The wording on the General Store is "If you encounter anything except an armor, item or weapon after the exploration you may explore again".
A couple of questions here:
Q1 - Say you explore and find a weapon. You then play a blessing to explore again and find a monster. Do you get a free explore?
Q2 - If you explore and don't find any gear so you get a free exploration. If, on the second (free) exploration you don't find any gear, do you get another free exploration?
My undestanding of things as written is that the answer to both questions is 'YES' but wanted to clarify this here since it's come up on 2-3 BGG threads in the past week.
Thanks!
Q1 its an new exploration, so if you encounter a monster you would get a free explore after.
Q2 you keep getting free explorations until you encounter an item, armor, weapon.
That's the way i have been playing it, and it's what the location card says to do.
Cards don't have memory as Mike says. So each exploration is new.
Well, if the three of us agree it must be right. Right?
Well, if the three of us agree it must be right. Right?At least until Mike comes along and tells us we're all idiots. :P
I'm not going to tell you you're all idiots.
I Just played a scenario with my group tonight that had us wondering the same thing. In particular, our Kyra player encountered a Warlord that she was unable to defeat the first time. As such, Kyra got a free explore out of it and got another monster she was not able to defeat. It turns out that at this point there were only 3 cards left, 2 monsters and an ally, which meant that Kyra just kept going until the location was closed (while the rest of us sat back and waited for 10 minutes for Kyra to get the die rolls she needed). I believe we played the card as the rules specify, but it didn't exactly agree with the spirit of the rest of the game either. Might this be something that should be cleared up at some point?
Or, Mike: Are you ok with this kind of thing, where a player can repeatedly fail checks but still get to keep going against the same cards, effectively creating the possibility for an infinite loop?
Or, Mike: Are you ok with this kind of thing, where a player can repeatedly fail checks but still get to keep going against the same cards, effectively creating the possibility for an infinite loop?
Wouldn't the character run out of cards in their hand after being defeated a few times?
I mean sure they can keep rolling their base die with no cards left to discard, but at some point I think the person will tire from this.
@Tracker1 - I think that's the point. You don't need any cards to explore this deck again and there's no disadvantage to taking damage when your hand is empty.
I'm seriously considering a house rule that "If you hand is empty when entering the 'take damage' step of the check and you need to take damage, BURY the top card of your deck (one card, regardless of the amount of damage taken) instead."
At the moment there is no disadvantage at all of going into combat exhausted an unarmed, which seems a little silly. We'll play test this at some point and see how it works!
Exactly H4ppy. In fact, our Kyra player did exactly that... he kept going until he had taken care of the whole location deck. He did about 20 explore action on a single advance of the blessing deck, most of which resulted in failed checks, to the point where he had nothing in his hand, and had to roll an 8 on a d8 to be successful. Sure, the odds are that you'll get that 8 in "fairly" short order, but this is absolutely inconsistent with normal game play, as its a case where failure in individual checks has no consequences, and eventual success is 100% certain due to the law of large numbers.
To be fair, all the other players understood the situation, recognized that it would basically end with a very "easy" closed location without advancing the blessing deck, so we sat back and didn't fuss about it... it just seems like the kind of loop hole that Mike might want to close in a future release.
When thinking about ways to fix this issue, I didn't come up with alot that doesn't fundamentally change how the location plays. I did think it might make sense to have a bit about being able to close the location when there are no weapon, armor or item cards left in the location deck, but of course that would mean you'd have to be able to look through the location deck. This wouldn't be a significant problem in the scenario where this happened (local heroes), but otherwise would not be great for game play, especially if a villain were present.
What about changing the wording to something like, "If you succeed at an encounter against something other than a weapon, item or armor, you may explore again." ? That would seem to close the loophole and not reward failure...
@Tracker1 - I think that's the point. You don't need any cards to explore this deck again and there's no disadvantage to taking damage when your hand is empty.
I'm seriously considering a house rule that "If you hand is empty when entering the 'take damage' step of the check and you need to take damage, BURY the top card of your deck (one card, regardless of the amount of damage taken) instead."
At the moment there is no disadvantage at all of going into combat exhausted an unarmed, which seems a little silly. We'll play test this at some point and see how it works!
I like this.
Interesting. We will discuss this.
You can explore more than twice on a turn. The first one is free, after that you can explore as many times as powers, cards or effects allow you to. The rule is that they can't stack from a single thing.
So if ezren is at the academy and acquires an item with the magic trait, it would at first seem he would get two more explorations, one for his power and one for the effect at the academy. But they don't stack so he only gets one. But if after that next exploration he acquires something with the magic trait, he can explore again.
The restriction on 1 card, 1 type, 1 character is for any step in the "encountering a card" sequence and not a restriction on your whole turn.
Your example is correct and it would also be correct even if you already had the blessing in hand at the beginning of the turn. So if instead your second exploration you encountered a weapon and failed to acquire it, you could then play a blessing or an ally to explore again (assuming one of the ally's powers was to let your explore).
