Building on Hawkmoon's suggestion, this is a thread on how you will/have won this scenario.
The idea is what is the most efficient way to get all three nagas in the same location with all other locations closed or easily temporary closed.
Seems the "standard" way (close a maximum of locations without encountering villains, then encounter one leaving him only one escape location where you know at least one other naga is...) will work but I may miss something.
This falls apart with the "undefeated" rule. You can't funnel any of the villains because:
"If the other 2 villains are not in the location deck, it is undefeated".
This means that the location you beat it at does not close, meaning the villain will always be able to escape to the same location you just beat him at. This boils down to scouting/evading the villains to find where they are at, closing all of the non-villain locations... and then continuously fighting the villains until you get lucky and all 3 were shuffled into the same location (all the while losing blessings from the deck instead of the box, since they are "undefeated").
I think what is confusing some people on this one is the scenario card text:
When you would defeat a villain, examine the location deck. If the other two villains are not in the deck the villain is undefeated. If the villain cannot escape to an open location, shuffle the villain into a random location, opening it.
To win the scenario, defeat any villain.
The confusion is over why the part about the villain not being able to escape is there. The "would" part in the first sentence seems to indicate that you never actually call the villain defeated. You succeed at the check, say "I'm about to call you defeated" and then examine the location. The other villains aren't there so you call the villain undefeated. That means that location never closes (and you don't banish its cards). So why is the "if the villain cannot escape" part necessary?
I've gone back and forth in my mind about this. Is the "if the villain cannot escape" part unnecessary or just covering some strange possible corner case? Or is the scenario supposed to temporarily close the villains location (thus creating the possibilities of no open locations) if you don't find the other villain there, while still leaving the villain you encountered undefeated? Right now, if I were to play it, I'd play it as written and leave the location open.
I share Hawkmoon's uncertainty on this. I would love an official clarification.
Doesn't disintegrate force a defeat even if it would be undefeated? Now, the scenario actually overrides the card in this situation, so I don't think it actually matters, but maybe it's a templating thing.
But yeah, I could see the villain escaping to its own location as a possible infinite loop if you're super unlucky (until the blessing decks ran out).
Disintegrate banishes a non-villain monster if you defeated but it would otherwise have been undefeated.
Plus, the scenario uses the words "would be defeated". See this post for some insight on that. And see this one where I make an attempt to explain how it would play out. But basically, when it says "would be defeated" it means you never actually get to the point of them being defeated. You get interrupted by the scenario before the bane gets declared defeated.
For Disintegrate to kick in (and it wouldn't anyway because this is a villain we are talking about and also they all have non-combat checks) you would have had to defeat the monster (for a moment) but then have something declare it undefeated. The most common case of that is things that need a trait to be defeated. If a monster says "If you check doesn't have the Fire trait, the monster is undefeated" and you play Disintegrate, then you can still banish it, because you defeated the monster, but something changed it back to undefeated. In the case of these villains, you never defeat them in the first place, since the undefeated condition kicks in before you can defeat them and not after you defeat them.
Sorry, didn't have the card in front of me so I was trying (and failing) to figure out what wording it had.
But anyways, lol at a mustache-twirling villain saying "not so fast" (would be defeated), heh.
Raynair describes how I understand this scenario to be played. Can we get an official confirmation that we are playing this correctly?
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think I butchered this one in editing, and "would" and "undefeated" should not play any role here. I think it should say just this:
If a villain cannot escape to an open location, shuffle the villain into a random location, opening it.
To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the other two villains are in the same location deck.
Confirming with Mike and Chad...
I think I butchered this one in editing, and "would" and "undefeated" should not play any role here. I think it should say just this:
Confirming with Mike and Chad...If a villain cannot escape to an open location, shuffle the villain into a random location, opening it.
To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the other two villains are in the same location deck.
Oh please let this be true. I've fretted so much about this card, but other people weren't seeming to be so much, so I though I was being stupid.
Clear as crystal from my point of view. Thanks for the timely response.
I think that works for me, though I might suggest switching the order of the two sentences. I know that doesn't make any difference ultimately, but it just feels better in my mind. I guess probably because you are going to know whether you won or not before you would have to choose the random location to open.
Yeah. That is how I see it. The second one seems counter intuitive, but you won't be able to do that until you've cornered the villains a few time.
|
Am I missing then that the solution with the new wording should be to always leave one location open, and to have it be the same location each time so that they all eventually flee there?
It seems that it should say that "the villain is defeated but automatically escapes if the other two villains are not at its location" and then you continue along down with the new wording for that to work.
Can I confirm the expected behavior?
If you fail to defeat a villain, it escapes normally (since at least its current location will be open).
If you defeat a villain and both other villains were in the same location, you win (regardless of open locations).
