Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jlmott

Rules Question concerning Quests

41 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensible thing to do here would be to compile a list of questions that seem unanswered by the rulebook (or are extremely vague) and at some point if Nate does pop by he can hit as many of the questions as he likes in one thread.

Reading the forums in their entirety would probably be asking just a little too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0