Reiko

QuantumNinja's page

188 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

To conflate the issue, you have items like Amulet of Fiery Fists, which says "You may not play a weapon on this check." I've always thought that was a little strange, because Amulet of Fiery Fists gets played in the step after the one where you would generally play a weapon.

I wonder if the intended effect is not to retroactively exclude a weapon from being played, but rather to exclude *itself* from being played when a weapon has already been played. Something like "Amulet of Fiery fists may not be played in a check where a weapon is played" would capture that idea.

But anyway, this does kinda relate to the current discussion, because if Amulet of Fiery Fists can retroactively prevent a weapon from being played during a check, it's not an unreasonable stretch to say that an item that allows you to play an additional item during a check could be used to grant itself as the additional item if another had already been played.


Alternatively, they could've just removed that "Recharge" box entirely, and just put the appropriate recharge effect in the "Powers" box of each card when necessary. It would've opened up more white space in this section that could be used to describe more complicated effects.


Vic Wertz wrote:
QuantumNinja wrote:
This is probably a discussion for another thread.
Yes, please.

Noted. I'll take it to the homebrew and houserules forum when I get a chance.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
"Power" in this case refers to a player's power, as in "Power Feat," not a card's "power." Card "powers" were covered under "one of each type of card per check."

I honestly think "power" is more general than that, and even if the intent was for it to refer to "character powers" exclusively in this case, I would argue that it SHOULD be more general than that.

Pg 14 of the rulebook explains that "at this location" effects are considered "powers". This is important because effects like Fort Rannick's "When you attempt a combat check, you may discard an ally to add 1d4 to that check" and the Old Light's "Add 1d6 to checks using the Fire trait" could in principal be invoked repeatedly if not for the rule I quoted earlier.

So at the very least, "powers" in the context we're talking about here should refer to both "character powers" and "location powers". But why draw the line here? Why not include ALL powers, whether they're from a boon in your hand, from a boon you've displayed, from your character card, or from a location card?

Orbis Orboros wrote:
If it worked the way you suggest, then you could not have different cards with the same effects played on the same check; this would mean that you could only play one effect that says "add a die to your check," for instance. You would also be unable to play two belts once each on the same check.

Well, that's a gray area. "Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step" is ambiguous about that. If the same power is coming from two different copies of a card, the case could be made that it counts as two separate powers because it's coming from two distinct sources. Or the case could be made that it counts as the same power because it is literally the same string of characters.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, doesn't this line from the rulebook already cover the whole multiple belt problem?

v3 rulebook, pg 10 wrote:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.

It seems clear to me that this should prevent you from revealing a belt more than once during the same check. In other words, is the new FAQ entry about limiting the number of times you can reveal a card even necessary?


Your question reminds me of something that I've been mulling over for the past few weeks. I'm not suggesting this as a change that should be made to the game, but it's something I may try some time as a variant to increase the game's difficulty a bit.

The idea I've been thinking about is to require all cards be put in a "limbo" area in front of you immediately when they are played, regardless of whether they are to be revealed, displayed, discarded, recharged, buried, or banished.

A card in the limbo area is not considered to be in your hand/discard pile/deck, it is its own unique location.

All cards in the limbo area remain there until all of their effects have been resolved, and their effects don't begin to resolve until the players decide not play any more cards. At the point the last card is played, the effects are resolved in an order decided by the players, and then the cards go to their appropriate locations: revealed cards go back to your hand, discarded ones go to your discard pile, banished ones go to the box, buried ones go under your character card, recharged ones go under your deck. Displayed cards remain in the "limbo" area until you are instructed to get rid of them (there could be a separate "display" area distinct from the "limbo" area, but functionally I see no issue considering them to be the same thing). Discarded cards with a recharge check remain in the "limbo" area until you actually perform the recharge check.

In many ways, this is more or less what already happens in the game. One key difference is that this change prevents you from revealing a card for one effect and recharging it for another (the most obvious example of this is Lini, so this would be a pretty blatant nerf to her).

My inspiration for this came from a few different places. One was the thread about playing multiple Belts of Giant Strength an infinite number of times. This change would prevent that because a card that gets revealed goes in the limbo area and can't be revealed again until it goes back in your hand. Granted, this has already been addressed in the FAQ, but I was mulling over this long before that was posted.

Another inspiration was discussions like this. The concept of "Discard to do X" cards with a recharge check having exclusive rights to this "limbo area" idea seemed unappealing to me. Why not consistently make all cards get played into the "limbo area" if it must exist?

Finally, I was trying to apply this concept to address the Restoration issue you brought up, Orbis, but I couldn't quite figure out all the details. I was toying around with the idea of allowing the players only to play into the "limbo" area one time between explorations. So for instance, you couldn't run your Restoration engine concept (before they changed the card) to get your whole discard pile back before your next exploration, because that would require playing into the "limbo" area multiple times. I hadn't fully thought through the details on how much this would limit the Restoration engine, but I think it would make it less effective.

