I believe they are still closing henchmen, for the reason you listed.
I suspect it's probably not perfectly defined - replacing henchmen mid-scenario doesn't come up much in Curse or Core, but I feel the designers would have stated something to the effect of "Proxy A are no longer closing henchmen" in the scenario rules if that was the intent (a bit like how Thugs explicitly become closing henchmen in a previous scenario).
I believe they are still closing henchmen, for the reason you listed.
... I feel the designers would have stated something to the effect of "Proxy A are no longer closing henchmen" in the scenario rules ...
Тhat's makings assumptions about what the *designers* assumed would be the player's take on this. A bunch of the FAQs are actually clarifications on stuff the designers *assumed* was pretty explicit (and naturally biased on clarity, as they *know* their own intent for a rule), but that stuff turned out unclear or ambiguous enough when it hit real players' tables.
In the example above: I for instance wouldn't even read the "Proxy X" text beyond setup - beacuse in a perfect world it wouldn't exists and it's brought about by purely economical reasons (Paizo not wanting to print a bunch of redundant cards). So, when looking for intent, I'd try and see how a Proxy issue would resolve in the "old" PACG (i.e. in a Proxy-less environment).
So, in PACG 1E, this scenario would say "Closing Henchman: Wererat". Then, mid-scenario the power would say something like "All Wererats are now Blood Veils" - and without further instruction that Blood Veil is ALSO a closing henchman - I doubt anyone would assume it's actually one. Does that make sense?
(A question of my own: does the scenario have any other danger listed, or is it suddenly left "danger-less" ??)
(A question of my own: does the scenario have any other danger listed, or is it suddenly left "danger-less" ??)
The original dangers are Blood Veil and Wererat. So once Wererat is removed, there's no more randomness to which Danger you could summon.
You make a compelling point... in that case, it seems a valid RAW assessment that Proxy As are now Blood Veil Story Banes, and are not henchmen at all (as they're never stated to be, and never listed under the threat list as any kind of Henchmen - closing or otherwise).
I'm pretty sure the intent is that they are, but I think an errata is needed - or at least clarification. Either way, I hope a FAQ comes out for this.
We played assuming that they were not closing henchmen, as they are not listed as closing henchmen. This added an interesting challenge to the scenario, and we spent a lot of time looking for the villain. We found the villain and let that location alone so we could take advantage of closing all the other locations with wererats before cornering the villain, making the scenario much quicker than if we had non-closing blood veil henchmen.
We played this scenario just yesterday and assumed that the Blood Veils were closing henchmen, so a FAQ entry would be nice. :)
So, when looking for intent, I'd try and see how a Proxy issue would resolve in the "old" PACG (i.e. in a Proxy-less environment).
Agreed, this would be ideal. But I don't think it's the case 100% of the time. In the first scenario of season 6, for instance, there is a proxy henchman in each deck that represents different possible Dangers (rolled randomly).
What if you examine this proxy while it's in the location? Do you know the identity of the card? I don't think so, since the identity of the proxy isn't determined until you encounter it - not when you examine it. So this is a case where, if the proxy were a real card, you would know its exact identity when examined. But here, on examination, you only know that the card is a proxy card - not what it represents (yet).
Also, if you fail against the proxy and it's shuffled back in, it could be a different Danger the next time you encounter it - because of the random determination. This wouldn't be possible if the proxy were a specific card.
|
What if you examine this proxy while it's in the location? Do you know the identity of the card? I don't think so, since the identity of the proxy isn't determined until you encounter it - not when you examine it.
I think the identity of the Schroedinger proxy has to get resolved when you examine it, not when you encounter it. If that's not the case, what happens if the proxy turns out to be a bane that has a "When you examine this card ..." power?
If you don't end up encountering it, of course, it could well resolve to something different the next time you examine or encounter the proxy.
The trigger argument certainly makes sense.
If I have an ally that lets me examine and then explore, I should randomly determine the proxy's identity when it's examined, then randomly determine it a second time when I explore? Or does the examination lock in its identity?
