Interesting thing happened when we found The villian "The Scribbler". Each character at the location summons and encounters a random monster which I drew from my topic The Elemental. If The Elemental is undefeated you move to a random OTHER location. So if you fail that check what happens to the villian? Does he move with you or stay or do you not move at all?
I'd apply some basic common sense. If the character encountering the villain is the one that encounters the Elemental, they don't move. Any other character would move.
Here is the closest rule to this:
When you’re done encountering the summoned cards, continue resolving the original encounter.
If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.
So you have to continue resolving the original encounter, and the only way you can do that is by staying at the villain's location. It would be impossible to do that if the "villain encountering" character moved. So ignore the impossible thing. Don't move.
Thanks. That does make sense.
I believe it works as if the villain was evaded. Moving to another location would end the encounter, but the villain was neither defeated nor undefeated so he gets shuffled back into his current location.
I dunno Hawk, you're probably right but does that mean that if you get another monster like the Ghoul and don't beat it that you don't have to reset your hand and end your turn? You could argue that the villain just goes undefeated because you can't keep fighting him or her.
Well, I'd say this.
1. After you resolve the encounter with the summoned monster, you continue resolving the original encounter. That seems to literally mean, the summoned monster was the "before the encounter" so you continue to the next step of the villains encounter, which would be attempting the check.
2. Clearly, summoned monsters will ask you to do some impossible things. For instance, if some who wasn't encountering the Scribbler drew that Ghoul as their summoned monster, they couldn't reset their hand and end their turn, since it isn't their turn. So I think that gives insight into the fact you might have to ignore somethings required by the summoned monster.
Just my opinion of course.
This is a very interesting corner case. We will discuss.
Typically, cards that move characters specifically can not be played during an encounter. I'd tend to agree with Hawk here, based on that alone. There are no nested checks, but this is a case where you have a nested encounter; as such I'd say you're still encountering the original monster even when you are facing the summoned one. So, if a FAQ entry said something to the effect of "Characters may not move during an encounter" which seems to be the intent, I'd think that would be enough here.
Because this is a card game and not an actual RPG, some funky things can happen. I think it's fine as is and the encounter still progresses as normal.
The character moves, but is still encountering the villain as normal for a nested encounter , even though the villain is at a different location.
If the villain is defeated, then the location that the villain was encountered is closed as normal (not the location the character is now at). If the villain is undefeated, then it's still all good. After one or the other happens, play proceeds as normal.
This is supported by the rules because they say "If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location." They don't say "If You Defeat the Villain, Close Your Location." So regardless of where the person is when they defeat the villain, the villain's own location is what gets closed.
Because this is a card game and not an actual RPG, some funky things can happen. I think it's fine as is and the encounter still progresses as normal.
The character moves, but is still encountering the villain as normal for a nested encounter , even though the villain is at a different location.
I agree with this. Also, hasn't Alahazra set the precedent that a character can encounter a card that is at a different location?
I dunno Hawk, you're probably right but does that mean that if you get another monster like the Ghoul and don't beat it that you don't have to reset your hand and end your turn? You could argue that the villain just goes undefeated because you can't keep fighting him or her.
This, specifically got a dev reply at some point. In that if you do encounter a ghoul and fail to beat it, you reset your hand, end your turn, and the villain escapes, ya?
I think you still fight the villain AND move. It's like when Alahazra encounters something at a different location with her ability.
Oh crap. It did. And look at the idiot that argued for it.
So, I might change my mind here. Or change it back I guess. The Ghoul is a bit different, in that it has wording that indicates the encounter has to end. But the moving to another location doesn't necessarily require that.
This is an interesting conundrum. Right now, I'd still think I lean towards not moving. But I honestly don't know.
I think you still fight the villain AND move. It's like when Alahazra encounters something at a different location with her ability.
Agreed. I don't see anything in the rules that state that you can't continue the villain encounter from another location or that you can't close a location from another location. Normally it would be impossible because you'd have no way to trigger it, but in this case you've already triggered it and need to resolve it. The Ghoul example was different because it explicitly ended your turn which would prevent you from continuing the encounter.
I am actually leaning towards moving and villian gets shuffled back into location deck. Role Playing wise it makes more sense to me, like you got washed away in a tidal wave and the villian goes back into hiding but does not leave the location.
Put me in the camp of "you fight the villain". I agree with nondeskripts reading of the rules; nothing about encountering the villain from a separate location qualifies as "impossible".
Put me in the camp of "you fight the villain". I agree with nondeskripts reading of the rules; nothing about encountering the villain from a separate location qualifies as "impossible".
You agree with him, and he agrees with me, so...
