Hey all,
"Who Rules Hell Harbor" states that when you would encounter a *non-villain* monster - you replace it and encounter a ship instead. Two of the locations however are closed by summon and defeat Henchmen Grindilow and Hammerhead Shark. So, by RAW - your only way to close these is to chase the Villain there and defeat him, in an already annoying and frustrating scenario. Hence, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent, but I can see two possible ways the intent might have been:
- You replace the summoned henchman with a ship, but defeating the ship allows you to close
- You do NOT replace Henchman monsters - the much more logical option, more consistent with similar conditions in other scenarios.
I don't expect anyone official still frequents this forum, but if anyone has played this one in OP and is aware of the official stance - please let me know.
(search doesn't seem to find any previous discussion of this scenario)
I play it as option 1: replace the summoned henchmen with ships, and defeating the ship indicates a successful close (or guard).
I also ignore the scenario power to replace henchmen with ships when Mark of Yunnarius instructs you to summon and encounter a Pirate Shade Haunt (aka I rule you encounter the Haunt as normal instead of replacing it with a 2nd ship)
I play it as option 1: replace the summoned henchmen with ships, and defeating the ship indicates a successful close (or guard).
I also ignore the scenario power to replace henchmen with ships when Mark of Yunnarius instructs you to summon and encounter a Pirate Shade Haunt (aka I rule you encounter the Haunt as normal instead of replacing it with a 2nd ship)
Thanks for the answer. Actually, we just encountered Yunnarius and since we reasoned they probably wouldn't put a power on it that wouldn't see play except in homebrew scenarios (although such text on some cards does exist I believe) - we took that as confirmation that the intent must've been Option 2.
I'm curious as to your rationale though - why do you think you should replace location summons, but then just ignore it for the Yunnarius' Haunt??
I would play it as option 2 based on the rule that summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned (page 14 of the S&S and Core Set rulebooks). I know that the intent of the FAQ appears to cover sequential summoning, but it just seems cleaner to play it that way.
Practically speaking, either option you presented works for me as long as you have the option to close the location if you successfully defeat the bane. The overall intent is that the character can close the location by defeating the bane, so as long as you preserve that, whatever you and your group are happy with should be sufficient.
I play it as option 1: replace the summoned henchmen with ships, and defeating the ship indicates a successful close (or guard).
I also ignore the scenario power to replace henchmen with ships when Mark of Yunnarius instructs you to summon and encounter a Pirate Shade Haunt (aka I rule you encounter the Haunt as normal instead of replacing it with a 2nd ship)
Thanks for the answer. Actually, we just encountered Yunnarius and since we reasoned they probably wouldn't put a power on it that wouldn't see play except in homebrew scenarios (although such text on some cards does exist I believe) - we took that as confirmation that the intent must've been Option 2.
I'm curious as to your rationale though - why do you think you should replace location summons, but then just ignore it for the Yunnarius' Haunt??
Based on this thread where option 1 was presented and not refuted by Tanis. So I viewed that plus her later comment on it being a ship demo derby as being implicit approval for option 1. Ignoring it for the Haunt is because that’s just an obvious oversight in the wording
I would play it as option 2 based on the rule that summoned cards cannot cause other cards to be summoned (page 14 of the S&S and Core Set rulebooks). I know that the intent of the FAQ appears to cover sequential summoning, but it just seems cleaner to play it that way.
That is no longer the rule—it is now “a summoned card can’t cause you to summon a copy of itself or of the card that summoned it.” Neither of those cases apply here. Even when that FAQ was in effect, it would mean option 3: henchman is banished and nothing is summoned to replace it, so you’re SOL and can’t close the location that way.
Thanks again for the input y'all.
I'll actually take this opportunity to hijack my own thread and get some opinions on the following:
The "When Encountering This Ship" power explanation is "This power is triggered as soon as you
encounter a ship; this occurs before you have the opportunity to evade it"
However, no ship up to AD3 (including the unique ships in this scenario) seem to have a power that would be relevant at "When you encounter timing" - most of them are actually explicitly timed "Before you act..."
We've been playing this as each ship encounter (rather intutively) has its own "Before acting" phase - and therefore anything in the "When you encounter this ship" box doesn't matter at all if a character evades the ship (unless, of course, theoretically that box doesn't refer to evasion).
So, for example Yunarrius' "Before acting, summon and encounter Pirate Shade that cannot be evaded" only ever activates if Yunnarius itself has not been evaded (as opposed to activating at the "When you encounter" timing - which would stick you with the Shade even if you evade the ship)
Is this how you are playing it , and if not - what are your arguments about it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“When you encounter this ship” isn’t rules/timing text, it’s the Powers box relevant to encountering the ship rather than commanding it. Treat that header exactly as you would treat the “Powers” header on a bane card—that is, there is no timing implicit in it.
The power in question says Before you act, so it happens in that step of the encounter (which is after you apply any evasion effects).
Treat that header exactly as you would treat the “Powers” header on a bane card—that is, there is no timing implicit in it.
That was the general understanding of it, but then we found the quoted text from the rulebook: "This power is triggered as soon as you
encounter a ship; this occurs before you have the opportunity to evade it" - which is pretty explicit about timing, so that brought up some degree of uncertainty to it.Thanks again.
EDIT: To clarify, the major argument was that maybe the "Before you act" wording on the ships' powers was in error and not what was intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treat that header exactly as you would treat the “Powers” header on a bane card—that is, there is no timing implicit in it.That was the general understanding of it, but then we found the quoted text from the rulebook: "This power is triggered as soon as you
encounter a ship; this occurs before you have the opportunity to evade it" - which is pretty explicit about timing, so that brought up some degree of uncertainty to it.Thanks again.
EDIT: To clarify, the major argument was that maybe the "Before you act" wording on the ships' powers was in error and not what was intended.
I forgot about that rule :)
In that case allow me to amend my stance thusly: absent explicit timing specified within the power, it occurs during the “apply when encountered effects” step of the encounter. This ship explicitly specified otherwise by mentioning Before Acting, so go with that explicit timing instead (in other words the general rule is that it’s a When Encountered power but specific individual powers may override that)