The better patch (if one is needed) is probably to make the general store like the academy and only grant the location's "explore again" effect on the character's first exploration of the turn.
Alternately, I just thought that, if it is felt this needs fixed, the location's effect could be changed to include that you must have at least 1 card in hand.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hawkmoon 269 is correct. The location has been errata'd by requiring you to display a card to explore again.
Here's a fun little peek behind the scenes at how this sort of thing happens:
---
Chad (looking at Captain Bulldozer's suggestion):
This would both weaken the General Store and change its flavor, to avoid something incorrectly called an infinite loop in a corner-corner-corner case that has to be intentionally invoked by the players. I’m not a fan.
Mike: The fail-storm is counter to the spirit of the game, though. I'd like to try to eliminate it. I could very easily see a situation where I need an 8 to acquire an ally on a d8 roll. I encounter, roll, fail, encounter, roll, fail, etc., and so on until I eventually succeed. That's pretty big hole to leave open.
What about:
After you encounter anything other than an armor, an item, or a weapon, you may examine the top card of the location. If you have not encountered that card this turn, you may explore again.
Chad: It adds memory and opens the question of whether or not two cards of the same name count or not. These are both corner cases, but so is the original.
For what it’s worth, I call the original a corner-corner-corner because you need to encounter and fail against a non-armor, item, or weapon card that sticks around but doesn’t have any consequences for failure, but that you can eventually defeat.
If this case really bothers you, I suggest dropping back to wording like The Academy (on your first exploration), or wording like:
The first time each turn you encounter anything other than an armor, an item, or a weapon, after the exploration you may explore again.
This also weakens the General Store, but keeps the flavor and some of the mechanics that I prefer. It looks like there’s room on the card for the extra text.
Mike: That makes the card a lot worse.
Chad: True, and I said so, but it keeps the essential spirit of the card, which the forum suggestion doesn’t, it follows an existing precedent, and it avoids both the corner-case loop and the memory and copy questions.
Another new approach:
If you encounter anything other than an armor, an item, or a weapon, after the exploration you may reveal a card to explore again.
This cuts out the ability to wander empty-handed through the store, which kills the loop and is pretty flavorful. It does weaken the location, but it only hits situations that I (personally) don’t mind nerfing.
Mike: It doesn't close the loop if the only card in the deck is a boon. I can keep a card in my hand to explore as long as I keep failing rolls.
Chad: What’s your desired outcome in this situation?
Mike: My goal is to stop people from running this failure train. So I believe the goal is to limit them to either (a) explore after success or (b) explore only things they've seen. There might be a third option I'm unaware of.
Chad: Why aren’t you losing cards from your hand if you’re failing rolls?
Mike: Because you don't lose cards when you fail an attempt to acquire a boon, and you might not lose cards when you fail to defeat a monster. That's not the control we need.
Chad: If you fail to defeat a boon, it goes away. If you don’t lose card when you fail to defeat a monster, then I don’t know what monster you’re talking about. Are there actual cases where you can fail to defeat a bane, still be in a position to explore, and not have changed your hand?
The key to the loop as it’s described in the thread is that your hand is empty, so there’s no change in state from step to step. I’m willing to believe that there are other cases, but I don’t know of any.
Mike: Oh, good point.
OK, so we're down to:
You encounter a weapon, item, or armor. It doesn't matter what happens. No explore.
You encounter an ally, spell, or blessing, and acquire it. It goes in your hand. Explore.
You encounter an ally, spell, or blessing, and fail to acquire it. It banishes. Explore.
You encounter a monster, and defeat it. It banishes (or pops to another deck, perhaps). Explore.
You encounter a monster, and fail to defeat it. It shuffles into the deck and knocks cards from your hand. Explore.
You encounter a barrier... except there are no barriers in the General Store. So it has to be a henchman.
You encounter a henchman barrier, and defeat it. It banishes, and perhaps with all the cards in the deck.
You encounter a henchman barrier, and fail to defeat it. It shuffles into the deck, and the loop is possibly active.
So, huh. We're down to:
You encounter a monster and lose all your cards, and keep exploring without fear of consequences.
You encounter a henchman barrier and can pound at it till it goes away.
I'm okay with the "reveal a card" solution in that case, since the only henchman barrier that occurs in a scenario with the General Store is Poison Trap, and that actually does do damage if you fail a check against it.
Cool. Thanks for sharing. Its nice to peak behind the curtain.
They forgot: You encounter a monster, succeed at the check to defeat, but it didn't have the magic trait, so its undefeated. It shuffles into the deck but doesn't knock cards from your hand. Explore.
But please don't change it again. Its fine this way. I don't think you need to worry about every extreme possible case.
<milk out nose>
I had no idea Vic was going to share that. I don't think I come off as too much of an idiot. Anyway, glad you guys got to see that.
Mike
Nah, that's why you've got a group of people working on this stuff with you.. so there's multiple people around to catch the repercussions of every possible change, among other reasons of course.