Woot! Once it seemed you never agreed with me. I'll have you trained yet! XD
---
On a serious note, there was room for doubt before the Alahazra discussion, but after that ruling, I see no reason to doubt that the fight goes on. Personally, of course.
lol!
We had the exact same situation occur but we beat the elemental. We did discuss it, because we did not have the villain cornered and wondered if it would be better to leave the elemental undefeated and escape from the villain, leaving him in a location we would know about. However we decided that we would still have to fight the villain either way, so we took out the elemental and fought the villain.
You agree with him, and he agrees with me, so...
Woot! Once it seemed you never agreed with me. I'll have you trained yet! XD
Eventually we come around. The problem is that it's usually more fun to argue with you.
If I remember correctly, in the case of Alahazra, it was stated encounters take place where the character is located. If you are forced to move by the elemental, wouldn't that mean you are encountering the villain in the new location?
If I remember correctly, in the case of Alahazra, it was stated encounters take place where the character is located. If you are forced to move by the elemental, wouldn't that mean you are encountering the villain in the new location?
Yeah, but note that the villain is in the same location it had been in so if you defeat him the original location closes but now you get the benefits and detriment of your new location if they are applicable.
Eventually we come around. The problem is that it's usually more fun to argue with you.You agree with him, and he agrees with me, so...
Woot! Once it seemed you never agreed with me. I'll have you trained yet! XD
If I remember correctly, in the case of Alahazra, it was stated encounters take place where the character is located. If you are forced to move by the elemental, wouldn't that mean you are encountering the villain in the new location?
This is an interesting can of worms, but I think Nondeskript has it right.
It seems to me that the problem case is only when you fail your combat check against the elemental... so possible outcomes would be:
1) You take your combat damage, move to a random location which is in fact the location where you encountered the villain (i.e you "randomly" move to the same location). There doesn't seem to be a rule problem with this option.
2) You take your combat damage and then move to a random OTHER location. This terminates the original encounter with the villain, so you'd apply any after-type effects, and treat the villain as undefeated.
3) You take your combat damage and then move to a random OTHER location. This terminates the original encounter with the villain, and you'd treat it as if you had evaded the villain.
4) You take your combat damage and then move to a random OTHER location. This does NOT terminate the original encounter. The villain moves with you to the other location. In particular, that could mean you end up closing a different location (if you beat his check) than the one where you encountered him.
5) You take your combat damage and then move to a random OTHER location. This does NOT terminate the original encounter. The villain moves with you to the other location. On beating his check, you close his original location.
6) You take your combat damage and then move to a random OTHER location. This does NOT terminate the original encounter. The villain does not move, meaning you could close a location that you aren't actually at, by defeating the check.
7) You take your combat damage, but cannot move because you are still involved in the original encounter, and moving is not allowed during encounters.
Did I miss any? I'd have to say that by far the simplest solution would be #7, which is also consistent with the idea that movement can not occur mid-encounter.
The only problem with #7 is that I don't think the rules forbid moving during an encounter. It's not normally possible due to restrictions on what you can play during an encounter but there is nothing in the rules to prevent the designers from creating a card that lets you move in the middle of an encounter.
I don't think the villain moving with you is a viable option, as I think (please correct) the other characters would have already temporarily closed their locations before the elemental encounter is resolved.
The only problem with #7 is that I don't think the rules forbid moving during an encounter. It's not normally possible due to restrictions on what you can play during an encounter but there is nothing in the rules to prevent the designers from creating a card that lets you move in the middle of an encounter.
I agree. This is a problematic situation because seemingly the rules do not specify what to do. My leaning towards #7 is only because currently all other known ways of moving specify that they cannot be used during an encounter. Due to the potential can of worms that is options 2-6, I'd say the best resolution is to add a FAQ entry or bit to the next incarnation of the rulebook that simply says, your character may never move during encounters. Yes, this restricts design space somewhat, but in a way that is probably for the best given all the other issues not doing so could cause. I suppose the design space is still potentially there, as future cards could say to move during the encounter and (for example) evade the current encounter.
There are a couple cards that allow you to evade and move. And S&S Valeros has a role that has a power to move when another character encounters a villain.
Six is the only option that makes sense to me, everything considered (again, in light of the Alahazra ruling).
After thinking about it, I like 6 as well. It works like the phrasing of the power on most henchman cards, where you are allowed to close the location from which the henchman came.
We are discussing. Can anybody tell me why think that moving a character ends that character's encounter?
I'd say I don't see anything that indicates that. And as mentioned Alahazra shows you can encounter things from other locations. It just feels weird to me that you can encounter a villain from another location. Alahazra is a "seer" after all and it makes thematic sense. But exactly how I'd manage to fight a villain from another location seems odd.
I'm not arguing theme should win the argument, just saying it feels weird.
