Okay, so I checked the FAQ, searched and scrolled through several pages, couldn't find this topic.
This has to do with Vagorg's power requiring that if he's undefeated you have to search your cards for card with Mendevian trait and banish it. (might not have exact wording correct)
I encountered him using Alain and had Irabeth in hand. Before you act Vagorg does 2 points of force damage. I used Irabeth to mitigate that damage and per card instructions buried her.
My questions are:
1. Did I play this right?
2. If I did lose (luckily he has a low combat check number and Alain slaughtered him) does Vagorg's search allow him to look at buried cards?
Additional question:
I believe I've seen this answered but don't remember where.
1. If the "when closing" requirement in draw and acquire "boon", does that require a check or is it automatic?
Before you act, Vargorg deals 2 Force damage to you.
If undefeated, shuffle a random monster from the box into Vagorg's location deck; search your cards for a cohort that has the Mendevian trait and banish it.
If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from.
Your cards include your deck, the cards in your hand and your buried, discarded, and displayed cards. You can look through your displayed, discarded, and buried cards at any time. You may not look through your character deck unless a card specifically allows it.
Reveal this card and recharge a weapon, an armor, or an item to add 1d6 plus the scenario's adventure deck number to any Diplomacy or Melee check by a character at your location.
Bury this card to reduce all damage dealt to a character at your location by the scenario's adventure deck number. Then you may draw a card.
1. Yes. You should also have drawn a card.
2. Yes, buried cards are included. (You can technically look at the buried cards whenever you want, but I think you were asking if the buried cards were possible for his banish power.)Addtl 1: You mean something like the Armory's "Summon and acquire a weapon" closing requirement? You have to attempt to acquire it, just like if it said "Summon and defeat a monster" you'd have to attempt to defeat it. Whether it is closed or not depends on whether you are successful.
Thank you, I'm glad I did that right, and yes I was referring to Vagorg in reference to looking for a card and banishing. Nasty little power there, glad Alain so easily defeated him. I thought I was being slick by burying her (Irabeth).
As for a 2 cents suggestion, I know summon and acquire is short and sweet, but does summon and encounter make more sense? Keeps text consistent with rules terminology. If the acquiring is critical to closing that could be detailed with another short sentence. I realize economy of text is critical, but (and maybe it's just really me) interpretation of that sentence seems like it could vary.
Thanks again for the help.
Before you act, Vargorg deals 2 Force damage to you.
If undefeated, shuffle a random monster from the box into Vagorg's location deck; search your cards for a cohort that has the Mendevian trait and banish it.
If defeated, you may immediately attempt to close the location this henchman came from.
Your cards include your deck, the cards in your hand and your buried, discarded, and displayed cards. You can look through your displayed, discarded, and buried cards at any time. You may not look through your character deck unless a card specifically allows it.Reveal this card and recharge a weapon, an armor, or an item to add 1d6 plus the scenario's adventure deck number to any Diplomacy or Melee check by a character at your location.
Bury this card to reduce all damage dealt to a character at your location by the scenario's adventure deck number. Then you may draw a card.
1. Yes. You should also have drawn a card.
2. Yes, buried cards are included. (You can technically look at the buried cards whenever you want, but I think you were asking if the buried cards were possible for his banish power.)Addtl 1: You mean something like the Armory's "Summon and acquire a weapon" closing requirement? You have to attempt to acquire it, just like if it said "Summon and defeat a monster" you'd have to attempt to defeat it. Whether it is closed or not depends on whether you are successful.
"Summon and encounter" doesn't imply that you need to succeed at the check to acquire it, whereas "summon and acquire" is quite explicit.
There are some locations that have bonuses when you close them, such as "when closing, add a random weapon from the box to your hand." I think that's what you want the closing requirement to state. It's not a freebie, you've got to put in the work. :)
People have asked this question before.
"Summon and defeat" leaves no question that you have to make the check(s) to defeat in order to succeed.
For some reason, "summon and acquire" isn't as obvious. People wonder whether they have to make the check to acquire, or if they automatically acquire the card in question.