This would rarely matter, I imagine. But it could matter with someone like Aric/Red Raven, who has the option of encountering a monster when examining. So he might examine the proxy, find it to be a barrier, then actually explore - only to be surprised that it's actually a monster?
Weird.
I would expect the examination to lock in the identity at least for the duration of any power that says something like "Examine the top card of your location. Then you may explore", or any power that lets you encounter something when you examine it.
Disagree. Cards have no memory.
If we went that way, it would have many impacts on many other rules... (what if I avenge? what if I reexplore a location with only 1 card after failing to defeat it? what if the location says when you explore, select between the card and a random new one?...)|
|
All the examples you give would not have a locked-in identity of the card; they are all new encounters with the randomiser (for precisely the reason you quote; cards have no memory).
Even examining the top card of the location deck at the start of your turn, and then deciding whether or not to explore, wouldn't lock in the identity (even if the card had a trigger).
I'm only arguing for a lock-in when the option to encounter the card is conditional on your having examined it beforehand as part of the same step
So are you saying that if you Augury and get a Proxy you cant count it as Monster or barrier? Does this mean that Proxies are a new card type?
Could you call Proxy when you use Augury?
So are you saying that if you Augury and get a Proxy you cant count it as Monster or barrier? Does this mean that Proxies are a new card type?
Could you call Proxy when you use Augury?
If a proxy is not representing a single card (so a monster, barrier, etc) then it is a Support card (which is basically the card type that covers all card types besides banes and boons); see Page 21 of the Core Rulebook for more about Support cards, and Page 22 for Proxies. As far as I know; yes you can call Support cards with Augury, since it's still a card type - if you've got a Cohort shuffled into a location then remember it's also a Support card.
It can even come up pre-Core, like when scourges are shuffled into a location in Mummy's Mask, or Cohorts in Wrath of the Righteous.
(Fun fact; Story Banes are their own specific type (though obviously most Story Banes are also a monster or a barrier) so you can also choose to call Story Bane with Augury. If some henchmen are monsters and some are barriers and you want to make sure you don't shuffle away an examined henchman/villain then it's a perfectly legal play to do so.)
That is interesting. So Storybanes and SupportCards are now legal targets for Augury.
My next concern would be Proxies that represent cards that have triggers. If it doesn't establish itself until its encountered then having a trigger on a Danger or StoryBane that is using a Proxy would never get to trigger.
That is interesting. So Storybanes and SupportCards are now legal targets for Augury.
My next concern would be Proxies that represent cards that have triggers. If it doesn't establish itself until its encountered then having a trigger on a Danger or StoryBane that is using a Proxy would never get to trigger.
Naming "Henchman", "Villain" or "Support Card" were always valid targets for Augury, for the record, as I mentioned. It was just way less helpful in the past (in particular because the diversity of henchmen in a single scenario was far less, and both henchmen and villains were distinct card types).
The only times I think a proxy represents something that has a nonstated card type that may yet have a Trigger is when they're representing one of multiple Dangers (or a Danger drawn from a story bane list). Relatively rare, but I acknowledge it can happen.
“Support Card” isn’t a card type, just like “Boon” or “Bane” aren’t card types. Proxies are also not Support Cards, they always represent the card they are proxying and would count as those types instead (and regardless, Proxy is a separate section in the rulebook, not listed under the Support Cards heading).
“Story Bane” is also not a card type. You can’t name that with Augury either. The individual types of story banes are card types: Villain, Henchman, and Danger.
In this scenario, where the Proxy doesn’t represent any specific card, I’d say its card type is “Danger” and that’s the only thing you could Augury for and hit it. In the vast majority of scenarios, the proxy represents the card it is proxying so you use those types instead (and naming “Proxy” won’t do anything in any case).
My next concern would be Proxies that represent cards that have triggers. If it doesn't establish itself until its encountered then having a trigger on a Danger or StoryBane that is using a Proxy would never get to trigger.
By current rules, the above presents two disctinct scenarios:
A) Proxy is a random Story Bane - this will have to be *specifically* mandated witch such wording by the During This Scenario/Adventure/AP rules.
