Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FireBones

  1. No, because you are ignoring the token and not the effect. For the same reason Counterspell does not count. You are canceling the token, not its effect. The effect does not exist until ST.4 (Apply chaos token effects), but the token is cancelled in ST.3. Similarly for Dark Prophecy. The token is ignored in ST.3, so it is not around to have an effect to cancel in ST.4. Defiance, however, specifically says you are canceling the effect of the token.
  2. The best solo investigator is easily Joe Diamond now. Note that Higher Education solves his willpower issues, and he generally gets clues so fast that he does not have to face that many encounters before winning the scenario. He can play Combat Training to give agility and combat boost if he needs them. With Milan, he has plenty of resources for boosts. Note that Joe Diamond gets access to 1 additional seeker card per round (at much reduced cost), so this basically means you can make your deck 70% seeker / 30% combat and still have nearly the same effective access to seeker cards as Minh, Rex, etc.
  3. The big question for me is whether chaos tokens (themselves) and attacks (themselves) count as "effects." I'm currently assuming that canceling a chaos token does not count (so Counterspell(2) does not trigger), but canceling an attack does. Attacks are actions either triggered by text on a card or by the frameworks in the rules. But tokens are pieces of cardboard. What does count is something that cancels an effect of a chaos token (like defiance(2), but only if such a token were drawn). I'm tentatively thinking a case could be made for something like Pnakotic Manuscripts (5) or Force of Will (3) which cancel the game effect of _drawing_ a chaos token. (So the action of revealing a token counts, but the canceling of the token itself does not). Of course the above two are academic as Diana cannot play them. So the cards that count for me are limited to: Dodge Hypontic Gaze Defiance Defiance (2) Dark Insight Ward of Protection Deny Existence Eldritch Inspiration Delay the Inevitable I do not think that Time Warp or Mind Wipe count.
  4. Yep... actually it is even worse if you are playing Hard: your base stat -2 versus difficulty. I have managed to succeed on a couple of these, like the "Slumber" test, which only has a difficulty of 2. But still, it seemed so rough that I was wondering if I was missing something...
  5. The Guardians of the Abyss Tablet Chaos Token information is : "-2: Ignore all bonuses to your skill for this skill test." Notably "bonus" is not an officially defined term. The rules simply refer to "modifications." I'm reading this to include all positive modifications to your base skill, including permanent mods from assets, mods from triggered effects on assets, mods from investigator cards, skill icons, events (like lucky), and other chaos tokens. They are all included in the same boat in the skill test timing rules. They all combine to yield the modified skill value. So, for example, if someone was using Olive McBride and pulled a +1, a cultist, and a -5, and selected the +1 and cultist tokens, the +1 token would be negated as it is a positive modifier to the skill value. Also, Calvin Wright would have a skill of 0. Is this how other people read it?
  6. Question 1: Would FFG consider errata to Cheap Shot that allows one to commit skill cards with agility icons to the combat skill test that arises from this event? Question 2: If you use this against an enemy engaged to another investigator, does it break the engagement? I used the website form to submit a version of question 1, but never got a response. I think the Rules Reference is clear on Question 1, the fight action is a skill test against combat, so you can only commit cards with combat icons. (You can still use Streetwise to pump up, though). However, I'm wondering if a slight errata would make sense in this case. For Question 2, the Rules Reference is mostly clear, but there is still some doubt because it is not clear that the text has in mind a case where an enemy is evaded by one investigator while being engaged to another. In particular, the reference's text presupposes that an evaded enemy is engaged to someone: "Any time an enemy is evaded ... the enemy is exhausted (if it were ready) and the engagement is broken." Since the text presupposes that evaded enemies are engaged, it makes me think the text assumes that the evasion is being done by the engaged investigator. The rest of the text repeatedly refers to a particular investigator ("the investigator... that investigator...") Still, I think the intention is for the engagement to be broken regardless of whom the enemy is engaged with. This matches the spirit of the wording for the massive keyword. Only ready massive enemies are considered engaged to all investigators in a room, so if one investigator evades the enemy, it will have mass disengagement as a consequence.
  7. Same thing happened to me. In fact, the only reason I found this thread was because I was searching for anyone else complaining about how stupid this scenario was [before I read your post.] If you go to the wrong Act 2 it can basically be "You die; game over." on round 2 or 3.
  8. Matt Newman responded to my email for clarification: With regard to the statement that a player "declares his or her intent" during the pre-initiation phase: This sentence should be taken to mean “declares his or her intent to play the card or initiate the ability.” You are not required to choose targets or declare what you wish to do with the card or effect at that time. He elaborates: As long as the card has the potential to change the game state, you can begin the initiation sequence. Then, if an attack of opportunity is triggered and that changes the way you want the card’s effect to be resolved, so be it! That is perfectly legal. So in your example, if you play Emergency Aid and an attack of opportunity deals damage to your Guard Dog, you can then use Emergency Aid’s effect to heal the Guard Dog. You are able to do this because Emergency Aid *did* have the potential game state before the attack of opportunity occurred (because Morgan was damaged). If, hypothetically speaking, no characters in play were damaged at the time you began playing Emergency Aid, then it would have no potential to change the game state and it would immediately abort the process before the card is even played. The same is true if you, for example, used A Chance Encounter to bring an ally back from your discard pile, and triggered an attack of opportunity that ended up defeating a different ally; you could then use A Chance Encounter to bring that ally back instead of the original one.
  9. There is a difference between "simple" and "reasonable/in-line with game's intentions). Trying to carve down the set of legal plays to a consistent logic in which the AoO cannot be used as a crutch actually leads to the most complex set of rules. To see what I mean... I see qualitatively different situations: 1. You have to select your target during pre-initiation. 2. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, but the target you end up selecting had to have been a valid target prior when the intention of the card was initially provided. (i.e., when pre-initiation began). 3. You do not have to select a target during pre-initiation, and you can select any target when card resolves that is legal at that time. It is easy to imagine a case where 1 and 2 are different. Imagine you are engaged with an enemy that has the text "when XXX attacks you, lose a random asset." Now, say you have two allies, and both have damage on them. You play Emergency Aid, and there is definitely an eligible target, but after the AoO, one of your allies may be removed, but the other could still be healed. I would say that number 2 is most in line with what might be considered the spirit of play... targets are chosen when cards resolve, but you cannot rely on an AoO or other pre-commencement steps to do something you would not otherwise be able to do. However, number 2 is also the most complex, because you now have to stipulate that the target would have been legal both **before** the card commences and **when** the card commencements---meaning that the action would have led to a change in game state originally and also leads to a change in game state right now. Compare that to number 3, which can be boiled down to a simple, 2-step rubric: A. There must be at least 1 eligible target when a player attempts to play the card. B. Any legal target can be chosen at the point of time when the card actually resolves. The above may allow for complex maneuvers, but the rules themselves are simple to state.
  10. If you change out Brother Xavier with Guard Dog you get a situation where it is no long unimportant. If you have guard dog with 0 damage and an enemy 1 point away from death. You want to activate the guard dog's ability to kill the enemy without having to do combat. You have Emergency Aid in your hand. If no one has taken damage, you are not going to be able to play it because there are no valid targets. But if you or another investigator at your location has damage, you are now able to satisfy the pre-initiation requirements. But you quite possibly want to heal the guard dog instead of another ally or your fellow investigator because that means the guard dog can do more damage later on. So the existence of damage on another card lets you play the Emergency Aid, but it isn't clear whether you can name Guard Dog as a target later on. If so we have a situation where the existence of a damage on a **non-particpating** card makes it legal to do something that you otherwise could not do.