Anyway, I haven't had the time to try this variant out and I haven't really thought through whether this would break the game or not. I think it would make it harder in a few ways, which is all right with me. If I have time, I can report back the findings, or if anyone else wants to venture trying it, please feel free to share your thoughts.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
I agree. Recharging it isn't playing it. But, like you asked, I think it hasn't really completed being played. If it is "in play" than you have you reached the "completed playing" point? You have to be careful though, because I assume the typical "Display" spells are also "in play" but you shouldn't have to wait to recharge them to activate...

So you're saying that a "discard to play" card with a recharge check would trigger Ezren's power AFTER the recharge check, but a "display to play and discard at the end of the turn" card with a recharge check would trigger Ezren's power BEFORE the recharge check?


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
That rule is also part of why I'm not sure Ezren's power needs all this help. The part about it being "in play" is what makes me feel like he doesn't reach "After you play a spell" until he attempts the recharge check for the "Discard/Recharge" spells, because he hasn't fully finished playing it yet until her attempts the recharge check.

I'm of the opinion that doing the recharge check of a spell is not part of "playing it".

v3 rulebook, pg 9 wrote:
Playing a card means activating that card’s power by revealing, displaying, discarding, recharging, burying, or banishing that card. Doing something with a card that does not activate that card’s power does not count as playing that card.

When you attempt a recharge check of a spell, you are not activating a "power". You've already activated the power at that point, so in my mind, you're done "playing" the card.

But it is a bit ambiguous. It could be that the act of revealing/displaying/discarding/recharging/burying/banishing is entwined with the concept of "playing a card", so maybe the card isn't considered "played" until you actually reveal/display/discard/recharge/bury/banish it. Under this interpretation, the fate of the card (discard or recharge) isn't determined until after you complete the recharge check, so it wouldn't be considered "played" until the recharge check is finished.

So basically, the question is, at what point is the act of "playing a card" complete? Immediately after the power is activated, or immediately when the card reaches its "destination" (e.g. you discard pile, bottom of your deck, back to the box, etc.) ?


Orbis Orboros wrote:
So, on a somewhat related note, just how much does the quantity of cards like this affect your decisions to erratta? If the belts, for instance, only came in amounts of one each so that you couldn't reveal two of them for a loop, would you change them still?

The way I interpret the rules, I don't think the infinite loop with the belts is possible.

v3 rulebook, pg 10 wrote:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.

That pretty much prevents infinite looping of powers during an encounter, in my mind. No errata necessary.

On the other hand, the Restoration cycling trick you've described here would most likely require an errata to Restoration if it is deemed sufficiently game-breaking. That could entail making it only playable at the start of the turn or the end of the turn, removing the recharge check, requiring it to be displayed in front of you until the end of the turn, adding a cost to bury a card from your discard pile, etc.


Basically, at the moment you choose to reset your hand, you forfeit your right to play anything else except for "end of turn" powers. As soon as you resolve those, you can't play anything else. Then you reset your hand, and your turn immediately ends.


Orbis Orboros wrote:
You recharge after applying the effect of the card. It's the last thing you do. However, you make the check AS you're playing the card, which would matter if you were, say, playing as Lini in combat and you're about to have to discard your hand due to damage.

Ok, thanks, that's kinda what I figured. The answer seems to have been in the rulebook all along, I just manged to forget about it:

pg 15 wrote:
Recharge: This explains circumstances under which you may recharge the card—put it on the bottom of your deck—after playing it.


For me, this raises the question of when the recharge happens in relation to the resolution of the power. Does the "draw 2 cards" power on Restoration resolve before you would recharge it, or does it resolve after you recharge it?

This question applies more generally to a lot of cards, not just Restoration. I'm sure this question has been asked and answered before, but I can't seem to find anything about it in the rulebook or in the forums. Anyone know offhand what the answer is? Thanks.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Add 2 with the Force trait to your check.

Add 2 to your check with the Force trait.

The first one gives you both 2 and the force trait, the second gives you 2 if you check already has the Force trait.

To make the distinction clearer between the two cases, I think a good alternative to the first would be something like this:

Add 2 and the Force trait to your check.


Awesome, thanks for the reply, Hawkmoon. I must have missed those conversations, so thanks for bringing them to my attention.

If nothing else, this serves as even further justification as to why there really should be an explicit step in the encounter sequence to "Apply When Encountered" effects.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Also, (just catching up on this thread), the rule on card limits is 1 card of each type by each character per step of Encountering a Card, of which Attempt the Check is one of those steps.

At the very least, I think the rules allow you to play both Toxic Cloud and Incendiary Cloud when you encounter a card. Neither of them is played during a "step" of the encounter, so the rule about one card type per player per step shouldn't apply.


Let's just introduce a new concept for Angel in the Tower: "At the end of the end of your turn."

Just add more levels as necessary: "At the start of the end of the end of your turn," etc.


Ok, but that still doesn't address the issue of whether or not I can play Strength immediately when I encounter a card. I get that it probably is not the intent to be able to play Strength then, but I don't see anything in the rulebook that specifically prevents me from doing this.


Ok, looking a bit more closely, the closest thing I can find is this:

pg 10 wrote:
Encountering a Card: Players may only play cards or activate powers that relate to each step.

The thing is, the point in time at which "when you encounter" effects trigger is not an explicit step in the encounter sequence. As such, I would argue that the above rule doesn't apply to the case I've described.

If anything, this makes another reason why there should be an explicit step before "Evade (Optional)" called something like "Apply When Encountered Effects". The other, more obvious, reason to do that would to clear up a lot of confusion regarding whether these effects trigger when you evade a card.


csouth154 wrote:
You cannot play cards when you encounter something unless the card instructs you to play it at that time.

Can you point to a particular statement in the rulebook that supports that, please? I've looked, and I don't see anything that explicitly states anything like that.


Here's a thought. Can you play Strength immediately when a bane is encountered?

We already know that when you encounter a bane, there is an opportunity to play spells like Toxic Cloud and Incendiary Cloud, because those cards specifically state to play them at that point in time.

The spell Strength does not specify a certain time when it must be played, so wouldn't it be fair to assume you can play it in the same window of opportunity where you would play Toxic/Incendiary Cloud?

If the answer is yes, the upshot is that you could cast Strength immediately when you encounter a bane, and then cast a spell like Aid or Guidance during the check. This would NOT violate this rule:

pg 10 wrote:
Encountering a Card: Each player may play no more than 1 card of each type during each step; for example, no one player may play more than 1 blessing while attempting a check, though multiple players could each play 1 blessing during that check.

That's because Strength and Aid would NOT be played during the same step.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
My guess is the "Once per check" part on Lem might be unnecessary.

I agree with this. It's funny how extra text added for clarity can sometimes actually cause more confusion. "Well if you added that text here, why didn't you add it in this other place?"


This may be off-topic a bit, but consider this weird case.

'At this Location' effects are referred to in the rulebook as powers:

pg 14 wrote:
At This Location: These are special powers that are in effect while the location is open. Some of these remain in effect when the location is permanently closed; in that case, they also appear on the back of the location card.

So if I'm at The Old Light location ("Add 1d6 to checks using the Fire trait.") and I make a check with the Fire Trait, am I "activating a power" when I use the location's effect? If I am, and the rule...

Quote:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.

... is meant to refer to ALL powers, then it's a good thing that this rule prevents me from using the power repeatedly to add 157d6 to my check. But strangely enough, the way the card is worded, it almost sounds like all characters at my location could add 1d6 to my check, because it doesn't say "your check".

This discussion also applies to Fort Rannick ("When you attempt a combat check, you may discard an ally to add 1d4 to the check.") Can I discard 3 allies from my hand to add 3d4 to my combat check? I would argue that the rule I quoted prevents you from doing this.


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

I've always read that as referring to the character powers, since it is usually used in conjunction with playing cards, as in the sentence after that:

Rulebook v3 p10 wrote:
Players may not play any cards or activate any powers between these steps.

If activating powers covered the activation of powers on boons when they are played, then the "play any cards" part of the sentence is redundant.

But that is just how I read it, not how it is meant to be read.

In regards to the sentence you mentioned, I think they could have just as easily said "Players may not activate any powers between these steps." Playing a card activates it powers, so that sentence you quoted is already redundant, as written.

Actually, the phrase "play a card or activate a power" shows up quite a few times in the rulebook. Personally, I think it's redundant in most of those cases. For example, the step "Play cards and Use Powers That Affect the Check (Optional)" in attempting a check could just as easily been called "Use Powers that Affect the Check (Optional)." But I can see why they might have worded it the way they did to emphasize the ability to play cards at that point.

But returning to the quote in question:

Quote:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.

The sentence doesn't specifically mention "character" powers, so I would argue that it should be read in the most general sense (i.e. it refers to ALL powers).


Doesn't the following rule already prevent the kind of infinite loops we're talking about here?

pg 10 wrote:
Each player may activate any power no more than once during each step.

Let's say you have two Belts of Giant Strength in your hand. Let's say you're attempting a Strength check and you use Belt #1. You could argue that right then and there, you can't play Belt #2, because it's still the same power as the first belt (even though it's coming from a different card).

But supposing Belt #2's power is considered to be distinct from Belt #1's power, I'm pretty sure the rule above would explicitly prevent you from playing Belt #1 again. You've already activated that power once, so you can't activate it again.

What I want to know is whether the powers on Belt #1 and Belt #2 are considered to be the same or distinct for the purposes of the above rule. In other words, does the rule actually prevent you from playing both belts?


csouth154 wrote:
My position is not quite the 'A' that you described. I think his effect triggers if you do NOT evade and either fail the check or choose not to attempt it. Maybe that's how you meant to word it.

You are right, that is a more accurate way of putting it.

In the meantime, I'm glad the design team is taking their time with this one rather than rushing simply to get us a response.


Bidmaron wrote:
Quantum, I don't see how C could fit at all with the way the card is worded. To me (and HM), the golden rule makes case B the only reasonable choice, but obviously csouth disagrees.

No, I'm on the same page as you. Case B is what makes the most sense to me, too.

csouth seems to support Case A. Earlier in this thread, he essentially said "If the designers intended for the burglar to work like case B, they should have made it case C." In other words, I think he was trying to imply that case B is equivalent to case C. I was trying to point out that case C is NOT equivalent to case B.


Shade325 wrote:


Going back to the X and Y consideration from earlier in this thread.

Variation of Suggestion #2 (version 2.1):
Refer to X using "Before resolving"
Refer to Y using "After resolving"
What it entails:
-Define the act of Attempting to Defeat or Acquire a card as “resolving” it.
-Globally rename/errata all “Before you encounter” instances with “Before resolving.”
-Globally rename/errata all “After you encounter” instances with “After resolving.”
-Change the Encountering a Card sequence as follows:
* Apply “When you encounter” effects, if needed
* Evade the Card (Optional)
* Resolve the Card
* Conclude the Encounter (formerly Resolve the Encounter… name changed for obvious reasons.)
-Create a Resolve the Card sequence that looks like:
* Apply “Before resolving” effects, if needed
* Attempt the check
* Attempt the next check, if needed
* Apply “After resolving” effects, if needed
Possible Strengths
-"Before resolving" is more intuitive than "before the encounter"
-"After resolving" is more intuitive than "after then encounter”
-Makes is clear that Evade the Card is part of the Encounter but occurs before Resolving the check to Acquire or Defeat.
Possible Issues
-Seems like a bit of an overhaul but ultimately it uses many of the parts that are already in place with cleaner definitions.
-??? (Sure there are more. Hit me with them)

Off the top of my head, another issue is the possible ambiguity of the words "before" and "after" (and this applies to all suggestions that use those words). In the same way that "meet me before noon" is fairly vague about when you should actually meet me, "before resolving" is potentially vague about when exactly the effect might occur. Yes, you could spell out exactly when the effect is intended to trigger, as you have done. But why use a potentially vague word in the first place?

For this reason, my preference would be to use something like "At X" (e.g. "At the start of your turn") or "When X" (e.g. "When encountered"). "Meet me at 11 AM" or "Meet me when the clock strikes 11 AM" are explicitly less vague than "Meet me before noon".


Shade325 wrote:
Point conceded on the Shrine to Lamshtu and Warrens. While I think there could be some elegance to the game in the end all with the idea of a term like "expose" I concede that it would change the game as it currently works.

I didn't mean to deflate your idea, because I think it does have its merits. I just wanted to point out that it would have more far-reaching consequences than you might have realized. Mechanics changes aren't necessarily a bad thing, but they do require additional play-testing and re-analysis of card interactions. I could see the designers being hesitant about doing something like that so late in the game.


csouth154 wrote:
Bidmaron wrote:
HM, I would disagree with your last. We need to avoid the encounter word, as it has us all bolloxed. The burglar needs to say "This card may not be evaded" if the intent is to take the damage if you don't acquire it (because if Merisiel or someone else can't evade it, then they either accept the damage or attempt the acquisition. Your first wording doesn't fix the problem, because people are going to think if they evade, they don't encounter.
I agree with this assessment. If their intent is for evasion not to ignore that text, the most elegant way of solving it would be to just say you can't evade the card. I don't believe that is their intent, though.

But that would change the mechanics of the card. Flat-out giving him immunity to evasion changes how you can interact with the card. Consider these cases:

Case A) The burglar can be evaded. His effect only triggers only when you do not evade and fail to acquire him.

Case B) The burglar can be evaded. His effect will trigger when you evade him or when you fail to acquire him.

Case C) The burglar cannot be evaded. His effect will trigger when you fail to acquire him.

This thread is about whether A or B is the intended interpretation of the card. My point here is that Case C is not identical to Case B. Case C denies you the option of evading the card and leaving it for another character to acquire. It forces you to attempt a check you may not necessarily want to attempt, and potentially end up banishing a boon you didn't want to banish.

I could argue the flip-side of your argument just as easily:

If their intent is for evasion to ignore that text, the most elegant way of solving it would be to just say that effect triggers "after the encounter."


Shade325 wrote:
Skeleton Horde: "Each character at an open location summons and encounters an Ancient Skeleton henchman" No change. Each character summons which we would understand to mean expose and then either evades or encounters.

Interpreting the card through your suggestion, I would argue that the statement "Summon and encounter" would explicitly deny you the ability to evade because the card is explicitly instructing you to encounter. If you want to retain the ability to evade monsters that are summoned, I believe it would require updating any card that says "summon and encounter" to simply say "summon."

Shade325 wrote:
Blessing of the Gods: "If you encounter this card, you automatically acquire it" No change. You expose the card and then either evade or encounter it. You have the choice of evading it and leaving it for someone else.

That entails a change to the current mechanics. Currently, you cannot evade a Blessing of the Gods, which has ramifications at the Shrine of Lamashtu.

Shade325 wrote:
Bruthazmus: "Encounter Bruthazmus twice. Bruthazmus is defeated or undefeated based solely on the results of the second encounter." Possible change if you rule that you can Encounter him once and Evade him the second time. If you only get one chance to Evade him then no change.

Again, this entails a change to the current mechanics. Consider the situation of Bruthazmus at the Warrens (don't have the scenario cards in front of me, so I'm not sure if this is hypothetical or could actually happen). Currently, when you run into him at the Warrens, you trigger the location effect twice, regardless of whether you evade once, twice, or not at all.

If you changed the Warrens effect to be "When you expose a monster at this location...", you would only ever trigger it once when you run into Bruthazmus.

If you kept the Warrens effect to be "When you encounter a monster at this location...", evading Bruthazmus once would the trigger the location effect only once, and evading him twice would not trigger the effect at all.

Either way, it would not sync up with the current mechanics.

Shade325 wrote:
Tangletooth: "Each character at this location encounters Tangletooth." This one you got me. You'd need something like "Before encountering each character at this location must chose to Evade Tangletooth if they can. Each character that did not Evade Tangletooth encounters him."

That still wouldn't agree with the current mechanics. Again, consider something like Tangletooth at the Warrens. In this case, it makes everyone at the Warrens add a monster to a random open location, regardless of whether or not they choose to evade Tangletooth.

If the Warrens effect was changed to "When you expose..." then Tangletooth would only trigger the effect once when exposed.

If the Warrens effect was changed to "When you encounter...", then Tangletooth would not trigger the effect for characters that evade her.


Shade325 wrote:

I guess feel that changing the card terminology would mean every card with the "Before the encounter" or "After the encounter" effect would need to be errataed. That feels like a lot of cards to me. Approach 2 would leave those terms in place and modify the rulebook which has already been re-released twice (I believe) and the cards with the "When you first encounter" which are far less than "Before the Encounter."

Approach 2 is a bit more far-reaching than just cards with "When you encounter" effects. Literally every instance of the word "encounter", except with "before the encounter" and "after the encounter" effects would have to be replaced.

Examples:

Skeleton Horde: "Each character at an open location summons and encounters an Ancient Skeleton henchman" would need to be changed to something like "Each character at an open location summons and exposes an Ancient Skeleton henchman." In fact, all instances of "summon and encounter", which is fairly common, would have to be replaced to reflect the change in terminology.

Tangletooth: "Each character at this location encounters Tangletooth" becomes "Each character at this location exposes Tangletooth." "Encounter" sounds much more natural in this context to me.

Bruthazmus: "Encounter Bruthazmus twice. Bruthazmus is defeated or undefeated based solely on the results of the second encounter." becomes "Expose Bruthazmus twice. Bruthazmus is defeated or undefeated based solely on the results of the second time you expose." Again, I find encounter to be the more natural and intuitive sounding choice here.

Blessing of the Gods: "If you encounter this card, you automatically acquire it" would need to become "If you expose this card, you automatically acquire it." I see a lot of potential for confusion here amongst new players. "Does playing BotG from my hand count as exposing the card?" "Does flipping a BotG from the blessings deck count as exposing the card?"

More examples surely exist, but I just wanted to provide a flavor for the kinds of things that would need to be considered when going with approach 2.


csouth154 wrote:
Honestly, regardless of the words that are used, all that needs to happen is to use two different terms for "encounter the card" and "all the stuff that has to happen if you don't evade". Currently, "encounter" is being used to describe both of those things. Doesn't matter what the terms are...but they need to be different.

This is essentially the heart of the issue. Suggestions to address it so far fall into these two categories:

1) Modify the terminology for "before the encounter" and "after the encounter" effects (for examples, see my post above)

2) Modify the terminology for "encountering a card" (e.g. the recent suggestions of "activating a card" or "exposing a card")

Personally, I think approach 1 is the simpler and cleaner fix. Looking through the rulebook, almost all instances of the word "encounter" seem to be used to describe the entire process of dealing with a card that was revealed through exploration or summoning. In other words, the usage of "encounter" in that sense seems to be much more deeply engrained throughout the rulebook than in the other sense (i.e. describing the steps that happen between "before the encounter" effects and "after the encounter" effects).

Approach 2 would mean a much more substantial update to the rulebook and a lot more cards would have to be issued errata. Basically, nearly every instance of the word "encounter" would have to be replaced throughout the game. Why make a drastic change across the board like that when "encounter" in the more common sense is perfectly functional as is?

Approach 1 would require updating a smaller amount of rules and would require a much smaller subset of cards to be updated.


Barmace wrote:
I just wanted to explain why I think #1 seems unfair.

I prefer to call it "challenging" instead of "unfair". "Challenging" situations are what make the game interesting. If you could always use the best character to get the job done for each situation, I think the game would be a lot less fun and compelling.


Shade325 wrote:

OK... here is a rulebook change. Move Evade to something you do when Exploring (p.8)... not something you do when Encountering a Card (p.10.)

So you Explore and flip over the top card of the deck. Now you choose to Evade it if you can. If not you Encounter the Card.

If you remove Evade from the Encounter a Card sequence does Before/After an Encounter make more intuitive sense.

What would you propose to handle evading encounters that are summoned?


Hmmm, I never knew about that thread, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Clearly I was in the wrong, but I'm not really satisfied with the correct rule. It makes an implicit assumption that when you first encounter a card, the only effects that trigger immediately before you can choose to evade are immunities (X), things that prevent evasion (Y), and "When encountered" effects (Z). The rulebook does not spell this out explicitly.

So the rule is essentially "When you encounter a card, first check to see if it has powers of type X, Y, Z. Apply those effects immediately, then you may evade the card."

I personally think it would be cleaner to have it be "When you encounter a card, apply all powers at the specified steps in the encounter sequence. If no step is specified, apply the effect immediately."

If the intent is that X, Y, Z powers have special timing in relation to evading, that definitely needs to be spelled out clearly in the rulebook, in my opinion.


huskyskins wrote:


Why? You'll agree that you can evade the Zombie Horde card, yet it specifically instructs you to summon and encounter a Zombie Minion henchman. All cards have instructions on them. Very few of these instructions override evading the card. You're reading "cannot be evaded" into what I wrote when it is clearly not there. If it could not be evaded it would say "When encountered..." or "...may not be evaded".

Nope, I do not agree. I think the moment you encounter the Zombie Horde, its power immediately activates. It should probably be prefaced with "When you encounter Zombie Horde..." to be clearer, but my interpretation is that you cannot evade the effect.

Basically, I don't see evading as an action that lets you ignore powers on encountered cards. I see it as an action that lets you skip certain steps of the encounter sequence and nothing more.


William A. wrote:
Then why even list the "if you don't have a skill, roll a d4"? Can someone show me a card that says that the only way to defeat it is say Disable and not Dexterity or Disable. So far in the base set I haven't run across a card like that once and I've sleeved every card so I've looked at them all. Is there one in an adventure in RotRL that is only Disable (or any other skill)?

Without going through all the cards right now, there's at least one instance that I can think of. Barl Breakbones is a Villain in Hook Mountain Massacre (Set 3) that has a straight Fortitude check, instead of the common Constitution/Fortitude combo.


In the scenario you describe, you have 4 choices to make:

-Attempt to roll 7 or higher on an Intelligence check. Harsk's Intelligence is d6, so you would roll a d6.
-Attempt to roll 7 or higher on an Arcane check. Harsk doesn't have the Arcane skill, so you would roll a d4.
-Attempt to roll 6 or higher on a Charisma check. Harsk's Charisma is d4, so you would roll a d4.
-Attempt to roll 6 or higher on a Diplomacy check. Harsk doesn't have the Diplomacy skill, so you would roll a d4.


huskyskins wrote:
I'm not suggesting the removal of "When encountered...", only the removal of "Before the encounter..." Just that one phrase. It serves no purpose that I can see, since it prefaces a condition that can be evaded, the same as the rest of the card text that isn't prefaced by "when encountered", or with the suffix "...may not be evaded". It can easily be replaced by "then attempt the check(s)" at the end of the sentence, or simply deleted entirely if there is no check on the card.

My understanding is that evading doesn't allow you to ignore *any* powers of an encountered card, because the rulebook never says anything about ignoring powers when you evade. Evading allows you to bypass certain steps of an encounter, so you can *effectively* ignore any effects associated with those particular steps when you do evade. But for all intents and purposes, all powers of an encounter are "recognized" the moment it is revealed, whether you choose to evade it or not.

So to me, when you suggest something like "Recharge 2 cards of your choice from your hand, then attempt the check", I see that as almost an unavoidable instruction that must be done the moment the card is encountered. It potentially suggests that you have no opportunity to evade.


Andrew K wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
The exception is recharge checks. If you don't have the skill required for a recharge check on your card, you may not attempt to recharge.
Is this an edit in the new rules versions? I don't recall ever seeing this in the printed book.