We are discussing. Can anybody tell me why think that moving a character ends that character's encounter?I'd say I don't see anything that indicates that. And as mentioned Alahazra shows you can encounter things from other locations. It just feels weird to me that you can encounter a villain from another location. Alahazra is a "seer" after all and it makes thematic sense. But exactly how I'd manage to fight a villain from another location seems odd.
I'm not arguing theme should win the argument, just saying it feels weird.
Weird, non-thematic things are going to happen when you activate random effects.
Yeah. I agree. And I'd personally want this ruled as either you don't more or you move and continue the encounter "remotely". I just argued for not moving because the instruction to resume the original encounter seemed, to me at least, to imply resuming the original encounter where it was.
What would make the most sense, although it would make these mid-encounter-summons much easier, would be if it negated the effects of the summoned monster.
In our situation I had Merisiel and my friend had Harsk. If I would have failed the check she would then be by herself and Harsk would have stayed there. Would she then be able to use her recharge for a 1D6 and would Harsk be able to help with her check now that she is away or is the combat still at his location?
In our situation I had Merisiel and my friend had Harsk. If I would have failed the check she would then be by herself and Harsk would have stayed there. Would she then be able to use her recharge for a 1D6 and would Harsk be able to help with her check now that she is away or is the combat still at his location.
Excellent question. Valeros and Lem would raise similar questions. There could also be some weird "When permanently closed" effects. Such as the Desecrated Vault or Town Square which require something of all characters at the location. There is the potential for there to be no characters at the location.
And also, what if you got moved to the Old Light and then played Scorching Ray? Or other such similar things.
This can of worms just got industrial sized.
There are a couple cards that allow you to evade and move. And S&S Valeros has a role that has a power to move when another character encounters a villain.
Neither of those happen during an encounter as I understand it; If you evade and move, the encounter is done after evading, as evidenced by the card being immediately shuffled back into the location deck (baring summoned monsters anyway) so moving after evading would presumably be happening in a different step.
Moving when a villain is encountered, I should think, is more akin to "before the encounter/before you act" wording. That is, you wouldn't encounter the villain, start activating it's powers and THEN move with Valeros' ability. Then again, the timing sequence of encounters is something that's proven somewhat difficult to nail down firmly in the rules, and I could be thinking of it wrongly here.
This can of worms just got industrial sized.
Hence why I'm arguing against numbers 2-6 on my list being the rule ;)
Chief Technical Officer
|
In our situation I had Merisiel and my friend had Harsk. If I would have failed the check she would then be by herself and Harsk would have stayed there. Would she then be able to use her recharge for a 1D6 and would Harsk be able to help with her check now that she is away or is the combat still at his location?
Well, Merisiel seems pretty clear: "If you are the only character at your location [do her thing]. Her power cares where she is, not where the card she's encountering is.
Unfortunately, Harsk says he adds "to a combat check at another location." After RotR came out, I realized that *checks* shouldn't be at locations, *characters* should, and whenever I caught those sort of things, I'd expand them to (in this example) "to a combat check by a character at another location." So that's how I'd rule that one.
|
What makes most sense thematically is that the villain had a monster guarding him...you encountered it...the monster in this case blew everyone away from the location (or to the location). The villain's cadre just sent everyone away while the big bad sat in the background laughing maniacally at your hapless attempts to reach him due to his lackey. Encounter ends; you're all somewhere else, and the villain is undefeated. Pick up the pieces and try again.
I'm sure someone is going to quote wording and rules and all that. That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about the card game simulating an actual event / encounter, and if the narrative holds, the water elemental just hosed everyone. Literally.
I don't feel this really gets that complicated. In the examples below, Merisiel is the active player and has to fight the villain after the encounter with the Elemental:
Harsk, Lirianne, Arabundi: If, once the Elemental combat is resolved, they are at a different location than Merisiel, they can help Merisiel. If they are at the same location as her, they can't. This is not a literal reading of the power, but Vic seems to clearly say this is what is meant and it is the only way that makes sense.
Lem, Valeros, Bekah, Meliski, Siwar, Tontelizi, Vika, Wrathack: If they are in the same location as Merisiel they can help. If they aren't, they can't.
Merisiel: If she is alone, she can backstab. If she isn't, she can't.
Ranzak: If there are still characters in his location when he hits the Elemental, he could Evade it onto one of them.
Wu Shen: Same as Merisiel if Wu Shen were active
I just skimmed the base class powers, no role cards, but none of those seem complicated... Harsk & Lirianne need to be errataed to match the intent, per Vic's post. Arabundi already has the correct wording.