Good stuff. Keep up the great work.
Regarding Hawkmoon's point, I'd agree that if you don't have access to the magic trait in the first place then it's a different situation anyway as you're not riding the failure train to try to max out your roll or anything... someone *could* insist on repeatedly fighting the monster if it came up again but there'd be no real point if they didn't have the magic trait in the first place. I guess Ezren could try to cycle spells to come up with something but that's still very different from just blindly failing over and over to try to max out your roll with no consequences because you have no cards.
Regarding Hawkmoon's point, I'd agree that if you don't have access to the magic trait in the first place then it's a different situation anyway as you're not riding the failure train to try to max out your roll or anything... someone *could* insist on repeatedly fighting the monster if it came up again but there'd be no real point if they didn't have the magic trait in the first place. I guess Ezren could try to cycle spells to come up with something but that's still very different from just blindly failing over and over to try to max out your roll with no consequences because you have no cards.
Exactly, if it does become the last card, it would truly be an infinite loop since most of the character (maybe everyone except Ezren) would have no possibility to gain a way to add magic to their combat check during their turn. I'd assume everyone would be smart enough to realize they should just end their turn instead of trying again and again. That is really no different than having a monster that requires magic to defeat be the last card in any location and being smart enough to know that after you loose the first time for not having magic, you shouldn't play a blessing to explore again.
And if someone is stuck in an infinite loop, then they won't have time to post on the forum because they will be doing that loop for all eternity, so we don't need to worry about them. Hopefully before too many days go by they will realize they should just end their turn so their friends, who have all been waiting patiently for weeks on end for them to give up this madness, can take their turns. After all the next player is Seoni, so she can come handle this one monster and close the general store. I mean, quit being so stubborn already! We are hungry and tired and just want to get on with the game!
Sorry for the rant at the end there.
Nice chat Vic...
Except you start you post with "you display" while the guys while Mike and the others were talking about "you reveal", wich one will it be ?
Vic meant "reveal," as noted in his FAQ update.
Vic meant "reveal," as noted in his FAQ update.Nice chat Vic...
Except you start you post with "you display" while the guys while Mike and the others were talking about "you reveal", wich one will it be ?
Ah. And the Q part of the FAQ makes the point that this is to try to stop you from repeatedly trying to get that perfect unaided roll. Not to try to stop you from not realizing you have not hope of getting a combat check with the magic trait to spontaneously appear. That you just need to realize on your own.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic meant "reveal," as noted in his FAQ update.Nice chat Vic...
Except you start you post with "you display" while the guys while Mike and the others were talking about "you reveal", wich one will it be ?
D'oh—words! Words keep doing that to me!
For what its worth, I still think rewarding failure is a strange choice (though I do agree that the "reveal" amendment works pretty well).
Valeros: "Hey guys! Let's go to the store... I could really use a new set of chain mail. My old one is all rusty and smells really bad after that Zombie giant a killed exploded all over it."
Lem: "Yeah, but that was really cool! Still, you smell like rank goblin balls, no exaggeration."
Ezren: "Yeah, no exaggeration."
Valeros: "Ok then, so let's go!"
(Later, at the store)
Valeros: "Hey, this one is nice, what do you guys think? Is it slimming in all the right places?"
Lem: "Lookout! A goblin cut-purse!"
Valeros: "I got this..."
(Goblin slices off Valeros' arm and runs away further into the store)
Valeros: "Well that sucked... Anyway, what about that chain mail? Oh hey look! What a nice looking-glass!"
(end scene)
My suggestion would be to add this rule:
If damage reduces your hand to 0 cards, resolve the current encounter then reset your hand and end your turn.
@jacuke
Where is the mechanical difference between what you wrote and the FAQ update?
If you take damage to reduce your hand to 0, you can´t reveal a card from your hand to go on exploring.
So, with the current ruling, if your case happens, you already have to reset and end your turn.
And i think the "reveal a card" is the better option.
Let me explain this with a example.
You are at the General Store and only have 1 card left in your hand with which you can explore further.
You use that card and explore.
Scenario 1: You find anything other than a weapon, item or armor, and it is not a bane. Because no damage reduced your hand to 0, go on exploring.
Scenario 2: You encounter a bane. You fail the check but wouldn´t get any damage because you started the encounter with 0 hand cards. So someone could argue, because the damage didn´t "reduce your hand to 0 cards", you could go on exploring.
Sorry if this sounds like i´m trashing your suggestion, i just want to illustrate my train of thoughts when i read your post.
@jacuke
Where is the mechanical difference between what you wrote and the FAQ update?
There isn't.
I didn't get that it was already in the FAQ.
Sorry if this sounds like i´m trashing your suggestion, i just want to illustrate my train of thoughts when i read your post.
No problem.
I appreciate the closing of a failure train. I'm also not sure this is really a necessary ruling.
It may not be necessary, but it's the kind of thing that eats at a designer. So we close the loop and move on to better things.