During my Monday game we had a rules disagreement: Many locations (and other cards) will, as a part of their closing condition, tell you to summon and acquire a card in order to close the location. We had always played the those instructions straightforwardly; summon a random card of the correct time, make whatever checks necessary to acquire it, and if you succeed the location is closed and the card goes into your hand.
One of the organizers stated that if you succeed at your check to acquire the card it goes back into the box because of this section of the rules:
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.
I've always interpreted the fact you're told to acquire the [summoned] card as the card [causing me to summon the the card] instructing me to do something other than put [the summoned card] back in the box. Who's right?
We've been playing the same as your interpretation: if a card tells you to summon and acquire and you succeed, you keep the card. The card telling you to summon it also tells you to acquire it and part of succeeding at acquiring a boon is putting it in your hand (p. 10 of the MM rules.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a FAQ for this, so the rulebook has been amended on this topic (just not since the last physical printing).
[...]But the fact is, whenever we have you summon and encounter a boon, we always want you to keep it if you manage to acquire it, so we might as well tell you that in the rules so that we don't have to tell you on every card that can summon a boon.
[...]
"If you're told to summon and encounter a boon, and you acquire it, draw it.["]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any confirmation if "summon and acquire" is the same as "summon and encounter"?
There is diff, but it has nothing to do with keeping the card.
"Summon and acquire" means you summon a boon and MUST succeed the check to acquire. Then you keep the boon.
"Summon and defeat" means summon a bane and you MUST succeed at the check to defeat. You then "return the bane to the box"(which is strictly NOT banishing, for purposes of Basic/Elite culling in pre-Core), IIRC.
"Summon and encounter" means you just summon and encounter a card, but the game DOESN'T CARE how this encounter will resolve! For obvious reasons, this instruction is almost exclusively used for banes.
There is a case that is similar, where you don't acquire the summoned card.
The check to defeat is the same as the highest check to acquire a random blessing from the box.
If defeated, display this card next to the location deck it came from. When all open locations have a Sekrephere displayed, automatically close all locations.
While displayed, when you end your turn at this location, recharge a blessing or an ally; if you cannot, put this card facedown on top of its location deck.
Here, you summon a random blessing, and use it to determine the check to defeat the Sekrephere, but even if you succeed, the blessing goes back into the box.
There are other banes that have their difficulty determined or altered by a summoned card. That these don't use the term "summon" might help clarify the difference, but you are effectively still summoning.
Sekrephere doesn’t have you summon anything, so it’s not the same. You aren’t summoning unless the card says summon. There is a difference (powers that relate to summoning don’t happen here), so it is not “effectively the same”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think eddie's point is that when they want you to do a check to acquire but not actually acquire the card, they use language different than "summon and acquire," and using that to infer that "summon and acquire" does let you keep the card.
I think eddie's point is that when they want you to do a check to acquire but not actually acquire the card, they use language different than "summon and acquire," and using that to infer that "summon and acquire" does let you keep the card.
Yeah that makes a lot more sense and is definitely true. I guess I misinterpreted what eddie meant by that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks @MorkXII for helping me make my point.