If you defeat a villain and at least one other villain was not present, and another location is open, the villain escapes to one of those open locations, using blessings from the box to add to any other open locations.
If you defeat a villain and at least one other villain was not present, and no locations are open, the villain escapes to a random location, which becomes open. This could be a temporarily closed location or a permanently closed location, and could even be the location you encountered him at (in which case all cards other than villains are still banished from it).
Crystal clear. This is how we'll play it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think that works for me, though I might suggest switching the order of the two sentences. I know that doesn't make any difference ultimately, but it just feels better in my mind. I guess probably because you are going to know whether you won or not before you would have to choose the random location to open.
There are two reasons I want the sentences in those order. First, we do prefer to put alternate win conditions on the bottom. But second, the win condition tell you to do something that you won't comprehend until you've read the other sentence. When possible (and it isn't always) I try to avoid situations like this:
Reader reads first bit. "What? That can't even happen! Do I really understand this stupid game?!?"
Reader reads second bit. "Oh... that's how it can happen."
I think I butchered this one in editing, and "would" and "undefeated" should not play any role here. I think it should say just this:
Confirming with Mike and Chad...If a villain cannot escape to an open location, shuffle the villain into a random location, opening it.
To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the other two villains are in the same location deck.
Hi Vic,
You still need to add what happens after a player got to check if the two other villains were in the location and they weren't. Typically, I guess the searched location deck has to be shuffled.
Hi Vic,
You still need to add what happens after a player got to check if the two other villains were in the location and they weren't. Typically, I guess the searched location deck has to be shuffled.
Its basically covered in the rules. If you defeat a villain, the location is closed. As you're closing you look through for other villains. If there are none, the cards go to the box and the location is closed. If there is one, the rest of the cards go to the box, the one villain stays there and the location stays open. If there are two, you win.
I think that works for me, though I might suggest switching the order of the two sentences. I know that doesn't make any difference ultimately, but it just feels better in my mind. I guess probably because you are going to know whether you won or not before you would have to choose the random location to open.There are two reasons I want the sentences in those order. First, we do prefer to put alternate win conditions on the bottom. But second, the win condition tell you to do something that you won't comprehend until you've read the other sentence. When possible (and it isn't always) I try to avoid situations like this:
Reader reads first bit. "What? That can't even happen! Do I really understand this stupid game?!?"
Reader reads second bit. "Oh... that's how it can happen."
Well, that is why you get paid to make the games, and I pay to play them. Thanks for not making me call this game stupid. I'd never forgive myself for such a thing.
Its basically covered in the rules. If you defeat a villain, the location is closed. As you're closing you look through for other villains. If there are none, the cards go to the box and the location is closed. If there is one, the rest of the cards go to the box, the one villain stays there and the location stays open. If there are two, you win.Hi Vic,
You still need to add what happens after a player got to check if the two other villains were in the location and they weren't. Typically, I guess the searched location deck has to be shuffled.
Me stupid!
Game clever! Vic clever! Nondeskript clever! Hawkmoon clever and me stupido!Good FAQ!
This was an insane scenario, playing with the RAW. Encountered a villain as the first card on our second turn. Beat him, but there goes 5 cards from the blessings deck. Playing more cautiously at that point and scouting more, we got pinged again for 3 cards from the blessings deck. At which point I was like "no, this has to be wrong." But we'd already clearly lost. Damiel was happy just to get a Potion of the Ocean out of it. That card seems neat.
We came to it this morning having read the FAQ. Still it came down to the last three turns before we got all the villains in the same deck with only one other location open, the Hatchery, which Jirelle can temp close 'tilt he cows come home. Damiel draws the first villain, it's the Charisma/Diplomacy one... good thing he's got his newly acquired Potion of the Ocean! Jirelle temp closes the Hatchery, no problem. One down, two to go!
But it'll be on the last turn... Damiel holds his breath, hoping to draw a blessing so he can take on both villains back to back otherwsie it's a lose by default. Thankfully, Potion of Flying peeks out of his deck! After JIrelle's uneventful turn, Damiel kills the Intelligence/Knowledge one with ease, but to temp close her location, Jirelle draws a Manticore, an Aberration... whiiiich means a random monster gets shuffled into Damiel's location deck. Daimel's got his Potion of Flying for the explore, but if he draws the generic monster that's it.
Holding our breaths, again, we draw the final villain and dispatch him in a flurry of blessings (thankfully, none of the villains did enough damage to obliterate Damiel's hand). We did it, we won! Which seems especially important since we beat a Goblin Keehauling on the first turn and had eight plunder cards waiting for us (...none of which turned out to be good, but oh well...) And hey, with aquatic villains in the mix, Potion of the Ocean might be sticking around.
So anyway, as I'm cleaning up the game I take a peek at the rules card for the scenario and go "Oh, huh... I guess we technically only had to kill one of them..."
