Bury your discard pile.
So I went at it early so as not to bury too many cards, but maybe I did it a bit too fast, since my discard pile was empty when I had the opportunity to close the location.
Cursing my bad luck, I was going to leave the location opened with 9 cards in the deck and no way to close before thoroughly emptying it, and then I remembered Fog Bank.
Recharge your hand, which must contain at least 1 card.
Since Fort Hazard doesn't carry the 1 card clause, maybe I can close it even if my discard pile is empty? After all, the golden rule tells me that if a card instructs me to do something impossible, I can ignore that instruction. But then that leaves me with an empty "When Closing" and I'm not sure that's any good.
I think if it doesn't specify, then a discard pile of 0 is still a discard pile.
This is from WotR, but...
A deck is a deck, a hand is a hand, and a pile is a pile whether or not it has cards.
So yeah, you can bury you 0 card discard pile to close Fort Hazard.
Sorry for necro'ing again, but I didn't want to start a new thread when this one was already here.
So this also applies to the Lightless Maze from Adventure 5 of Wrath, correct? It states "When closing, bury 3 cards from your discard pile."
I didn't have any cards in my discard pile after I beat up the henchman, so I ruled that I couldn't close the location because I couldn't fulfill the "when closing" requirement.
It specifies cards and not pile, and I might have a pile with no cards in it, so I think... agh I'm not sure which way this one goes.
Yeah, if you don't have 3 cards in your discard pile, you can't close it.
If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are.
You can still close it with less than 3 cards in your discard. Sorry Hawkmoon, but it looks like we disagree here :)
If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are.You can still close it with less than 3 cards in your discard. Sorry Hawkmoon, but it looks like we disagree here :)
Hmm...guess you are right.
Question then : can you close it with 0 cards in your discard? Seems so...
Question then : can you close it with 0 cards in your discard? Seems so...
I suppose so. Though part of me is thinking "Have you really met the closing requirements if you don't have 3 cards?"
I wonder if the rule is really just meant to apply in situations like playing Augury when there are only 2 cards in the deck, not when you are required to do something. Basically, is it supposed to not make things useless when you have less card, but not to render things easier on you? But I can't say that for sure.
Though part of me is thinking "Have you really met the closing requirements if you don't have 3 cards?"
I asked myself the same question and came up with "yes, you can." The When Closing requirements are a binary state: either you fulfill all of them or you do not. In order to fulfill a requirement, you need to successfully carry out the instructions it is having you do. If an instruction is impossible, we ignore it per the golden rule and that means we haven't successfully carried out all the instructions. In this case though, we can successfully carry out the instruction, albeit with less cards than it originally specified. The instruction isn't impossible and the rules provide a way to carry it out with less cards, so we do that and fulfill the When Closing requirement as a result.
The "can o' worms" with this interpretation is what counts as "told to do something with a certain number of cards"? For me, this means the instruction needs to explicitly give you a number. If the number of cards is implicit, that rule does not apply. With that interpretation, you cannot use the rule to dodge a When Closing of "Banish an ally" since it doesn't explicitly say a number, but you could dodge or reduce "Banish 2 allies" or "Banish 1 ally" because it does tell you an explicit number.
|
I'm inclined to agree with Hawkmoon. It's not telling you to bury 3 cards, it's saying if you want to close it, you need to bury 3 cards. Saying you could close this with two cards would be like saying you could bury a 1 card discard pile to use a location power that says "At the start of your turn, you may bury two cards from your discard pile to draw a card". We all know you can't do that, and this is the same.
Don't ask why I typed out some numbers as words and some not, hush you!
I'm inclined to agree with Hawkmoon. It's not telling you to bury 3 cards, it's saying if you want to close it, you need to bury 3 cards. Saying you could close this with two cards would be like saying you could bury a 1 card discard pile to use a location power that says "At the start of your turn, you may bury two cards from your discard pile to draw a card". We all know you can't do that, and this is the same.
Don't ask why I typed out some numbers as words and some not, hush you!
I'd similarly argue that if you only had 1 card in your discard, then yes you could bury that 1 card to draw a card (or if you have 0 cards, you can get a free card draw). There is nothing in the rules that say the rule I quoted doesn't apply to "requirement" or "cost" instructions. If you can find the rule that restricts that and says you have to do it with the exact number of cards or else you can't do it at all, I'd love to see it because I've missed it at least 5 times now.
"Banish an ally" is instructing you to banish one ally. I think it should fall under "told to do something with a certain number of cards".
The fact that a number isn't used in the sentence doesn't change the fact that the sentence commands an action with a specific number of cards.
If it was in the "When Permanently Closed" section, I'd agree with you, Skizzerz.
The rule applies to mandatory actions that are the results of playing a card or taking an action. They do not apply to triggers. In this case you have to bury 3 cards to close the location.
Otherwise, you could take Balazar's "You may discard a spell to draw a random monster from the box." and say "Well I don't have a spell in my hand, so I can ignore that part of the instruction and just draw a monster from the box." Then you'd get a 100+ card hand of monsters and win win win...
Actually, as a Balazar player I could be talked into this.......... :)
|
|
In neither example are you told to bury those specific amounts of cards skizzerz. You're given a cost to close, that's it. You are being given an option, you are not being told to do that thing. Being told to do that thing means you MUST do it, or come as close to doing it as you can. You could argue you are being told to attempt a close, sure, and you are you doing that. To attempt, you look at the requirements and see whether you can do them or not. You cannot, your attempt is done, but you did in fact attempt it.
The quoted rule does not apply here.
I'll also mention that the distinction between cards that specify a number vs card that use an indefinite article (a/an) is not a valid distinction. If a monster said to "bury a card" when you fail a combat check, and after you fight him and fail you have no cards left in your hand, the rule would apply as well.
I really want to agree with you Andrew (because I like the correct thing also being the thing people would first think of when they read the card), but unfortunately there is no notion of a "cost" in the rulebook. The When Closing requirements are either a list of checks or a list of tasks you must perform. In this case, it's a list of tasks you must perform. Performing a task involves doing what it tells you to do (aka you're being told to do things). Being told to do things is exactly what the rule I quoted requires. As a result, I fail to see how it doesn't apply in this instance.
There is no notion of a "cost" versus an "effect" like what would exist in Magic the Gathering or other games. There are just instructions, and you follow them if you can or ignore them if you cannot.
I want to agree with you; I want there to be a notion of a cost versus an effect and the "use as many as there are" rule to only apply to effects. That makes sense, and is what a reasonable person would likely assume just by reading the cards without thoroughly going through the rulebook first. But that isn't what the rules are, and therein lies the issue (for me, at least). And as elcoderdude and nondeskript stated (and I find it difficult to disagree with), taking the rules as written to their logical conclusion means a lot of things break horribly.
As a result in my own games, I'll be enforcing the distinction between cost and effect, and requiring that if something is used as a "cost" that it cannot be skimped on, but I'd also love to see an actual resolution so that the rules as written aren't exploitable.
I think I agree with hawkmoon and Andrew here; just because you ignored the part that's impossible to do, doesn't mean you actually fulfilled the "When Closing" requirement. You didn't actually do what the "When Closing" requirement states, you just fulfilled as much of it as you can. But that doesn't mean you actually fulfilled it.
Burying a pile of 0 cards in your discard pile is different, because 0 cards is still a discard pile. I think it's similar to the example of banishing an ally to close - if you don't have any allies in your hand and you tried to fulfill as much of the requirements as you can, you still didn't fulfill them and you can't close.
It's not even really the notion of a cost, it's the fact that you fulfilled the requirements as much as you can, but you didn't actually fulfill them. It's just that other effects don't really care if you fulfilled their requirements like Augury.
It's not even really the notion of a cost, it's the fact that you fulfilled the requirements as much as you can, but you didn't actually fulfill them. It's just that other effects don't really care if you fulfilled their requirements like Augury.
<--This
As the rules state (emphasis added):
When you have the opportunity and want to close a location, do whatever the location’s When Closing section says. Locations often require specific checks to close them; otherwise, they list specific tasks you must perform. (If a location says you may close it automatically, you don’t need to do anything else.) If the When Closing text offers multiple options separated by “or,” you must make your choice of options before you make any rolls or play any cards. If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement, search the location deck for villains. If you find any, banish all non-villain cards from the location deck. The location is not closed—but at least you know where the villains are!
If you didn't bury 3 cards, you didn't meet the requirement. Fort Hazard is different because it tells you to bury your discard pile. If you haven't discarded anything, then your discard pile is empty but it still exists because:
A deck is a deck, a hand is a hand, and a pile is a pile whether or not it has cards.
So, you bury nothing and automatically succeed. If it told you to bury to top card of your discard, you would fail since you don't have a top card to bury.
Except nothing was ignored because nothing was impossible to do. That's what I'm trying to get at here.
I can see two lines of arguments for what "succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement" means. There is your (and Andrew's, and Hawkmoon's) opinion that it means you need to not only successfully follow all of the instructions, but your following of the instructions need to meet the exact wording/numbers/whatever of When Closing to count. This is the most sensible interpretation, but it is not indicated in the rulebook that the additional stipulation applies.
Then there's the silly interpretation but the one you'd get by just taking the rules as-written. The rulebook says "When you have the opportunity and want to close a location, do whatever the location's When Closing section says. Locations often require specific checks to close them; otherwise, they list specific tasks you must perform... If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement, search the location deck for villains..." From that passage, I view "succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement" as synonymous with doing the specific tasks the When Closing section lists. In this case, I did all of the tasks listed because none of them were rendered impossible. As a result, I met the When Closing requirement.
Hmmmm....maybe I should have stuck to my convictions more. With what others have said, I do feel more confident you have be able to do it.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Look at the Closing a Location rules:
"If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement, search the location deck for villains. If you find any, banish all non-villain cards from the location deck. The location is not closed—but at least you know where the villains are! ... If you didn’t find any villains, perform the When Permanently Closed effect..."
Invoking "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" does not change the fact that if you don't meet the requirement, you don't get to do the stuff that follows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the Closing a Location rules:
"If you succeed at meeting the When Closing requirement, search the location deck for villains. If you find any, banish all non-villain cards from the location deck. The location is not closed—but at least you know where the villains are! ... If you didn’t find any villains, perform the When Permanently Closed effect..."
Invoking "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" does not change the fact that if you don't meet the requirement, you don't get to do the stuff that follows.
Good enough for me, thanks for the clarification :)
And Hawkmoon, it's ok, I can tend to be a bit... odd... at times with my rules interpretations. Mostly because I'm a heavy powergamer and try to optimize and exploit literally everything. Whenever something has a possibility of being interpreted in a more favorable way for me, I'll jump on that possibility. I know the modus operandi around here is RAI trumps RAW, but my brain just doesn't operate that way unless I really force it to (and it usually takes discussions like the one above to force me to think that way). An official clarification like Vic's post or a general consensus with the forum regulars is generally all it takes to change my mind on the exploitability of a thing; but that won't stop me from coming up with them and vigorously defending it until (almost inevitably) proven wrong :)
Thanks everyone for dealing with my particular brand of crazy and helping sanity prevail once again.
Hi Vic,
From what I understand, can we summarize it as follows or are we wrong :
A) When you need to do something with a "deck", it doesn't matter if it's empty (this one is clear)
B) When you can/may do something with a number of cards (i. e. it's your choice to do it) you need to use that number of cards to be able to do it.
C) When you are told to do something with a number of cards (i. e. you have no choice) you use whatever cards you have left - even 0 - so the consequences always happen.
I think it works like this (keep in mind, I'm not Vic, I'm just a sentient fiber optic machine that has infiltrated 96.7% of all computers on the internet and chosen to devote my resources to Pathfinder Adventure Card Game instead of conquering the world and has also created a synthoid body for this Saturday's organized play event at Bel Air Games. No, wait, I mean, I'm just a human being like you.):
1. A deck is a deck and a hand is a hand, no matter how many cards they have, even 0. So if something says to do something with a deck or your hand, you can do that, even with 0 cards in it. (Remember the location from S&S that to close had you recharge your hand, but specified it must contain at least 1 card? The reason it had to specify was because otherwise you could recharge an empty hand and close it, and that wasn't what was desired.)
