So I've now been wondering how the new exploration rules interact with Ranzak's power.
Let's say I am ranzak and I have a cure in hand.
I do my first exploration and encounter a boon.
1. Roll to acquire boon
2. Success! Put the boon in my hand
Up to now im in the middle of an encounter so I can't play cure.
3. Roll to see if I can explore on a 4,5 or 6 (can I play cure right before this step?)
4. Success! I rolled a 5 so I am going to explore again (can I play a cure now?)
5. I explore and immediately have to encounter whatever card I turn over, so no chance to cure then
Basically does Ranzak have an opening during his orgy of boon acquisitions and explores to ever cure or perform any other action?
I'd say he does not have an opportunity to play Cure. He has to roll and explore right away or lose the exploration granted to him.
(On a side note, part of me has always wondered if he power to roll and explore is optional or if it is required. It doesn't use the word "may", it just tells you to do it. I've always assumed that unless the power says must (see Sajan's Drunken Master role) you can choose whether to use it or not. But it would be hilarious if Ranzak just couldn't help himself and kept exploring.)
Also, I don't know that these are "new" explore rules. I believe things are working as intended (and certainly how I've always played them). For what it's worth.
|
I'd say he does not have an opportunity to play Cure. He has to roll and explore right away or lose the exploration granted to him.
Agreed, as soon as he acquires the first boon, he has to decide whether to try and explore again. He rolls and the outcome decides if there is another exploration step. There is no time from prior to the first exploration until the end of the last exploration that a Cure can be played.
And we had played (in RotR) that the Cure could be played in between. Now we know it can't. It hasn't come up in S&S yet.
(On a side note, part of me has always wondered if he power to roll and explore is optional or if it is required. It doesn't use the word "may", it just tells you to do it. I've always assumed that unless the power says must (see Sajan's Drunken Master role) you can choose whether to use it or not. But it would be hilarious if Ranzak just couldn't help himself and kept exploring.)
I've assumed from my first reading that it was required - he's a goblin! When he finds treasure he's going to keep digging, whether it's good for him or not :)
What are the .. 'newly clarified' exploration rules? ... Ahh.. I'm guessing This FAQ?
Also, I don't know that these are "new" explore rules. I believe things are working as intended (and certainly how I've always played them). For what it's worth.
I would say there is some clarification that happened with the FAQ.
If you just look at RotR, a lot of the things said "immediately". Ezren's power did and Ambush did. But a few didn't, like the Academy or General Store. The "finish one thing before you start another" rule might have lead us to the same place the FAQ did, but being explicit in the rules makes it much more obvious.
Thanks guys, that's what I figured. And yes, I'm playing Ranzak as if he has no choice with his power. It seems very clearly written with no "may" anywhere to be seen, it's a crazy klepto compulsion he has to keep going.
What are the .. 'newly clarified' exploration rules? ... Ahh.. I'm guessing This FAQ?
Yup. That is the one.
Thanks guys, that's what I figured. And yes, I'm playing Ranzak as if he has no choice with his power. It seems very clearly written with no "may" anywhere to be seen, it's a crazy klepto compulsion he has to keep going.
Yeah. The use of the word "may" in so many powers makes it feel that way. And other than Ranzak, I'm not sure I can find any power that you wouldn't want to always use (unless you strategically wanted to fail a combat check and didn't want Valeros' 1d4 of help.) It only really comes into question with powers that have no "cost" like Ranzak's plus to acquire boons and to explore after acquiring a boon, or Valeros' combat bonus or the powers that reduce types of damage. And other than Ranzak being thematically unable to control his greed or wanting to intentionally fail a combat check, there isn't much need to determine whether they are optional or not.
Hawkmoon - while I'm at it, I remember in an old Ranzak thread a post of yours where you wrote that if Ranzak evades a henchman and passes it off to Valeros in a location, then Valeros is the one that has to attempt to close the location.
We weren't playing it that way, assuming that encountering the henchman is one step, but closing the location is another step that then reverts back to Ranzak.
Have we been playing it wrong?
I play that whoever defeats the henchman gets the chance to close the location. There are a few ways for that to happen when it isn't your turn. Ranzak is one of them. Swallowtail Festival in RotR is another. But the text on the bane applies to the person encountering it, so once Valeros is encountering it, Valeros is the one that earns the opportunity to close the location by defeating it.
Saying "If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from" isn't much different than saying "If undefeated you are dealt 1d4 Fire damage." They are worded similarly. And both apply to the encountering character.
