Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RichardPlunkett

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

877 profile views
  1. I love Rex and I think he completely rocks with scavenger, but in my 3-player Rex Dunwich campaign, my star cards (ignoring Keys of YS) were old book of Lore and No Stone Unturned, to help whichever investigator had a slow start. With them, Pete always got Dark Horse and Zoe also got Sleight of Hand + Lightning gun and I always found my Keys of Ys. Daisy with a build focused on Old Book of Lore rocks. Filtered card draw every round makes every thing awesome. The deck always works, and decks around it always work. I thought she was solid the campaign I saw her in, where she was mostly rocking the Encyclopedia, but with Old Book of Lore she seriously Kicks ***.
  2. The question is whether it create a lasting effect on the player, or on the enemies (current), or on the game state in general. Encounters cards generally do that last one, (regardless of wording) leading to constant re-evaluation. Player cards generally do not - lending themselves more to immediate evaluation, but sometimes leading to exciting question like this one. I had previously taken it to be an effect on the player, so newly engaged enemies would not attack, and I was content with that for myself given I rare play this card, but I now suspect it was wrong. The object of the effect seems to be 'that player's engaged enemies', rather than the chosen player themselves and that would mean the set of enemies is fixed at time of play. On your second question, yes it would prevent any extra 'immediate' attacks. Cannot is a pretty strong work in this game and the effect isn't explicitly limited to any specific causes of attack or timing point, so it affects all.
  3. Yes. A player cannot declare multiple attacks against the same enemy, but different players can. Obviously they both need to be able to attack to do this, so this needs ranged or some other mechanism, such as the one you described.
  4. Azain:: Response: After Azain Silverbeard participates in an attack that destroys an enemy, spend 1 resource to deal 2 damage to ... Bow of Yew:: Response: After attached character is declared as an attacker, exhaust Bow of Yew to deal 1 damage to the defending enemy. The Bow is responding to you declaring an attacker. That happens way before resolving an attack, so you either trigger the Bow then, or you don't trigger it at all. From your letters: (a) declare an attack, then (b) optionally deal damage from BoY, then (c) calculate damage from attack itself. If you trigger the Bow, and it kills the enemy, then you haven't met the conditions for Azain's trigger, since it wasn't 'the attack' that destroyed the enemy. But responses are optional, so just don't use the Bow in those situations if you want to use Azain's trigger.
  5. From the rules: "In order for a player to play a card from his hand (or to activate certain card effects), he must pay for it by spending resource tokens from the resource pool of a hero who has a resource icon that matches the card’s sphere of influence. This is called a resource match . Resources that are spent to pay for cards or card effects are taken from their hero’s resource pool and placed in the general token bank." This is a basic rule, that controls where you can spend resource from to pay for something. Good Harvest loosens this, allowing any almost any hero to spend resources. And if you can legally spend enough resources, the play is legal. There is no constraint anywhere that you own a hero of the relevant sphere at all. This is why Ally Treebeard, or Elrond, or Hirluin can enable playing cards that don't match any heroes you own - the rule is only about spending enough legally. But, since this rule would be broken for zero-cost cards, they get an extra rule: "Cards with a cost of zero do not require a resource to be spent in order to pay their cost, but they do require at least one hero under that player’s control to have a resource icon that matches the card’s sphere." This is an extra rule that explicitly applies just to zero cost cards. Good Harvest has said nothing to waive this rule and so it doesn't waive this rule. Thus Good Harvest can allow you to pay for 1+ cost cards of a sphere without a matching Hero, but can't enable you playing zero cost cards without a matching Hero.
  6. No, you don't need to discard them. I agree you control them, but control is not enough. From the rules:: Card effects do not interact with cards in an out of play state unless the effect specifically refers to that state. Since Dark Interrogation doesn't specifically refer to cards out of play, it gets the default behavior of affecting only cards in play and does not the rest, regardless of control. Your hand is safe (as is your deck and victory display, etc)
  7. So, your suggesting an unsatisfiable setup instruction means I can't play? rather than just playing without doing that step? I guess that solves the problem, but it doesn't feel very rules consistent to me, don't we usually just ignore impossible instructions and keep playing?
