csouth154's page

Jones is correct, and for the correct reason.

No, but you can make a melee check using a d4 even if it's not listed on your character card. You can always make any check with any skill not on your card using a d4 as your die, with the exception of recharge checks.

Don't forget that summoned cards are ALWAYS banished after encountering them, regardless of how the encounter is resolved. This doesn't usually matter, since most summoned cards will not have the basic or elite traits (because they are usually henchmen, villains, or ships), but it can happen on occasion the a random monster card is summoned.

In addition to the above: if a bane requires more than one check to defeat, the encountering character must choose at least one of the checks to attempt themselves. Any others can be attempted by any character at the location.

csouth154 wrote:

I am honestly shocked at how botched some of these translations are. I don't think it's a case of "lost in translation" so much as it is just plain incompetence.

Translation can be really difficult if the translator doesn't understand the context really well. It's not enough to just know both languages.

Yes, but when context is so obviously misunderstood in SO many instances, it hints at a breakdown (or absence) of the QA process.

I am honestly shocked at how botched some of these translations are. I don't think it's a case of "lost in translation" so much as it is just plain incompetence.

Wow. You're right. This is an old thread. I didn't even notice. Just got involved because of the recent foul necromancy.

Um...there was another thread discussing traits in which the team clarified that the skill used for a check does indeed add itself as a trait. I can't come close to being bothered to find it. Maybe someone else can,..

Closing the location after defeating the villain is especially important once you start deck 3 because closing involves banishing any remaining non-villain cards, and cards with certain traits get removed from the game when they are banished during play after you start deck 3. Cards banished during the final closing after defeating a cornered villain are no exception.

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

csouth154 wrote:

I'm a little confused,here. Are you saying that if you play a card that has an explore power before you take your free explore, even if you don't utilize that card's explore power, then you have forfeited your free explore simply by playing that card for any purpose?

I'm not sure that is what is being said. If you play a Troubadour to add to a check before your free explore, then you have NOT given up the free explore. But if you explore, then you have.

csouth, if you play a card that allows you to explore (like an ally or some other card) and you play it before your free exploration, you don't get two explorations. So with the Lettes of Marque, if you play that card before your free exploration, you don't get to add the boons to the location deck, explore, then do the free explore.

Yeah, I'm clear on that, now. I was just confused because I wasn't familiar with the specific cards being referenced. I just kept asking myself why anyone would even WANT to play a card to explore before taking their free one, but now that I realize what they do, I understand.

I'm a little confused,here. Are you saying that if you play a card that has an explore power before you take your free explore, even if you don't utilize that card's explore power, then you have forfeited your free explore simply by playing that card for any purpose?

Everything Hawk said, but remember that only the character attempting the check can play a card or power that determines the skill for the check (the ones that say "For your combat check"), and only one such card or power may be played, even if they are different types of cards.

This was another question I had. Probably should go in the FAQ.

Honestly, the FAQ page for this game is more for errata and wording changes than it is for answering Frequently Asked Questions. There's no need for errata, since there's nothing in the rules that says, or even suggests, that any check to defeat a monster is a combat check. That is just a preconceived notion that some bring to the table.

There are some checks you can choose not to attempt at all, such as checks to acquire boons or checks to recharge. Keep in mind that this is not the same thing as choosing to fail a check. You cannot choose to fail a check you are required to make, though you are free to choose the weakest skill you can for the check, if a choice between skills is given.

I am now (and probably will be all day) picturing someone throwing caltrops on the ground near a hermit crab and expecting....what, exactly?

Any card or power may only be played once per check or step of an encounter.

No, you would roll 2d12 + 2. When something adds a die, it only adds whatever the base die for the check is without any bonuses.

Yes. :)

It sounds to me like it is meant to save one card in your hand from going to the discard pile in the event of a total hand wipe. If you fail a combat check, and the damage will be enough to send your entire hand to the discard pile, you reveal this card before taking damage in order to recharge one card instead of putting it in the discard pile.

This sounds like a horrible card to me. Certainly not worthy of a place in any deck, but MIGHT (though probably not) come in handy later during the turn in which she is acquired from a location deck. I would certainly not keep her in my hand any longer than that...

Probabilities can be very counter-intuitive. I had explain the "Monty Hall problem" to my friend several times...and he had to confirm it from numerous different sources before he accepted my explanation.