One important thing to keep in mind: You have to play out the Summoned Elementals one at a time. I know it should be obvious and it is in the rules, but in RotR we would run into something like the Skeleton Horde and it was such a basic check we'd have 3 people rolling at once because we knew what we were doing and even failing the check wouldn't have changed the strategy of the other players. But in this case, since you can get moved to a different location, you have to take them one at a time. When you begin, maybe Lem was intending to help Ezren's combat check with a recharge, but if Lem goes first and fails his check he won't be able to do that. So make sure you finish one thing before you do another and it should just play out fairly straightforwardly.
Also the players determine the order that you encounter summoned creatures, so naturally you'll want Valeros & Lem-style characters to go last and Harsk-style characters to go first.
There could also be some weird "When permanently closed" effects. Such as the Desecrated Vault or Town Square which require something of all characters at the location. There is the potential for there to be no characters at the location.
And also, what if you got moved to the Old Light and then played Scorching Ray? Or other such similar things.
Desecrated Vault: If nobody is left in the location, nobody gets to recharge an item.
Town Square: If nobody is left in the location, nobody has to recharge or draw a card.
The Old Light: If you are at that location and your combat check has Fire, you get the bonus die. The card doesn't care where the card your check is against is located.
At least that is my reading based on the thread about Alahazra's power. The Old Light is pretty definite based on that. The other two I guess are less definite, but fundamentally the card does what the card says and those cards clearly say "Each character at this location", and there are none. Which doesn't really matter much. If there are no items in your discard when you close the Desecrated Vault, you don't get to recharge one and that isn't a problem, so I don't see why not getting to do it because you aren't there is a problem.
Desecrated Vault: If nobody is left in the location, nobody gets to recharge an item.
Town Square: If nobody is left in the location, nobody has to recharge or draw a card.
These themselves wouldn't be too bad. But I more wanted to highlight that a location could be closed and avoid the "When Permanently Closed" powers. I can't think of any location where what I'm about to say would be true, but more for hypothetical: That might be a problem if something is really dependent on that happening. So I just wanted to point out that, depending on what else is being thought up, this might be something that needs to be factored in. It isn't normal to be able to close a location without being there, so it is possible a scenario was setup with the assumption you would have to close a particular location and that you would have to be at that location when you closed it. This kind of thing would break that kind of scenario.
The Old Light: If you are at that location and your combat check has Fire, you get the bonus die. The card doesn't care where the card your check is against is located.
I think this is addressed more by what Vic said about Harsk. I was asking "is the check at this location?" But since checks aren't at locations, characters are, I'd say you are right, if you are at the Old Light and manage to make a "remote" check that has the Fire trait, you get the bonus.
This topic raises another question: When my group played this scenario (yesterday), and encountered the Scribbler with four characters at his location, we summoned a different monster for each character (that's how the effect naturally read to us). It sounds like the OP's group summoned one monster and had everyone encounter it. Which resolution is right, and why?
Everyone gets a different one. And I think that is what the OP did. He said he drew the Elemental. But that doesn't mean everyone did. (And it is technically possible that they all draw the same Elemental since you resolve them one at a time.)
Why is that correct? It is the natural reading (Each character summons a random monster. If I am required to summon the same one as you, mine isn't random.) and it goes along with the spirit of this:
If a card calls for a die roll that affects multiple characters (for example, if it says that each character at a location is dealt 1d4 damage), roll separately for each character.
And I think this might have been mentioned before. So I'm searching for more.
EDIT: Yup. Here it is.
What makes most sense thematically is that the villain had a monster guarding him...you encountered it...the monster in this case blew everyone away from the location (or to the location). The villain's cadre just sent everyone away while the big bad sat in the background laughing maniacally at your hapless attempts to reach him due to his lackey. Encounter ends; you're all somewhere else, and the villain is undefeated. Pick up the pieces and try again.
This is what I hope the resolution is. If the water elemental or roc or whatever whisks you away because you lost to it, it doesn't seem right that you get to fight the villain from some remote location. Just like you don't get to fight the villain if first you lose to the Ghoul and have to end your turn early.
Thematically it is weird, but mechanics > theme in a game with randomness. Thematically it makes no sense to run into a Zombie Giant in the general store. But that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with one if you draw it.
Thematically it is weird, but mechanics > theme in a game with randomness. Thematically it makes no sense to run into a Zombie Giant in the general store. But that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with one if you draw it.
I understand that ya gotta allow for abstraction and mechanics is what makes a card game fun. But consistency is part of mechanics and if the Ghoul can defeat you and end the encounter then it seems that getting sent to another location should behave accordingly. Plus it avoids all the complicated questions of different location interactions like my character got sent to the Goblin Fortress and is now fighting a Goblin villain who's at the Old Light, what modifiers do I use?
It seems less complicated and more thematic to just rule that you aren't at the villain's location anymore so the encounter is over and the villain is undefeated.