  8. So, I have a question for this quest I couldn't solve elsewhere. What happens if I am playing the campaign and I chose hero to be captured for the log who I then don't use in my deck for this adventure? (while not always penalty-free you can change heroes between quests) If the campaign log listed captured hero isn't in my deck what happens? Here are some options I have thought of: 1) the campaign-mode 'instead' fizzles so I must choose one of my active heroes as the captive, like a non-campaign person. (btw I think this is broadly fair, but it doesn't feel rules-consistent). 2) the 'instead' resolves, but the campaign-mode 'choose' fizzles, so there is no captive from me and I get to play in full control of whichever heroes I am using (noting that I auto-lose if solo but it might be interesting in other cases). 3) everything resolves, and I put a hero I didn't even have in my deck into play as a captive.
  9. If my investigator is driven insane (a kind of permanent death), and the scenario gives the investigators XP, does my new character start with XP? I would have assumed not, but in the Unspeakable Oath, one of the resolutions is for the "everyone dies" situation, and it grants the investigators XP. Is this a misprint? A cruel taunt? Or a gift for the naive fool I am about to play?
  10. Forced: When a player plays an event that would cancel the effects of a treachery card just revealed from the encounter deck, cancel the effects of that event. Then, discard Fire-filled Trench. I think only one gets discarded. All three Forced effects trigger (the triggering condition having been met). But you process one at a time, and I don't think the event's effects can be cancelled more than once. I think each additional attempt to cancel those effects fizzles, and after that the "Then," clause with its rules prevents the "discard Fire-filled Trench" from resolving.
  11. Athelas:: Attach to a Dúnedain or Healer character. Action: Discard Athelas and exhaust attached character to heal all damage on a character. You may discard a Condition attachment from that character. Yes, you can. You have to play the Athelas on a Dunedain or Healer, but its effect can be applied to any 'character'. If you check the Ship rules in the Grey Haven insert, you will find that Ship Objectives count as both allies and characters. Also, the 'discard a Condition' text is an independent clause to the healing with no use of a 'Then', so even though Ships can't be healed you can still do the other stuff (under the do as much as possible principle). Withdrawn. I would note that while the rules do have ship-objectives immune to player card effects, each and every ship-objective you can control has that immunity. Sigh.
  12. Actually I personally don't think you would have a choice re Rivendell Bow, it would always apply. From the FAQ: "Q: What counts as a “ranged” attack? A: A ranged attack is an attack made by a character with the ranged keyword against an enemy engaged with another player." Until they add 'and not engaged with you' to that definition the resolution of this situation seems clear. If the character has ranged, the attack is ranged, even if the enemy is also engaged with you and you are declaring the attack and also using a bunch of your non-ranged guys. It seems a little weird but also very straightforward. That said, while I can recall no ruling, nor find it, I can at least imagine Caleb issuing a ruling that changes this, but if it was older than a couple of FAQs I would possibly ignore it anyway since any changes he wanted to make to this definition should have made it into the FAQ (and noting his ruling do not always agree with each other and/or later FAQ, I strongly prefer FAQ text when relevant).
  13. "Ranged:: A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players. A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players." I doubt you need a ruling for the first part, the ranged rules clearly let a ranged character participate in attacks declared by other players, if the target is engaged with another player - which it is in your scenario. Those rules give no cause to believe that you also being engaged would matter. As for the double attacks, each players gets only one chance to declare an attacks against each enemy, but that does allow characters to participate in multiple attacks against the same enemy, if they can participate in attacks declared by different players (this follows from the rules as written and has been confirmed in a ruling form Caleb). So a ranged character with a ready effect can routinely attack the same enemy twice, as long as it is engaged with another player. Again, I can't see how the enemy also being engaged with yourself would matter, as long as each attack itself was rules compliant.
  14. From the rules, page 23: Travel Effects:: Some location cards have travel effects, which are denoted by a bold “Travel:” trigger on a card. Travel effects are costs or restrictions that some or all players must pay or meet in order to travel to that location. If the players cannot fulfill the requirement of a location’s travel effect, the players cannot travel to that location So as NathanH says, the answer is no. If something is merely a consequence of travel, rather than a cost, it will be represented as a Response, or a Forced, rather than a Travel effect.
  15. Well, I congratulate you on violating the probable intent of the card wonderfully, but your plan seems plausible from a card text and rules perspective. Reminds me of the trick of playing spirit Bofur post-quest resolution, so you get him guaranteed for only a single resource. Still, I worry about the part of the card that says "Play only after the staging step." This might mean you can only play it during the green box associated with the staging step, rather than anytime at all after the staging step. This interpretation would ruin your plan.
  • Create New...