Relevant rule: " Treat a proxy as if it is the card it’s proxying." So,
I would assume at this point devs are aware of the issue and would probably avoid construct such scenario.
The specific Scenario rule + the rule quoted above would make you determine the random Staory Bane when examining, and would therefore trigger Triggers.
B) Proxy is a Danger - *specifically* with a Scenario wording like "Proxy A is a Danger" (when there are several listed) - this is the scenario Yewstance talks about.
- Encountering a random Danger is covered in the Rulebook, no issue here.
- HOWEVER, the Rulebook does NOT tell you how to determine one of several Dangers when examining (or even that you *should*!) (note that this would also be an issue in case A, if Scenario just said "Proxy A is Story Bane" - but of course no would assume you'd know how to determine the Story Bane like that)
In such cases, the Scenario power would (or at least *should*) actually be:
"Proxy A is a random Danger."
So while the Rulebook leaves you hanging as to how to treat a Proxy when examined in such scenario, the SCENARIO rule would actually tell you how to treat it (select random Danger) and combined with " Treat a proxy as if it is the card it’s proxying." - this would allow you to determine the proxy at the time of examining.
Bonus Option C) Scenario power is worded like "When you encounter Proxy A, summon and encounter the Danger (out of several possible). If the Danger is defeated, banish the proxy; otherwise, shuffle it back into its location."
The above wording would also expressly exclude proxy determination at examine, but would be so particular that it would pretty much be a guarantee for devs' intent.
“Support Card” isn’t a card type, just like “Boon” or “Bane” aren’t card types. Proxies are also not Support Cards, they always represent the card they are proxying and would count as those types instead (and regardless, Proxy is a separate section in the rulebook, not listed under the Support Cards heading).
While this is also my intuition and how we'd play it, I have to admit that "Support" and "proxy" being sub-header of the "CARD TYPES" chapter could lead to a certain ambiguity. Even more unfortunately:
“Story Bane” is also not a card type. You can’t name that with Augury either.
... seem to be directly contradicted by:
"Type: Banes, including story banes, are either monsters or barriers. Story banes have one of these types listed underneath the story bane type."
This quote can easily be read in support of the thesis that SUPPORT and PROXY (the text on a card's upper-right corner - i.e. the place where all boons and banes have their *card type*) are actually Card Type, just as STORY BANE.
On the other hand, I can find no support for:
The individual types of story banes are card types: Villain, Henchman, and Danger.
Villain and Henchman only seem to exist as part of a card's "name" (the text on a card's upper-left corner)- "Villain Proxy" and "Henchman Proxy". I can't even speculate why you would deem "Danger" a card type (and not Story Bane) - as "Danger" is a designation that only exists as part of a scenario setup.
For continuing this conversation, lets discuss PACS Season 6 Scenario 1a. Part of the instructions are:
Dangers: Bandit, Collapse, Rescue, Thug
Villian: None
Henchmen (Closing): Rioting Mob - Proxy A
Shuffle a Proxy B into each location.
When you would encounter a Proxy B, summon and encounter the danger instead. If you defeat it, banish the Proxy B; otherwise, reload the Proxy B into its location.
So I'm fuzzy on following the trains of thought above. Assuming I cast Augury and call "Monster", I find proxy A and B and an Ally. What happens?
Assuming the official clarification above still holds, you have examined zero monsters.
Proxy A (Rioting Mob) is a barrier.*
Proxy B is not yet specified, so it's neither a monster nor a barrier.
The ally is an ally. :)
So the entire location would be reshuffled again.
*If Rioting Mob had a trigger, it would take effect. But it doesn't, so no problem.
If you had called barrier instead with the Augury, you could put Proxy A (Rioting Mob) on the top or bottom of the location. The other cards would be shuffled back in.
