Jump to content



Photo

Rules Question concerning Quests


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 07:53 AM

Typically the authorities will be apointed from amongst us.

Interested in a job? (by job I mean unpayed unrewarded taskmastering)

Contact Nate. Like I might. lol (on;y cause I lovez this game so far)



#22 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 08:05 AM

vermillian said:

Typically the authorities will be apointed from amongst us.

Interested in a job? (by job I mean unpayed unrewarded taskmastering)

Contact Nate. Like I might. lol (on;y cause I lovez this game so far)

 

Awesome! I reckon you should Vermillian, you seem to have a great knowledge of the rules already :)



#23 jogo

jogo

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 11:45 AM

vermillian said:

Typically the authorities will be apointed from amongst us.

Interested in a job? (by job I mean unpayed unrewarded taskmastering)

Contact Nate. Like I might. lol (on;y cause I lovez this game so far)

Why create authorities? FFG could create an open forum, where questions, the official rules are not clearing, are discussed by the community and the game developers to find a suitable solution.

That would solve the problems, where community found different solvings and after offical speak one group is displeased.

Anyway, I prefer playing in a style, that makes sense in logic and balance and not arguing about every (maybe misplaced) comma in the thinest rule lines.

In this case, I would say, from the logical side, that the quest progress is reseted because the attached unit is not concerned/interested  anymore (either by death or by being moved away). From the balanced side I have no idea, because I dont have played the game yet.



#24 Ruvion

Ruvion

    Member

  • Members
  • 758 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 12:14 PM

Just like Osiris pointed out to us, the abridged passage from page 11 of the rulebook quoted below is important when considering on a possible ruling on this removal (but not leaving play) of the questing unit matter:

<snip> Once a quest card is in play, the
controller of that card has the option of sending his
units on that quest.

To send a unit on a quest, a player plays the unit on
top of the quest card when he plays that unit from his
hand. The questing unit is still considered to be a part
of its controller’s quest zone (it contributes power and
can be used to defend the zone when it’s attacked),
but it is also considered to be “questing” on the quest
upon which it was played. A questing unit allows
resource tokens to be accumulated on the quest, and
once the specified number of resources have been
accumulated on a quest, its effect can be utilised by
its controller.

<snip>

Only one unit can be questing on any given quest
card at any time. If the questing unit leaves play for
any reason, the quest card remains in play but all
resource tokens accumulated on that quest card are
discarded, and returned to the pool in the centre of
the table.

Now...let's focus on the part where it says "if the questing unit leaves play for any reason." I think the definition of what a questing unit is, is just as important as the fact that it has to leave play for the quest card to reset. If a unit is no longer questing, that is the unit is no longer on top of the quest card due to a movement effect played on him, does it matter that this no longer questing unit is removed from play or not? The removal from play refers to a possible death/sacrifice situation of the questing unit while he is committed on that quest and its consequences; however, if there is no longer a unit that fits the description of questing, I think it's fair to rule that it is effectively just as if the questing unit has been removed from play since there is now no longer a questing unit.



#25 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 02:04 PM

I also think that there is some concern when it comes to the text of the card itself...

You definitely will NOT be generating resources on a quest if your Unit is not in the quest zone, questing there... (though I suppose the losely worded word 'questing here' is slightly ambiguous. lol)



#26 jlmott

jlmott

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 02:26 PM

lol. osiris, i didn't ask the questions again, it puts the first posting on each page.  :)

thanks though!



#27 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 11:36 PM

Lol DUH! :P

 

Well after looking at the 'spoiled' card list, there are maany quests that have an 'x' value assigned to them.

 

Personally I don't see the problem with allowing resources to stack higher than 3 (and therefore benefit from the X value), and I also do not see a problem with having a questing unit be 'forcibly marched', only to have another unit played from a hand to 'finish' the quest.

 

I see no reason to have the resources removed if the questing unit is moved.

 

Fluff-wise, the unit got so far on their quest before being moved on and having a further unit complete the quest for them. It's fluffy and meets the rule requirements at present too :)

 

At the same time I totally accept Ruvions point regarding the definition of a questing unit no longer 'being in play' if it is moved by 'forced march'. This could potentially lead to some confusing situations where the resources stay stacked on the quest until the moved unit is eventually properly removed from the game.

 

Awkward.



#28 rickert

rickert

    Member

  • Members
  • 126 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 02:02 AM

It is possible to send a unit into that zone without assigning them to a quest isn't it? Otherwise I'm thinking that it will be imperative to have multiple quests in play just to have enough units there to adequately defend the zone.



#29 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 06:26 AM

rickert said:

It is possible to send a unit into that zone without assigning them to a quest isn't it? Otherwise I'm thinking that it will be imperative to have multiple quests in play just to have enough units there to adequately defend the zone.

 

You are correct. Units can still be played to the quest zone (from your hand) and moved to the quest zone via an effect without assigning them to a quest. Currently the only way to embark a unit on a quest is to play the unit from your hand directly to the quest card



#30 Wytefang

Wytefang

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,095 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 06:28 AM

I think the safest, easiest solution (in keeping with the whole KISS mentality) is that if a Unit is forcibly moved OFF of a Quest card, it's considered the same as if it was "Removed from play."

 



#31 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 10:48 AM

Wytefang said:

I think the safest, easiest solution (in keeping with the whole KISS mentality) is that if a Unit is forcibly moved OFF of a Quest card, it's considered the same as if it was "Removed from play."