Adding another sentence to clarify this seems too verbose. Perhaps a FAQ is in order.
Good points everyone, thank you. I definitely now see where just using encounter doesn't clarify that the check would need to be successful. Perhaps acquire or encounter vs. acquire could be added to the glossary/additional rules in future rulebooks (especially if it's usage continues). It's just that why we're discussing it here the points made by Rebel Song and A. Klein illustrate the obvious difference, but when seeing it for the first time, my experience was more in line with encoderdude's comment, it isn't as obvious. Like I said, simply my 2 cents.
People have asked this question before.
"Summon and defeat" leaves no question that you have to make the check(s) to defeat in order to succeed.
For some reason, "summon and acquire" isn't as obvious. People wonder whether they have to make the check to acquire, or if they automatically acquire the card in question.
Adding another sentence to clarify this seems too verbose. Perhaps a FAQ is in order.
Well it appears I just didn't look hard enough, thanks! Next time I'll pull up the PDF so I can do a word search.
The When Closing section on some locations requires you to summon and defeat (or acquire) a card. Summon and encounter it; if you do not defeat (or acquire) it, the location is not closed.
... search your cards for a cohort that has the Mendevian trait and banish it.
This one for Hawk/Vic :
Suppose I have a card with the Mendevian trait in my hand, I can still search my deck before deciding which card I banish. Even if I know there is none in my deck. True?
That may be important if for example :
A) I want to reshuffle my deck (e. g. change the card on the top or bottom)
or
B) For whatever reason I don't know all my deck and want to know what's in it (don't have an example in mind but with Mike anything can happen - I foresee fun powers that could add/shuffle cards to/in your deck without you having a chance to know those cards).
I think Vic might say that if you knew for sure there wasn't one in there, you couldn't search it, based on this.
I think though, if you didn't have one in have discard pile, displayed, or buried, you better search your deck just to be sure.
I think Vic might say that if you knew for sure there wasn't one in there, you couldn't search it, based on this.
I think though, if you didn't have one in have discard pile, displayed, or buried, you better search your deck just to be sure.
Based on previous discussions I agree that searching when you know there is nothing to be found is cheating.
However I'm less clear what happens in the two following cases :
1) I know there is another Mendevian in my deck. The fact that I already have one in my hand prohibits me to look for the other one?
What if I have none in my hand but one in my discard... can I start by searching my deck before my discard?
2) I genuinely don't remember if I have one in my deck. There is to me a bit of a difference with Vic's previous post (which I fully support) : cohorts are very rare and you usually start the scenario with them. So I have a hard time believing someone can forget that he has one in his deck. But boons are acquired all along the scenario, and move in and out of your deck all the time so unless your last name is "269" there is no way you can have the computer-like memory to remember the full list of all the traits of all the boons that are in your deck at any given time (I was nearly killed by Deskari just because I forgot a "corrupted" trait somewhere in my deck... and that was the one we were the most trained to remember) (1).
Not sure it needs an official rule, but I'd like to know how each of you would house rule that one.
(1) Actually I played support-Balazar in WotR, with two Merchant Lords sending my cards all over the place, an average 3 monsters in my deck randomly selected to have various traits, and cards received from other characters to help me when I was short in cards left. And I spent my turns putting cards on top of my deck ensuring I would never see some of the cards below. So trust me on that, there are times when you honestly have no clue anymore on what your deck looks like.
1) If you know you want to banish the one in your deck, look through your deck for it. If you know you want to banish the one in your hand, then looking through your deck for the other one simply so you can shuffle the deck afterwards would be cheating. If you don't know which you want to banish and want to compare their powers to help you decide, then look through your deck for the other one so you can make that comparison.
2) Look through your deck to verify. If you find one, banish it. If not, shuffle up. And remember that there aren't any in your deck in case it comes around again.
Both of those are fully in line with Vic's post. The only thing that post says is cheating is looking through your deck when you are absolutely sure there is nothing in there solely so you can shuffle your deck afterwards.
That being said, the only cards with the Mendevian trait are cohorts, no boons or banes have that trait to my recollection :)