Aside from his interesting "if you fail a check to defeat you die" power, Khorramzadeh has the power:
Before you act, each character at your location attempts a Constitution or Fortitude 12 check. Each character that fails is dealt 2d4 Fire damage and moves to a random location.
I have two questions about this power.
First, about location: Say Merisiel and Kyra are at the Molten Pool and Zarlova is at the Abyssal Rift. Merisiel encounters Khorramzadeh. Kyra makes the Con/Fort check, Merisiel fails and is moved to the Abyssal Rift. Merisiel takes the first check against Khorramzadeh. If the group wants another character to take the second check, who gets to take it? Kyra, who is at Khorramzadeh's location, or Zarlova, who is at Merisiel's location?
Second, about before-you-act powers: Say we decide it is Kyra who takes the second check. Does she need to attempt the Con/Fort check again, since she now has a "before you act" step of her own? I think the answer is yes.
So far our group has not had much trouble with villains. Khorramzadeh looks like more of a challenge.
No to the second question. Before you act is a unique step of the encounter. It doesn't get repeated after you move on to attempting the check. (The exception being if a power said "you must do x to do y. Those apply to whoever wants to do y.)
On the first one, I think I woould say whoever is at your location when you would be attempting the check is the one you can hand it off to.
Sounds good.
The rulebook says
Only the character who encounters the card may attempt the check, save for one exception: if a card requires sequential checks, the character who encountered the card must attempt at least one of the checks, but other checks may each be attempted by any one character at the same location.
So you're saying the "same location" is the character's location.
This works out well for us if we can have Merisiel encounter Khorramzadeh. She could be moved anywhere before the first check, then use her Mythic Trickster ability to move herself to the location of the character we want to take the second check.
Agree with Hawkmoon on the first one -- it's the character's current location (e.g. wherever they are at when they actually get around to attempting the check). Note your rulebook quote is in the Attempt the Check chapter, which means it doesn't get applied until the "Attempt the Check" step of the encounter. This happens long after you get moved from the BYA power.
That said, how are you planning on applying Mythic Trickster to this? It only lets you move after the encounter, not after the check. Whatever location Merisiel is stuck at due to the BYA power is the one that other characters can help from -- Mythic Trickster can't move her in between BYA and the first check or in between the first and second check.
Dang! I completely misunderstood the Mythic Trickster power. I don't play Merisiel. Now that I think of it, the player playing her has always used the power after an encounter.
I've already asked that question but never had an official answer as far as I remember
That was a hard post to find by searching on Khorramzadeh.
That was a hard post to find by searching on Khorramzadeh.I've already asked that question but never had an official answer as far as I remember
I apologize, but didn't want to spoil the encounter at that time.
That's how we played it.
So I guess the rulebook should be clarified by saying
...but other checks may each be attempted by any one character at the location where the card was encountered.
So I guess the rulebook should be clarified by saying
...but other checks may each be attempted by any one character at the location where the card was encountered.
+1 if this is what was meant; your wording is pretty clear-cut and it dodges the issue that summoned cards aren't at locations by making it based on the character's location at the time of encounter instead of the monster's location.
I thought that the encounter always happened at the location the character that encountered the card is at, meaning if you encounter a monster at location A are moved from location A to location B, the encounter is now happening at location B. If that is the case, wouldn't it make the most sense to have the characters at location B be the ones who can take one of the checks?
Would this interpretation have any ramifications for characters like Harsk or Valeros that can give bonuses to characters combat checks based on whether they are or are not at the same location? I don't think it was, but looking at S&S Valeros, his sheet doesn't say whether he needs to be at the same location as the other character, the monster or the check.
Of course, more likely I'm just misremembering something... Maybe it was that the check always happens at your location and the encounter happens where you started? I don't know.
Sounds like you are remembering this.
I think a more general issue is when you have a sentence like
"give blablabla bonus to a check at his/her location"
Question 1 : what is the "location" of a check: the location of the one attempting the check or the location of the cards asking for the check?
Then it becomes a little more tricky for a sentence like
"give blablabla bonus to a check at another location"
Question 2 : in that sentence (providing the "location" of the check has been clarified by answer to question 1), the "another" means a location that is not the location of the check, the location of the one attempting the check or the location of the cards asking for the check?
These two for Mike that loves puzzles. If he can give straightforward answers, that should help us going forward.
I think a more general issue is when you have a sentence like
"give blablabla bonus to a check at his/her location"Question 1 : what is the "location" of a check: the location of the one attempting the check or the location of the cards asking for the check?
Then it becomes a little more tricky for a sentence like
"give blablabla bonus to a check at another location"Question 2 : in that sentence (providing the "location" of the check has been clarified by answer to question 1), the "another" means a location that is not the location of the check, the location of the one attempting the check or the location of the cards asking for the check?
These two for Mike that loves puzzles. If he can give straightforward answers, that should help us going forward.
Per Vic at Hawkmoon's link, checks are never at locations. Characters are at locations.
By RAW, I still stand firm by what I said above regarding assisting others on checks -- the ability to help out on a check says "if a card requires sequential checks, the character who encountered the card must attempt at least one of the checks, but other checks may be attempted by any one character at the same location." Using the power of context, we can see two things:
1. Same location refers to the location the character who encountered the card is at.
2. This text appears in the Attempting A Check section. This means the location determination happens when a check is being attempted, and the Attempt the Check step of an encounter happens after the Before You Act step.
Therefore, if you move in the BYA step, then by RAW the location you are now in is the one that matters for getting assistance on checks or assisting others with their checks. Saying that it is the original location the card was encountered at is not RAW and would necessitate a change in the rules, even though it may be RAI.
