You shuffle it back into the deck.
Resolve the Encounter. If you succeed at all of the checks required to defeat a bane, banish it; if you don't succeed, it is undefeated--shuffle the card back into its location deck.
Villains work differently (they escape after the fight if there are other open locations regardless of whether or not you defeat them), but henchmen have no special rules.
|
If, however, you defeat the henchman and fail to close the location, you have to go through the the whole deck, and when you run out of cards you can try to close every round someone is present there until you manage to do so.
That is correct. If the henchman allowed an attempt to close after defeating it, and if you fail the close check, you will need to empty the location before performing a close check again.
As a corollary, if you've only got one blessing it's often better to spend it on the "close a location" check than the "defeat the henchman" check ;)
So long as you're wearing good armour anyway...
As a corollary, if you've only got one blessing it's often better to spend it on the "close a location" check than the "defeat the henchman" check ;)
So long as you're wearing good armour anyway...
I might agree, if the henchman is the last or maybe next to last card. Because, of course, if you don't defeat the henchman, you don't get a chance to close early. And even if the henchman is the last card, somebody has to defeat him to empty the deck so that you can try to close.
I might agree, if the henchman is the last or maybe next to last card. Because, of course, if you don't defeat the henchman, you don't get a chance to close early. And even if the henchman is the last card, somebody has to defeat him to empty the deck so that you can try to close.As a corollary, if you've only got one blessing it's often better to spend it on the "close a location" check than the "defeat the henchman" check ;)
So long as you're wearing good armour anyway...
Hmm. I think it's more important when the henchman is the first card, or near the top. Better to lose to the henchman, if you don't take too much damage, and cycle him into the deck, then beat the henchman and fail the closing check. Then you have to wade through all those cards.
I have intentionally "lost" to a henchman knowing I was not prepared for the "to close" check. As ecloderdude says, having to burn through a whole deck due to a failed "to close" check sucks. I'd rather lose a card or two due to damage than potentially lose by far more turns which typically effects the group more negatively than just me losing a card (or usually just recharging).
I'd say it also depends on how easy the location would be to temp close and how likely your party is to find the villain early. Regardless of whether or not you defeat the henchman or close the location, you've just guaranteed that the villain isn't where you are currently exploring. For the most part, though, I agree with the sentiment that an open location with a henchman is better than an open location without one.
I'd say it also depends on how easy the location would be to temp close and how likely your party is to find the villain early. Regardless of whether or not you defeat the henchman or close the location, you've just guaranteed that the villain isn't where you are currently exploring. For the most part, though, I agree with the sentiment that an open location with a henchman is better than an open location without one.
Unless, you know, that henchman is Hirgenzosk. :P