The problem is that many cases where multiple of the same card is summoned you're technically meant to find another copy of the card in the box (as a general rule henchmen work this way and monsters don't). If it's another card then by your wording you could end up recursively summoning more copies until everyone had encountered every copy of the card, which is clearly wrong.Nope. "If an effect causes multiple characters to summon and encounter cards, resolve the encounters sequentially in any order you like, including banishing the card at the end of the encounter." So when multiple characters summon the same card, the encounters aren't simultaneous, they're sequential, and if the card came from the box, it is technically returned to the box between each encounter. The number of copies in the box therefore does not provide an upper limit to the number of times you can summon a card.
Also, "If you’re told to summon a card that’s already in play, just imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter; this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter." So if the card didn't come from the box, there's also no upper limit to the number of times you can summon it.
Sure but my point was about a specific modification to a specific wording that I'd proposed, and my point was just that it didn't work.
I guess I shouldn't have said you're "meant to find another copy", but I think it's still true that you can choose to find another copy. The fact that which physical copy of the card you choose to summon could matter makes my point about it not working stronger.The important point is that if you want the rule to refer to whether a card has been seen already "recently", then it's important that it doesn't matter which copy of the same card is which. The phrase "card of the same name" is one solution to that problem which I proposed. It's also possible that "the same card" is considered to be good enough already...
We have to trust the player at some level, in this case "same card" implies "same name", not "same exact copy" (since the latter will never be true). Explicitly spelling out everything would make for a very long rulebook. So, the assumption is made that players will be able to figure out if something is the same card or not, and since it'll generally actually be the same physical card that they're just passing around from person to person, figuring that out should be intuitive. I personally do not see the need to explicitly spell out "of the same name" given that, which is why I didn't.
The more pressing matter is that "already encountering" doesn't quite mean what we want it to mean (see the Ancient Skeleton example where it double dips), which is why I introduced "current set of encounters" as an alternative.
It doesn't need a new sidebar per se, you could throw it in the paragraph itself just fine and have it only apply to summoning, but the sentence stood out as awkward to me mixed into that paragraph since it had absolutely nothing to do with summoning in and of itself. I'll keep thinking, but it's going to be difficult to come up with wording that allows for encounters that are already complete without an extra sentence explaining it. I'd also rather not introduce a new game term for a single action and not have it apply in general, that way lies needless complexity.
I like the simplicity of the original wording (after your revision), but then it interacts weirdly with bane spreaders like Ancient Skeleton where "already encountering" implies that the encounter is still going on rather than completed, which then causes you to fight the thing twice in some cases.
Taking a step back, I actually had a similar problem in a different context. We had a game where the goal was to create ridiculous, out of control combinations, and score based on how big a number you could generate. The problem was, in trying to allow epic combinations, it was hard to ensure there weren't any infinite combos, and one of the many problems with that was you can't easily compare infinite scores to determine a winner. So we came up with the following catch-all rule to ensure infinite combos were only rewarded finitely:
"If there is a sequence of actions which you could have performed in a loop an unlimited number of times, you score is not valid unless you complete that sequence of actions at most once."
Note that it allows (at least as we intended and interpreted it) you to do all of A->B->C->A->B, so long as you never do C again.
I wonder whether it could be adapted to this context?
Something like:
"If any sequence of summoned cards could repeat indefinitely, complete that sequence once and then stop."
It's basically a much more direct approach, but is in some ways simpler for that. It requires people to figure out for themselves what could be infinite, but people are actually pretty good at that, better at that than at understanding the fine technical details of finely tuned wording especially ;)
My phrasing no doubt needs work but just opening up a new space of ideas.
I have to say I'm not a fan of introducing a term like "current set of encounters" that apparently needs new sidebars and is actually meaningful in just one fairly rare circumstance. We need simpler.
Fully agree.
As we all know, Mike's team has done until now a great job at avoiding to create a MTGlike stack to be dealt with. And we stick to the cards have no memory rule. So IMHO we should avoid as much as possible to create rules that somehow break that logic.
If a summoned card would summon a card that you are already encountering, ignore that effect.
OK I try a tweak on it:
If you are requested to summon a card that you already have to encounter, ignore that request.
Benefit:
Super simpleIt avoids the notion of "already encountering" which creates trouble with the order of things to be done.
I use "request" rather than "power" or "effect" to avoid any confusion of side "effect".
I use "have to" because it leaves out any things happening in later steps.
As we all know, Mike's team has done until now a great job at avoiding to create a MTGlike stack to be dealt with.
It's funny, MtG is one of if not the most complex and difficult game to explain and comprehend in the world (in detail I mean, obviously you can play it to varying degrees of success without understanding everything). However, it has this side effect on people who do understand it that then every card game which doesn't work like MtG is confusing and hard to comprehend correctly.
To me, not having a stack sometimes feels like some sort of complex and novel feature. Even though I readily acknowledge that in reality it is genuinely an absence of a complex feature and simpler for that.
As we all know, Mike's team has done until now a great job at avoiding to create a MTGlike stack to be dealt with.It's funny, MtG is one of if not the most complex and difficult game to explain and comprehend in the world (in detail I mean, obviously you can play it to varying degrees of success without understanding everything). However, it has this side effect on people who do understand it that then every card game which doesn't work like MtG is confusing and hard to comprehend correctly.
