Free captains regatta

[Chad George]

The scenario specifies that victory is achieved if the top card of each location deck must be an "enemy ship."
Can locations be closed in this scenario? I wasn't sure if the scenario would check an empty location and mark that as a failure, or not check it at all because there was no deck to check.

Thanks!

[Hawkmoon269]

A lot of people (including me) don't have this scenario yet, since adventure 3 is currently shipping. I'd be happy to help, and I'm sure others would too, but would need someone to post the scenario text.

[Theryon Stormrune]

There is also a discussion started in this thread just in order to consolidate things.

[Chad George]

Theryon Stormrune wrote:

There is also a discussion started in this thread just in order to consolidate things.

He and I are asking different questions. I'm at work now but will reply with card text once I get home.

[Raynair]

The scenario specifically states "check EACH location deck"... it does not care if its open or closed.

In other words, if you close a location and empty it of cards, you will lose the scenario.

Given that, it also states "when you defeat an Enemy Ship henchman, place it on top of its location deck". So, if you defeat the henchman, you place it on top... unless I am understanding the timing incorrectly, you IMMEDIATELY attempt to close the location, which, if successful, means you empty it of cards and THEN place the Enemy Ship back on top.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Text for those that would like it:

The Free Captains' Regatta:

Shuffle an Enemy Ship henchman into each location deck. If you defeat an Enemy Ship, put it on top of its location deck.

After your move step, you may examine the top card of your location deck; you may shuffle that deck. If the blessings deck is empty, examine the top card of each location deck. You win the scenario only if each is an Enemy Ship

[Hawkmoon269]

Raynair wrote:

The scenario specifically states "check EACH location deck"... it does not care if its open or closed.

In other words, if you close a location and empty it of cards, you will lose the scenario.

Given that, it also states "when you defeat an Enemy Ship henchman, place it on top of its location deck". So, if you defeat the henchman, you place it on top... unless I am understanding the timing incorrectly, you IMMEDIATELY attempt to close the location, which, if successful, means you empty it of cards and THEN place the Enemy Ship back on top.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you close the location, you empty it of cards, which would include the enemy ship henchman where ever it was. Basically, you do not want to close location in this scenario. If you do, you will loose since it will mean you will have a location without an enemy ship henchman on top. Closing is optional (you MAY attempt it), so you just have to decide not to.

So, this would be correct, but bad:
Defeat enemy ship henchman.
Place enemy ship henchman on top.
Attempt and succeed at closing location.
Banish all cards, including enemy ship henchman.
Scenario is now unwinnable.

Also note, the scenario doesn't tell you to make the Enemy Ship henchman face up. It is still a face down card.

Chad George wrote:

Can locations be closed in this scenario? I wasn't sure if the scenario would check an empty location and mark that as a failure, or not check it at all because there was no deck to check.

So the answer is yes you can close locations, but if you do so, you will loose.

S&S Rulebook p10 wrote:

A deck is a deck, a hand is a hand, and a pile is a pile whether or not it has any cards in it.

So you would still have to check the empty location decks, and thus you would loose.

[Chad George]

Thanks for the responses. Your assessment was pretty much what I figured. This is going to be a rough scenario :)

[Frencois]

Raynair wrote:

The scenario specifically states "check EACH location deck"... it does not care if its open or closed.

...

See my remark in the other thread. The scenario doesn't ask to check each location deck but rather to examine top cards.

Therefore I wonder if the golden rule that says that if something (the top card) doesn't exist, the condition referring to it becomes irrelevant wouldn't kick in at that point... I would personaly think so (or is something lost in translation to French :-))

[Dark Nero]

Since designers never responded to this and other threads regarding this complicated and unclear scenario, this nuanced rules interpretation issue needs to be broken down logically.

1. Understanding the Scenario Power

The key passage in the scenario description is:

Quote:

"If the blessings deck is empty, examine the top card of each location deck. You win the scenario only if each is an Enemy Ship."

