Is Reduction Field still part of the location deck if undefeated?

[csouth154]

Reduction Feild says that if it's undefeated, it stays face-up NEXT TO the location deck.

My question is: does that mean it isn't technically IN the location deck anymore? If all other cards are gone, can you attempt to close the loc during the closing phase?

We played that it did not count as being IN the deck anymore because we were instructed to place it NEXT TO the location deck; as opposed to an undefeated Collapsed Ceiling, for instance, which instructs you to leave it face-up ON TOP of the location deck, where it is obviously still part of the deck. When all other cards were gone, we closed it. We also banished the Feild, at that point.

Was this correct? Were we allowed to close the location with the Feild still face-up next to it? If so, did we do the correct thing by banishing the Feild when we closed it, or should it have stayed there and continued to affect anyone in the closed location?

[Hawkmoon269]

I think I would play it as part of the location deck. Otherwise, if it was the last card in the location deck, losing to it would let you attempt to close the location.

[csouth154]

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

I think I would play it as part of the location deck. Otherwise, if it was the last card in the location deck, losing to it would let you attempt to close the location.

That's true, but I'm still not convinced. Also note that the only way to get rid of it after it's undefeated is for someone to end their turn there and then make a difficult Arcane or Divine check. There is no way for it to be encountered normally, which is another thing that leads me to believe it is no longer IN the location after it's undefeated.

[Aureate]

I would treat it as no longer part of that location deck, and would leave it at that location even if it were closed.

Think about it like this: If you are at an open location and it is otherwise empty, but a Reduction Field is in play, what happens when you explore? Nothing, because there are no cards to encounter. In other words, the location deck is empty and you may attempt to close the location.

There are reasons to go back to closed locations, sometimes there are cards placed under a closed location. Based on that, I would leave the field in play until a character deals with it.

[csouth154]

I agree, Aureate

[Hawkmoon269]

Hmm...So you basically see it as becoming an "At this location" power for the location. And one that stays active even after the location is closed. I can see the argument for that. In fact, I'd say that would be a pretty cool effect, even if it isn't what this card is doing. I guess we'll have to wait for an authoritative word to know for sure.

[Firedale2002]

Even the clarification from Vic concerning cards 'on top' of the deck doesn't really help with this question.

I kind of see it the same way as those above, because it's not 'on top' of the deck, then it's not actually part of the deck, just an (to use a M:tG term) Enchantment that's currently affecting that location. It's no longer a -card- but an effect taking place, unless another effect specifically references it or "cards face up next to a location."

But then that ends up bringing in ideas from other games, which can really complicate things, especially if they end up being wrong, lol.

So, I'll go with the idea above that it's not a card in the location, it's a card next to the location.

However, the idea being that it's not a card in the location but is instead next to the location also means that when the location is closed, the card remains, unless it or something else says it's removed when the location is closed, since closing a location only removes the cards -in- the location.

So... I pretty much agree with you all above, lol, I just had to type out to myself, I think, why I think that way.

I do look forward to an official clarification concerning this. They've already clarified face-up cards on the deck, so maybe they can clarify cards that are 'displayed at' a deck.

[csouth154]

We removed it when we closed the loc, but I agree that we should have left it. It never made a damn bit of difference to anything, anyway, because Merisiel was handling things at that loc and it only affects strength and melee checks, iirc.

[Vic Wertz]

General: "Next to a deck" is not part of that deck, just as cards displayed "next to a character" are not part of that character.
Specific: Reduction Field leaves the deck when you resolve the encounter, whether it's defeated or undefeated.

[csouth154]

Thanks for the confirmation, Vic!