To me, not having a stack sometimes feels like some sort of complex and novel feature. Even though I readily acknowledge that in reality it is genuinely an absence of a complex feature and simpler for that.
As an old RPG and MTG player, I fully share your view.
I know there are some bumps to work out, but "If a summoned card would summon a card that you are already encountering, ignore that effect." looks really close to the correct solution.
Yes, especially as, as said before, there may be only very little cards to modidy - if needed - with such a simple rule.
Try #3
Summoning And Adding Cards
Sometimes you will be told to summon cards or to add cards to a deck. When this happens, retrieve the cards from the box. However, if you're told to summon a card that's already in play, just imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter; this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter.
Summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned.If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing
the originalencounter. After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, never put it anywhere other than back in the box unless the card that caused you to summon it instructs you otherwise. If an effect causes multiple characters to summon and encounter cards, resolve the encounters sequentially in any order you like, including banishing the card at the end of the encounter. If the summoned card is a villain or henchman, defeating it does not allow you to win the scenario or close a location deck--ignore any such text on those cards. Cards that you summon are not part of any location deck.
The crux of the rule is still a single sentence, however the previous sentence could use its wording shored up as well, hence the modification there. No sidebars are necessary here, although I still feel a "New" sidebar would be merited to draw attention to the rule change.
"If you're already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing the original encounter." has an issue that it uses the term "original encounter" when I want to use that term to mean the very first encounter that started the entire chain in the next sentence, hence the modification to "that encounter." Hopefully that wording doesn't trip up non-native speakers, an alternative is to use "the current encounter" or "the existing encounter" instead.
The new sentence is really wordy and clunky, although I'm not sure how else to express it. The original framing "If a summoned card would summon a card" could be interpreted to apply to other people summoning and encountering cards that you have previously encountered which is why I modified it to "If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card" to make it clear that every player tracks their summoned cards separately.
Thoughts? This should fix the Ancient Skeleton issue. Crab Swarm is also fine. Umbral Dragon and Demonic Horde need fixing with the rule per the previous discussion on those cards, if this ends up looking good for all the other cases I can suggest edits to their powers to make them work with the new rule (after all, it never says never so a card can override it when needed).
This boils down to
Try #3
Summoning And Adding Cards
If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing that encounter. If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card that you have already encountered during the course of the original encounter, ignore that effect.
I'm not sure this solves Crab Swarm.
When Kyra, Lem, and Ezren are at a location, and Kyra encounters a Crab Swarm, Lem and Ezren will encounter one too. After Lem has encountered his, Ezren encounters his. When Ezren encounters his, we don't want Lem to encounter another. It's not clear to me that Lem has encountered a Crab Swarm "during the course of the original encounter", as Lem is no longer in an encounter.
This boils down to
Try #3
Summoning And Adding Cards
If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing that encounter. If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card that you have already encountered during the course of the original encounter, ignore that effect.
I'm not sure this solves Crab Swarm.
When Kyra, Lem, and Ezren are at a location, and Kyra encounters a Crab Swarm, Lem and Ezren will encounter one too. After Lem has encountered his, Ezren encounters his. When Ezren encounters his, we don't want Lem to encounter another. It's not clear to me that Lem has encountered a Crab Swarm "during the course of the original encounter", as Lem is no longer in an encounter.
The original encounter referred to by the rule is Kyra's. That is why I reworded the previous sentence so that the definition works. Lem certainly already encountered Crab Swarm during the course of Kyra's encounter (and we cannot resolve Kyra's encounter before any of the summoned copies; the "choose the order" rule for multiple characters only lets you choose the order of the summoned copies, the non-summoned card is always resolved last).
Summoning And Adding Cards
If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing that encounter. If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card that you have already encountered during the course of the original encounter, ignore that effect.
I see what you are saying now, but when I first read your suggestion, I thought the two bolded phrases referred to the same encounter.
I don't think it is clear that "the original encounter" refers to the encounter that started the current chain of encounters, rather than my character's first encounter in the chain.
How about this?
If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, put it on hold; complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing the held encounter. If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card, and you have already encountered that card while any character's encounter is on hold, ignore that effect.
This rule also has some ambiguity, but I think that for that case a common-sense reading would prevail. The ambiguity there is in "already encountered that card while any character's encounter is on hold" -- one could interpret that as you tracking what cards you've summoned and encountered across all encounters in the game (e.g. if a summoned crab swarm had me summon and encounter a crab swarm on turn 2, then if that same situation happened again on turn 20 I could say "but I already fought it on turn 2" and therefore ignore the effect). That reading, however, is absurd once analyzed so I think leaving the ambiguity in should be fine if the alternative is an extra paragraph of text. Of course, if you can figure out how to resolve that ambiguity without adding an extra paragraph of text, definitely post your idea :)
Does this clarify the confusion you had around "original encounter" in the prior wording? Does it create any other confusion points? If you have any ideas to improve upon it (or if you came up with an alternative wording that does what we want), please suggest them.
How about this?
If you're told to summon and encounter a card, this immediately starts a new encounter. If you're already in an encounter, put it on hold; complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing the held encounter. If a summoned card would have you summon and encounter a card, and you have already encountered that card while any character's encounter is on hold, ignore that effect.
This clears up my confusion. It is definitely an improvement. It's not elegant, but I can't think of a good way to improve it.
We could say "while any character's encounter is currently on hold" to address the issue you raise. I don't think that's necessary, though.