Approach to Thistletop: Did We Play It Right x3

[Cheez]

Hey guys,

We had a rousing Approach to Thistletop game tonight.

A couple of Qs arose from the thrilling game that I would love to have confirmation on in terms of "Did we play it right?"

Q1: The Treacherous Cave Location. For easy reference, it's card effect says: "You must succeed at a CON or FORT 6 check to move or be moved to another location."

So we put ol' Lini at this location and she mowed through it. She then succeeded at the WIS check to close it. The big question is once we close it, that movement restriction is no longer in play, right? We didn't think so since the card is flipped over when closed. Still, it would be swell to know we played that correctly.

Q2: So here's where things got pretty wild. It all came down to killing the Gogmurt villain at the Woods on the very last blessing of the deck.

Valeros started with 5 cards in his hand and 4 cards in his deck. He took three fire damage before the encounter from the villain but used his Magic Chain Mail to reduce all damage (and bury the card).

So now he's at 4 cards to make the first check. He succeeded on the first combat check by using strength/melee d10+4 and a BOG.

So now he's down to 3 cards to make the second combat check. He succeeds by using strength/melee d10+4, a second BOG and a 1d8 from the Grizzled Mercenary. First issue: could Valeros use that second BOG on the second "then" check or did he violate two cards of the same type in a single encounter rule?

If we got that wrong, we'll have to replay that encounter as there's no way we would have fought the Villain without those card combos. The combat checks were 13 and 15 (after we had added the d4 scenario Goblin trait bonus).

Q3: And then finally, let's say that combat was legal. We've correctly defeated the villain but Valeros is still down to 1 card in his hand. Did Valeros have to draw up to be to full health? What if he couldn't have done so (i.e. there's only two cards in his deck instead of three)? Is he dead?

I hope I wrote all that with some sense. Thanks in advance,

Ben

[OberonViking]

Q1 - I would say No. Compare it to Temple where the AT THIS LOCATION info is reprinted on the back.

Q2 - That combination was fine. You can only use 1 type of each card for each check, not for each encounter.

Q3 - No, not dead. The villain is defeated, the scenario has ended.

[Cheez]

Hazaah! Valeros and Lini buy a round for the Viking!

Even though Q3 didn't happen in our game, that was still a what-if head scratcher. Handy to know though so I play that strategically sound in future close games.

Thanks,

Ben (and Abby)

[OberonViking]

We pour everything possible into those last rolls against the villain. I think we have hit home with over thirty on a combat check quite a few times leaving most of the players short of cards in their deck. We will reset our hand, knowing that the Blessing deck won't give us another go, till we hold as many Blessings as possible so we can be as useful as possible.

[Fromper]

Agreed with OberonViking's answers.

1. Closed locations only do things that they say on the back of the card.

2. The limit is one card of each type per check, not per encounter.

3. Once the villain is dead, the scenario ends immediately, before the current player's "reset your hand" phase.

[Cheez]

Gads! What a game! I was a 50-50-ish on that roll too. Death would have meant starting allllll over with Valeros. Abby had to run out of the run when I dropped the dice (she couldn't watch).

This is where I would buy Mike a drink for endless gratitude.

One left and then we're going pick two new characters and start it allll over again.

Do you guys think Lem and Harsk would be an odd combo? Is that too range and fighting over a certain type of weapon?

[TClifford]

The problem with Lem and Harsk is that they can't use their assist abilities at the same time. Lem can only assist Harsk if they are both at the same location and Harsk can only help out Lem when they are in different locations. I don't recommend using them together.

The only way you could do it is to have Lem start the turn and move away from Harsk. Then Harsk can help him from the previous location. Then move Harsk into the same location as Lem and Lem can help Harsk. So basically, each of them are moving each turn. I think that would be hard to close out a location.

[Cheez]

Ah - indeed. That makes total sense. I'm starting to think Lem and Merisiel or Merisiel and Harsk are going to be a better tandem.

Thanks,

Ben

[Fromper]

Lem and Merisiel will have the same problem as Lem and Harsk. Lem wants to be with his companions to help them out, but Harsk and Merisiel do best when they're away from others.

Now, Merisiel and Harsk are a pretty good team. They can both use their powers to boost Merisiel, leaving Harsk to fend for himself.

[Mike Selinker]

Cheez wrote:

Gads! What a game! I was a 50-50-ish on that roll too. Death would have meant starting allllll over with Valeros. Abby had to run out of the run when I dropped the dice (she couldn't watch).

This is where I would buy Mike a drink for endless gratitude.

Accepted.