Jump to content

Gillum the Stoor

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I was disappointed to see in this BGG thread that Matt Newman had said, "Any effects from the previous token will still have occurred before, but its modifier is no longer active; instead the new token’s modifier is active": https://boardgamegeek.com/article/31806103#31806103 I respect the ruling, but I don't feel that it leaves players with some consistent principles by which to judge such cases. It is almost as if the first token's "If you succeed/fail" effect gets "banked" at ST.4 (the first time) for application at the ultimate ST.7 - but for some reason that token's modifier doesn't get "banked" at ST.5 for application at the ultimate ST.6. I guess the first ST.4 "queues" up the "If you succeed/fail ability", but the second ST.5 starts all over again using "the chaos token(s) revealed" - and the first token is no longer "revealed."
  2. Matt Newman explained that the effect of the original token (e.g., "If you succeed") triggers at ST.4 and thus still applies even if at ST.6 Rex's Curse sends the token (without canceling it) back to the bag. That same reasoning seems to imply that the original token's numerical modifier, which is normally applied at ST.5, would also still apply after Rex's Curse and a second token drawn.
  3. As I think about it some more, the existence of cards like Double or Nothing or Lucky! don't go to the answer to my original question. Even if the rules specified that a skill test's difficulty were determined at ST.1, cards such as those would still make sense per the golden rule.
  4. Not questioning any conclusions here, but I think that there are two kinds of things that can affect the final difficulty or skill value: those that do so directly ("Double the difficulty of this skill test" or "Get +2 to your skill value for that test") and those that do so indirectly (e.g., by giving you horror, when difficulty is affected by horror). I think that, regardless of when difficulty or skill value is determined (if either ever really is fixed before ST.6), a direct change could still occur later on (if relevant ability could be invoked at that time). Thus, Lucky! would always add to the skill value at the time indicated. Perhaps ST.5 is indicating the point in time at which the difficulty becomes immutable relative to indirect changes. It does refer to a (final?) accounting of "all active card abilities that are modifying the investigator’s skill value." I think that ST.5 could have also included "determine skill test's modified difficulty" and does not do so perhaps because difficulty modification is much less common that skill-value modification.
  5. I looked for a Skill card (which could be played only after ST.1) that modified the difficulty, but I hadn't found one. I agree with your other points (Assussanni's), but I think that Double or Nothing is especially compelling. I think that I was thrown by the fact that the skill type (if not difficulty) is set at ST.1. But I suppose the fact that ST.1 mentions type and not difficulty is yet another argument that ST.1 does not define difficulty. An interesting card here is Money Talks, which is an Event that changes the skill being tested. It can be played only "when you initiate a skill test" - before ST.1 The implication here is that there could be no other Event like Money Talks that is just "fast" (playable at any window) or a Skill with sucha power.
  6. But Anatomical Diagrams is an fast Event that could easily be played before ST.1. I certainly agree that allowing the difficulty to change after ST.1 (all the way to ST.6) may affect how fast Events like that work (and when and how you might choose to use them), but I don't think that the existence of such Events argues this question one way or another. This is a fair point. I think that all these contributions underscore the importance of knowing exactly when the difficulty is determined. I wish the rules were more clear on this point.
  7. Skill cards typically increase your skill value. I am not sure why one might instead reduce a test's difficulty instead. I suppose that there may be some specific situations in which those would have different effects, but they seem pretty niche and might limit the card's benefit (or the benefit of that new feature). Even if such a card were developed, it could always include text to specify the timing point, such as, "At the end of the skill test, reduce its difficulty by 5" or something like that.
  8. I am not sure. I think that you're referring to a card with a revelation ability that has you do a few things ("you may do A and/or B") before the skill test, which has a variable difficulty X determined "when this test begins." That clause may be there to emphasize that the difficulty is determined based on game state at the beginning of the test rather than at the time the card was revealed.
  9. I would have thought that a skill test's difficulty is determined at ST.1, but I have seen others suggest ST.6. I have an almost possible scenario the depends on this timing. (It involves two cards that wouldn't be in the same scenario.) Suppose I draw the Eager for Death treachery weakness. It has the following revelation ability: "Test willpower (2). Increase this skill test's difficulty by 1 for each damage on you. If you fail, take 2 horror." Suppose that I have no damage, so the difficulty is 2. Suppose there is a Monster enemy and that I draw a medallion token under the rules for The Devourer Below (easy): "-3. If there is a Monster enemy at your location, take 1 damage." In this case, I will take 1 damage at ST.4. Does the difficulty now increase to 3 (due to my damage), or was it already fixed at ST.1?
  10. This seems a little imprecise. Does playing Lucky! at ST.6 (when you would fail) send you go back all the way to ST.1? If it did, and if you played Lucky!(2), which lets you draw a card, you could commit that card for its icons at ST.2. Or is it just that playing Lucky! at ST.6 lets you redo ST.5 (Determine investigator’s modified skill value)? If it did, then the constant ability on Dark Horse would indeed apply. Lucky!'s "when you would" ability at ST.6 directs you add 2 to the value you computed at ST.5. But even though Lucky!'s "when you would fail" takes priority over some "when you fail" ability, I am not sure how to read to rules to get you to go back to ST.5 (when card abilities modify a skill value) or to allow you to apply Dark Horse at ST.6 (when modifying abilities normally apply at ST.5).
  11. I'm sorry that my earlier post was not clear. I did not meant to say that the rules imply that player cards in play outside the owner's play area are not controlled by the player. I said only that the quote from the RR reference (which, of cards a player controls, identifies only cards in the play area as being "in play") was consistent with the possibility that, when the designers wrote the rules, they contemplated the play areas as being the only places at which a player-controlled card might be "in play." I think that this could be because they neglected to consider attachment to locations or enemies - or it could be because such attached cards are not controlled by the players. I also think that the fact that Matt Newman has told me that the designers are reviewing this issue suggests that it is not settled (or may be changed). I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer and that it sounded like I was saying the the rules as written supported the possibility that I identified.
  12. The rules on "In Play and Out of Play" say, "The cards that a player controls in his or her play area are considered in play." This is consistent with the idea that the only in-play cards that a player controls are in his or her play area (and that cards attached to a location or enemy are not controlled by the player). I think that it's further evidence that the rules need a tweak here, again to give someone a way to use the reaction-triggered ability on Bind Monster.
  13. We may see a change to the rule that allows an investigator to use a triggered ability on "A card in play and under his or her control." That rule may have been written assuming "in play under control" = in play area. Perhaps it would be revised to apply to cards under control in the play area - or under control and at the investigator's location (by being attached to the location or an enemy present). That would prevent detaching The Skeleton Key remotely, for example. To me, it feels thematic to say that an event card attached to a location is controlled by the location. According to Khudzlin's list above, none of these have triggered abilities. (Shortcut adds one to its location.) That means that they will not be discarded due to the owning investigator being eliminated (which seems thematic) or forced to discard cards under control. It seems that Bind Monster is the only event card that can be attached to an enemy. It differs from the others in having a triggered ability. One could say that it also is controlled by the scenario (when attached) and that that ability can be used by any investigator at the attached enemy's location. That may be thematic, depending on how one thinks about the spell. (Perhaps it suffices for the spellcasting investigator to bind the monster and then any other investigator can use willpower to keep the monster bound.) If that is not satisfactory, one could say that events bound to enemies remain under their owner's control. Then (along with a revised "when you may trigger" rule - above), only the spellcaster (if present) could keep the monster bound. (If it was intended that the spellcaster could keep the monster bound even remotely, something else would have to be done.) The Skeleton Key differs from the others in that it is an asset. If the rule above is applied to assets as well as events, any investigator at the location (again, assuming the revised "when you may trigger" rule) could detach and take control of The Skeleton Key. If that is not desired, there could be a rule that assets attached to locations (or, perhaps, enemies) remain under the control of their owner. In that case, only the owning investigator could detach The Skeleton Key. I think that the revised "when you may trigger" rule - that you cannot use abilities on cards attached to other locations (or enemies at other locations) - would address the questions of detaching The Skeleton Key remotely, or attempting to attach The Skeleton when it is already attached somewhere else.
  14. I specifically asked that the following questions be considered: 1. Can the owner of The Skeleton Key use its "detach" ability if the owner and asset are at different locations? 2. Can a non-owning investigator at The Skeleton Key's location use the asset's "detach" ability (thereby taking control of it)? We'll see what they say.
  15. I did this. I was told that the developers are currently studying how to define the control of attached cards (not just events attached to locations) and that the next FAQ will include a section explaining how control is determined in these cases.
  • Create New...