
isaic16 |

I fully admit, my group often falls into the trap of 'I have no specific reason to move, so I'm not going to move' even when proper consideration would have led to the conclusion that another location would have been more beneficial.
That being said, there are definitely reasons that it's probably better for our group to not do that extra level of thinking. First, we generally play multiple characters. When you have that much going on, it's often good to simplify the less important decision trees, and staying or moving definitely is lower impact than, say, knowing when to play a blessing on a 60/40 close check. Also, at least one player in our group gets frustrated when players take too long on decisions and slow down the game, so taking extra time on move steps would probably exacerbate that issue. Finally, I think most of our players heavily gravitate toward supporting characters, so we generally have very strong incentive to stay with other characters, even when other factors would benefit moving.
Again, I think everything in this article is absolutely correct. I just wanted to put out a devil's advocate point on how shortcutting this particular decision is not necessarily the worst thing in the world.

Frencois |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

In case you are, like us, playing with a large group, you may also add "Move in group to a location that has a painful start of turn effect" as a paragraph.
If each of the 5 or 6 characters move to such a location and are able to explore twice at least, there is a good chance you will close the location without anyone suffering the start of turn effect.

elcoderdude |

One reason we move a character from a location, particularly in large parties, is the character defeated the henchman, but failed the close check. If there are a lot of cards left in the deck, it may be worth moving elsewhere and chasing the villain to the henchman-less location. (Especially if there are unoccupied open locations.)

ShannonA |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

In case you are, like us, playing with a large group, you may also add "Move in group to a location that has a painful start of turn effect" as a paragraph.
Yep, I've done that on occasion and it's a good point to have (probably in the discussion of initial choices). Personally, I just prefer to have Amiri deal with those, though.

Frencois |

Frencois wrote:"Move to a location based on whether you can close it" would have been a good title of paragraph too IMHO.That was covered in article #4, which was about initially choosing locations, rather than deciding to move because of something that's happened since.
Great job Shannon. I just wanted to point that sometimes "something happened" (like you just aquired or draw the good card) that makes you change your initial choice on location (as per your great article #4).
Like for a location A that says "bury an armor" to close. May not be your initial choice because you are THE pro of Perception and another location asks pour a Perception check (and you think anyone can bury an armor), but say you know that the henchman is now on top of location A and you just aquired an armor: time to move.

![]() |

The "painful start-of-turn effect" Frencois mentions is a classic strategy Hawkmoon and I try to employ in our groups. Mountain Peak in Runelords is the one that comes first to mind, but there are lots of others in later decks - that island that makes you fight a hammerhead shark every turn in S&S, that molten lava place that hits you up for fire damage every turn in Wrath, and so forth. We always try to dog-pile those locations to get them through quickly so that few players have to face the "at the beginning of your turn" penalty.