That being said, I'd like to offer another question should the RAI be "original location" to prove it's a hairy mess and the way currently written in RAW is far superior:
How does this interact with Lem's power to give 1d4s to people at the same location as him? If I encountered a card in the same location as Lem and then I move in the BYA step, can he still use that power on me for the Check to Defeat. Common sense indicates to me that the answer to this is "no", so why then can Lem take the 2nd check to defeat on the monster?
If RAI is "monster's location" then it gets even hairier because summoned cards explicitly are not part of any location deck, and there is no rules support for non-character cards being "at locations" -- the powers that refer to non-character cards and locations tend to use wording referring to the card's location deck as far as I remember.
Using Lem as an example here even though it can be applied to anything that cares about location (Valeros, crossbows, numerous other powers).
Looking into it. (My own call would be that the helping character needs to be at the monster's location at the time of the check.)
Any news on this?
The issue i'm having here is kind of strange and supports the RAW interpretation of skizzers, but I'd say vics interpretation is more logical:
I have Zarlova and Ostog ready to encounter Khorramzadeh, where it is clear that Zarlova won't make the check and Ostog will. I'm in the SotR scenario, so Khorramzadeh is the only card left and I have several turns to spare.
If I encounter him with Ostog, she will be moved away and won't be able to help in either interpretation.
If I encounter him with Zarlova, she will still be moved away, but will still make a check, and since Ostog stays at his location, he either can take the second check or not, depending on the interpretation.
It feels wrong that just declaring who encounters him makes a difference in the outcome, even though everything during the encounter plays out the same.
I guess I'll just waste turns to discard cards and redraw cards until I have enough blessings to pass her check, but I'd still be interested in the official ruling on this.
Looking into it. (My own call would be that the helping character needs to be at the monster's location at the time of the check.)
I thought that the encounter always happened at the location the character that encountered the card is at, meaning if you encounter a monster at location A are moved from location A to location B, the encounter is now happening at location B.
Sounds like you are remembering this.
I certainly don't mind when someone official decides to "look into it" (whatever *it* might be), but wherever it's coming from this time, it's certainly not from any ambiguity in RAW, as skizzers has extensively explained. I also seem to remember a post where Vic even more expressly states that checks and even encounters DON'T have locations, but I will defer to Hawkmoon's link (because, Hawkmoon).
So, given that the Rulebook in no uncertain terms specifies that the 'helper' character must be at the 'encountering' character's location (which has changed by the time checks are attempted, in our case) - I have to wonder, Vic, what would make you even consider the opposite, let alone make it your call?!?
...but I'd say vics interpretation is more logical:...
...If I encounter him with Zarlova, she will still be moved away, but will still make a check, and since Ostog stays at his location, he either can take the second check or not, depending on the interpretation...
...It feels wrong that just declaring who encounters him makes a difference in the outcome, even though everything during the encounter plays out the same.
That last sentence is a loaded statement, but I'll just point out there's a "different outcome" (in the sense of, 2 players cam fight Big K if you encounter with Zarlova, but only 1 if you go with Ostog) only if you presume *Vic's theory* is correct. So, the first and last sentence I quote seem to be contradicting themselves?
By RAW (again, see skizzers argument) - if you encounter with Zarlova, only she'll be able to fight Big K, so whoever you decide to encounter with - they'll have to take both checks (which seem more consistent and *logical*, to me at least)Before you act, each character at your location attempts a Constitution or Fortitude 12 check. Each character that fails is dealt 2d4 Fire damage and moves to a random location.
One *incredibly* important -and possibly related- thing to note here: since all characters (including the active one!) make that roll at the same time (and therefore, you chose the order), it may be more advantageous to you, if you go with active character first and then *deliberately fail* your roll - they would move to (probably) *another* location and therefore any other characters at their *original* location would be spared the Fortitude roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an old thread that was resurrected.
Vic reversed the position above in the FAQ entry which answers my OP question #1.
This is an old thread that was resurrected.
Vic reversed the position above in the FAQ entry which answers my OP question #1.
Ah, thanks for the link. This was the first thread I found while searching for the issue.
In the end, Zarlova made her check to stay and Khorramzadeh was crushed by both (I got so lucky with Ostogs Improvised Dinosaur that I scored 143 on the first check to defeat, and it was one of the best moments in the game so far).
I'll keep this in mind for the future.
...but I'd say vics interpretation is more logical:...
...If I encounter him with Zarlova, she will still be moved away, but will still make a check, and since Ostog stays at his location, he either can take the second check or not, depending on the interpretation...
...It feels wrong that just declaring who encounters him makes a difference in the outcome, even though everything during the encounter plays out the same.That last sentence is a loaded statement, but I'll just point out there's a "different outcome" (in the sense of, 2 players cam fight Big K if you encounter with Zarlova, but only 1 if you go with Ostog) only if you presume *Vic's theory* is correct. So, the first and last sentence I quote seem to be contradicting themselves?
I worded that badly. What I meant to say was that while I would prefer vics proposition (because it feels more 'natural' to me - a stationary foe everybody is moving around), I actually agree that this interpretation creates more problems on the rules side if we assume it, especially because of that different outcome you pointed out.
One *incredibly* important -and possibly related- thing to note here: since all characters (including the active one!) make that roll at the same time (and therefore, you chose the order), it may be more advantageous to you, if you go with active character first and then *deliberately fail* your roll - they would move to (probably) *another* location and therefore any other characters at their *original* location would be spared the Fortitude roll
Good catch, I would've missed that and would've made everyone do their checks regardless. Thanks for pointing that out!
This is an old thread that was resurrected.
Vic reversed the position above in the FAQ entry which answers my OP question #1.
Apologies. I didn't noticed it was resurrected.