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.
Yes, but when context is so obviously misunderstood in SO many instances, it hints at a breakdown (or absence) of the QA process.
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.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
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.
Jason S wrote:
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.
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...
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.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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?
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.
Andrew K wrote:
I guess I can see the logic in that argument.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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?
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.
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?
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.
That's true. Well, I'm sure we'll find out, one way or the other.
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.
Mike Selinker wrote:
This is a curious question. I know for an absolute (unless I'm losing it) that there cards that say ""summon a random monster".
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.