Is Player 2 able to attempt to (temp) close C? They've already done that with location A.
From what can be read from Vic and Mike above, the answer is no (and would still be no even if Player 2 didn't try to close A yet). Frencois is arguing that it should be yes instead for the case where Player 2 didn't get a chance to close A yet. As for closing two locations with one character, the rules already definitively answer that as a no since it says "each character at another location may immediately attempt" -- Player 2 already had a turn in closing A so they don't get a second turn, the close attempts loop over the characters themselves and not the locations.
Until I hear otherwise from Vic, I'm going to continue going with no for all instances for my own group since that is the only semi-official word on the matter. Going with Frencois's argument you'd be allowed to temp close the villain's location if you got moved there before your turn to temp close, making it possible to win the scenario even if you lose against the villain (remember he was at a different location when the villain was encountered). I can almost guarantee that isn't something that is intended to happen since the rulebook directly states that an undefeated villain has at least the location he came from to escape to as a valid open location.
|
I do agree that Player 2 already made an attempt to close his original location, he's done even if he gets ported. However, if in the scheme of things, Player 2 gets ported because of someone else's close, they can make an attempt at the new location. Since it is all simultaneous, they haven't made an attempt to clise their location yet.
But just wondered.
You definitively can't win without defeating the villain.
You definitively can't try to temp close twice during same encounter.
But my point is still : if between the time when the encounters begin and my turn to temp close I am for wathever reason moved, why shouldn't I be able to try to temp close at the location I am now at?
Up to now no one as aswered that precise case.
We're still working on that part.
Thanks Vic, you're the best.
Thanks Vic.
Chief Technical Officer
|
We are contemplating the following change to the FAQ entry:
Before a character encounters a villain, each other character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location; the villain's location cannot be temporarily closed. You may decide the order in which these attempts are made. If anything causes a character to move to a different location before his attempt is made, he cannot attempt to close a location. If anything causes a character to move before his attempt is made, he may attempt to close his new location, not his previous location.
(Among other things, it solves the problem raised here.)
Anybody see any issues hiding in there?
We are contemplating the following change to the FAQ entry:
Before a character encounters a villain, each other character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location; the villain's location cannot be temporarily closed. You may decide the order in which these attempts are made.
If anything causes a character to move to a different location before his attempt is made, he cannot attempt to close a location.If anything causes a character to move before his attempt is made, he may attempt to close his new location, not his previous location.(Among other things, it solves the problem raised here.)
Anybody see any issues hiding in there?
As someone who has contemplated it in light of the previous FAQ, and has actually played it as the new proposed FAQ: not only I don't see any issues, in fact this seems like the much more logical and intuitive approach (in the few instances where it has come up - players who didn't consult the forums just automatically assume that they only make the decision to temp-close and all appropriate checks when their turn to 'decide' comes; i.e, when a players turn to attempt temp-close arrives - that's when his 'current location' is assessed, and that's when the decision 'to attempt or not to attempt' is made)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We are also considering this tangentially related rule: "If you move or are moved during an encounter, any effects that would happen after that encounter do not happen." (This would mean, among other things, that in this situation, you would lose the exploration given to you by the Groaning Gate.) Thoughts?
|
|
We are also considering this tangentially related rule: "If you move or are moved during an encounter, any effects that would happen after that encounter do not happen." (This would mean, among other things, that in this situation, you would lose the exploration given to you by the Groaning Gate.) Thoughts?
Are you saying across the board? Just after the encounter but not AYA stuff?
We are contemplating the following change to the FAQ entry:
Before a character encounters a villain, each other character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location; the villain's location cannot be temporarily closed. You may decide the order in which these attempts are made.
If anything causes a character to move to a different location before his attempt is made, he cannot attempt to close a location.If anything causes a character to move before his attempt is made, he may attempt to close his new location, not his previous location.(Among other things, it solves the problem raised here.)
Anybody see any issues hiding in there?
None as far as we can tell : for info, we played with that rule since months and never had an issue.
We are also considering this tangentially related rule: "If you move or are moved during an encounter, any effects that would happen after that encounter do not happen." (This would mean, among other things, that in this situation, you would lose the exploration given to you by the Groaning Gate.) Thoughts?
1) I agree with Theryon.
2) We wondered a bit whether all ATE should be deleted or only those happening to you. Suppose a location power says: after you encounter a card, each character at this location does X. Even if you move/are moved during the encounter, shouldn't X happen to the others anyway? Ultimately we decided to forget it, as was simpler/best for future development to follow Vic's proposition.
I like both proposals and can think of no problems at this time.