We did a bunch of CotCC level 4 scenarios yesterday and a few cases occured that were (at least for some of them) already mentioned in the forums but still don't have an official answer that I'm aware of. So it's an opportuinity to list them back here.
1) Dire Lion has 2 powers that look something like
"Before acting, you are delt 1d4-1 damage
Damage is increased by 1d4"
Obvious question: does the +1d4 adds to the before acting damage. I guess yes.
2) Pack Landshark is a trigger story bane that makes you move to its location and encounter it. In a scneario where it is a multiple (via proxies) closing hench, it menas that I can close many locations in a single turn (that can even not by my turn since I'm not exploring) by just :
- Examine (my or another) location (via spell or item)
- Trigger the Pack
- Move to its location (if not local)
- Defeat it
- Close
- Move somewhere else automatically
- Reapeat
I guess yes.
3) If Mist Horror is defeated in a Siege Deck, as per the monster card after acting it gets shuffled in a random location, but not the siege deck (unless the scenario clearly says so, which is not the case in the level 4 CotCC scenario), so it actually helps adding cards to locations (where usually there are only boons in a siege scenario.
I guess yes.
May also be the case for Giant Fly (don't remeber how the card is worded).
Thanks Vic
As written, you're correct about 1, but I will verify whether that was intended.
You're also correct about 2 and 3.
I'm not certain he is correct about 1; or if he is, then that raises other questions.
Before acting, succeed at a Stealth or Survival 7 check or suffer 1d4 Combat damage.
Damage is increased by 1d4-1.
If the second paragraph also applies before acting, wouldn't that also interact similarly for the powers on Unseen Sentinel?
Before acting, succeed at a Perception 7 check or suffer 1 Force damage and the difficulty to defeat is increased by 3.
Do not suffer damage from this monster as usual. Instead, discard the top 1d4 cards of your deck.
This monster cannot be avenged.
That is, instead of suffering 1 Force Damage from the BA; you'd just discard the top 1d4 cards of your deck if you failed the Perception 7 check?
Why doesn't the first power just say to discard 1d4 cards from your deck, if the Force Damage is supposed to immediately be replaced - before you could even use armor?
Sorry, but I just have to state my disappointment that the title of this thread didn't segue into "...walk into a bar" joke :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it applies to Unseen Sentinel also, but I don't see why you would be unable to use an armor to prevent it. The wording on the card suggests that you are still suffering damage so it should probably be preventable, right?
No. You're thinking about powers to tune of "When X deal damage to you, discard it from the top of your deck." - here, you would indeed be able to play armor, as the Monsters' power only *converts* the damage you *actually* suffer into deck discards.
However, note the Sentinel's wording: It *literally* says that you do not suffer damage - the "discard 1d4 from top" completely replaces the damage dealing process - and since those 1d4 cards do NOT depend on *actually* suffering any damage or not - there's no point (and is therefore illegal) to play a card to prevent the damage.
Sorry, but I just have to state my disappointment that the title of this thread didn't segue into "...walk into a bar" joke :(
OK now I have to find a joke. And worse one that a non French-speaker can understand. I hate you for that Longshot :-).
but if that is the case, why does it say not to suffer damage as usual? Shouldn't it just say not to suffer damage at all, and replace it with the discarding effect?
Yes, that is indeed misleading, and intentionally didn't mention it so we don't go deeper into the rabbit hole, but basically, way I see it:
- The devs actually meant "do not suffer damage (as you would usually do), as opposed to "do not suffer the usual amount of damage from your hand (but suffer this other amount of damage from your deck instead)
- I do not have a proof of the above, and a Dev may very well state that the opposite was the intent (that those 1d4 cards from top of deck ARE damage) - but this would require a FAQ I believe
- I'm mostly going by previous wording templates here - which make me confident that if a damage was suffered (in *any* form!) - then the power would feature *somewhere* in its wording "You suffer damage" - i.e. it would affirm that some damage IS suffered in whatever shape or form
Chief Technical Officer
|
"Do not suffer damage from this monster as usual. Instead, discard the top 1d4 cards of your deck" means you discard 1d4 cards from the top of your deck instead of suffering damage.
"As usual" needs to be said because of the before acting power, which can cause you to suffer 1 Force damage. If we said "suffer 1 Force damage" right before "do not suffer damage from this monster," I'm pretty sure that would be even more confusing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to confirm, if a power says "Damage as usual [...]", it will always solely refer to damage caused by failing a check to defeat a monster.
If a power simply says "Damage is [...]", then it will apply to all damage dealt by that card, including BA/AA/If Undefeated damage.
What about "All damage is [...]" ? Is that identical to "Damage is [...]", or is it subtly different?
It appears there are 3 distinct templates for modifying damage, and I'd like to make sure I'm not misplaying any of them.
May I humbly recommend defining in the rules "usual damage" as being the damage resulting of a check to defeat. This is efficient (usual = 5 letters) and would solve issues like
Dire Lion : "Usual damage is increased by 1d4"
Unseen Sentinel : "Do not suffer usual damage from this monster. Instead, discard the top 1d4 cards of your deck."
and so on...
My frenchy $0.02
PS : "Defeat damage" would be even less confusing as clearly referring to the check to defeat, but since Vic already included the "usual" wording, I'm hesitating to propose that.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Looking at Core and Curse monsters (including story bane monsters) that include the phrase "damage is":
• We consistently use the template "All damage is [X]" when setting the type of damage to something other than Combat. (In Core, the template was "All damage is [X] damage," but for Curse, we decided the last word was redundant.)
• We consistently use the template "Damage is increased by X" when increasing the amount of damage beyond the difference between the difficulty and your result.
Unseen Sentinel doesn't use either of those templates because it's not doing either of those things.
• We consistently use the template "Damage is increased by X" when increasing the amount of damage beyond the difference between the difficulty and your result.
Indeed, but if I may...
The "Dire Lion" issue is that (even if wording is consistent) it is nowhere defined that "Damage is increased by X" ONLY applies to checks (i.e. "difference between...").For example:
Damage you suffer is increased by 1.
We always played that it would apply to any damage (including before you act and so on).
But in reality nothing in the rules tells me that if that exact same sentence was to be written both on a monster card or on a location, it should be handled differently (limited to the "difference between..." for a monster, but not limited to for a location).
So does it mean the oubliette power shouldn't be applied for example to before you act damage?
I'm not trying to split hair (on the opposite, I love when it's simple), and I see that "Damage is increased by" is not exactly "Damage you suffer is increased by" but it seems here that there is room for some confusion IMHO.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
In my last post, I did not intend to imply that "Damage is increased by X" applies *only* to damage coming from failing the check to defeat. I was just saying that all cards that use that template are consistent in that way.
A general statement like "damage is increased" applies to all damage from that card. If the Dire Lion's damage increase were to apply only to that damage, it would probably say "While acting, damage is increased by X."
Thanks Vic. OK then it means if I get if right that the before acting damage of the Dire Lion is really d4-1+d4.
This indeed is a DIRE Lion. Removing 1 to 7 (average 4) cards from your hand before you can play will be technical. Cool....