It's definitely in the newest version of the rulebook, and I'm pretty sure it's been there since the original version:

v3 rulebook, pg 15 wrote:
Recharge: This explains circumstances under which you may recharge the card—put it on the bottom of your deck—after playing it; it usually appears on cards that you would otherwise be required to discard. Usually, recharging requires a skill check; if you don’t have at least one of the skills listed for the check, you cannot attempt to recharge the card.


huskyskins wrote:

Everything happens before the check, when there is a check, unless it says "after the encounter..." No need to change that text, unless to change it to "at the end of the encounter..."

If there is no check, it happens in the order it is written.

"When encountered" effects happen the moment you reveal a card, before you can even choose to evade it. "Before the encounter" effects happen after you choose not to evade but before you make any checks.

Both kinds of effects happen before any checks are made, but they have distinct timing. There needs to be a way to distinguish between these two timings.


Sounds good, Vic. Thanks for your response and for looking into this.


huskyskins wrote:
No one has yet given a cogent reason why "before the encounter" cannot just be deleted from the card.

How would you know when to resolve those effects?


3Doubloons wrote:
I don't think any of the "Before X" and "After X" should entail removing the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before/After the Encounter, If Needed" step, only to reword it to use the proposed terminology. That fixes the issue of when exactly to resolve these powers.

You're right, those steps could just as well be kept in the sequence and renamed appropriately in most circumstances. I used my discretion in cases where I thought those steps could safely be removed or merged with other steps, but it definitely is not necessary. I may have gone a tad overboard applying that approach to most of the suggestions.


Vic Wertz wrote:

All Valeros's power cares about is what the ultimate disposition of the card would be. Finish one thing before you start something else—in this case, finish doing everything that the weapon card says. At the end of all that, if the card is being discarded, then you can use his power to recharge it instead; if it's not being discarded, you can't.

There's no conflict, so no need to consult the golden rule.

Thank you for this explanation, by the way. It cleared up a lot of timing issues in my mind about things like Valeros' power ("When you play a weapon, recharge instead of discard") and Lini's power ("When you play an animal ally, recharge instead of discard"). Previously I had assumed these were things that trigger immediately when you play a card, but now I get that these are things that happen after the card has already been played and is on its way to the discard pile. It now makes very clear sense to me why Lini's power cannot be used to prevent animals from being buried while at the Farmhouse.


So for those not keeping track at home, here's a brief recap of the issue and most of the suggestions that have been made so far.

The issue at hand is how to refer to effects that happen "Before the encounter" (let me abstractly refer to these as "X") and effects that happen "After the encounter" (which I'll abstractly refer to as "Y"). You could come up with any labels for X and Y that you want, and functionally, it wouldn't really change anything about the game's mechanics. The goal is to come up with the most intuitive/logical labels for X and Y that will result in the least amount of confusion to players.

Proposed solutions: (NOTE this isn't meant to be comprehensive, and I'm para-phasing ideas here, not necessarily reproducing them verbatim)

Suggestion #1:
Refer to X using "Before the encounter"
Refer to Y using "After the encounter"
What it entails:
-This is the current terminology already used in the game.
Possible Strengths
-No updates to the rulebook or cards would be necessary if this terminology stuck
-The community may already be comfortable with this terminology
Possible Issues
-Since X and Y happen inside an encounter, it clashes with logic/intuition to say they happen before/after the encounter. This has caused confusion for some players.

Suggestion #2:
Refer to X using "At the start of the encounter"
Refer to Y using "At the end of the encounter"
What it entails:
-Rename the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence to "Start of the Encounter"
-Rename the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence to "End of the Encounter"
Possible Strengths
-"Start of the encounter" is more intuitive/accurate than "before the encounter"
-"End of the encounter" is more intuitive/accurate than "after the encounter"
-Doesn't involving adding new terminology
Possible Issues
-Still potentially confusing, because the opportunity to evade, which is part of the encounter, happens before the "start of the encounter". See Vic's post here.
-Also "end of the encounter" happens before "resolve the encounter", which may be confusing

Suggestion #3:
Refer to X using "Before the first check"
Refer to Y using "After the last check"
What it entails:
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
Possible Strengths
-Reduces the number of steps in the encounter sequence
-Potentially makes it clear that X and Y effects trigger immediately before and after attempting any checks, which is consistent with what happens mechanically
-Doesn't involve adding new terminology
Possible Issues
-"Before the first check" is vague in the sense that this could literally refer to ANY time before the first check (e.g. before you even decide to evade the card).
- Also, see the end of Vic's post here.