We play Ranzak's explore again power as a compulsion, not an option. It has led him into trouble more than once. However, with the new interpretation/ clarification of the explore rules, this is even more dangerous for Ranzak. Strategically it would make more sense in some cases to auto-fail your check to acquire a boon, rather than risk fighting the villain that you know is next because you put her there with your magic spyglass. But purposefully failing a boon check is so against the spirit of Ranzak that I can't bring myself to do it.
It would be nice to know if there is an intention for this power to be a "may" or a "must".
I would prefer that Ranzak have a chance to play a card in between the acquire and his explore from the power, but with the new clarification of exploration I do not see it as a possibility.
Chief Technical Officer
|
We play Ranzak's explore again power as a compulsion, not an option. It has led him into trouble more than once. However, with the new interpretation/ clarification of the explore rules, this is even more dangerous for Ranzak. Strategically it would make more sense in some cases to auto-fail your check to acquire a boon, rather than risk fighting the villain that you know is next because you put her there with your magic spyglass. But purposefully failing a boon check is so against the spirit of Ranzak that I can't bring myself to do it.
It would be nice to know if there is an intention for this power to be a "may" or a "must".
I have an answer for you!
I lie! I have two.
Mike and Chad's original intent was that this power be optional. However, there was no room to have "you may" on the card, and faced with the choice of eliminating "you may" or making some other more drastic cut on the card, we deliberately left off "you may."
So officially, it's mandatory. Unofficially, if you want to make the power optional, Mike and Chad are fine with that.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I play that whoever defeats the henchman gets the chance to close the location. There are a few ways for that to happen when it isn't your turn. Ranzak is one of them. Swallowtail Festival in RotR is another. But the text on the bane applies to the person encountering it, so once Valeros is encountering it, Valeros is the one that earns the opportunity to close the location by defeating it.
Saying "If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from" isn't much different than saying "If undefeated you are dealt 1d4 Fire damage." They are worded similarly. And both apply to the encountering character.
Correct.
We play Ranzak's explore again power as a compulsion, not an option. It has led him into trouble more than once. However, with the new interpretation/ clarification of the explore rules, this is even more dangerous for Ranzak. Strategically it would make more sense in some cases to auto-fail your check to acquire a boon, rather than risk fighting the villain that you know is next because you put her there with your magic spyglass. But purposefully failing a boon check is so against the spirit of Ranzak that I can't bring myself to do it.
It would be nice to know if there is an intention for this power to be a "may" or a "must".
I have an answer for you!
I lie! I have two.
Mike and Chad's original intent was that this power be optional. However, there was no room to have "you may" on the card, and faced with the choice of eliminating "you may" or making some other more drastic cut on the card, we deliberately left off "you may."
So officially, it's mandatory. Unofficially, if you want to make the power optional, Mike and Chad are fine with that.
"Officially," if you take the feat that lets you explore on a roll of three, and you roll a three, do you have to explore? (This is similar to Meliski not forcing you to reroll 2 dice, in my mind.)
Officially, it's mandatory. (If 4, 5 and 6 are mandatory and you're going to check off 3, then you take the consequences.
Unofficially, you can make it optional.
The roll is unofficially optional, but not the result. If you take the roll and hit a 3 you can't change your mind and not explore.
|
|
The roll is unofficially optional, but not the result. If you take the roll and hit a 3 you can't change your mind and not explore.Officially, it's mandatory. (If 4, 5 and 6 are mandatory and you're going to check off 3, then you take the consequences.
Unofficially, you can make it optional.
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying.
Officially, the attempt to explore is mandatory. If you additionally check off the 3, then it is not an "or". If you roll a 3, 4, 5, 6 then you explore.
Unofficially, the attempt is optional. But you cannot decide if you roll a 3, not to explore. It is all or nothing. The actual roll attempt (and subsequent result) is optional.
Meliski didn't have an "or" either.
The roll is unofficially optional, but not the result. If you take the roll and hit a 3 you can't change your mind and not explore.Officially, it's mandatory. (If 4, 5 and 6 are mandatory and you're going to check off 3, then you take the consequences.
Unofficially, you can make it optional.
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying.
Officially, the attempt to explore is mandatory. If you additionally check off the 3, then it is not an "or". If you roll a 3, 4, 5, 6 then you explore.
Unofficially, the attempt is optional. But you cannot decide if you roll a 3, not to explore. It is all or nothing. The actual roll attempt (and subsequent result) is optional.
We're on the same page here. "you can make it optional" was just unclear whether you were referring to the roll itself or exploring on a 3.
|
|
I think is one of those time that "or" is not supposed to be there. An "or" to determine what actions, or how many actions, you take is one thing. An "or" to determine the result of an action (rolling the d6) doesn't sound right.
In this case, the way it is written on the character sheet and role card is correct.
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.