 

That would certainly be how I would play it, even though that solution isn't supported by the rulebook. It just seems to make the most sense and is the the method I will be hoping for in any errata.

But can I also itterate that it is my opinion and not one that I would forcibly make other people play.

Osiris



#32 jogo

jogo

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 04:43 AM

Other question:

Who would it play another way and why?



#33 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 09:22 AM

jogo said:

Other question:

Who would it play another way and why?

 

The rulebook states that the counters are only removed from the quest if the unit is removed from play. Now in this instance the unit isn't being removed from play but is in fact being moved off the quest or to another zone other than the questing zone.

If you play by the exact wording in the rulebook then removing a unit off of the quest will NOT reset the tokens as it is still in play.

As you can imagine this will either need an official ruling or errata to make it more clear.

My personal preference is that a unit removed from the quest will also remove the tokens from the quest, but I will state that this isn't supported by the rulebook at the moment, but to me seems like a logical errata.



#34 jogo

jogo

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 11:09 AM

That is clear.

But something in the rulebook is missing or at least unclear. So apart from the rulebook, what could be reasons(logical/balance) to keep counters on quests.



#35 Allavandrel

Allavandrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 09:33 PM

Is there any way within the current rules where you can move a non-questing unit in the Quest zone onto a Quest card?

I guess as the rules stand the unit has to be played from the hand. It could be convenient with a tactic card or card effect that allowed this manoeuvre.



#36 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:47 AM

Allavandrel said:

Is there any way within the current rules where you can move a non-questing unit in the Quest zone onto a Quest card?

I guess as the rules stand the unit has to be played from the hand. It could be convenient with a tactic card or card effect that allowed this manoeuvre.

 

At the moment there isn't a way to do this no. Currently all questing units must be played from your hand on to the quest card. However there is room for game development in this area.

In regards to why would we still leave tokens on the cards.... well if we then play another unit on to the quest, that unit is able to 'finish' the quest in a shorter time if some of the required tokens have already been gained from another unit.



#37 dormouse

dormouse

    LCG Designer

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:52 AM

 I think that because the rulebook does specify that the unit has to be removed from play and no mention about it being removed from the quest as reseting the resources should be reason enough. It may be an oversight in the printing of the rulebook. It may also be intentional to allow for advanced tactics and card interactions we haven't seen yet (either because most of us have only played a few times and some not at all or because there are cards in the making that will create interesting decisions regarding this).

I have to say just because something makes sense to us, but is not explicitly stated by the rules is NOT a reason we should set aside the written rules without some official clarification. If anyone here plays A Game of Thrones or Call of Chtulu, you've probably seen players do or suggesting or stating this kind of thing, only to have an official ruling come down supporting the exact text of the cards or rules, despite how we think "it was meant to work."

The Empires has units that can jump around a lot (as well as ways to give other units this ability) and Nate throughly kicked my arse abusing this ability jumping them into his Kingdom Zone for resources, jumping them to his Quest Zone for Card Draw and then jumping them to his Battle Zone to destroy my Chaos forces and leave my city burning. I would not put it past either him or Eric to allow for the added complexity of the game by purposely allowing units to be moved from the Quest but not resetting the resources on it.

I think removing the resources makes the most sense if we disregard that the rule book says nothing of the sort. 

I've sent an email to Nate, so hopefully we'll have an answer in a couple of days.


"words are like arrows, once loosened you cannot call them back"


#38 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:59 AM

dormouse said:

 I think that because the rulebook does specify that the unit has to be removed from play and no mention about it being removed from the quest as reseting the resources should be reason enough. It may be an oversight in the printing of the rulebook. It may also be intentional to allow for advanced tactics and card interactions we haven't seen yet (either because most of us have only played a few times and some not at all or because there are cards in the making that will create interesting decisions regarding this).

I have to say just because something makes sense to us, but is not explicitly stated by the rules is NOT a reason we should set aside the written rules without some official clarification. If anyone here plays A Game of Thrones or Call of Chtulu, you've probably seen players do or suggesting or stating this kind of thing, only to have an official ruling come down supporting the exact text of the cards or rules, despite how we think "it was meant to work."

The Empires has units that can jump around a lot (as well as ways to give other units this ability) and Nate throughly kicked my arse abusing this ability jumping them into his Kingdom Zone for resources, jumping them to his Quest Zone for Card Draw and then jumping them to his Battle Zone to destroy my Chaos forces and leave my city burning. I would not put it past either him or Eric to allow for the added complexity of the game by purposely allowing units to be moved from the Quest but not resetting the resources on it.

I think removing the resources makes the most sense if we disregard that the rule book says nothing of the sort. 

I've sent an email to Nate, so hopefully we'll have an answer in a couple of days.

 

Excellent, this needs a resolution.



#39 jogo

jogo

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 07:05 AM

Maybe ffg authors could just be forced to read the official forums on their games?



#40 dormouse

dormouse

    LCG Designer

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 08:32 AM

There are essentially two people that are dealing with this game... Eric Lang and Nate French... I'd rather they spend their time making new cards and adding mechanics/themes and what-not to the game  (in addition to the other games each is responsible for) than reading every thread and answering every question, especially when most of them can be answered by reading the rules book carefully. 

That said I know Nate does pop by the boards for at least AGoT occassionaly. I assume he probably does so for CoC and when this game is actually realeased I expect him to also stop by here (albeit irregularly).


"words are like arrows, once loosened you cannot call them back"





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS