In Mummy's Mask Scenerio 0.5 "Forged in Flames":
Henchman Barrier Conflagration says "While displayed, this location may not be closed."
So if its displayed at Location A, and a player explores and finds the Villain at location A, will the Villain not close the location if defeated?
1) Does the Rulebook explanation of defeating a Villain banishes all non-villain cards then if there is no other Villain in the location it closes?
2) Even defeating the Villain, the location remains open and the Villain excapes to its own location? (and any other locations not Temporarily closed, of course)
Seems like youd have to get rid of conflagration before facing the Villain, unless a defeated Villain closing the location overrides another cards ability keeping a location open. This kept blocking us from closing the Villains location each time we discarded one from the blessings deck.
I don't have my MM set yet, but I am assuming this hasn't changed from the Wrath rulebook.
If you defeat the villain at a location with a displayed Conflagration, as you go through the steps "Encountering a Villain", you reach "If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location".
You can't close the location, so you don't do anything in that paragraph. You do not banish any cards, and you do not search the deck for other villains.
Now the villain escapes. Because you could not close his location, it is still open, and he can escape there.
Basically: you want to remove the Conflagration from a location before you encounter the villain there. So, if you move to a location, you should scout it first. Of course, scouting carries risks....
What elcoderdude said is correct; however, keep in mind an important, if perhaps somewhat counter-intuitive detail:
- While you cannot *permanently* close the Conflagration location, even by defeating the villain within, you *can* -and probably should- close it *temporarily* before encountering the villain!
I'm confused by this statement by the esteemed Longshot:
While you cannot *permanently* close the Conflagration location, even by defeating the villain within, you *can* -and probably should- close it *temporarily* before encountering the villain!
Are you suggesting temp-closing the location at which you find the villain, before you fight him/her there? The rules don't allow for that. Only characters at other locations can attempt to temporarily close.
Second, and this is not as clear, I don't think you can temp-close a location with a Conflagration. Temporarily closing is still closing (you can use a Gozreh for two dice, etc.) It doesn't cause any of the effects of closing, except cutting off the villain's escape, but it is closing.
Are you suggesting temp-closing the location at which you find the villain, before you fight him/her there?
No, no , I simply meant - if you encounter the villain at non-Conflagration location - you can temp-close the Conflagration and win (instead of having him escape into the Conflagration location)
Second, and this is not as clear, I don't think you can temp-close a location with a Conflagration. Temporarily closing is still closing (you can use a Gozreh for two dice, etc.) It doesn't cause any of the effects of closing, except cutting off the villain's escape, but it is closing.
I understand what you're saying. I'm going off this thread here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tyan?Vellexia-clarificationI admit, the wording leaves us some space for disagreement, so here's my take:
When temp closing, you *are* making a closing check (i.e Gozreh applies), however the result is not the location being closed, but rather - the location being temporary unavailable for villain escape.
Conflagration says "While displayed, this location may not be closed.", and -imho- this in no way contradicts with the above. The location would NOT be closed even if Conflagration was *not* there - it would just be 'temp-closed', which - as you yourself agree in the quoted thread- means 'open', for all intents and purposes, until we get to checking for villain escape.
Basically, you take Conflagration to say "you may not attempt the To Close condition of this location", while I take it as "you may not permanently close (i.e. - the only condition which counts as 'closed') the location, regardless if you fulfilled the To Close requirements". I find it regrettable that it was decided a sub-form of the 'open' condition to be named 'temporarily closed', and this is not the first misunderstanding to derive from it, but I found it a lot easier to explain and interpret if I replace 'temp-close' with another term (such as 'you're Guarding the location now) - Gozreh notwithstanding. By this method, it seems obvious to me (though, of course, I can easily see how this can be argued) that Conflagration is not intended to prevent temp-close. (Also, that would mean that if you have a location with a beneficial To Close - such as Warehouse - you should be allow to attempt it and gain the benefits; you just don't get the "permanently closed" result that would typically follow)
Really sneaky to use my own words against me. :)
But the thread you cite is about what the effects of temp closing are, not what the action we call temp closing is.
You temp close by performing the When Closing requirement. It seems to me this is closing.
I think if they had intended Conflagration to only prevent you from permanently closing the location, they would have said "this location may not be permanently closed".
I agree is it not clear. An official ruling would be helpful.