I think is one of those time that "or" is not supposed to be there. An "or" to determine what actions, or how many actions, you take is one thing. An "or" to determine the result of an action (rolling the d6) doesn't sound right.In this case, the way it is written on the character sheet and role card is correct.
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.
How do you know? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're sure declaring this authoritatively.
|
|
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.
How do you know? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're sure declaring this authoritatively.
Right now, as Vic has mentioned above, the power as written:
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.is mandatory ... officially.
I guess my question is why would you think that the 3 makes it an optional explore? It is fairly specific how it is written. It makes sense how it is written. And now we know the attempt at exploration is mandatory (officially). So I'm not saying authoritatively, but demonstratively.
We've been told that the attempt to roll is mandatory.
The power is written so that if you check off the 3, it means 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 is a success.
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a (□ 3,) 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.
How do you know? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're sure declaring this authoritatively.
Right now, as Vic has mentioned above, the power as written:
When you acquire a boon on your turn, roll 1d6; on a 4, 5, or 6, explore your location.
is mandatory ... officially.I guess my question is why would you think that the 3 makes it an optional explore? It is fairly specific how it is written. It makes sense how it is written. And now we know the attempt at exploration is mandatory (officially). So I'm not saying authoritatively, but demonstratively.
We've been told that the attempt to roll is mandatory.
The power is written so that if you check off the 3, it means 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 is a success.
So you're reaching a conclusion.
Well, while I think you're probably right, a different conclusion can be reached.
Generally speaking, feats make your character better. I want to say that somewhere Mike or Vic said that was their intention and that potentially bad feats were optional, but I'm not sure. This line of thinking leads to why Meliski allows you to re-roll one die instead of two even after you take the feat that lets you re-roll 2. So, if Ranzak's power was optional (like it is unofficially), then it would be undeniable: IF you roll the die, you have to go on a 3. But since it's not, taking the feat can potentially harm your player: if you don't want to explore, and you HAVE to roll that d6, then it's bad to explore on the 3, making the feat a detriment instead of a benefit at that time.
Ranzak IS a promo character.
He has funky ways of doing things, and not all of them are positive depending on the outcome.
His initial deck build is the scraps of whatever is left after all the other characters have built theirs.
It makes total sense to me that his wanderlust can get him in trouble and that his feats would sometimes 'improve' that ability to get into trouble.
In general, exploring again and again for free(ish) is a good thing, but Ranzak might get into trouble with it; however, he just can't help it.
Exploring again for free is always a good thing... unless you run into something you can't deal with. That's true for any character, not just Ranzak.
He even has a special ability that lets him deal with that issue if he's with another character. If he explores and runs into something bad, he can hide behind the other character at the location.
That's just the kind of character Ranzak is, and it's built that way to make it fun/interesting to play him.
All of the promos have quirky bits, so why should Ranzak be any different?
It makes complete sense to me that he has to roll and has to explore, and that you can improve his chances for a free explore, especially when he has a special ability that lets him get out of trouble by sticking with another party member.
This is a edge case being blown up out of proportion. Ranzak getting additional explores is a benefit, if you want to limit that, then don't check off the 3... if you want to have the option, then it is stated above that unofficially you are free to use the explores as a you may ability. I really don't understand this line of argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So officially, it's mandatory.
These are the only four words you need.
Ranzak is greedy. He explores too much for his own good. He gets a lot of stuff. He dies a lot.
Welcome to Ranzakville, population one (often zero).
This is a edge case being blown up out of proportion. Ranzak getting additional explores is a benefit, if you want to limit that, then don't check off the 3... if you want to have the option, then it is stated above that unofficially you are free to use the explores as a you may ability. I really don't understand this line of argument.
^This. I don't get the whole "but what about if he checks off the 3?" questioning. The whole power is either mandatory, or it's not. Play it how you want it.
I don't think that. The power is mandatory whether or not you check the box.
The question was simply a matter of whether or not you had to explore on a 3. There wasn't even much question, I just wanted to be sure.
The Meliski comparison would be that once the card is recharged, you have to reroll a die for sure. Just like Ranzak makes you explore on a 4, 5, or 6 for sure. But if you could choose one or two dice after taking a feat on Meliski, could you choose whether or not to go on a 3 with Ranzak?
That's all. I was pretty sure before I asked. We're totally clear now.
|
So officially, it's mandatory.These are the only four words you need.
Ranzak is greedy. He explores too much for his own good. He gets a lot of stuff. He dies a lot.
Welcome to Ranzakville, population one (often zero).
Population 1? Please, I'm running Population of 6 through S&S right now.
The true test will be running the full OP Adventure Path once it is finished and all released (unofficially of course) using the game box for rewards instead of having 6 Ranger or Rogue decks (dunno which would be better for him). I expect much dying.