1) AD1: Scenarios can be played out of order, and several of them feature the Cohort "Herald of Iomedae". However, the Heralds powers include:
"Display this card.... Banish it at the end of the scenario."
Of course, banished Cohorts are removed from the game, so we were wondering if this is a mistake, or if you're in fact supposed to chose for which scenario you want to use the Herald - and play that one first (thereby forfeiting the use of the Herald in the rest of the scenarios)
2) 1-1B Scenario power:
"When a character would play an ally, roll 1d6. On a 1 or 2, she instead buries the ally and, after resolving any check she is attempting, summons and encounters the henchman Demonling"
This wording leaves us unclear on several things:
- is it supposed to only work when allies are played on checks, or also when discarded for exploration?
- if the later, how does it work, timing-wise - do you first explore, or do you first summon Demonling and then explore?
- do you in fact explore *at all* - as "when...*would* play an ally" suggests that on a 1-2 , the ally is NOT played at all?
1) See this post. Ignore the remove from game rule for all scenario-specified cohorts in PACS. This was supposed to get added to the Guide but it seems that never happened yet.
2a) Any time you would play an ally.
2b) The Demonling happens instead of playing the ally. Whatever power the ally had does not take effect.
Thanks, skizzerz!
1) Yeah, we also figured it'd be better to FAQ the offending cards (like Herald) to just say "return to the box", rather than issue another general corner-case rule.
I get the odd feeling that in that thread ignoring banish (= remove from game) for Cohorts is discussed from a difficulty of Organized tracking, rather than a balance intent perspective, but Wrath set is already punishing enough, so I guess the Cohort stays.
2) I feared as much. Another one that's gonna be a doozy with 6 players... >:(
2a) Any time you would play an ally.
2b) The Demonling happens instead of playing the ally. Whatever power the ally had does not take effect.
Now, it just occurred to me that we keep a Camel in one pplayer's deck (discard to evade). Sure, on 1-2 no evade happens - however, what would you say the timing of encounters is then - first the Demonling and then the original encounter, or vice-versa? Why?
Demonling first. It'd be similar to a power that said "Before acting, summon and encounter a Demonling." (except this would occur during the Evasion step rather than the Before Acting step)
Summon and Encounter. Summon the card and encounter it. This starts a new encounter. If you’re already in an encounter, complete the encounter with the summoned card before continuing the original encounter.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Re: Cohorts, the "Changes Coming in Guide 6.2" thread includes this:
Replace the following:Removing Cards from Play
When you come across a boon that requires you to remove it from the game to activate its power, exchange it with a random boon of the same type from the vault.With the following:
Removing Cards from the Game
When you would remove a card from the game, instead banish it.
I realize that this may at first appear to cause an infinite loop with the rulebook's statement "if you would banish a cohort, remove it from the game instead," but since the Guide says "the rules in this guide take precedence over the standard rules," it's actually an orderly chain of instructions. Herald of Iomedae tells you "banish it," and that causes the rulebook's "remove it instead" to kick in, and that causes the new Guide's "banish it" to happen, and since that's the first time things are actually in conflict, the Guide takes precedence, and you banish it.
I realize that this may at first appear to cause an infinite loop with the rulebook's statement "if you would banish a cohort, remove it from the game instead," but since the Guide says "the rules in this guide take precedence over the standard rules," it's actually an orderly chain of instructions. Herald of Iomedae tells you "banish it," and that causes the rulebook's "remove it instead" to kick in, and that causes the new Guide's "banish it" to happen, and since that's the first time things are actually in conflict, the Guide takes precedence, and you banish it.
For what it's worth, there may not be many folks who can work out this chain of reasoning on their own. To simplify, could you instead specify that cohorts are an exception (?) and they're banished instead of removed?
No doubt there are problems with my question, and perhaps it's a horrible idea. But keep in mind that I'm on the high end of understanding the OP guide and Core rules in my local groups, even if I'm on the low end here (relatively speaking). So if I'm struggling with the above language, probably others will also.
the Guide says "the rules in this guide take precedence over the standard rules,"
In addition to wkover having a certain point (I don't condone "dumbing down" to the lowest common denominator, but I don't think that's what his suggestion entails and there's something to be said above PACG accessibility and rules bloat - not that wkover's option is necessarily better in that regard), wouldn't the above hierarchy clash with the Vault culling (which ostensibly would be instructing you to "Remove Level X banes from the game")?