At face value, this means:

- You must examine the top card of every location deck.
- After doing so, you win only if every examined card is an Enemy Ship henchman.

Now let's analyze how this interacts with closed locations.

2. Effect of Closing a Location

According to the rulebook:

- When a location is closed, all remaining cards in its deck are banished (returned to the box).
- The location remains closed for the rest of the scenario.
- The location deck is now empty (has no cards in it).

Thus, if a location is closed, its deck has no top card to examine.

3. Golden Rule: Ignoring Impossible Instructions

The game’s Golden Rule states:

Quote:

"If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction."

Applying this to the scenario power:

- If a location deck is empty, examining its top card is impossible.
- The Golden Rule dictates that this instruction is ignored.
- But it does not specify what happens to dependent conditions (e.g., whether an empty deck counts as "not an Enemy Ship").

4. Comparing the Two Opinions

Opinion 1 (You Can't Win If a Location is Closed)

Arguments:

- The scenario says, "You win only if the top card of each location deck is an Enemy Ship."
- If a closed location has no top card, then it is not an Enemy Ship.
- Since not all top cards (including nonexistent ones) are Enemy Ships, you never fulfill the victory condition.

Flaw in this argument:

- The requirement "win only if each is an Enemy Ship" comes after the instruction "examine the top card of each location deck."
- If you cannot examine an empty deck (per the Golden Rule), this may indicate that the victory check simply ignores empty decks, rather than treating them as "not Enemy Ships."
- If the game was intended to prevent victory when any location was closed, the power could have simply said:

Quote:

"You cannot win if any location is closed."

It does NOT say this.

Opinion 2 (Closed Locations Do Not Prevent Victory)

Arguments:

- The scenario instructs you to examine each location deck.
- The Golden Rule states that impossible instructions (like examining an empty deck) are ignored.
- Since closed locations have no cards, their examination is skipped, meaning only open locations are checked.
- The victory condition applies only to the examined cards, meaning only open locations count toward the win condition.

Supporting Logic:

- If the game designers intended that closed locations prevented victory, they could have stated this explicitly.
- The Golden Rule allows for ignoring impossible instructions, but it does not turn them into an automatic failure state.

5. Final Conclusion

The second interpretation (Opinion 2) is correct: closing a location does NOT prevent victory.

Why?

- The game tells you to examine the top card of each location deck.
- If this is impossible (because the deck is empty), the Golden Rule ignores the instruction.
- The win condition depends only on the examined cards, meaning only decks with actual cards in them matter.

Final Answer:

- Yes, you can win the scenario even if a location is closed.
- The closed location is ignored in the final check (because it cannot be examined), so only remaining open locations determine victory.

What do you guys think of this?

[Brother Tyler]

I see this as a way for players to choose an "easy" or "hard" mode with their interpretation.

The "easy" mode is to ignore closed locations, allowing members to defeat other henchmen and close those locations while still being able to win if they get an Enemy Ship on the top of the other locations.

The "hard" mode (which I prefer) is that you can't win if you close any locations because you don't have an Enemy Ship on the top of those locations.

My preference for the "hard" mode interpretation is my view that the thematic intent was that you're supposed to beat every Enemy Ship in the regatta, getting an Enemy Ship on the top of each location, either by defeating them or through other powers (e.g., the Augury spell). The other henchmen are in there as additional challenges, but the regatta doesn't end just because you defeat, say, Hirgenzosk.

It's important to remember that each henchman card's power says "...you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from..." The key word is "may" in this case. In most scenarios, you want to close the location. In this scenario, you don't (based on my "hard" mode interpretation). So your decision should be to not attempt to close the location when you defeat a henchman.

Ultimately, the developers left his open to interpretation (though I don't know if that was deliberate). They could very easily have included a "During this Scenario" power to state that locations couldn't be closed, making the "hard" mode intent clear. Lacking that clarity, however, and lacking FAQ/errata guidance, players are left to choose the interpretation that works for them.