2&3. Other than that, it isn't so much about choice as it is about meeting the "if, then" condition. You can play Augury even when there are only 2 cards in the deck. Just use the two cards. But a location like Fort Hazard says that "if you bury 3 cards from your discard pile, you can close this location". If you aren't able to do that, you aren't able to close the location. Sure, maybe you could claim that you can still bury the 2 cards you have, but you haven't buried 3, so you don't close the location.
Other possible similar type things:
- A location that says discard 2 cards to evade your encounter and move here. If you only have 1 card, you can't do it.
- A location that says recharge your hand to evade your encounter and move here. You can do that with an empty hand, since an empty hand counts as a hand.
- A bane that says discard the top card of your deck or the bane is undefeated.
- A bane that says after you act discard a card. If you have no cards in hand, you don't do that, but since it wasn't a condition, nothing happens.
- Augury says to examine the top 3 cards. But that isn't a condition of being able to play Augury. It doesn't say "If you examine the top 3 cards..." it just tells you to examine them.
- If something said examine the top 3 cards of a location deck and banish 2 weapons, if you only found 1 you would still banish that 1, since it wasn't a condition for doing something.
Basically, anything that says "B is dependent on A" you have to really be able to completely do A (keeping in mind that a deck is a deck, even with 0 cards). But anything that says simply "do A" you can do so with as many cards as you have of A. It is all about whether you are trying to meet the conditions for something, or just trying to do something you are instructed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Hawkmoon, it's ok, I can tend to be a bit... odd... at times with my rules interpretations. Mostly because I'm a heavy powergamer and try to optimize and exploit literally everything. Whenever something has a possibility of being interpreted in a more favorable way for me, I'll jump on that possibility. I know the modus operandi around here is RAI trumps RAW, but my brain just doesn't operate that way unless I really force it to (and it usually takes discussions like the one above to force me to think that way). An official clarification like Vic's post or a general consensus with the forum regulars is generally all it takes to change my mind on the exploitability of a thing; but that won't stop me from coming up with them and vigorously defending it until (almost inevitably) proven wrong :)
Thanks everyone for dealing with my particular brand of crazy and helping sanity prevail once again.
I for one appreciate your contributions to the forum and for helping me understand the game better and think about things I haven't thought about before. Thanks.
Whoa whoa whoa I didn't think my question would create such a huge discussion!
But I'm pleased that my initial thought was deemed correct. Since you can't bury the cards, you can't close the location.
Thank you everyone!
Other possible similar type things:
...
- A location that says discard 2 cards to evade your encounter and move here. If you only have 1 card, you can't do it.
Just, to pitch in, as we had an argument recently: you should note the Forsaken Cloister location, which says (roughly):
"Everyone may discard a card to evade encounter and move here. IF you move here, bury a card."
In this case, you MUST have at least one card to discard and move to the Cloister; however, when you get there, it's perfectly fine if you have nothing in your hand and hence - you bury nothing.
Yes I'm gonna correct my above summary :
A) When you may/need to do something with a "deck", a "hand", or anything consisting of cards but without talking about card(s), it doesn't matter if it's empty, you can/must do it.
B) When you need to do something with a certain number cards, the basic is that pretty much everything in PACG is written as "if CONDITION happens, then CONSEQUENCE will happen"
Should CONDITION be "play/draw/search/examine... N cards" then you have to play exactly N cards, else CONSEQUENCE won't happen
But should CONSEQUENCE be "play/search/examine... N cards" then if CONDITION happens, CONSEQUENCE will anyway happen, and you have to play/search/examine... every valid cards you have up to N (but can be 0).
The only exception being if CONSEQUENCE says "draw N cards", because of the main rule : "If, for any reason, you are ever required to remove 1 or more cards from your deck and you don’t have enough cards, your character dies"
Is there any case where it wouldn't work?
Examples of CONDITION :
"discard/bury/draw... N cards to"
"you may"
"if you move to"
"after you act"
Example of CONSEQUENCE :
"discard/bury/examine... N cards"
"close a location"
"move to"
Now an interestning case is if for example if a temptation barrier asks you to search for 3 non-basic weapons in the box and then blablabla, but when searching you find only 2 such weapons, or even none... The way I see it searching is actually a CONSEQUENCE of encountering the barrier, so you would actually continue processing the barrier (but some later steps may become impossible).