Good thing we won with our poor understanding of the rules that made it way, way harder, otherwise it would've been really disappointing to have figured out we didn't lose after having consigned ourselves to our fate and packed away the cards. :D
My wife and I lost this one last night, even with the updated scenario rules. The checks on the villains were tough for Oloch, Lirianne, Jirelle and Merisiel.
|
I think for clarity's sake I would also add:
"To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the other two villains are in the same location deck AS THE VILLAIN BEING ENCOUNTERED."
The other could be interpreted as so long as 2 of the three villains are in the same location deck when the other villain is encountered at a completely different location deck, the scenario is defeated.
Additionally, I read the FAQ entry for this fix, and it's a bit confusing. Is there any way to clarify it?
Its basically covered in the rules. If you defeat a villain, the location is closed. As you're closing you look through for other villains. If there are none, the cards go to the box and the location is closed. If there is one, the rest of the cards go to the box, the one villain stays there and the location stays open. If there are two, you win.Hi Vic,
You still need to add what happens after a player got to check if the two other villains were in the location and they weren't. Typically, I guess the searched location deck has to be shuffled.
Me stupid!
Game clever! Vic clever! Nondeskript clever! Hawkmoon clever and me stupido!
Good FAQ!
Building and agreeing with the previous comments, if I was a pushy French guy taking opportunity of English not being my native language, I would smilingly add that since the FAQ says :
"To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the other two villains are in the same location deck."
And not
"To win the scenario, defeat any villain while the THREE villains are in the same location deck."
It "clearly" means that the two other villains have to be in the same location, but it can be a different one than the one where you are currently defeating the third villain (opening many questions on how could you know that there are both together).
Just my weekly can of worms... Don't bite me not-this-Mike please, I may be contagious... :-)
OK, now being serious, since we all agree that the intended behaviour is the one detailed above, I would recommend replacing the "TWO" by "THREE" in the FAQ sentence (seems to me even clearer).
In continuing "potion of the ocean is more powerful than I expected" news, Damiel used his three times on the following scenario to almost completely ignore the villain or the henchman the villain summoned. Made it a little anticlimactic to dismiss Uthuggimaru's ~20 check to defeat with a flick of the Potion of the Ocean, handily winning the scenario after Jirelle's Blessing-pumped dice roll against Charda. We still had to deal with Blackwater Charda's 1d4-1 cold damage a couple times, but hey, that's what you bury your armor for.
|
Alhandra, Damiel, Seltyiel, and Feiya just beat this one on hard mode - we weren't aware that the text had changed, so we ended up lucking into getting all the nagas into the right deck in the final turns of the game. I think we only ended up losing two or three turns due to considering the villain undefeated. I'm glad I won't have to that again - that sucked!!! :D
|
|
Lost this twice so far, using the FAQ'd rules. Have managed to get all 3 villains to the same deck, but ran out of time trying to encounter one again.
Last attempt tonight hopefully - we play a minor house rule in that we get three attempts at each scenario, if we fail it 3 times, we don't get the reward and continue to the next, missing a card feat may well hurt, we also play that we banish random cards equal to the number of open locations at the end of the game on a failed scenario, so we've been leaking cards on our failures as well.
I played this Saturday for the first time and found it simple.
With three Villains, locations get closed rather quickly (assuming, of course, you don't fail the villains' checks), and the villains naturally funneled themselves to the same location. It only took us twenty minutes or so (two player game, though, so YMMV - I understand that things would be different with villains at 3 out of 6 locations instead of 3 out of 4).
I played this Saturday for the first time and found it simple.
With three Villains, locations get closed rather quickly (assuming, of course, you don't fail the villains' checks), and the villains naturally funneled themselves to the same location. It only took us twenty minutes or so (two player game, though, so YMMV - I understand that things would be different with villains at 3 out of 6 locations instead of 3 out of 4).
we found the exact opposite- yes there are 3 villains, but in a four-character game, that means 3 locations with no way of closing, aside from emptying the whole thing.
As far as I can tell, this one is massively dependant on luck - you have to run into villains early, and run into the right villain for your character to have a decent shot at.
We've played this one 4 times, and every single time, we've run out of time before we could get all three villains to the same location.
Yeah, there not being any henchman, and S&S's pretty limited scouting abilities, means you often just can't know if you're sitting on the right location or not for a villain. The best you can do is keep track of how many monsters you've encountered at a given location and move if you hit N+1
My wife and I played this about a week or so ago. It took us two attempts to beat. We each play 2 characters, and one of hers is Merisiel. What we ended up doing was having Merisiel evade the first villain she found. We left that location alone and spread out to force the other villains to that location. That meant that we only had to permanently close one of the other locations before our "spread" was able to force the villains to the location where we'd left the first villain.
