpretation that sequential checks to close a location are applicable under the current wording of the rule.
From a thematic/roleplaying perspective, why should characters be able to split sequential checks against banes/boons, but not to close a location? Are checks to acquire boons and to defeat banes so similar to each other, and both so different from closing locations, that such an exclusion is logical?
Note: I’m not hitching my wagon to one outcome or another (though I definitely favor including checks to close locations). I’m just saying that I think that the rules need to more explicitly state whether or not splitting sequential checks to close locations is allowed. Practically speaking, the number of locations with sequential checks to close is so small as to make the issue relatively insignificant.
Whether or not any of this even applies to the Precinct of the Left Eyes, though, is up in the air. It looks like what we would call a sequential check, but maybe it isn't because you are given your choice of three skills for the first check, then one of the remaining two for the second. On a bane/boon, you are generally given a fixed selection of skills for each check, so there is a minor distinction. Granted, that might be nothing more than format differences, with the intent being the same. That's something that only the designers can answer, though.
The paragraph before says what a sequential check is - two listed checks in the "check to defeat/acquire" box separated by a "then". It's tempting to interpret the words literally and in isolation, and so say that these two closing checks must be done sequentially and the rule should apply. But then, where do you stop? If a monster has a BYA check and then a check to defeat, you're required to do them one after the other in sequence. So can another player do one of those for you? Of course not. Because the terms are tied to the specific case described in the rules, not to whatever other situations you can construe as having the same description.
That's how I'd interpret RAW anyway. "Intention" is non-existant. They certainly didn't consider this location when, years earlier, they wrote those rules. And, I very much doubt it occurred to anyone that you might apply the "sequential rules" clause to this location when they wrote it - because if it had they would have made it clearer.
For the record, though it's debatable the full consequences and intent in a vacuum...
The Reference Sheet on the back of the physical Base Set Mummy's Mask Rulebook states the following (emphasis added)...
[...]
In the case of a bane that requires sequential checks, any character at that location can attempt one or more of the checks, as long as the character who encountered the bane attempts at least one of them.
As a separate opinion; I would not think that the Precinct allows for multiple players to make checks for the same attempt to close, RAI. How would that work for Temp Closing, incidentally, when each character is allowed to attempt the closing requirement during the same step?
why should characters be able to split sequential checks against banes/boons
Wow. I read that and my mind was blown - "Why didn't it occur to me that I can split checks against boons!?!"
Then I read Yewstance' quote from the Reference Sheet :(
Now, FWIW, I do believe that the Reference Sheet text is legacy all the way back from RotR - when there were NO boons to require sequential CtA - so essentially the Rulebook and Reference Sheet were telling you the exact same thing.
Nowadays, though, these two sources are directly contradicting each other, telling you either "This rule works against ANY (encountered?) card" <Rulebook> OR "This rule *only* works against Banes" <Reference Sheet>. Now, for some reason you may chose to apply one over the other (to "apply the more restrictive rule"), but short of a FAQ - there IS no way to know what is *intended*.
On the OP itself, I do believe the *intent* is only a single character can attempt the To Close checks, but I can also see Brother Tyler's argument being correct (because, that 'sequential checks' part was *also* written way back when only Banes -i.e., cards that could only be encountered- had sequential checks - and that paradigm has certainly changed since). Personally, I'd prefer if 2 people could tackle the Precinct, as it encourages teamplay and presents alternative strategies to "solving the problem".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I read Yewstance' quote from the Reference Sheet :(
I consider myself an expert in disappointing people. :P
I've always used 2 characters to take sequential checks vs boons, when possible & useful, since such boons first appeared in S&S. I never noticed the line Yewstance cited on the Reference Sheet. I'm with Longshot in thinking that's an oversight, since the relevant rulebook text (which I cited above) indicates you can split sequential checks between characters for any encountered card.
Ah, so that's how the Precinct of Left Eyes works!
(For the record, I don't think the backcover reference sheet is intended to be comprehensive. For example, "When blessings add dice to a check, the dice are of the same type that the character is already using for the check." Even though not explicitly stated, that rule clearly applies for blessings as well as non-blessings.
Not that it couldn't be made less ambiguous if it were being revised, of course.)