  11. A big discussion is occurring on the reddit board as to when targets have to be chosen. In particular, do you have to indicate the target of a card during the pre-initiation phase or only when the card commences being played (step 3 in the Initiation Sequence: Appendix I of the Rules.) Example: Say you are engaged with an enemy and have Brother Xavier with 0 damage and your partner has 2 damage. You play Emergency Aid. Do you have to specify that the target is your partner (the only legal target at the time), or is the existence of a legal target enough... because if the existence of a legal target is enough then what could transpire is that you take an Attack of Opportunity, assigning the damage to Xavier, and then when the card actually commences you could now target Xavier, who has damage on him. I think the rules strongly suggest you have to declare the target in the pre-initiation phase. And for two reasons: During the pre-initiation phase the rules say you must "declare your intent," and I would say that selecting a target counts as part of the declaration of intent. To confirm that the card can change the game state, you have to know beforehand what the targets are. If simply having one target that would change the game state is sufficient, then there is nothing stopping you from eventually selecting another later that would not cause a change of state. However, I could see another case being made that says "there is a check that the game state could **potentially** be changed during the pre-initiation segment, but then when a target is actually selected, there is another check that that target actually does change the game state (see rules on Targeting), so having someone wait until the card resolves does not compromise the premise that cards should change the game state.
  12. I think as long as you were playing on Standard that Skids + Daisy would not be bad. Daisy's high base intellect means she is pretty immune to card inconsistency... except you may wish to proxy one additional Old Book of Lore. There are plenty of weapons for Skids to take, and generally any pair with a seeker is going to do better than a pair without a seeker. You basically want to stay away from Agnes if you have a single core. She is very inconsistent without a second core.
  13. If you are running Rex on Standard with Higher Education, I imagine everything is pretty easy. A lot of player house rule Rex or ban Higher Education because it unbalanced the game. But do note the wording on The "Base of the Path" and "Ascending Path" cards. You have to trigger the ability on the card itself and use that to investigate (rather than flashlights, Rite of Seeking, or Duke) in order to open a new location. And each investigator can only try it once per round, regardless of whether you succeed or not. If you are trying to play without seekers, it can be a real bear.
  14. Couldn't Daisy just use Higher Education to attack them pretty easily? Also, Daisy should be running Encyclopedia, so she could have added 2 willpower to any other investigator to help them.
  15. Situation: An inspector is at a location with an Arcane Barrier. Inspector attempts to leave the location and makes a skill test. You draw a special token that says "Search the discard pile for an enemy and spawn it in your location." What is clear is that "your location" is the location you were in before attempting to move. What is unclear is whether the enemy spawns automatically engaged with you if you (resolving the move) are now in another location. I'd also be interested in knowing if the results would be any different if the legend says "search the discard pile for an enemy and draw it." Since any time a player draws an enemy card that has no special spawn instructions, the default is "spawn in location engaged with drawing player." So in that case I think you are engaged with the enemy, who follows you into the next room. Thoughts?
  16. I'm partially wondering if this was intentional. The thing is that agenda 5b says to go to R2 resolution, which really isn't necessary. The card says the investigators are defeated, so adding the "go to Resolution 2" is not needed. It isn't on the other b-sides of the agenda. The consequences would be exactly the same whether or not there was the "-> R2" on the back of 5b.
  17. Sorry, I missed that. It's interesting how easy it is to think we know the actual definition of a term based only on how it is often used. We typically think of direct damage as "damage I have to take because I cannot assign it to my allies," when in reality the rules reference definition is more general and applicable to this situation in a clear way.
  18. Does not look like there is a consensus here either.
  19. A reddit user asked an interesting question, so I'm putting it here. How does Light of Aforgomon interact with damage/horror that is explicitly dealt to allies. Example: Beat Cop(2)'s ability, or Aquinnah's ability, or an encounter card that specifies damage be dealt to allies like "Claws of steam" or "Passage into the veil." [I realize neither of these can be in the same scenario as LoA, but I'm just giving an example here.] Note that Light of Aforgomon does not say "treat all damage dealt to investigators as direct damage and all horror dealt to investigators as direct horror." It just says "Treat all damage as direct damage and all horror as direct horror."