So we have been playing it correctly, thats good if not a little annoying when you clear a conflagration and another pops back on from the blessings deck. (and you can only defeat a conflagration on the beginning of a turn)
About closing; the rules always seemed to make Closing one term, with sub terms of "permanent and temporary". So when a Conflagration says may not be closed, both would apply, IMO. Or thats how I've been playing it. Getting all those Conflagrations off the locations have been like putting a raging fire out sometimes.... Oh I get it... ha.
You temp close by performing the When Closing requirement. It seems to me this is closing.
I agree, the action *is* closing, it just doesn't result in a *closed* state, which is what Conflagration is forbidding.
As for this:
I think if they had intended Conflagration to only prevent you from permanently closing the location, they would have said "this location may not be permanently closed".
I agree it would be more clear, but I can also see how they can have decided it's redundant. Since I'm not beneath also using Skizzers' word against you :), from multiple dev input I'm left with the following impression:
Dave and elcoderdude are both correct, temp closed locations count as open for Vellexia's power, as well as any other power that refers to "open" or "closed" locations.
Emphasis mine.
But, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to make my point more clear. I agree that we'll need dev input on intent, but if the ruling falls on your side of the argument - I think a revised wording will be needed for consistency.
I think skizzerz is talking about powers that evaluate the status of the location. "Is that location closed or open?"
You actually put it well -- I think "this location cannot be closed" means "you cannot perform the When Closing action", or close it in any other way.
It's the passive voice that is causing our dispute -- if the card said, "you may not close this location", we wouldn't disagree? But I think it means the same thing.
The question in the OP has already been answered correctly by elcoderdude in the 2nd post.
For the question of Conflagration on another (not the villain's) location: I would rule that you are not allowed to temporarily close the location.
Attempt to Temporarily Close Open Locations. Before a character encounters a villain, each character at any other location may immediately attempt to fulfill the When Closing requirement for his location; the villain's location cannot be temporarily closed. You may decide the order in which these attempts are made. If anything causes a character to move before his attempt is made, he may attempt to close his new location, not his previous location. If any character succeeds, his location is temporarily closed and the villain cannot escape there this encounter. Temporarily closing a location only prevents the villain from escaping there during this encounter; it does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location, and the location opens again immediately after the encounter.
We are told "his location is temporarily closed" -- temporarily is an adverb modifying closed. If we're told the location cannot be closed, it similarly cannot be temporarily closed, permanently closed, indubitably closed, or any other adverb or modifier of closed. This is further reinforced by the text "the location opens again immediately after the encounter" implying that again the location is actually closed when you temp close, it just doesn't count towards anything except the villain escaping. Therefore, if we have a power that says the location cannot be closed, that takes precedence over our ability to temp close, which is still a type of closing.
The reason Vellexia and such powers treat it as open is due to the text "it does not trigger any of the other effects of closing a location." Treating a location as closed while temp closed is an example of such an effect. Let's assume right now that it isn't (in other words, if you temp close a location, then you treat it as closed for powers such as Vellexia). This means that temp closing has a mechanical impact on the game beyond the villain escaping, which is a direct contradiction with the line "Temporarily closing a location only prevents the villain from escaping there during this encounter." Due to this contradiction, the assumption that a temp closed location is treated as closed for powers that care about open/closed state is invalid, and therefore it has to be treated as open. From there, it logically follows that treating the location as closed must be an example of an effect of closing a location.
The reason Conflagration does not fall prey to that same line because it takes effect earlier; it blocks your attempt to temp close (because your attempt to temp close is still an attempt to close, and we're told that we can't be closed). Therefore, nothing else in that paragraph applies, because an attempt was never made.
I can see it the other way, too, but what I said above is how I'd play it should it come up. I flip-flopped a good 3 times while writing this reply until I finally hammered down in my mind which quotes applied to what and how the sequencing of the powers and rules text worked. Said sequencing may of course be wrong, and I may be horribly over-parsing the rule, but that's what I do ;)
I can see it the other way, too, but what I said above is how I'd play it should it come up. I flip-flopped a good 3 times while writing this reply until I finally hammered down in my mind which quotes applied to what and how the sequencing of the powers and rules text worked. Said sequencing may of course be wrong, and I may be horribly over-parsing the rule, but that's what I do ;)
Hey, over-parsing is what got us a good few FAQs and even more clarifications on the more vague-ish rules and interactions :) I don't mind being proven wrong, as long as I get to understand *why* I'm being wrong.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think skizzerz is talking about powers that evaluate the status of the location. "Is that location closed or open?"
You actually put it well -- I think "this location cannot be closed" means "you cannot perform the When Closing action", or close it in any other way.
Correct.