I would say it should not be allowed. A check to close is a check that directly results in the location being closed. If you must defeat a bane to close the location, the check to defeat is not technically a check to close...it is a check to defeat. The bane being defeated is what causes the location to close, but you are not DIRECTLY closing the location with that check. You could not use the blessing that adds two dice to a check to close a location in this circumstance, and you can not use Good Omen in this circumstance for the same reason.

While I understand the intention, this brings up an issue:

Giving this card the piercing trait would prevent this card from being played for any reason during an encounter with a monster that is immune to the piercing trait, per the rules regarding immunity.

It seems like having the specific card power in question ADD the piercing trait to the check, rather than giving the CARD the piercing trait, would solve this problem.

I don't think it's common, but it could definitely be a possibility. That's exactly why I requested this clarification since I wasn't sure if you guys wanted death to be possible in that situation.

Thanks for the clarification, Vic.

Are you asking that if the blessings deck is empty at the start of the player's turn the scenario is not over?

So there's one (or more) blessing(s) on the deck.
Player Y discards a blessing.
Player Y takes her turn.
[During the course of her turn, she discards the rest of the blessings.]
Player Y ends her turn after resetting her hand. (If she did not have enough cards to reset her hand, her character dies.)

Then ...

Player Z has no cards left in the blessings deck.
He attempts to flip a card but can't.
He takes his turn.
Player Z ends his turn after resetting his hand. (If he did not have enough cards to reset his hand, his character dies.)

And then the game ends?

This makes no sense. And potentially kills Player Z if he threw all his resources (cards) to help Player Y end the scenario (by killing the villain but failing). Even if Player Z has a Holy Candle to play in his hand. It is too late. Should have played it the prior round.

No, no. I'm not suggesting that another full turn be taken in this instance; just a last hand reset and end turn, as instructed by the FAQ resolution.

Correct.

I'm not so sure. The blessing discard is the first phase of a turn... so that implies that a turn is indeed happening already and not initiated only by a successful blessing deck flip.

Resolved in FAQ.

Does this apply even for the blessing discard to start a turn? I only ask since this resolution was written to cover the situation of powers causing a blessing deck discard during a turn after the initial discard that begins every turn. Does this resolution mean that EVERY ending of a game due to lack of cards in the blessing deck must end with the current player ending their turn?

With one casual comment, Vic destroyed our understanding of this game. :)

Yeah. That is how I've been treating it too, as "at the end of your turn." In fact, I read it so quickly I was thinking that was what it said. I think it is pretty clear that is the intention.

I would disagree. I'm fairly certain they want you to be able to discard the cards in question during reset, if you wish.

Edit: in fact I'm absolutely certain. If you recover them at the end of your turn, that would be AFTER you reset...so you would be over your max hand size. There's no way that's what they intended. "Before resetting your hand" clearly means AFTER "end of turn" actions, so nothing can be done by anyone between collecting and resetting.

I would say it still doesn't apply to giving a card.

With Rage, you can play Rage because Rage is what is going to be used by them.

If I use Phantasmal Minion, they aren't going to be using Phantasmal Minion, they will be using the Dagger I give them. So, Phantasmal Minion did not affect the check, and could not be played.

I guess I can see the logic in that argument.

•You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.

.

This ruling could be used to argue that Phantasmal Minion or Merchant can be played during a check if the recipient intends to play the given card on that check. How do you feel about this? Am I wrong?

csouth154 wrote:

...

Aww c'mon, that was a little funny and you know it.

I actually did find it amusing...but I had to smh.

...

Take it literally. To win, you must have more plunder cards than there are locations. Period. No need to corner and defeat a villain. You win immediately upon acquiring the plunder card that fulfills the requirement.

So I have a question on Tempest Cay.

Tempest Cay wrote:

On closing, move to another location."

Does just the active character move or do any characters move.

Why is this confusing to me? Mostly because of wording on other cards.

Alehouse wrote:

On closing, you ma recharge an ally from your discard pile

Coastline wrote:

On closing, each character at this location may recharge a card that has the Pirate or...

bold emphasis mine.

Sometimes the When Permanently Closed effect states "you" or "each character" and sometimes its left vague.

Lonely Island is another.