  20. I don't see this as lacking consistency. It may not be focused in that it applies to lots of events... but that does not make it inconsistent. The criticism you mention (if I understand you correctly---I may be misunderstanding your point) could be leveled at several other keywords. For example fast is used anytime a card is played that does not require using an action... so it is not focused --- sometimes it applies to events, sometimes it applies to assets.... sometimes it applies to cards played during your turn, sometime to cards played during mythos, sometimes to cards that can played in a variety of phases... sometime to cards that have no additional costs, sometimes to cards that do have addition costs, etc. But that doesn't make fast inconsistent. Ahhh, I think what you mean is that "sometimes the Act advances with an Objective and sometimes it does not." But that is not an indication that Objective is inconsistent, it just means that the mechanism is "Advancing" is inconsistent. The word Objective always means the same thing, just like fast always means the same thing. It isn't that fast is inconsistent, but rather the playing of a card has some inconsistency in that sometimes it takes an action and sometime it does not. That isn't any sleight to fast though, just like inconsistency with Advancing is not a sleight to Objective. Plus, in both cases I hardly consider there to be a real inconsistency, it is just a shorthand. Many Acts advance by voluntarily spending clues, so to save unnecessary verbiage, there is a shorthand way of indicating that without using the Objective keyword. Similarly, there is no "Action" trigger symbol on every non-fast card... we just know that playing a card takes an "Action" unless it is fast. The same silly criticism could be leveled at the Spawn keyword---some enemies have it and some do not. But all enemies spawn somewhere, and [from the Rules Reference] we know that if an enemy does not have the Spawn keyword, it means it spawns at the location of the drawer. I don't see this as inconsistent... I see it as implementing a common strategy of having a default in place so you do not have to write "Spawns engaged with drawing investigator" on most enemy cards.
  21. Upon reflecting on the use of "immediately," and the errated definition of "If," I agree with you. I had not noticed that the "Immediately Advance" stipulation has only been used thus far for voluntary actions, and this clears up the ambiguity completely. I think FFG is being consistent here. The words When, After, Then all have definitions in the rule reference linking them to specific moments in time. In the errata, If also has a clear meaning in terms of timing. So as long as you use the same logic for triggering of Objective "events" as you do for triggering of other events, there is really only one possibility---if the Act's Objective uses When, After, Then, or If to specify a timing, then the advance is a triggered effect just like any other and there is no option to delay.
  22. "Objective" has an independent meaning that could not be covered by "Forced" There is one Objective [will not name which to avoid Spoilers] that says "Satisfy the requirements for some other Objective in Play to advance." And then there are cards in play that say "Objective: If players on location _____ spend ____ clues to (-> R1)" Having cards that have the keyword "Objective" makes sense here.... but it would be doubly problematic to replace it with "Forced" as there would no longer be the keyword "Objective" to clarify which elements were being referenced by the Act and the specific Objective in question is not a forced action.
  23. With regard to advancing the Act deck, is there a functional difference between "Advance" and "Advance immediately"? If there is an objective on the Act deck that says "Advance" but does not say "Advance Immediately," can investigators delay the advance? For example, if the Act deck says "If there are no clues on ___Location X___, advance," can the investigators choose to delay advancing the act deck?
  24. I think I realized the reason for this. Imagine you have 0 xp going into Blood on the Altar and you play both Leo and Milan---2 copies of each. If both got kidnapped and you lost the scenario, you would end up with just 2 xp for the scenario but your deck would be down to 26 normal player cards [the 30 you had going into the scenario minus 2 copies of Milan minus 2 copies of Leo]. If you had to follow the normal rules for adding 0xp cards back into your deck, you would be unable to get back to the required deck size.
  25. SPOILER Alert I lost Milan in Blood on the Altar. He is removed from my deck, bringing it below its required deck size. If I replace him with 0xp cards, do I still pay the 1xp to replace? Was wondering/hoping that this could be treated similarly to the situation with exile, but I think the clear rule here is that I do have to pay xp to replace the cards lost.
  • Create New...