“Support Card” isn’t a card type, just like “Boon” or “Bane” aren’t card types. Proxies are also not Support Cards, they always represent the card they are proxying and would count as those types instead (and regardless, Proxy is a separate section in the rulebook, not listed under the Support Cards heading).While this is also my intuition and how we'd play it, I have to admit that "Support" and "proxy" being sub-header of the "CARD TYPES" chapter could lead to a certain ambiguity. Even more unfortunately:
“Story Bane” is also not a card type. You can’t name that with Augury either.... seem to be directly contradicted by:
"Type: Banes, including story banes, are either monsters or barriers. Story banes have one of these types listed underneath the story bane type."This quote can easily be read in support of the thesis that SUPPORT and PROXY (the text on a card's upper-right corner - i.e. the place where all boons and banes have their *card type*) are actually Card Type, just as STORY BANE.
On the other hand, I can find no support for:
The individual types of story banes are card types: Villain, Henchman, and Danger.Villain and Henchman only seem to exist as part of a card's "name" (the text on a card's upper-left corner)- "Villain Proxy" and "Henchman Proxy". I can't even speculate why you would deem "Danger" a card type (and not Story Bane) - as "Danger" is a designation that only exists as part of a scenario setup.
That quote you posted is what made me post what I said. "Story banes have one of these types listed underneath the story bane type." That indicates story bane is not itself a type, but rather the type is one of the story bane types (villain, henchman, or danger). This type is specified by the scenario/storybook, not what is printed on the proxy card.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6-1A's During This Scenario says "When you would encounter a Proxy B, summon and encounter the danger instead." When you examine it, there's no instruction mapping it to anything—it's just a Proxy B.
Just to be clear, that quote is specific to situations where the proxy is not proxying a specific card. Otherwise, you would apply the Rules: Proxies sidebar on page 4, which says "Treat a proxy as if it's the card it's proxying."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Card Basics on page 3 of the rulebook clearly indicates that the word at the top of the card next to the card's level is its type. (And on page 22, under Banes, the "Type" section makes it clear that story banes are also the type listed underneath the story bane type.) So "proxy" and "story bane" are card types; "support," "bane," "boon," and "danger" are not card types. ("Villain" and "henchman" are card types for pre-Core cards only.)
The Rules: Proxies sidebar instruction "Treat a proxy as if it's the card it's proxying" makes it clear that the proxy should be treated as the card type(s) of the card it's proxying. But it admittedly isn't clear if you’re treating it as that instead of being a proxy or in addition to being a proxy; the answer is the latter. So a villain proxy for a story bane monster has three card types: proxy, story bane, and monster.
Before anyone asks: No, you can't search for "V1" or "A2." Treat those as if they're part of the card name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Card Basics on page 3 of the rulebook clearly indicates that the word at the top of the card next to the card's level is its type. (And on page 22, under Banes, the "Type" section makes it clear that story banes are also the type listed underneath the story bane type.) So "proxy" and "story bane" are card types; "support," "bane," "boon," and "danger" are not card types. ("Villain" and "henchman" are card types for pre-Core cards only.)
The Rules: Proxies sidebar instruction "Treat a proxy as if it's the card it's proxying" makes it clear that the proxy should be treated as the card type(s) of the card it's proxying. But it admittedly isn't clear if you’re treating it as that instead of being a proxy or in addition to being a proxy; the answer is the latter. So a villain proxy for a story bane monster has three card types: proxy, story bane, and monster.
6-1A's Proxy B doesn't actually proxy a card; it has "When you would encounter a Proxy B, summon and encounter the danger instead." I think this means that the only type Proxy B has is actually "proxy" (since proxy is also a type), but I'd like to confirm.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct—they're just proxies. Same with the Proxy Bs that go into the hourglass in Curse 4A and 6D.
And that's also the case for proxies that are given flavorful names without being mapped to actual cards, such as Curse 1C's "body parts" and Curse 3B's "squealing pigs" (the latter only until the endgame, when they get mapped to the story bane Thug and are then treated as also having the card types story bane and monster).
Before anyone asks: No, you can't search for "V1" or "A2." Treat those as if they're part of the card name.
We wouldn't have dreamt of asking that kind of question.
We aren't like that. :-)Thanks Mike.
Before anyone asks: No, you can't search for "V1" or "A2." Treat those as if they're part of the card name.
But if I understand this correctly, you can Augury for Proxy. If you get Proxy A2, you can then place it on the top of or bottom of the deck (after the other cards are shuffled back in).