We just finished scenario 2A in the Core and had a question.
Background:
There seem to be two ways of closing:
#1: Defeat Zombie Minions, pass closing check (standard method: Minions listed as closing henchman)
#2: After beating barrier/henchman, search for a boon. If you don't find any, summon and defeat Wight; if Wight defeated, may close. (special scenario rules)
(The third is to defeat the villain, I guess, but doesn't matter here.)
Anyway, onto our question...
Help us:
Defeating the Zombie Minions henchman triggers both possible ways of closing, above. So is this legal?
- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, find one, take it (per scenario rules)
- Attempt to close location (per normal "closing henchman" rules)
In other words, is this a case where two things trigger and I can stack them in any order?
If so, is the following legal?
- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, don't find any, fail combat vs. Wight (per scenario rules)
- Attempt to close location anyway (per normal "closing henchman" rules)
(Allowing the close would defeat the purpose of the Wight rule in the first place - so assuming that, if you defeat a henchman and search for a boon, you're automatically giving up the right to close normally?)
Undoubtedly there's a rule that covers this, but I failed my lore check on this one. Thanks.
P.S. For the first half of the scenario, we thought that the special rule was the only way to close. Then we noticed that the Zombie Minions were listed as closing henchmen. Whoops...
(Allowing the close would defeat the purpose of the Wight rule in the first place
Maybe I'm not following, but why would it?!
From what you describes, sounds like the following would be legal:
- Defeat Zombie Minions
- Look for boon, don't find any, summon Wight
- Defeat Wight
- Attempt to close (due to defeating Wight)
- fail to close
- Attempt to close (due to defeating Zombie Minions)
Note, that sequence would NOT be allowed pre-Core were 'closing henchmen" wanted you to attempt to close 'immediately', but now that restriction has been lifted.
Still, it strikes me as a bit odd if the above sequence is intended as it's not punishing enough for what I have come to expect from PACG, but from what you explain - sounds like a perfectly valid play.
...it strikes me as a bit odd if the above sequence is intended as it's not punishing enough for what I have come to expect from PACG, but from what you explain - sounds like a perfectly valid play.
It's also a convoluted and technical sequence, and therefore an odd choice (if accurate) for the base set - which is partly intended for beginners trying to learn the game.
That's why I'm trying to determine what was intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See this post and the post immediately after it.
See this post and the post immediately after it.
Darn, missed that thread. Thanks.