Suggestion #4:
Refer to X using "Before you engage"
Refer to Y using "After you engage"
What it entails:
-Introduce the new terminology "engage". "When you engage" refers to the moment before you "Attempt the checks" and "Attempt the next check, if necessary"
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
Possible Strengths
-Reduces the number of steps in the encounter sequence
-Potentially makes it clear that X and Y effects trigger immediately before and after attempting any checks, which is consistent with what happens mechanically
Possible Issues
-Introduces extra terminology to the game that doesn't refer to a new concept in the game. "When you engage" and "When you attempt the check" are essentially two names for the same concept.
-Same issue as Suggestion #3. "Before you engage" is vague in the sense that this could literally refer to ANY time before you engage (e.g. before you even decide to evade the card).

Suggestion #5:
Refer to X using "When you engage"
Refer to Y using "When you disengage"
What it entails:
-Replace the step "Evade (Optional)" with "Evade or Engage" in the encounter sequence.
-Introduce the new terminology "engage". This refers to the moment where you choose not to evade.
-Introduce the new terminology "disengage". This refers to the moment when all checks on the encounter have been completed.
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
-Rename the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence to "Disengage the Encounter"
Possible Strengths
-Reduces the number of steps in the encounter sequence
-Makes it clear that X effects happen at the exact moment you choose not to evade
-Makes it clear that Y effects happen at the exact moment you finish all checks on the encounter
Possible Issues
-Adds extra terminology to the game
-Other criticisms welcome (as this is my current suggestion, I'm biased, so I may be missing something)

Suggestion #6:
Refer to X using "Before attempting to defeat"
Refer to Y using "After attempting to defeat"
What it entails:
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
Possible Strengths
-Reduces the number of steps in the encounter sequence
-Potentially makes it clear that X and Y effects trigger immediately before and after attempting any checks, which is consistent with what happens mechanically
-Doesn't add new terminology
Possible Issues
-Same issue as Suggestion #3. "Before attempting to defeat" is vague in the sense that this could literally refer to ANY time before you attempt to defeat (e.g. before you even decide to evade the card).

Suggestion #7:
Refer to X using "4"
Refer to Y using "6"
What it entails:
-Associate a number to each step in the encounter sequence
-On all cards, use the number associated with one of these steps to indicate when an effect occurs
Possible Strengths
-Provides a way to refer to the timing of each effect with minimal amount of characters (i.e. could save text space on cards)
-Makes the order in which effects resolve very clear
Possible Issues
-Would require updating tons of previously released cards to fit the new format
-Replacing "Before the encounter" with a number like "4" obscures away when the effect actually triggers. Players would have to memorize exactly when a type "4" effect triggers, in addition to all the other numbers.

Suggestion #8:
Refer to X using "When you don't evade, immediately..."
Refer to Y using "At the end of the encounter"
What it entails:
-Remove the "Apply Any Effects That Happen Before the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence, as it no longer necessary
-Rename the "Apply Any Effects That Happen After the Encounter, If Needed" step in the encounter sequence to "End of the Encounter"
Possible Strengths
-"End of the encounter" is more intuitive/accurate than "after the encounter"
-Doesn't involve adding new terminology to the game
Possible Issues
-"End of the encounter" happens before "resolve the encounter", which may be confusing
-"When you don't evade, immediately..." may be slightly wordy (uses more text real estate)


Just FYI FatePAC, that suggestion has been made, and both Mike and Vic weighed in with responses to it here and here.


Vic Wertz wrote:

Also, I'll note that your most recent solution requires the extra terminology as well.

That was me conceding that the "engage" suggestion is perhaps the cleanest way to handle this, despite my opposition to it previously.

I also see your point that not evading triggers an "engagement", so it's not really correct to say that "not evading" and "engaging" are the same thing. But I could argue that "engagement" in this case is referring to the "attempt the check" and "attempt the next check" steps of the encounter, so it is still introducing another name for something that already has a name.

What I was getting at with my suggestion above was to point out that instead of defining "engagement" to refer to the "Attempt the check" / "Attempt the next check" steps, you could alternatively define "Engaged" to mean "Not evaded but before any checks are attempted." The difference here is that the terminology is being introduced to define something that doesn't have a simple name already, instead of being introduced to refer to something that already has a name.

Similarly "Disengaged" is introduced to mean "After all checks are attempted."


Fair enough. What about the question earlier about Amiri's power?

Amiri reveals Dogslicer for her combat check. She uses her power to bury Dogslicer to add 1d10. She rolls a 1, so Dogslicer instructs her to discard it.

I think there's a conflict now. Amiri's says to bury the card, the Dogslicer says to discard it. Amiri's card should take precedence according to the Golden rule, so it should get buried. Right?


Doesn't the Golden rule cover this situation?

Valeros chooses to use his power to recharge the Dogslicer instead of discarding it. He rolls a 1.

Valeros says "I'm recharging you." Dogslicer says "No you're discarding me." Conflict! Consult the Golden rule!

Golden rule says, "Character cards trump other card types (which includes weapons). Valeros wins the conflict!"

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>