I'm not sure that was really the best strategy or not, but it worked and we won.
The checks on the villains were quite challenging though, being non-combat. Our group (Oloch, Jirelle, Lirianne, and Merisiel) struggles with Intelligence checks, so the one that had that check in particular was nasty to us.
I must admit, I had that part easy. I found the villains each time and I'm playing RotR Lini (my brother wanted to see what was so great about her).
I'm not gonna hate, but no wonder you found it easy if you're adding d4+1[+2?] to each of those obscure checks before you throw in blessings or w/e. Meanwhile Damiel sits there with his d6 Wisdom and d4 Charisma and just has to suck it up. D:
(by "it" I mean the Potion of Glibness and Potion of the Ocean he was toting around)
S&S definitely makes you crave better stat spreads way more than RoRL ever did. Freiya and Lem practically napped through Toll of the Bell. Without a Divine skill, though, Damiel and Jirelle felt much more harried by it.
Our 4-character party is Seltiel, Lirianne, Jirelle, Alahazra.
Jirelle with Magic Hat (the loot one, forget the title) can deal with most things, but Seltiel trying to do a wisdom check is just painful. As is Alahazra having to do anything physical.
I'm not gonna hate, but no wonder you found it easy if you're adding d4+1[+2?] to each of those obscure checks before you throw in blessings or w/e. Meanwhile Damiel sits there with his d6 Wisdom and d4 Charisma and just has to suck it up. D:
(by "it" I mean the Potion of Glibness and Potion of the Ocean he was toting around)
S&S definitely makes you crave better stat spreads way more than RoRL ever did. Freiya and Lem practically napped through Toll of the Bell. Without a Divine skill, though, Damiel and Jirelle felt much more harried by it.
That's what I was saying - The villains were easier for me than most thanks to Lini. So, yes, I found the villains easy due to Lini - I found the scenario short, however, simply due to having only two players, I believe.
Where were Damiel's PoHeroisms? That would have gone a long way for him.
We hadn't encountered any by that point. :( The only time one ever came up was when we were clearing out a closed location. I think I got one as plunder either from that scenario or the one immediately after? Actually... considering that's AP3 and PoHero is AP1, maybe I "cheated" and used the Card Feat from that scenario to add it directly to my deck.
We always seem to have really crap luck with loot, even though we're fairly good at judging when we have enough time left over to explore locations fully--which I've gathered from reading the boards that a lot of people don't do. We try to maximize our explores, and rarely finish a game before the blessings deck is almost out. If we have extra time on that clock, we want to use it to see as many cards in the scenario as we can. Still, we've had bad luck that's hounded us since RoRL, where Merisiel had a Returning Throwing Axe and Deathbane Light Crossbow until the start of AP6. So Damiel didn't get any PoHero until AP3 and Jirelle didn't get her Old Salt Bandana until AP2 was done. Bad luck all around.
...though in the case of the Old Salt Bandana, that was my fault... We'd scouted some location or other and found it on top, but when my wife was gonna move there to grab it I was like "wellll, let's do this one thing together first." And "this one thing," whatever it was, was something that shuffled the location and put the bandana beneath the villain we didn't know was there, and therefore out of our reach.
My bad. :(
We hadn't encountered any by that point. :(
That's one thing I love about the PACG. You really have to adjust your strategy based on what boons you're able to acquire. Everyone loves Kyra's ability to put blessings of Sarenrae on the top of her deck in RotRL, but in my group, we didn't encounter a single one of those blessings until part 5 (and by then we didn't want it). Damiel in one of my groups got his hands on nearly all of the explosives, but has yet to discover a potion of flight.
Believe it or not, I'm actually not that crazy about Old Salt's Bandanna for Jirelle. Every time I've had it in her deck, it felt like it's just been taking up space, since she has no way to cycle it. Instead of it, I've just stuck to Eyepatches, which add the SB trait, but also give a bonus, and are able to be recharged.
I feel you. My wife's Jirelle maintained a weirdly static hand by our standards. Sometimes 4/7 of her cards were spoken for, one of which was the bandana. I get what you're saying about not being able to move it. Moving my hand is the most important thing in the game!
In this case, though, I can't really think of any single other card in the game I'd be more willing to keep around. Reveal for a free reroll of two dice on literally any check? Yes, please. I'm not statistically-minded enough to do the math on that, but I'm sure it's similarly effective as a blessing on checks where you just have to beat the average (if we're rolling 1d8 to get a 4, we'll use a blessing if it's even a semi-important roll), saving your blessings for other, better things.
You might be confusing Merisiel's power with evasion spells and powers that specify a "non-villain monster." Merisiel's power has no restrictions. As long as the card she's evading doesn't say "may not be evaded," she can skip right by it. :D