nkorppi's page

Officially yes, every solo player who plays the campaign (without repeating the same scenarios) playing with multiple characters has to play the same characters over and over again and never have fun selecting a different squad for a scenario. Otherwise, some if not all characters will lose their right to the adventure reward or adventure path reward.

So, according to official rules, the game has to be boring and dull. :) Or otherwise characters don't level up.

But that is just idiotic.

I understand that for multiplayer groups, roleplaying a specific character makes sense. But for a single player with a group of adventurers, the idea of never swapping characters in or out is absolutely nonsensical, since it lessens the game. Not giving adventure rewards to those characters who have adventured the most or having to repeat scenarios to make sure each character combination complete everything --- that's the definition anti-fun.

I genuinely think the rules should be made different for players controlling multiple characters... in any case, I won't play the same characters over and over just to get a stat. It would be mind-numbingly dull, when there are so many amazing characters to join the party at convenient times. I will give the award feats to those who complete more than half of the scenarios.

Obviously it would be different if every player role-played one character in a gaming group. They would BE their character. I'm a group of characters. A changing group of them. Because this is much more fun for solo play. But I do expect my fantasy characters to get the long-term rewards if they do long-term good things -- even if they miss out one scenario because they were home with a flu, giving other characters a chance to step in. :)

No cards can be played after reset phase. This has been confirmed in the FAQ. But I guess you are claiming that the card text is overriding that. Anyhow, I don't think you can.

I think it's most fun to give it to every character who participated in at least one Scenario from the Adventure (as opposed to just the characters that took down the last Scenario in the set).

As a solo player using three character parties, I would find it too restrictive and boring to just use the same three characters each time, just to maximize the prize at the end.

However, h4ppy, I don't think it's most fun to just automatically give the reward to every character who took part in at least one scenario, either. A reward has to feel earned to feel like an achievement.

So my compromise is this: to give an adventure reward to those alive characters who took part in the majority of (i.e. over half of) successful scenario attempts within the adventure (no back-tracking or repeats allowed). For the adventure path award, I'd reward those alive characters who got rewarded in over half of all adventures in the path.

So, if I buy the character add-on pack later on, before starting the third adventure pack, I actually get to incorporate those characters fully within my campaign. This also seems thematic (encountering new playable characters later in the campaign).

For me, it would make no sense thematically to give an adventure path reward to a character who took part in a single scenario, over a 30-scenario adventure path!

I started off with Valeros, Kyra and Merisiel. However, Kyra wasn't having such a great time of Poison Pill (the party lost due to the timer running out just before the final confrontation with Pillbug, for not being able to explore fast enough, since henchmen appeared near the bottom of the piles), so I swapped her to Ezren for my second more successful attempt. This made thematic sense, since Kyra's healing powers were not needed in this enemy-light scenario, where fast exploration is the priority. Ezren seemed to have fun naturally at the Apothecary (his character illustrates the shop!), and he enthusiastically explored through the entire Apothecary deck in one or two turns, and then closed the Apothecary with a check that was tailor-made for his stats.

So, if I'd want both Kyra and Ezren to get the Perils of the Lost Coast reward, I'd now have to include both of them in Black Fang's scenario. It could be a risky choice, but I'll attempt that.

Yes, as long as it doesn't say 'your check'. Guidance doesn't.

Yes, that's right.

Another way to close it is to defeat the villain there later on. Then the closing check is bypassed, the location closed and all cards (bar other villains) auto-banished.

It does banish all the cards, except possibly villain cards.

You can only explore cards at a closed location if there's a villain or if some bizarre special effect adds cards to it.

So, on your next turn, you could try to close the location (which is empty of cards, of course).

No, it's not dying. You can even keep the acquired boons from your failed attempt as long as you assemble a deck according to the card list on your character... presuming it didn't die.

This has sparked some controversy about whether it is cheating to just let the blessings deck run out on purpose, since exploring is always optional. The answer is: if one has the time to waste losing on purpose, then by all means it is allowed.

I believe you have to play all cards and powers before assembling the dice for your roll(See page 11 of rules).

Otherwise, it would be possible to always roll a few dice first and then to fix the roll in hindsight... that's cheating. A big part of the game is risk assessment of committing cards to a check beforehand, even if they then go to waste. So unless a card specifically tells you that it can be played after the check (as some kind of time machine card), then I'd assume the answer is no.

However, if you know for sure that you would have played the card before the check, had you only noticed its existence, nothing is stopping you from cheating a bit... it's your game.

Some special powers/cards specifically let you move discarded cards back into the deck.

To clarify, if a character who doesn't have Perception makes a d4-based Perception check using Night Watch (which doesn't contain the Perception trait), then this use of Perception does not carry the Perception trait? :)

I personally believe that any used skill also lends the identically named trait to the check. (But if one uses a d4, due to not having the skill listed on the character sheet, then the trait is not applied? Ah, but the trait might still be applied, because to use an unlisted skill, one must first be using a card that mentions that skill. The trait will be borrowed from the traits list of that item/weapon, if it happens to be listed in the card traits?) But we'll have to wait for the official word.

Variants of this question have been asked many times on BoardGameGeek and people's opinion has uniformly been that check-wise, any Melee attack automatically contains both strength and melee traits in one.

But obviously, if one needed to use a strength check, with no mention of melee, one can't use melee. :)

Well, for example Burglar has a required eventuality listed, that triggers by not acquiring the card, and it is written directly in the abilities box. So there is certainly some scope for confusion. This seems to be inconsistent with the abilities box simply asking to banish a card if a certain skill is missing. It should say 'After playing this card, banish if...'

Common sense helps, but there would be no harm in having extra clarification on the cards themselves.

A hero encounters a villain, and the other heroes at different location(s) attempt to temporarily close their location(s). Are they allowed to play cards, outside of their own turn, to assist in possible checks for 'When closing'?

Secondly, just to double-confirm, multiple heroes may in turn attempt to close the same location temporarily? This is what the rules seem to imply.