Lonely Island wrote:

On closing, draw a random ally from the box and recharge it.

I'm pretty sure that unless it says "each character" it means "you" or only the active character but Tempest Cay was a prime example of uncertainty the last time I was playing a game and had two character's there.

If the character that closes Tempest Cay is commanding an unanchored ship at the time (in other words, if it is their turn and the ship is not anchored), then anyone else at the location may choose to move with them per the ship rules. In any other situation, only the character that closes the location moves.

Hmmm. We added Man Overboard to the bane pile during the Press Ganged scenario after failing to defeat it but then subsequently passing the con/fort check to banish it. I guess that was a mistake. No biggie, though, since everyone was already at their max hand size by then.

Villains are (normally) banished when they are defeated and have no open location to eacape to.

It all depends on what you want to do. If you are starting the path over, then reset everything to exactly how it was when it was new.

If you want to just do a single scenario from a particular adventure, then just make sure you are using all cards from that adventure and all lower numbered adventures.

Cards are removed for a specific campaign, so if you start the campaign over, the cards that were removed go back in.

Hmmm.... I would say you can't. Finish one thing before you start another. If you do something other than explore, you've given up the opportunity. Though I could be wrong.

Unless it says "immediately", you can play cards and powers between explores. Otherwise what would be the point of the "immediately" in Ezren's power, for instance?

If she is playing the spell as a second card doesn't she get to recharge it because she automatically recharges spells?

No, because she is not "playing" the spell. A card is only "played" when you use one of the powers on the card.

Always play with all cards from the current adventure and all previous adventures. As jones314 said, see the adventure path card for when to start removing cards from the game.

If it says "you may IMMEDIATELY explore again", then you can't do anything else before exploring.

The game is meant to be played with only what comes in the box. You won't find single cards for sale, except for promo cards, and you are only meant to play with one each of those.

. But the wording leaves this interpretation out there.

To call this interpretation a stretch would be an understatement, to say the least.

Flat the Impaler wrote:

Joshua Birk 898 wrote:

Do the cards I display only count for a single check? Or do they benefit multiple die rolls if they are still displayed.

Only "the check" (the one during which you displayed the cards) gains this benefit.

Sorry, just following up on this because this was my main question, too: is that official ruling—only the check on which they were first displayed?

Reading the text I could see it go either way, depending on whether the "displayed" in "for each card displayed" is functioning as a verb or an adjective. Because, technically, on a later check, those cards I displayed are still "displayed." But it makes a huge difference in how powerful that ability is.

You are correct...it does make a huge difference. If they counted toward every check made by any character while they are displayed, it would be grossly overpowered. They only count towards the check they were displayed for. They remain displayed so that they can't be used again until they are recovered.

Certain cards affect you and actually say 'you' and/or have an implied 'you'. When you use an armor, for example, it's to reduce damage dealt to you. That seems quite explicitly clear to me that it only reduces damage dealt to a character, since a character isn't a ship and a ship isn't a character.

Based on the text shown above, Frostbite, on the other hand, affects the monster, so all damage dealt by that monster, regardless of the type, is reduced. It's not reducing damage done to you, it's reducing damage the monster does. It's irrelevant whether the monster is doing damage to you, someone else, or something else.

That's true. Well, I'm sure we'll find out, one way or the other.

csouth154 wrote:

Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take.

Actually nobody has directly quoted the relevant rule yet. It says:

p17 wrote:

Cards that reduce damage only to characters do not affect Structural damage.

Emphasis mine. Nothing about Frostbite limits it to damage to characters; it is a blanket reduction of any damage dealt by the monster.

Hmm. Well, if that is the exact quote, that leads to the question: is there ANY card whose language makes it explicitly clear that it ONLY reduces damage to characters? I think the answer is no. This seems like a case for use of common sense interpretation.

Let me put it another way:

Can anyone find a card that (a) is summoned by another card, and (b) is Basic or Elite?
Or are we just debating a hypothetical?

This is a curious question. I know for an absolute (unless I'm losing it) that there cards that say ""summon a random monster".

csouth154 wrote:

Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take.

While possibly true, the cards would simply just need to be have an errata to say player damage instead of plain damage to work out that way.

Or they could take the much easier and more reasonable approach of letting the quoted rule in question do the talking. There is honestly only one way that rule can reasonably be interpreted.